While looking for something else, I came across this marvellous passage:

Channa Vithana describes the PHONOSOPHIE Nº 3 as having a "seamless effortless flow, which was beautifully timed, crafted and coherent . . . a radiant bass quality with an excellent combination of low-frequency dexterity and extension . . . deceptively powerful bass lines were both agile and controlled." He concludes "With the Phonosophie Nº 3 / Naim ARO / Naim P3PS iteration in particular you will have a kinetic slice of hi-fi history."


How have people the nerve to produce this unadulterated utter hogwash? So, in line with the famous Bad Writing Contest run by the scholarly journal Philosophy and Literature - see, for example

http://www.aldaily.com/bwc.htm

- I propose that we submit favourite examples of bad hi-fi writing. As the world is apparently full of it, it shouldn't be too hard to find examples.

Could be worse, could be David Price who only seems capable of judging anything to be either 'on the pace' or 'off the pace'. Makes everything sound like a feckin' race.

BTW, did you see the article on the Lenco GL99 in the same issue?

Channa Vithana does seem to have a different angle on the English language to anyone else. Some of his earlier articles were unreadable :o You had to stop for 5 minutes to figure out what any sentence actually meant. :) I gave up after a while. Why Hi-Fi World continue with the guy is beyond me...:rolleyes:

However, they are still the only magazine I read. HiFi Choice has Jimmy 'Mad Dog' Hughes and Alvin 'give me the' Gold :p What Hi-Fi is now What Telly.

I propose that we submit favourite examples of bad hi-fi writing I presume we can include forum drivel?

I presume we can include forum drivel?
Of that there is of course a hyperabundance, but surely this can be obtained by reading the forums themselves? Personally, I was looking for professional bad writing, because the professional hi-fi eejits, er, writers, such as Martin Codswallop and Ken Fester do it so much, er, better.

You had to stop for 5 minutes to figure out what any sentence actually meant. :)

You are, of course, making the assumption that it meant anything - other than "they pay me to write this absolutely pretentious tripe".

I presume we can include forum drivel?

Oops..did my recent review pass the test...was more of a ramble really!

BTW, did you see the article on the Lenco GL99 in the same issue?
"Issue" implies that this appeared in a magazine. I have long given up reading hi-fi magazines, because of the spouting of unexpurgated tripe of the type hereinabove mentioned. I have the great good fortune to live in Switzerland, where British hi-fi magazines never penetrate. There are the big German ones, of course; these are in some ways even sillier, so I don't even leaf through them any more while waiting for the train home.

I havent bought or read a uk hifi magazine in about 10 years since i was a naive 17yr old pondering his first system...now to me they are inherently corrupt.

I'd say that most churn out predictable and often backhanded drivel on a monthly basis.

"…a radiant bass quality with an excellent combination of low-frequency dexterity and extension…" seems reasonable to me. I think I know what he's getting at (though I could do without the "kinetic slice"). It's not as though he's trying to sell some pseudo-scientific theory or constructing a seemingly profound philosophical point; it's just a piece of hifi kit so why let it get up your nose so much?

The hifi press is an easy target on forums such as this. But in the end you have to accept that all the mags, from What Caravan up to HiFi Plush, are doing something right otherwise they wouldn't exist.

Fine, you don't like them so you don't read them. But don't waste energy being so negative. Try instead telling me what would make a good magazine review.

Try instead telling me what would make a good magazine review.
The best hi-fi reviews I can recall were the ones in "Gramophone" before the "What Hi-Fi" (or whoever) takeover. John Borwick, Geoffrey Horn et al were excellent, elegant, factual writers who never went in for this sort of codswallop. Alas, those days are gone, and good writing has been replaced by fanciful, pretentious, self-promoting nonsense.

And, no, I don't have to accept that they "are doing something right" and it would indeed be better if they didn't exist. And isn't wasting energy in exercises in applied futility what hi-fi forums are all about?

Fine, you don't like them so you don't read them. But don't waste energy being so negative. Try instead telling me what would make a good magazine review.

There are several types of good reviews and several types of bad reviews.

In the 'good' category, I would place articles that are informative in sorting out the wheat from the chaff (I think here of Paul Messenger's speaker reviews), and articles that are inspiratory in that they make you want to listen to the item being reviewed (in the same way a good film review will make you want to see the film in question). At the risk of having coals heaped on my head, I find Roy Gregory's reviews *sometimes* come into this category, though quite often he gives the impression of being over-awed by the price tag rather than the equipment.

In the 'bad' category, I'd place any that are choc-a-bloc with technical data, graphs and suchlike (mainly because I'm too thick to understand them), and the breathless enthusiam of reviewers like Ken Kessler for every single piece of kit, and every single recording, that he reviews.

I find reviews that make no reference to any of the recordings used, worthless.

I quite like reading some of Noel Keywoods stuff in HFW ( I subscribe - sorry :p ). He tends to back up his comments with facts after first plugging in his ociloscope probes.

Another thing that i've noticed is athat if one of the reviewers uses a new buzz word , then the rest of the gang pick up on it and use it too, both in that edition and a few aftrewards. It is almost like they are using a 'key word' playlist...

Here's a fine piece of Collmswallop (subject; Finite Elemente Pagode stands):

For the CD player tests, Pagode had the subjective effect of significantly reduced jitter; high frequencies were purer, showing more delicacy and subtlety, greater air and transparency. The mid sounded very neutral, highly resolved an with superior focus and vocal separation. Stage width and depth were increased, while the bass lines went deeper and were better resolved.

This is a stand for goodness' sake! It does, admittedly, look quite good, but magical properties? Note how Collmswallop tries to have his cake and eat it by saying "subjective". The man is clearly a total humbug. But then, I guess everyone knows that.

"I don't have to accept that they "are doing something right" and it would indeed be better if they didn't exist."

They are doing something right otherwise people wouldn't buy them. Some readers might even enjoy them (the thought!), just as some obviously enjoy Heat!, Hello, The New Scientist, and Spade Lover's Monthly.

"And isn't wasting energy in exercises in applied futility what hi-fi forums are all about?"

Yer right there.

I vaguely remember reading a very funny spoof review, in the style of "The Absolute Sound", of an imaginary high end speaker. For example, at one point the midrange is compared to "the mellowness of a wine-aged Stradivarius", and the speaker can only be heard by Virgos, Libras and Canadians.

Searches on the Internet haven't turned this text up. Can anybody remember this, or even better post a copy?

Nothing beats 'des conneries' of Hifi Plush's ed, Roy the Illuminator, justifying the cost of the latest Moondust Valhalla I/Cs!

tones, why are you on a hi-fi forum?

A good question, Markus. I really must try to think of an equally good answer...

I'm very glad tones is here. I like to think of him as the voice of reason.

-- Ian

Thanks, Ian, sometimes I can even be reasonable (enough to keep me encouraged that I might even improve).

I quite enjoy your writings, too, tones, don't get me wrong. It's just that I never see you approve of anything that someone's writing about hi-fi. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen you describing the sound of a component.

If you were a hi-fi journalist, how would you review a component? Genuine question, btw.

If you enjoy talking about classical music, there are far better forums.

I quite enjoy your writings, too, tones, don't get me wrong. It's just that I never see you approve of anything that someone's writing about hi-fi.
Probably because I don't. Call it the double curse of a scientific education and the fact that I write and fight for patents for a living. After 35 years in the patent profession, my object is the most difficult thing of all to achieve, to write about complex matters as simply and clearly as possible. I know how others in the profession write, and I hate it - they load it up with jargon. And it doesn't have to be boring. I find a little humour goes a long way, even with examiners in the European Patent Office.

In fact, I don't think I've ever seen you describing the sound of a component.
Probably because I tend to stick with what I've got and change equipment very frequently. I did a piece somewhere on Quad ESL 57s and Rogers LS3/5as, both of which I'm fortunate enough to own. Aha, here'tis:

http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14741

In addition, as you are probably aware, I'm a hardened sceptic. I simply don't believe that hi-fi equipment sounds that different. You are probably aware of the fact that I can easily tell the difference between CD and LP because the LP has clicks and pops and the CD doesn't. I have no problem with folk who hear huge day and night differences - it's just that I don't.

If you were a hi-fi journalist, how would you review a component? Genuine question, btw.
The way John Borwick and the writers of "Gramophone" used to do it - technical, no-nonsense description, followed by a straightforward description of how the thing sounded with a variety of different music. Trouble is, that leads one to the inevitable conclusion that just about all hi-fi equipment these days sounds good and it's largely down to cosmetics/pride of ownership/brand snobbery/I paid this much so it has to sound better, doesn't it?/ etc.
If you enjoy talking about classical music, there are far better forums.
You mean, there's something else to talk about? Oh yes, that's what I'm doing here... But I can take myself off elsewhere, if you really want!:D

But I can take myself off elsewhere, if you really want!:D

Please don't, pfm and ZG wouldn't be the same without you.

The way John Borwick and the writers of "Gramophone" used to do it - technical, no-nonsense description, followed by a straightforward description of how the thing sounded with a variety of different music. Trouble is, that leads one to the inevitable conclusion that just about all hi-fi equipment these days sounds good and it's largely down to cosmetics/pride of ownership/brand snobbery/I paid this much so it has to sound better, doesn't it?/ etc.

To a certain extent, I agree, truly awful stuff is much rarer than it used to be. But I believe/my ears tell me there are still different degrees of goodness, and valid reasons other than aesthetic preference and price for choosing one piece of kit over another.

Suggest that any reference to tapping feet should immediately result in offending magazine being lobbed out of window!

I do the same to very good effect with motorbike mags which use the phrase "it made be grin from ear to ear"

And should you come across anything like: "This system got my foot tapping away merrily fully justifing its £35,000 price tag!" please do everyone a favour and never ever ever buy that magazine again.

Unfortunately the negative effects of reading such drivel may linger for some weeks in which case you should go out every night to pubs, clubs,live music venues, brothels or whatever until a proper sense of perspective is fully restored.

Please don't, pfm and ZG wouldn't be the same without you.

Thank you, but the worst polluted forum is actually Hi-Fi Choice, where the "Tones Hi-Fi Songbook" and "The Myths of Hi-Fi" threads serve to irritate the believers there.

And should you come across anything like: "This system got my foot tapping away merrily fully justifing its £35,000 price tag!" please do everyone a favour and never ever ever buy that magazine again.


A whole system for £35,000?! Bargain basement stuff, hardly worth listening to. In the wacky word of hifi, £35,000 speakers are 'exceptional value for money'; a pre-amp for £12,000 is 'something of a bargain', and a £2,500 cartridge is 'cheap at the price'.

My doorbell is making funny noises on its own...not even the correct tune...some kind of cowboy tune.

Weird.

Anyway yeah...i enjoy the reviews at 6 moons...here they review music and equipment:

www.6moons.com

I think they do a nice job.

My doorbell is making funny noises on its own...not even the correct tune...some kind of cowboy tune.

Weird.

Anyway yeah...i enjoy the reviews at 6 moons...here they review music and equipment:

www.6moons.com

I think they do a nice job.

From that site; no cheating now, what is being reviewed here:

'Voilà - you've got yerself what I shall begin reporting on today as well. It's, as you'll agree, a small, very different but complete and completely thought-through lifestyle system. It's to music what a hole-in-the-wall eatery is to diehard -- i.e. non-snobbyist -- food mavens: A somewhat funky, to-the-heart-of-the-matter celebration of the essentials over the glamourous fluff. Where the food's delivered without fanfare or fancy napkins but also without painterly presentations on mostly empty plates. Where the chef's instead an eclectic freshness fiend who believes in substantial appetites. Of course none of the tour guides or neighbors know of him. Depending on your head space, that could be terribly offputting or exciting. You know which side of the fence I call home'

If you enjoy talking about classical music, there are far better forums.

Not sure about that.... compared to here, ZG, wigwam and HFC. The classical music forums I've seen appear to be full of the most obsessive nit picking, intellectual superiority, downright viciousness and even bullying, never mind the preciousness and preening intellectual posturing. Seriously worse than you ever get here.

The classical music forums I've seen appear to be full of the most obsessive nit picking, intellectual superiority, downright viciousness and even bullying, never mind the preciousness and preening intellectual posturing.

Sounds like my kind of place. Where do I sign up?

-- Ian

Not sure about that.... compared to here, ZG, wigwam and HFC. The classical music forums I've seen appear to be full of the most obsessive nit picking, intellectual superiority, downright viciousness and even bullying, never mind the preciousness and preening intellectual posturing. Seriously worse than you ever get here.

'You know that old tramp who plays the mouth organ on the street corner, beating the time with his poorly-shod foot? You know the horrible shrieking noise it makes?'

'I am aware of the street entertainer in question'

'That's your Richard Wagner's Ring Cycle, that is'.

I think that's Jamie Oliver's cousin, Joe.

(That's in answer to your first question, btw - and you're Joe, not Jamie Oliver's cousin, although he may have a cousin called Joe).

From that site; no cheating now, what is being reviewed here:

'Voilà - you've got yerself what I shall begin reporting on today as well. It's, as you'll agree, a small, very different but complete and completely thought-through lifestyle system. It's to music what a hole-in-the-wall eatery is to diehard -- i.e. non-snobbyist -- food mavens: A somewhat funky, to-the-heart-of-the-matter celebration of the essentials over the glamourous fluff. Where the food's delivered without fanfare or fancy napkins but also without painterly presentations on mostly empty plates. Where the chef's instead an eclectic freshness fiend who believes in substantial appetites. Of course none of the tour guides or neighbors know of him. Depending on your head space, that could be terribly offputting or exciting. You know which side of the fence I call home'

To run with his own analogy, he has served up a delectable starter. No technical guff, no ponderous manufacturer's history, no mention of microdynamics. It's not Norman Mailer but it does the job. I want to know more, and I'd guess at either the Linn Classic or the Arcam Solo.

To run with his own analogy, he has served up a delectable starter. No technical guff, no ponderous manufacturer's history, no mention of microdynamics. It's not Norman Mailer but it does the job. I want to know more, and I'd guess at either the Linn Classic or the Arcam Solo.

Both guesses are somewhat wide of the mark. The reviews continues (one word deleted):

'How this system looks, works and sounds won't be everyone's cuppa tea. Forget Lipton's tidy bags. While sanitary, they barely color the (timbral) water. This is select Pouchong tea - a small portion of handpicked leaves unfolding to preposterous size (of sound). They can be reused for a whole day (endless repeat). They're left at the bottom of the cup (all on a single shelf). That container is preferably made from a special ceramic to enhance the tea's slightly fermented (very organic) flavor.'

Okay, he's lost me now. He's not even Norman Wisdom. Is it an Argos Alba jobbie? Or do Krell do compact? An iPod? A set of suitcases?

The mention of ceramic is a giveaway...

-- Ian

A cuddly toy? A sun lamp? Teabags? And, er, a teapot?

This is getting embarrassing now! Here the reviewer finally dips his/her toes into what the stuff in question sounds like:

On John Surman's Private City [ECM 835780, 1987], the <alternative> did indeed sound different. Hearing it wasn't too difficult; grasping the what and how more so. Le Frenchman created more emphasis - on the mechanical fingering noises of recorder and bass clarinet; on certain register-specific nasal constitutents of the latter's full-bore delivery; on those ambient cues that lit up audible space. Le duo japonais, while perhaps less dynamic and possibly a mite more hooded, felt less pushy and distinctly more lyrical. The same key clicks and alterations of timbre were present - albeit not highlighted. Venue ambience was audible - yet more blended into the primary sounds. You'd call the <alternative> of higher obvious resolution; but also striated by certain effortful tensions. This made its presentation exciting in an athletic sense, the <item under review> more relaxed, easeful - flowing rather than forceful.

[
Fine, you don't like them so you don't read them. But don't waste energy being so negative. Try instead telling me what would make a good magazine review.[/QUOTE]

Come on now, if we can't b..ch about these people earning a living doing what many of us would be happy to do for free, whats the point of the forum. My own particular favourite is the afor mentioned HiFi+, which I think started out simply brilliantly, but with each issue has become more pleased with itself. In a wonderful recent example the reviewer, I think Mr Gregory himself, talked about moving some behomth of a speaker a half an inch, which transformed the sound, P..lease. Subtext, if only you too had Golden Ears. To be honest, I would probably only notice the difference if it was moved upstairs. Thats why I am a humble punter I suppose.

The mention of ceramic is a giveaway...

-- Ian

Only if you already own a DAC-in-a-pot or amp-in-a-pot :D

Some spectacular drivel, with thanks to Meninblack of HFC Forum. Please sit down before you read it:

Jimmy Hughes talking about doing up the little screws in your mains plug, in April's HFC:
Quote:
Something else you can try...is aligning all the slot-head screws so that those connected to negative voltages (blue and yellow/green) point vertically, and the positives (brown) are horizontal. I haven't the space to explain why this improves the sound - which is just as well because I don't actually know - but improve it it does. Try it and see!

Something else you can try...is aligning all the slot-head screws so that those connected to negative voltages (blue and yellow/green) point vertically, and the positives (brown) are horizontal. I haven't the space to explain why this improves the sound - which is just as well because I don't actually know - but improve it it does. Try it and see!


I think the clue's in the month. :)

If someone can post me a consignment of class A recreational drugs I would attempt an appraisal of my new Heed CanAmp. On the other hand, I don`t use that language, nor can I understand it and my name`s not Ken.

'You know that old tramp who plays the mouth organ on the street corner, beating the time with his poorly-shod foot? You know the horrible shrieking noise it makes?'

'I am aware of the street entertainer in question'

'That's your Richard Wagner's Ring Cycle, that is'.
I was reminded of Mark Twain's remark:

"Wagner's music is better than it sounds"

I think the clue's in the month. :)
This is what I'm hoping, but given the sort of nonsense that is routinely spouted by such people on the other 364 days... And it's certainly no sillier than the ramblings of a certain Mr. Belt.

The other aspect is that, given that there are audiophools (no names, no pack drill) who will insist on trying out this sort of thing, it's potentially downright hazardous and Mr. Hughes should know his public well enough not to suggest such a thing. I'm not sure that the insurance company would understand you standing in the smouldering ruins of your house, saying, "It was all Jimmy Hughes's fault!"

I'm not sure that the insurance company would understand you standing in the smouldering ruins of your house, saying, "It was all Jimmy Hughes's fault!"

Well, it'd make a change from blaming everything on Glenn Hughes.

Stormbringer was NOT a good album......;)

Simple answer - don't buy magazines.

Stopped a long time ago.

I was reminded of Mark Twain's remark:

"Wagner's music is better than it sounds"

Or as Berlioz said (in French) 'it has magnificent moments, and terrible quarter-hours'.

The mags are utterly corrupt.

I have no problem with folk who hear huge day and night differences - it's just that I don't.

Many people hear night and day differences between stands too, I know I do.


Here's a fine piece of Collmswallop (subject; Finite Elemente Pagode stands):

For the CD player tests, Pagode had the subjective effect of significantly reduced jitter; high frequencies were purer, showing more delicacy and subtlety, greater air and transparency. The mid sounded very neutral, highly resolved an with superior focus and vocal separation. Stage width and depth were increased, while the bass lines went deeper and were better resolved.

This is a stand for goodness' sake! It does, admittedly, look quite good, but magical properties? Note how Collmswallop tries to have his cake and eat it by saying "subjective". The man is clearly a total humbug. But then, I guess everyone knows that.

Colloms has pretty much described the differences he heard. I believe him because I believe that stands do make a difference. You don't because you can't hear any differences.

Is he a "total humbug" simply because you can't hear as well as he and many non-journos can? As for the language he uses, it's easy enough to understand and is more meaningful than stating that it's better cos it is.

This smacks of arrogance derived from ignorance not scepticism.

Many people hear night and day differences between stands too, I know I do.

Colloms has pretty much described the differences he heard. I believe him because I believe that stands do make a difference. You don't because you can't hear any differences.

Is he a "total humbug" simply because you can't hear as well as he and many non-journos can? As for the language he uses, it's easy enough to understand and is more meaningful than stating that it's better cos it is.

This smacks of arrogance derived from ignorance not scepticism.

(Don't know what happened to the previous attempt to respond, but here goes again).

Steve, I have no problem with your hearing differences in stands; whether those differences are there in reality or only in your head is irrelevant. But you miss the point; the point is the self-serving, egotistical humbug used by Collomswallop and his ilk to show how clever, perceptive and guru-like they are. I don't believe for one minute than they hear any better than you or I, they're just bigger generators of utter hogwash, and people fall for it. It's the type of hi-fi that belongs in the noble company of New Age philosophers, water diviners, George W. Bush and similar con artists.

And if this classifies as arrogance, I am quite happy to be arrogant.

Or as Berlioz said (in French) 'it has magnificent moments, and terrible quarter-hours'.
Good description.

Philistine. Wagner's great (when noone's singing).

(Don't know what happened to the previous attempt to respond, but here goes again).

Steve, I have no problem with your hearing differences in stands; whether those differences are there in reality or only in your head is irrelevant. But you miss the point; the point is the self-serving, egotistical humbug used by Collomswallop and his ilk to show how clever, perceptive and guru-like they are. I don't believe for one minute than they hear any better than you or I, they're just bigger generators of utter hogwash, and people fall for it. It's the type of hi-fi that belongs in the noble company of New Age philosophers, water diviners, George W. Bush and similar con artists.

And if this classifies as arrogance, I am quite happy to be arrogant.

Martin Colloms just describes things as he hears them good or bad. He is also a highly ethical Man. He has got into a lot of trouble for writing negative reviews, including losing his position at stereophile. He does not write a good review, just because you offer to give him the review sample.

There are lots of bad reviewers out there, but at least he tries!

..I believe him because I believe that stands do make a difference.

....

Is he a "total humbug" simply because you can't hear as well as he and many non-journos can?

....

This smacks of arrogance derived from ignorance not scepticism.
Not at all, in fact the opposite is true: you are being arrogant. Unless & until you or anyone else can show any measurable, objective difference between various hi-fi stands, they remain in the "I believe" category. The placebo response is very strong in humans, i.e. we tend to believe whatever authority figures tell us.

but at least he tries!

Mainly my patience!

I accept what you say, that he is an ethical man. This means that he's not a liar, merely deluded with an ego that extends to the orbit of Neptune. Nevertheless, a person to be avoided.

Martin Colloms just describes things as he hears them good or bad.

.... the levels of self delusion and arrogance were staggering, easily rating a score of 43.5197865 on my usual subjective scale....

Bub - are you claiming that stands dont make a difference? In view of your mana purchases I am somewhat confused.

Unless & until you or anyone else can show any measurable, objective difference between various hi-fi stands, they remain in the "I believe" category. The placebo response is very strong in humans, i.e. we tend to believe whatever authority figures tell us.



Be it cables, stands, connectors, tweaks and so on, there have been plenty of things which I have been told were good, but I found crap and many things I had no expectations from and they turned out to be great.

My current stand is a brass & gles coffee table which was initally just some way to get the kit off the floor as I was between racks, but it happened to sound dramatically better than any specialty rack I've had yet.

The placebo and "authority figure" argument is pure bullshit and I demand a full retraction, unless you're just playing with Toy, in that case carry on.

The mags are utterly corrupt.

If that is the case I'm sure you will be happy to name names.


Cheers

Jason

Bub - are you claiming that stands dont make a difference?
Read the post. AFAIK, there is no objective evidence that they make any difference, so it's a matter of belief. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, however.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, however.

Better not tell Ikea then....:cool:

The placebo and "authority figure" argument is pure bullshit and I demand a full retraction, unless you're just playing with Toy, in that case carry on.

:) The Placebo effect and peoples susceptability to arguments from authority of course have nothing to do with one another.

One is to do with medicine.

The other is to do with most peoples lack of philosophical education and the inability to tell the difference between "it is so, because so and so says it is so" (which is bullshit) and "it is so because so and so says the reasons it is so are the following ... and they are quite convincing" (which is a reasonably sound argument).

Mind you if people could tell the difference, we probably wouldn't have organised religion ...

Surely the two might be linked though:

' I have changed X, therefore my system must sound 'better' <placebo effect>. Not only that, but no less a person than <insert name of hifi guru> noticed the same effect so there *must* be a change for the better <argument from authority>'

"Oh Mighty Deep Thought..............Is there an answer?"

"42"

"We are going to get lynched, you know that"

Surely the two might be linked though:

' I have changed X, therefore my system must sound 'better' <placebo effect>. Not only that, but no less a person than <insert name of hifi guru> noticed the same effect so there *must* be a change for the better <argument from authority>'

Of course, but that's two reasons for believing your system sounds better not one (both delusional) - one is down to human nature, the other is down to human stupidity and neither have anything to do with the system actually sounding better or not ;) .

" Nothing is good nor bad but thinking makes it so"

An amp by any other Naim would sound as sweet,

Proving that the Bard saw through the Hi Fi mag bullshit hundreds of years ago.

Bub - Shouldnt it be possible to measure the resonant behaviour of the cabinet on various stands? My own experience on townshends is that there is a big difference between inflated and uninflated.

If that is the case I'm sure you will be happy to name names.


Cheers

Jason

How about the successful court case against what hifi many years ago for bribery and corruption?

Do tell Jek. Never heard of that one.

A shame if we cannot have faith in the magazines IMO. At least the writers know what they are talking about in general. Whatever the politics, it is highly unlikely that the printed media will ever be the source of misinformation, hype and downright lies that the internet has become.

How about the successful court case against what hifi many years ago for bribery and corruption?

I believe you said:
The mags are utterly corrupt. <my emphasis>

... and are you saying that What HiFi are currently taking bribes and corrupt?


Cheers

Jason

They must be corrupt. They never mention the mighty Brinkmann La Grange, which is the best turntable in the world.

When a publication receives a substantial chunk of it's income from advertising there will always be suspicion that those filling the pages with ads will get an easy ride wrt reviews. Clearly if a publication repeatedly slags off the major brands (Marantz, Arcam, Naim, Linn, MF, Pioneer etc) these companies will be less likely to advertise and revenues fall.

Clearly things aren't quite that simple though, as some reviewers and editors will be more resistant to the pressures - but it must happen - it's the way of the world, human nature and all that...

I buy World, Choice, HFNRR and Plus - not because I take what is written as gospel but because I like to know what products are around and I'm interested in the technical articles. Reviews I take as guide - they give me gist of what a particular component or system is about but that's all.

Consumer magazines are always accused of illicit collusion with their advertisers but I think its an easy and oversimplified view. I suspect its very rare not least because there is actually no need for it.

After all both parties share a common interest in promoting sales of new hi-fi. The magazines will always exagerate how much better is the new stuff than the old. After all if they said everything was crap or no better than last years kit then no-one would buy the new kit. And there would be no need to read the magazine every month. People eager to buy new would take their reading habits elsewhere and the advertisers would follow them.

the source of misinformation, hype and downright lies
Funny, I would have thought that that described hi-fi magazines in general to a tee.

They must be corrupt. They never mention the mighty Brinkmann La Grange, which is the best turntable in the world.

Of course they don’t because they don’t spend many thousands on advertising. I’m not sure what percentage of a magazines revenue comes from advertising but you can be sure they won't be biting the hand that feeds them.

Excellent thread, some very good posts from a number of people. Some interesting points about stands etc that lead to asking the question, are these companies having our pants down?

Indeed.

Actually I dont think advertising is about reality. People buy crap in droves if they dont know any better and it is marketed well.

http://www.high-endaudio.com/reviewers.html - a fascinating insight.

Sadly it is human nature.

the source of misinformation, hype and downright liesFunny, I would have thought that that described hi-fi magazines in general to a tee.

No it more accurately describe hi-fi forums, where people can post anything with no accountability.

Let's get a few facts straight.

Reviewers are paid almost nothing. The rates for a review have not increased in 20 years. If you are interested in money, you will not be a reviewer. Some are lucky, in that they can supplement their incomes as consultants, or freelance designers.

There are a few perks. They can buy equipment at trade (and sometimes discounted depending on the manufacturer). If they review a product and really like it, they have the option of buying it, or sometimes the company will suggest that they keep it on loan ( that way their product will get continuously mentioned in reviews). Often there are agreements, that a reviewer will buy the equipment, but can return it for a full refund when they purchase something else.

There have at times (I believe) one or two reviewers who have abused these relationships, and have tried to make money by selling review samples.

The UK mags will often print negative reviews. However, most manufacturers are aware of which reviewers are inclined to like their products, and will usually return to the same reviewer. Also reviewers tend (like the rest of us) to be fans of particular brands and philosophies, and so will therefore seek out certain product for review.

Martin Colloms is disliked by many in the industry, because of the number of negative reviews he has given. He has handed them out to the biggest names in the industry (B&W, Kef, Krell, ML, Wilson). You might have noticed that you don't see him in print very much these days. This is partly to to with manufacturers avoiding him.

Cheers

Dave

Funny, I would have thought that that described hi-fi magazines in general to a tee.

Funny Tones,

My experience suggests there's a hell of a lot more rubbish written on the well known forums than in any magazine. Faceless individuals offering opinions on products, with barely a passing knowledge of the subject matter. Those same faceless individuals often turn out to have a vested interest in whatever product they are extolling the virtues of.

It happens everywhere. Products appear from nowhere, a buzz is created, and all of a sudden, it's the bargain of the century. Sadly having heard a lot of these internet finds, the emporer usually has no clothes.

So I find it far more believeable that the reader is subjected to corruption on the internet forae than I do that a publisher would put his career in jeopardy for a swift bung. No hifi writer gives poor reviews these days as there aren't really any poor products IMO.

Sure people buy plenty of crap and over-priced products but this is not because they don't know any better. Its because they want to.

I remember when people used to justify buying expensive designer clothes / washines machines / cars or whatever on the grounds that they were better made from better materials and more reliable than the cheaper alternatives. You don't hear that so often now because most people realise that its rarely true. But still they buy the expensive stuff!

Image / styling / bling factor / keeping up with their peers are all far far more important to Joe consumer than objective quality. The magazines that big up the quality of already "desirable" kit are only telling the public what most of them want to hear.

I agree with Rob.

Does this giving the mags a good kicking, extend back to The Flat Response and HiFi Review? Which, IMO of course, were responsible for a very straitjacketed and narrow view of sound reproduction and the way it should be listened to.

I quite like HiFi + record reviews, at least they don't warble on about Ben sodding Sidran, a very minor talent (IMO of course).

Andy

ps. Can you hear the tune?

No it more accurately describe hi-fi forums, where people can post anything with no accountability.

No argument there, Dave, I think we all know that, and I think we all take things on hi-fi forums with a large bag of salt (at least I do). Magazines are much more dangerous, in that the printed word for which one pays has a sort of versimilitude of truth - perhaps it's like upgrading - one hears an improvement because one spent good money on this and therefore one wants to.
Reviewers are paid almost nothing.
Good. It should be nothing, except for an occasional flogging
You might have noticed that you don't see him in print very much these days.
Actually I didn't, because people like him put me off ever buying hi-fi magazines again. But It's good. Better, of course, if he didn't actually appear at all, along with Hughes, Kessler and all the other worthless crowd.

(Me an arrogant cynic? How could you?)

Funny Tones,

My experience suggests there's a hell of a lot more rubbish written on the well known forums than in any magazine.
As W.S. Gilbert would have put it:
Of this there is no reasonable doubt
No possible reason or shadow of doubt
No possible doubt whatever!

However, as I said to Dave above, we all are wary (or should be) of what's said on-line. Printed magazines are more dangerous, in that they have a sort of appearance of authority, especially when certain eejits are writing and ponificating.
No hifi writer gives poor reviews these days as there aren't really any poor products IMO.
Couldn't agree more. But they shouldn't try to be poetic and write hogwash to show off how clever they are, the way book and film critics do.

Jek, do tell us what you do for a living so I can measure it on my utterlycorruptometer.

I corrupt people for a living. I've never had any dealings with the hifi press; but my colleagues tell me they are utterly corrupted.

I have to say, if someone offered me something with some bright lights and big heat sinks, I would sell-out any remnants of professionalism, integrity, & any delusions of career longevity in a one nano second.

I agree with Rob.

Does this giving the mags a good kicking, extend back to The Flat Response and HiFi Review? Which, IMO of course, were responsible for a very straitjacketed and narrow view of sound reproduction and the way it should be listened to.

I quite like HiFi + record reviews, at least they don't warble on about Ben sodding Sidran, a very minor talent (IMO of course).

Andy

ps. Can you hear the tune?

TFR and Review were just as bad but there was one very important difference between those mags and rest. Performance was assessed using a very narrow set of parameters - basically, how easy is it to follow the tune. Nothing else mattered. I'm convinced that much of the kit given duff reviews by Frankland, Thomas and Steward was quite capable of carrying a tune - but it was simply the wrong brand and usually those that didn't advertise with them.

FWIW I think the current mags are far too insipid and concentrate too heavily on relaying how a product measures up to audiophile niceties - inky blackness, creamy mids, image height and all that tosh.

PRaT is just as important now as it was in the 80s but you'd never think so reading today's audio press.

What we need is a modern equivalent of TFR - prepared to openly call something a pile of crap if it doesn't perform...... but without the old Linn/Naim/Rega bias.

I have to say, if someone offered me something with some bright lights and big heat sinks, I would sell-out any remnants of professionalism, integrity, & any delusions of career longevity in a one nano second


Of course you would but you don't make a living from reviewing hi-fi equipment. Manufacturers would only consider giving away something really expensive to the most influential of reviewers who paradoxically would have the most to lose in recommending something that really wasn't up to it.

Occasional reviewers in minor magazines would be lucky to get a couple of free sandwiches at a press launch.

But you miss the wider point that generally it is not necessary to offer any form of inducement as journalists and editors alike already have a vested financial interest in recommending most of the products which are to appear in their consumer magazines.

TFR and Review were just as bad but there was one very important difference between those mags and rest. Performance was assessed using a very narrow set of parameters - basically, how easy is it to follow the tune.

Moreover, using a very narrow definition of 'tune'; basically some vapid jazz/rock muzak. Ian Rankin at least auditioned equipment using 'proper' music (ie music that people other than audiophiles might actually listen to). Interestingly, he came to the conclusion that a mid-price integrated Exposure amp was 'good enough' fotr most purposes and IIRC gave up reviewing for a living. Wonder what became of him?

Messengerman,

my point was tongue in cheek & I meant exactly that: hifi reviewers actually have something to lose & would perhaps be unlikely to risk losing their jobs.

It is very easy to say: 'everyone is corrupted'.

Moreover, using a very narrow definition of 'tune'; basically some vapid jazz/rock muzak. Ian Rankin at least auditioned equipment using 'proper' music (ie music that people other than audiophiles might actually listen to). Interestingly, he came to the conclusion that a mid-price integrated Exposure amp was 'good enough' fotr most purposes and IIRC gave up reviewing for a living. Wonder what became of him?

Ian Rankin - writes books I believe, if we are talking about the same guy.

What is music and "muzak" is entirely down to the individual. If someone purely listens to Sidran, Vandross, Benson or Mangione* all day then so what - pace, rhythm and timing are just as important to those as to Coltrane, Gillespie and Davis.


* yes I do seem to posses Christs old collection!

What is music and "muzak" is entirely down to the individual. If someone purely listens to Sidran, Vandross, Benson or Mangione* all day then so what - pace, rhythm and timing are just as important to those as to Coltrane, Gillespie and Davis.

But the risk is that all other musical qualities bar pace, rhythm and timing will be overlooked; thus the system might indirectly lead to a narrowing of musical tastes, because only one type of music sounds good on it.

my point was tongue in cheek & I meant exactly that: hifi reviewers actually have something to lose & would perhaps be unlikely to risk losing their jobs.

Sorry Bradders, mis-read you.

Its a fine line these reviewers tread. They have to keep everyone happy, editors, readers, and PRs for the manufacturers. And they have to compete with other freelancers / staffers in order to get published in the first place. I agree with you that its probably not currupt and I'm equally sure its probably not worth reading!

Consumer magazines in all sectors rely on advertising to be profitable. Ergo, they rarely publish anything that will upset their major advertisers. Ergo, they're at best bland, praising everything for fear of upsetting their income.

A couple of them employ decent writers, but mostly they're pants, hacks for hire.

-- Ian

Money talks, bullshit walks. Same as most things sadly.

Jek, do tell us what you do for a living so I can measure it on my utterlycorruptometer.

Research.

I would just like to say that I accept bribes or inducements of any kind - money, expensive hifi equipment (especially turntables with deep platters), padded brown envelopes, art materials, etc., etc. I will even accept loans which, as you know, do not have to be entered or declared on the HiFi Donor Register.

Andy

I would just like to say that I accept bribes or inducements of any kind - money, expensive hifi equipment (especially turntables with deep platters), padded brown envelopes, art materials, etc., etc. I will even accept loans which, as you know, do not have to be entered or declared on the HiFi Donor Register.

Andy

Then you should be a politrickian. If not you are in the wrong game ;)

I've always thought Ian Rankin had the ideal solution. Hi Fi mags until you've got the best system you want then a proper job!

Since when has being a novelist been a proper job? :-)

Rankin had the advantage that he can write a bit. Most of the rest have problems with such minor details.

-- Ian

I said earlier in this thread, that reviewers are not corrupt.

That does not mean that they don't write utter crap.

I just had a read of the latest hi-fi choice, and was reminded just how bad Alan Sircom is. I have never read a review he has written, that I did not think was absolute twaddle. Others that are particularly poor (IMO) are Andrew Harrison, David Allcock, Paul Miller, Alvin Gold, and Richard Black.

The best (IMO) are old timers Colloms and Messenger. They are consistent, and there is some method and reasoning in their reviews.

Dave

Colloms and Messenger. They are consistent, and there is some method and reasoning in their reviews.

Dave

Dave, as long as you mean Colloms is consistently awful, we are in agreement. I've read nothing of his that I didn't find overblown and egotistical and just full of the wonder and glory of Martin Collomswallop (I confess I haven't read everything he wrote, but on the evidence to hand, I wouldn't want to). I haven't consciously read any Messenger, so I can't comment.

However, given their undisputable overall awfulness, I think the hi-fi world would be a much better place if they were all simply taken out and shot.

However, given their undisputable overall awfulness, I think the hi-fi world would be a much better place if they were all simply taken out and shot.

I think we should shoot them twice, just to make sure.

-- Ian

Guys, you may think you are funny, but you're not.

Markus, provided you've never done any reviewing, you're completely safe, Tones will spare you.

Oops.

-- Ian

There's more than enough violence in this world, metaphorical or real. I see no need whatsoever to add to it. Frankly, I'm astonished, you two usually show a bit better taste.

No offence, or, indeed, seriousness, intended, it's just a little joke.

-- Ian

I know that. Oh well, maybe I just shouldn't read this forum when I've just been reading about some really unpleasant domestic violence.

Dave, as long as you mean Colloms is consistently awful, we are in agreement. I've read nothing of his that I didn't find overblown and egotistical and just full of the wonder and glory of Martin Collomswallop (I confess I haven't read everything he wrote, but on the evidence to hand, I wouldn't want to). I haven't consciously read any Messenger, so I can't comment.

Colloms comes accross as arrogant, and he can be over enthusiastic. However, if he says something is good, it usually is. He is also not afraid to say something is crap. Unfortunately, with a lot of the other reviewers, their enthusiastic recommendations can only be used to indicate that a product is rubbish.


However, given their undisputable overall awfulness, I think the hi-fi world would be a much better place if they were all simply taken out and shot.

No they should be locked in a room with Mary Black playing on repeat on a Chord system (razor blades and pills should be provided).

Anyway. Paul Messenger's a big bloke. He'd have yer guts for garters.

He's one of the few hifi writers I have any time for, though for some reason his picture always makes me think that his beard is false, as if he were Stephen Fry masquerading as a speaker reviewer.

I spent a very pleasant afternoon chatting to Paul Messenger once, he's a nice chap and has good taste in speakers. He's one of the very few regular reviewers who has a consistent approach, and is usually worth reading.

-- Ian

I spent a very pleasant afternoon chatting to Paul Messenger once

Did you tug his beard to check if it was real?

Close up, there's no question, it's a wig.

Worst job I ever had? Looking after Ken Kessler's moustaches when he was away on holiday.

-- Ian

Unruly little things eh. Always running in 10 directions at once.

There's more than enough violence in this world, metaphorical or real. I see no need whatsoever to add to it. Frankly, I'm astonished, you two usually show a bit better taste.
In my case, Markus, only in music (which is impeccable). In matters hi-fi, it is highly doubtful as to whether I have any taste at all. Anyway, as Ian says, it was only a joke. I wouldn't really shoot them - at least, I don't think I would...perhaps I'd better stay well away from them, just in case (gotta watch the Northern Irish - funny lot).

No they should be locked in a room with Mary Black playing on repeat on a Chord system (razor blades and pills should be provided).

Who? Is she worse than Led Zeppelin? Is anyone? (Favourite hobby horse - runs away and hides under the desk).

Mary Black is a female folk/ballad singer, who was used as a standard by a lot of reviewers in the late 80's and early nineties. Horrible stuff!

I was never a Zepplen fan, but they were a good band.

I was never a Zepplen fan, but they were a good band.
But better banned...:D

Who? Is she worse than Led Zeppelin? Is anyone? (Favourite hobby horse - runs away and hides under the desk).

Led Zep are quite possibly the most over-rated band in the world, with the possible exception of U2.

You can let the Zep off, though, as they gave us a lot of good rock'n'roll stories.

What have U2 ever done?

Led Zep are quite possibly the most over-rated band in the world, with the possible exception of U2.I thought that was Pink Floyd? Or was it the Beatles...

:-)

Led Zep are quite possibly the most over-rated band in the world, with the possible exception of U2.

U2 are without exception the most over rated band ever, closely followed by Coldplay and Simple Minds. The mere mention of that man B*** is enough to make me want to remove my testis with a carving knife.

He (B***) once went on tour or some gig the other side of the world and forgot his favourite hat. He paid to have his hat flown out to him, first class! Did he think his hat wouldn’t like the catering in economy class?

....is soaking up bass waffle.

Buy one of these perforated wooden chests from Ikea for £25 and throw in all those old mags until its full. Makes an excellent bass trap and a nice platform for a record cleaner :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v637/zippy670/IMGP0740.jpg

Very good idea, Rob!

(probably the first meaningsfull post in this thread)

JohanR

This is so wonderful that it merits mummification of some sort:

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue23/dual_connect.htm

If the cables have 'close to no sound of their own' then the bloke wot wrote the article is presumably about the sound of the rest of his system(s). It's also funny how he takes up so much space describing something he claims is indescribable!

"First of all, images were absolutely, positively immaculate and properly colored. They floated in space surrounded by gobs of expressive ambience that belonged in the sonic picture".

Nuff said

I do love the way it starts off:

With breathtaking definition, dramatic black backgrounds, solid Rock of Gibraltar imaging, and ultra sophisticated textural nuance, the Dual Connects are the first all gold interconnects in the world, and represent the "Gold Standard" for high-end metal cables in this price range. At an amazingly low cost of less than $1000 for a single ended meter, their performance versus cost ratio makes Mt. Everest look like a hill. I have always wondered what solid gold might sound like—it is pure audiophile heaven on earth!

and then goes precipitately downhill from there.

Dave, I confess, this makes Martin Collomswallop appear almost normal...

"Gold Standard". Because the cables are gold. Literally minutes of thought must have gone into that gem.

-- Ian

With breathtaking definition, dramatic black backgrounds, solid Rock of Gibraltar imaging, and ultra sophisticated textural nuance,


This could be factually correct and refers to the sonic capabilites of his system. Try describing sonic differences Tone ( I forgot you don't hear them do you.)

the Dual Connects are the first all gold interconnects in the world,

Correct I assume

and represent the "Gold Standard" for high-end metal cables in this price range.

As they are the only ones made of gold, they would represent the standard wouldn't they?

At an amazingly low cost of less than $1000 for a single ended meter,

In high end cable terms again that is a factually correct statement.

their performance versus cost ratio makes Mt. Everest look like a hill.

This makes absolutely no literal sense and consequently has no meaning. A linguistic error but in no way misleading.

I have always wondered what solid gold might sound like—it is pure audiophile heaven on earth!


Again this statement is totally open to interpretation and the author is not claiming that the cables on test are audiophile heaven - nor does he define audiophile heaven.

So IMO a brilliantly written piece. I look forward to reading an informative review from my dear friend Tones in due course.

But the cables aren't made of gold! There's plenty of cheap-looking plastic in the mix as well.

I look forward to reading an informative review from my dear friend Tones in due course.
I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you, ol' spud...

"they have only 15pf per meter of capacitance, which as far as I know, is the lowest in the world"

$10 Mogami I/Cs have a capacitance of 11pF per meter!! However, Mr Levi covers himself by using the oldest marketing trick in the book: which as far as I know...

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you, ol' spud...

So I take it that simply because you are incapable of describing or indeed hearing, sonic qualities and differences in audio equipment, you feel the need to mock those who can and do?

Were audio journalists to follow your mantra, the audiophile press would of course cease to exist, following an number of short articles entitled " ' Sounds Nice" and " Sounds 'Same". Where would the fun be then?

So I take it that simply because you are incapable of describing or indeed hearing, sonic qualities and differences in audio equipment, you feel the need to mock those who can and do?

Were audio journalists to follow your mantra, the audiophile press would of course cease to exist, following an number of short articles entitled " ' Sounds Nice" and " Sounds 'Same". Where would the fun be then?

Nah, they'd just do what they do at the moment; spend several paragraphs waffling on about the 'look and feel' of the kit, add a few paras about their current set-up, a few paras about how the kit was designed by some Japanese bloke with 'san' at the end of his name, a few paras about setting the kit up then end with 'in summary, the Wossaname pre-amp redefines the state-of-the-art. At £15,000 it actually represents something of a bargain'. There'll also be a side-bar full of impentrable technical jargon in print too small to be read with the naked eye, and some close-up piccies to drool over.

So I take it that simply because you are incapable of describing or indeed hearing sonic qualities and differences in audio equipment
Assuming there are any, of course... Most of these people are just big egos attached to supercharged imaginations. Thesy see themselves as golden-eared audiophiles, and therefore they are required to hear more than the common he(a)rd and describe it with suitable ego-boosting, self-serving hyperbole.
you feel the need to mock those who can and do?
No, no need, but I confess to enjoying it thoroughly. Anyway, what I think you meant is
you feel the need to mock those who think they can and do?

Were audio journalists to follow your mantra
..the world would be a much better informed place
the audiophile press would of course cease to exist
Hallelujah!
following an number of short articles entitled " ' Sounds Nice" and " Sounds 'Same".
Not necessarily. See the old "Gramophone" reviewes to see how a good, solid, informative and non-garbagey review should be written.
Where would the fun be then?
In not having to read utter tripe any more?

Were audio journalists to follow your mantra, the audiophile press would of course cease to exist, following an number of short articles entitled " ' Sounds Nice" and " Sounds 'Same". Where would the fun be then?

Maybe, but at least we would understand what he means. Perhaps I'm stupid but I have no idea what an "ultra sophisticated textural nuance" is.

Assuming there are any, of course

No assumption required really old boy - except by those who use trumpets rather than horns.


Perhaps I'm stupid but I have no idea what an "ultra sophisticated textural nuance" is.

Well I would take it to mean that you could pick out and differentiate the different string tones in a string section for instance. That a violin sounded more authentic. That the skins on drums became more physical. But of course any attempt to describe these improvements in resolution would be met with ridicule by those unable to hear the difference full stop.

No assumption required really old boy - except by those who use trumpets rather than horns.

Precisely my point - the blowing of their own by the so-called hi-fi gurus and the consequent disappearance of anything resembling sense.

But please bear in mind that I'm not saying that there are NO differences - I know there are, and that they come with improving quality of equipment, up to a point anyway (but not with silly things such as different wire, stands, green pens, etc.). That has never been in doubt. I've even heard them! (You can get off the floor now). However, the whole point of this thread is the arrant and totally exaggerated nonsense spouted by the hi-fi journos in an attempt, one suspects, to bolster themselves as people worth reading, rather than inform people. As Tigerjones said above, "ultra sophisticated textural nuance" is gobbledygook. And you have proved our case for us. Why not say in a report, as you have said, words to the effect of, "I found that string tones and drumbeats sounded more real"? Everything would then be clear. There is simply no need for all the other self-serving Collomswallop.

Well I would take it to mean that you could pick out and differentiate the different string tones in a string section for instance. That a violin sounded more authentic. That the skins on drums became more physical. .

Then why doesnt he give such examples instead of the up his own arse journalism he subjects his reader to.

www.letsmakehifielitist.com :mad:

Why are you lot wasting your time on this, other than to exercise your egos?

You don't have to buy hi-fi mags, you don't have to read them.

Why are you lot wasting your time on this, other than to exercise your egos?

You don't have to buy hi-fi mags, you don't have to read them.
Why does anyone read or comment on hi-fi forums, other than to exercise their egos?

You don't have to read them.

But we thank you for your non-egoistal contribution to the debate :D

P.S. Merlin, here's how I think a report should be written:

http://www.sme.ltd.uk/html/300review.html

It might be too boringly scientific for many folk, but then I spend my life writing boringly scientific things, so it appeals to me. But it's nice, factual, to the point and in good English.

Nice one, Joe. I have noticed that the more expensive something is the more we are told its an absolute bargain.

tones, I'm surprised SME have that review on their site as the reviewer didn't hear difference between the 309 and the V. I'm somehow not surprised that you cite as exemplary a review that fails to detect any sound differences. I am surprised, however, that someone with a scientific background lauds a review in which the reviewer didn't feel the need to do a direct comparison to come to his conclusion, or even a comparison where only the arms were the variable.

Sorry, but for me that review is an example of shoddy audio reviewing. And I say that despite my huge respect for Mr Horn.

I take your point, Markus, but given the subjective nature of the whole business and that one man's A-B comparison is not another's, does it really matter that there was no A-B comparison? In any case, to me, the whole point of reviews is not that they are scientific dissertations but that they say clearly and distinctly, in essence, "here is a well-made product that is easy to use, and that to me, the reviewer, sounds very good, so it's well worth your while having a listen if you're in the market for such a thing." I don't find this at all shoddy.

Good audio reviewing, tones, is precisely about the fact that one man's A-B comparison is not another's. Good audio reviewing - and I'll grant there' not enough of it - attempts to tell the reader how a component sounds and then let him make a decision whether that component might be an improvement over what he already has.

I don't necessarily think that every review should include an A-B comparison, although personally I find it helps me. But it was Mr Horn who brought up the comparison with the V; having done that, I see no excuse whatsoever for concluding that the 309 sounds as good as the V without a direct comparison. Saying that both sound like CD is really not good enough, especially not for someone like me who has heard an SME V and knows that a) it does have a sound of its own and b) it does not sound just like CD (leaving aside the question which CD player Mr Horn had in mind, which would be another can of worms).

The SME review comes across as an old chum reviewing a product from someone who has been supplying free tonearms to Gramophone reviewers for decades; Mr Horn was clearly unwilling to say a single critical word about the arm.

Sorry, but I stand by "shoddy".

If all a review needs to say is that "here's a product well worth your while having a listen if you're in the market for such a thing", you don't need reviews at all. But I guess that's your point, ultimately.

Good audio reviewing, tones, is precisely about the fact that one man's A-B comparison is not another's. Good audio reviewing - and I'll grant there' not enough of it - attempts to tell the reader how a component sounds and then let him make a decision whether that component might be an improvement over what he already has.

I don't necessarily think that every review should include an A-B comparison, although personally I find it helps me.

That I can understand, but just think; how many such reviews do you see? Normally, reviewers review a single component in isolation (attached to enough bits and pieces to make it function naturally :D ), and comparative testing is reserved for, er, comparative tests.
But it was Mr Horn who brought up the comparison with the V; having done that, I see no excuse whatsoever for concluding that the 309 sounds as good as the V without a direct comparison.
Time? Availability? Opportunity?

Saying that both sound like CD is really not good enough, especially not for someone like me who has heard an SME V and knows that a) it does have a sound of its own and b) it does not sound just like CD (leaving aside the question which CD player Mr Horn had in mind, which would be another can of worms).
As I think there's precious little difference between CD and vinyl, I guess we must beg to differ on that one.
The SME review comes across as an old chum reviewing a product from someone who has been supplying free tonearms to Gramophone reviewers for decades;
Agreed.
Mr Horn was clearly unwilling to say a single critical word about the arm.
Perhaps there was nothing to criticise? I once had an SME arm (a IIIS) and it was a wonderful bit of equipment. Only when the Basel Linn man loaned me an LP12/Ekos did I realise that it could be bettered. I gather that the V is up there with the best. Well, to my ears, it would be!
Sorry, but I stand by "shoddy".
Don't be sorry. Again, we beg to differ.
If all a review needs to say is that "here's a product well worth your while having a listen if you're in the market for such a thing", you don't need reviews at all. But I guess that's your point, ultimately.
No, it's not. I want a good, informative, well-written, gobbeldygook- and ego-tripping-free review, and that's what "Gramophone" gave in my opinion. Compare with the Collomswallop of the others - there really is no comparison.

If all a review needs to say is that "here's a product well worth your while having a listen if you're in the market for such a thing", you don't need reviews at all. But I guess that's your point, ultimately.

The traditional audio magazine review finds itself in a very strange position these days. Online discussion has made the ‘flowery subjective review’ almost completely obsolete, there is simply no place left in the world for such lofty opinion as it is so easy for a punter to discuss such things in real time with other consumers, dealers, and in many cases the actual designers of the product. The opinion of a hi-fi journalist no longer has anything like the weight it did in the 60s, 70s or 80s when there was no equivalent interactive discussion platform available.

As far as I can tell the only advantages the audio rags have over online discussion is (a) high quality high resolution photography; a good picture can be invaluable when it comes to explaining how a radical new product is constructed, is used or functions internally, and (b) high quality independent lab testing. Bizarrely many mags omit the latter point all together.

Ironically the time may have come for a return to the dry technical appraisal and measurement of the 60s and early 70s magazines. If I were to buy an audio mag I’d want every conceivable paramiter independently tested and verified and contrasted with the advertised specification, i.e. for speakers anechoic and in room response measurements, impedance dips, phase angle etc etc - the stuff I can’t find out by chatting to a series of happy or dissatisfied punters online and possibly wouldn’t be able to detect in a dem. A reviewer verbosely describing some near transcendental state of soundstage blackness and infinite space or whatever is ultimately only of comedy value, you can easily get that online for free.

Tony.

The role of Hi-fi magazines, has always (well sinse the 70's) been to entertain.

People often buy the magazines to indulge in fantasies and dreams. Providing assistance to consumers in choosing products has always been a secondary issue.

In my opinion, the influence of American style, totally subjective, effusive reviewing has led to a state, where most reviews are almost meaningless. I have seen far too many reviews of products that I consider to be "expensive rubbish", praised as the best thing on the planet.

The traditional audio magazine review finds itself in a very strange position these days. Online discussion has made the ‘flowery subjective review’ almost completely obsolete, there is simply no place left in the world for such lofty opinion as it is so easy for a punter to discuss such things in real time with other consumers, dealers, and in many cases the actual designers of the product. The opinion of a hi-fi journalist no longer has anything like the weight it did in the 60s, 70s or 80s when there was no equivalent interactive discussion platform available.

There is definitely a shift away from what worked in the past. I think in the future, direct marketing of products will be far more important that traditional reviews, and shop presence.


As far as I can tell the only advantages the audio rags have over online discussion is (a) high quality high resolution photography; a good picture can be invaluable when it comes to explaining how a radical new product is constructed, is used or functions internally, and (b) high quality independent lab testing. Bizarrely many mags omit the latter point all together.

I buy mags for train journeys.


Ironically the time may have come for a return to the dry technical appraisal and measurement of the 60s and early 70s magazines. If I were to buy an audio mag I’d want every conceivable paramiter independently tested and verified and contrasted with the advertised specification, i.e. for speakers anechoic and in room response measurements, impedance dips, phase angle etc etc - the stuff I can’t find out by chatting to a series of happy or dissatisfied punters online and possibly wouldn’t be able to detect in a dem. A reviewer verbosely describing some near transcendental state of soundstage blackness and infinite space or whatever is ultimately only of comedy value, you can easily get that online for free.

Tony.

I think, that we will see the death of most paper based stereo hi-fi mags in this country. I just don't think there will be the advertising or distribution figures to sustain them. The future is small sections in AV and Gadget mags, with small flowery meaningless reviews. Hi-fi News has been living of the September Show revenue for years, and that has been declining rapidly. Their circulation figures are tiny.

I don't see user comments being a satisfactory replacement for good reviews. Contrary to Tones, I have always found Martin Colloms reviews to be complete, comprehensive, and very informative. If you read his review of the Wilson MAX 2, you will find he canned them. I listened to them at the Sept show, and thought they were among the worst speakers I had ever heard. I have seen about 5 other reviews (mainly American) that rate them among the best ever made. I for one will be sorry when I no longer have access to his opinions.

The role of Hi-fi magazines, has always (well sinse the 70's) been to entertain.

People often buy the magazines to indulge in fantasies and dreams. Providing assistance to consumers in choosing products has always been a secondary issue.

Hehe! I have reread my 70's magazines (I have a meter or two) I don't know how many times. And still do.

Last time was when I got an old Sansui tuner. No, I didn't find a review, but I found a very good article on how radios work. You don't find that kind of stuff any more.

And, I to find Martin C the only trustworthy HiFi reviewer.

JohanR

A reviewer verbosely describing some near transcendental state of soundstage blackness and infinite space or whatever is ultimately only of comedy value, you can easily get that online for free.


LQI!


vuk.

In slagging the reviewer you're shooting the messenger (plus they can't really help it -- it's not like they're going to be much use at doing anything else for a living). If you're really looking for a whipping boy the blame rests with the magazine Editors for allowing such obsequious flowery wank into print. I'd also reserve a few lashes for the Sub Editor/Production Editor for not hacking the text back into something resembling the English language.

LQI!



I beg your pardon?

I don't see user comments being a satisfactory replacement for good reviews. Contrary to Tones, I have always found Martin Colloms reviews to be complete, comprehensive, and very informative. If you read his review of the Wilson MAX 2, you will find he canned them. I listened to them at the Sept show, and thought they were among the worst speakers I had ever heard. I have seen about 5 other reviews (mainly American) that rate them among the best ever made. I for one will be sorry when I no longer have access to his opinions.

Actually Roy Gregory also slagged them off, albeit obliquely, in his review in Hifi Plush, though he did do a fulsome review of the Duettes in the subsequent issue.

The only hifi mags I read are the ones with info on secondhand stuff, what to pay, what to look for, and parts availability. That's HFW then, now and again. All the "Switching to the WankyFi 123 it became clear that there was a dramatic difference. Coltrane's sax now had an breathy, urgent quality, as if he'd not only got off his stool but crossed the stage and started shagging the blonde in the front row" bollocks is just stuff to entertain you on the bog.

- I propose that we submit favourite examples of bad hi-fi writing. As the world is apparently full of it, it shouldn't be too hard to find examples.

David Vivian is a high scorer here...most of what he writes is utterly meaningless hyperbole....


laurie

David Vivian is a high scorer here...most of what he writes is utterly meaningless hyperbole....


laurie

As I said in the other mag thread - these people can write/type with conviction, but their utter ignorance or even real understanding of the subject matter never fails to astound me..


You want to write for a decent motor magazine and you're lucky enough to get a job at somewhere like Haymarket. They start you at the bottom and, you've guessed it, the bottom is What HiFi!!! You w@nk around there for a while and then apply for a job at somewhere like 'Choice or move on to What Gardening or whatever. You get that gig and your writing style has to improve 'cos you still know jack s**t about the subject matter...

The above is a hypothetical story, but it has its basis in truth..

I beg your pardon?

laughing quietly inside. since trying out a DAC in my system, i have suddenly become super hip.


vuk.