ADM9RS or good British passive system?

[the record spot]

Apologies, if you feel misquoted, RS. It seemed the relevent bit, to me.

Your full post is contained in the thread, nearby, for all to read, so can hardly be missed by interested readers.

Clearly, we were both referring to magazine reviews.

Don't feel bad about it.

JC

I don't thanks JC, as the oversight wasn't mine. The apology is welcome nonetheless. And likewise...

 

[jcbrum]

There is a new bass driver, introduced only a few weeks ago, and a new tweeter, for the ADM9RS, which does extend the bass significantly, Steven.

You might find it worth another listen. Say hello to Mr Townrow, from me, if you visit FWHiFi.

Regards, JC.

 

[BigH]

There is a new bass driver, introduced only a few weeks ago, and a new tweeter, for the ADM9RS, which does extend the bass significantly, Steven.

You might find it worth another listen. Say hello to Mr Townrow, from me, if you visit FWHiFi.

Regards, JC.

I thought the bass driver was introduced about 1 year ago?

I know the new tweeter is only a few months old.

 

[hoopsontoast]

So when is the 'Turbo' model released??

I thought AVI speakers stood to stop the audiophile upgraditus??? :?

I would go for something that in a couple of years time that has full repair warranty and support, if I were spending £1k+ on new equipment.

 

[Ajani]

I don't think AVI make any provision for review samples. Previously reviewed models have been purchased from normal sales stocks, irrc.

JC

Sure, but IMO WHF shouldn't go that route again. If the manufacturer refuses to submit a sample for review, then no review should be done. I'm sure AVI is doing quite well and can aford to maintain even just 1 sample to send around to major mags for review. The issue is that AVI doesn't want to... So I think the approach should be to encourage Ashley to submit a sample, not for WHF to go out and buy one...

I don't think WHF should rely solely on man. samples to test, they should review the leading hifi products, for example one of the best amps under £1,000 has not been reviewed, its all very well saying the Arcam A19 is the best amp when you have reviewed the Creek 50A. Maybe Creek don't trust WHF reviews? Also this method can have a very unbalanced coverage, with some brands covered entirely and others none or hardly any at all.

Fair points.

But why should the review mag be burdened with having to buy products from manufacturers, who clearly don't want to have their products reviewed?

How much money would the magazine have to allocate towards buying these products (especially if you consider a group test of expensive kit)?

Does it not encourage the manufacturers who actually send out review samples to stop doing so, since now they can pass on that cost to the HiFI mags?

 

[Ajani]

Maybe Creek don't trust WHF reviews?

IMO, Reviewers and review mags (even those with a panel of reviewers) tend to have certain sonic preferences. You can often see it in the review language and the reason why one product gets a 5star rating while the other loses that final star... I suspect that many brands go for mags that they think are more likely to favourably review their product... From what I've seen in recent years WHF has rated Creek products as good but not 5 star worthy, so Creek may rightfully be cautious about submiting the EVO 50 for review. Better to submit it to mags like HFC that have been all googly eyed over Creek in recent years...

 

[jcbrum]

But why should the review mag be burdened with having to buy products from manufacturers . . . .

Hmmm, . . . . similarly, why should the review mag be burdened with having to pay staff, and journalists, to 'review' the products ?

Ought not these 'reviews' be provided free of charge, or even paid for by the product manufacturer ?

JC

 

[Ajani]

But why should the review mag be burdened with having to buy products from manufacturers . . . .

Hmmm, . . . . similarly, why should the review mag be burdened with having to pay staff, and journalists, to 'review' the products ?

Ought not these 'reviews' be provided free of charge, or even paid for by the product manufacturer ?

JC

That's amusing, but not even close to the point I'm making... Only a large review mag like WHF could even consider buying products to review... How would any small review mag start? Do car mags have to buy the cars they review? Seems a very expensive and highly risky way to run a business... If you really think about it, it doesn't actually make sense for mags to have to buy products in order to review them.

Compare that to a manufacturer having to retain just ONE sample of their product to send around to various mags for review, and it becomes clear that it makes far more sense for samples to be submitted than for the mags to have to purchase gear.

Further, let's take it back to your original request that WHF should buy AVI speakers to review them: Why? Even ignoring all the general points about why it doesn't make sense to buy review gear in general, AVI has made it clear that they think nothing of WHF's reviews and that those reviews don't generate any sales for them. So essentially WHF would have to buy a product from a manufacturer that regularly insults the mag. Why would they want to do that?

Is AVI really such a well known brand that a review of their products is going to cause WHF sales to spike that issue? I really really really doubt it... Considering that other than over the top claims and posturing on the internet, AVI doesn't even advertise and is basically a two man shop, I doubt reviewing any AVI product would in anyway boost sales of the mag. So why spend money to purchase something that is unlikely to help your sales and only serves to support a manufacturer that has contempt for you?

 

[fr0g]

That's amusing, but not even close to the point I'm making... Only a large review mag like WHF could even consider buying products to review... How would any small review mag start? Do car mags have to buy the cars they review? Seems a very expensive and highly risky way to run a business... If you really think about it, it doesn't actually make sense for mags to have to buy products in order to review them.

Compare that to a manufacturer having to retain just ONE sample of their product to send around to various mags for review, and it becomes clear that it makes far more sense for samples to be submitted than for the mags to have to purchase gear.

This bit is true.

Further, let's take it back to your original request that WHF should buy AVI speakers to review them: Why? Even ignoring all the general points about why it doesn't make sense to buy review gear in general, AVI has made it clear that they think nothing of WHF's reviews and that those reviews don't generate any sales for them. So essentially WHF would have to buy a product from a manufacturer that regularly insults the mag. Why would they want to do that?

First of all, it isn'y only AVI who do not supply review samples.

And to answer the question. The more different brands that are represented by reviews, the more informational they are. The more use they are to the readership. The more complete the picture and the less hunting around someone has to do.

What use is a review source, if when I want to buy something, it has looked at only 2 of 10 possible products I have shortlisted?

The insults and opinions are irrelevant, a professional magazine should be able to rise above that. And to be fair, they have in the past. Andrew Everard has been very complementary about ADMs in Gramophone, and I am certain he and Mr James are not exactly best buddies.

Is AVI really such a well known brand that a review of their products is going to cause WHF sales to spike that issue? I really really really doubt it... Considering that other than over the top claims and posturing on the internet, AVI doesn't even advertise and is basically a two man shop, I doubt reviewing any AVI product would in anyway boost sales of the mag. So why spend money to purchase something that is unlikely to help your sales and only serves to support a manufacturer that has contempt for you?

See above.

And it is irrelevant how small a company is, if the products they make compete in the market that a magazine is providing information about.

The question for the magazine should be..."How useful a source of information do I want to be?". The more useful...the more sales.

Forget AVI...all brands that are interesting. If the manufacturer doesn't supply a sample, then I am even more interested in the professional opinion of a magazine about their products.

 

[lindsayt]

In the absence of any reviews in What Hi-Fi magazine of the DM5's, there's nothing to stop anyone doing their own review of them and posting their review on this forum or any other hi-fi forum.

There are some posters whose review I would rate just as highly as any review made by What Hi-fi.

If anyone, including What Hi-fi does decide to review the DM5's, I would be happy to lend them a £300 CD player, amp and speaker combination for the purposes of their review. As I think that the best reviews are comparative ones.

 

[fr0g]

In the absence of any reviews in What Hi-Fi magazine of the DM5's, there's nothing to stop anyone doing their own review of them and posting their review on this forum or any other hi-fi forum.

There are some posters whose review I would rate just as highly as any review made by What Hi-fi.

Indeed.

If anyone, including What Hi-fi does decide to review the DM5's, I would be happy to lend them a £300 CD player, amp and speaker combination for the purposes of their review. As I think that the best reviews are comparative ones.

Agreed. So an amp and a small pair of bookshelf speakers for around £700 (new) then?

 

[Ajani]

First of all, it isn'y only AVI who do not supply review samples.

I never said it was... AVI is only mentioned since that is what the original request from JCBrum was about...

And to answer the question. The more different brands that are represented by reviews, the more informational they are. The more use they are to the readership. The more complete the picture and the less hunting around someone has to do.

What use is a review source, if when I want to buy something, it has looked at only 2 of 10 possible products I have shortlisted?

.............

And it is irrelevant how small a company is, if the products they make compete in the market that a magazine is providing information about.

The question for the magazine should be..."How useful a source of information do I want to be?". The more useful...the more sales.

Forget AVI...all brands that are interesting. If the manufacturer doesn't supply a sample, then I am even more interested in the professional opinion of a magazine about their products.

Yes. More info and bigger group tests is good. I don't disagree in principal. However you need to balance $$$$ in the equation. Keep in mind that the majority of HiFi products produced each year are probably never reviewed. Just think of how many major HiFI manufacturers only submit one or two products out of their line for review. Then consider all the smaller, boutique brands that never get reviewed.... So to really make a proper group test WHF would need to purchase just about any any potential products in the category for the review. That would require a lot of money and no guarantee that any increase in mag sales would be able to offset the expenditure.

Just consider how many bookshelf speakers there are around the 500GBP price point and imagine having to purchase all the ones you can't get samples for, in order to do a truly comprehensive group test.

 

[spiny norman]

Ought not these 'reviews' be provided free of charge, or even paid for by the product manufacturer ?

Not everything can be run on the AVI business model. :rofl:

 

[steve_1979]

I don't think WHF should rely solely on man. samples to test, they should review the leading hifi products, for example one of the best amps under £1,000 has not been reviewed, its all very well saying the Arcam A19 is the best amp when you have reviewed the Creek 50A. Maybe Creek don't trust WHF reviews? Also this method can have a very unbalanced coverage, with some brands covered entirely and others none or hardly any at all.

Fair points.

But why should the review mag be burdened with having to buy products from manufacturers, who clearly don't want to have their products reviewed?

How much money would the magazine have to allocate towards buying these products (especially if you consider a group test of expensive kit)?

Does it not encourage the manufacturers who actually send out review samples to stop doing so, since now they can pass on that cost to the HiFI mags?

You both make some good points here.

Maybe hifi shops could temporarily loan equipment to WHF for a review in exchange for a mention of the shops name in the magazine. That way the shops get a bit of cheap advertising and WHF gets some free hifi equipment to review.

 

[drummerman]

Not sure how it works now but WHS&V used to have a certain, limited budget to buy equipment. I guess it could be sold off with minimal loss if bought at trade prices in the first place though it usually dissappears first in John's place for years for 'testing purposes' ...

regards

 

[BigH]

I don't think AVI make any provision for review samples. Previously reviewed models have been purchased from normal sales stocks, irrc.

JC

Sure, but IMO WHF shouldn't go that route again. If the manufacturer refuses to submit a sample for review, then no review should be done. I'm sure AVI is doing quite well and can aford to maintain even just 1 sample to send around to major mags for review. The issue is that AVI doesn't want to... So I think the approach should be to encourage Ashley to submit a sample, not for WHF to go out and buy one...

I don't think WHF should rely solely on man. samples to test, they should review the leading hifi products, for example one of the best amps under £1,000 has not been reviewed, its all very well saying the Arcam A19 is the best amp when you have reviewed the Creek 50A. Maybe Creek don't trust WHF reviews? Also this method can have a very unbalanced coverage, with some brands covered entirely and others none or hardly any at all.

Fair points.

But why should the review mag be burdened with having to buy products from manufacturers, who clearly don't want to have their products reviewed?

How much money would the magazine have to allocate towards buying these products (especially if you consider a group test of expensive kit)?

Does it not encourage the manufacturers who actually send out review samples to stop doing so, since now they can pass on that cost to the HiFI mags?

Some fair points but to buy say the Creek 50A it would not cost much, they may even may be able to borrow one, I see Creek has a 14 day trial, even if they had to buy one doubt they would lose more than £200, Im sure they would get that back from a few more sales, I'm sure some readers would want to see say the best amps in the £700 region esp. as other mags have tested the Creek and 1 placed it first in a group test. Whats the point of annual awards if you don't test all the leading equipment. Anyway if they can spend £1,000,000 on room treatments etc. Im sure they can spend a bit on equipment. Interesting that Andrew Everard managed to get one after he left WHF, maybe its because Creek/Epos have not received any 5 stars reviews? Some mags don't trust man. samples and always buy off the shelf.

Yes man. may save some money but then they are not certain of getting a review so that may effect sales and its good to tie in a good review with their advertising. And 1 amp. to a big brand is nothing but to some of the small companies its a bigger deal.

 

[John Duncan]

Not sure how it works now but WHS&V used to have a certain, limited budget to buy equipment. I guess it could be sold off with minimal loss if bought at trade prices in the first place though it usually dissappears first in John's place for years for 'testing purposes' ...

regards

How very dare y...actually, no, fair enough.

I haven't had anything from them for aaaages, to be fair, though I'll want fair warning if the Statement arrives for review... ;-)

 

[davedotco]

I think a couple of very important points are being missed here.

WHF, the mainstream manufacturers and their dealers all work together on this. WHF need a steady stream of product and are embraced by the big manufacturers who have new and 'revised' (Mk2, SE, etc, etc) product to promote every month. The constant cycle of reviews and awards generates interest, from both customers and dealers alike, which pretty much drives the budget end of the market where product is sold largly on the back of reviews, awards and price.

The circle is squared by the publisher selling advertising space to the big manufacturers and their dealers, in business terms, a virtuous circle.

What might be more difficult to get is that more 'specialised' (or 'elitest', 'snobbish', insert your own term) manufacturers/distributers simply are not interested. They know that there products are different and are sold through dealers who simply have a different way of doing business, selling by demonstration rather than review and 'reputation'.

Brands like Creek, say, have a small product range and models may remain in production and largely unchanged for several years compared to the constant turnaround and new products from the mainstream companies. A good review for a Creek might generate a little interest but nothing like the constant exposure that the big brands get.

Sure they will take the odd review when they get it but that is not the focal point of their marketing, which is mostly focused through their dealers.

 

[pauln]

I think a couple of very important points are being missed here.

WHF, the mainstream manufacturers and their dealers all work together on this. WHF need a steady stream of product and are embraced by the big manufacturers who have new and 'revised' (Mk2, SE, etc, etc) product to promote every month. The constant cycle of reviews and awards generates interest, from both customers and dealers alike, which pretty much drives the budget end of the market where product is sold largly on the back of reviews, awards and price.

The circle is squared by the publisher selling advertising space to the big manufacturers and their dealers, in business terms, a virtuous circle.

What might be more difficult to get is that more 'specialised' (or 'elitest', 'snobbish', insert your own term) manufacturers/distributers simply are not interested. They know that there products are different and are sold through dealers who simply have a different way of doing business, selling by demonstration rather than review and 'reputation'.

Brands like Creek, say, have a small product range and models may remain in production and largely unchanged for several years compared to the constant turnaround and new products from the mainstream companies. A good review for a Creek might generate a little interest but nothing like the constant exposure that the big brands get.

Sure they will take the odd review when they get it but that is not the focal point of their marketing, which is mostly focused through their dealers.

So really, "What HiFi" should be called "What mass produced HiFi for the masses" because any really discerning enthusiast is going to take no notice whatsoever of reviews in a mag that can't afford to "upset the hands that feed it" by saying that their latest product is a turkey?

Those same people will rely on listening for themselves, comparing specs and impartial peer reviews on forums.*

I've thought that for a long time.

*Edit - apart from the shills and fanboys of course, of which every forum has it's share...

 

[professorhat]

Ah, the old "advertising buys good reviews" yarn again. It's been a few days I suppose...

 

[daveh75]

I see the new years resolution didnt last long...

Prof was clearly referring to pauln's post. So I suggest you pick the toys up.

 

[davedotco]

I see the new years resolution didnt last long...

Prof was clearly referring to pauln's post. So I suggest you pick the toys up.

I did not see that post and aplogise unreservedly if that is the case.

I will try and remove the post.

 

[davedotco]

Deleted

 

[davedotco]

Just to make things clear.

I used to know several of the review staff at WHF and some of the 'executive' staff too and still speak to one or two on occasion.

I am absolutely sure that the editorial arm is totally independent, I have no doubts about their integrity.

However WHF's agenda and style is there for any reader (or any one else) to see and the relationship between magazine, manufacturers and there dealers is a close one. In effect it is nothing more than the industry working together for everyones benefit, it is a symbiotic relationship and is how this sector of the market works.

As I explained earler, this constant cycling of new equipment does not really suit a lot of smaller manufacturers, so in some respects the market, as viewed through the window of WHF, is a bit skewed.

 

[professorhat]

I see the new years resolution didnt last long...

Prof was clearly referring to pauln's post. So I suggest you pick the toys up.

I did not see that post and aplogise unreservedly if that is the case.

I will try and remove the post.

I missed it, so no offence taken

BTW - I did think pauln misinterpreted your point as I didn't come to his conclusion when I read your original post. I should probably have quoted just his remarks to make it clear this was what I was referring to.