CA DacMagic Vs MF V-DAC Vs Beresford TC-7510 - WHF Vs HFW Results

[chebby]

With respect to WHF (and all the magazines) their advice can never be free of all bias. They are businesses that are answerable to the 'bottom line' a long way before giving totally impartial advice. Just as a dealer raises the spectre of obsolescence to get us buying more gear year-in-year-out then so too do the magazines.

In a lot of cases the best, most impartial, advice would be to say... "your gear was fantastic in 2001 and it still is, so save your money if it still works".

However, such advice does not move boxes or magazines, so we have to be kept in a constant state of expectancy* for the "Next Great Thing". (Even though it is usually the "Last Great Thing" rehashed to use less labour, parts and materials but cost more.)

This is not a criticism. It is capitalism after all. Magazines and dealers and manufacturers have a duty to maximise profits and look after jobs & shareholders etc by maximising our sense of 'loss' when a new product eclipses our own (perfectly good 99% of the time) kit.

Impartial it ain't though.

*I get this too. Not judging, just observing.

 

[Ajani]

chebby:
With respect to WHF (and all the magazines) their advice can never be free of all bias. They are businesses that are answerable to the 'bottom line' a long way before giving totally impartial advice. Just as a dealer raises the spectre of obsolescence to get us buying more gear year-in-year-out then so too do the magazines.

In a lot of cases the best, most impartial, advice would be to say... "your gear was fantastic in 2001 and it still is, so save your money if it still works".

However, such advice does not move boxes or magazines, so we have to be kept in a constant state of expectancy* for the "Next Great Thing". (Even though it is usually the "Last Great Thing" rehashed to use less labour, parts and materials but cost more.)

This is not a criticism. It is capitalism after all. Magazines and dealers and manufacturers have a duty to maximise profits and look after jobs & shareholders etc by maximising our sense of 'loss' when a new product eclipses our own (perfectly good 99% of the time) kit.

Impartial it ain't though.

*I get this too. Not judging, just observing.

The problem with that logic is that 1) It doesn't apply to "all magazines", it's far less an issue with US than mags than UK ones... as the major US mags have products being recommended for as long as 8 years (yep amps reviewed in 2001 are still listed in the 2008 recommended components issues)... 2) There are clear exceptions to this rule even with UK mags... What HiFi still gives a 5 star rating to the Quad 909 and that's not exactly a new amp... 3) Products get discontinued... so it's not very useful to still be recommending gear that consumers can't find in the stores anymore...

 

[Clare Newsome]

chebby:
With respect to WHF (and all the magazines) their advice can never be free of all bias. They are businesses that are answerable to the 'bottom line' a long way before giving totally impartial advice. Just as a dealer raises the spectre of obsolescence to get us buying more gear year-in-year-out then so too do the magazines.

In a lot of cases the best, most impartial, advice would be to say... "your gear was fantastic in 2001 and it still is, so save your money if it still works".

However, such advice does not move boxes or magazines, so we have to be kept in a constant state of expectancy* for the "Next Great Thing". (Even though it is usually the "Last Great Thing" rehashed to use less labour, parts and materials but cost more.)

This is not a criticism. It is capitalism after all. Magazines and dealers and manufacturers have a duty to maximise profits and look after jobs & shareholders etc by maximising our sense of 'loss' when a new product eclipses our own (perfectly good 99% of the time) kit.

Impartial it ain't though.

*I get this too. Not judging, just observing.

Again, that's your opinion, but I will add some facts, from the What Hi-fi? Sound and Vision Awards 2008.

Apart from the categories where we HAD to pick a new winner- eg TVs, Blu-ray, systems etc - because earlier models had been discontinued and were no longer on sale, here's how many winners stayed the same, despite there being newer products on the market:

Turntables - Product of the Year: Rega P3-24/Elys2 - winner for the second-year running

Style speaker packages - Product of the Year: KEF KHT3005SE; best budget package Jamo A102HCS5 - both winner for the second-year running. B&W MT-30 and Tannoy Arena Highline- both winners for the third year running. We only had one new product (KEF KHT2005.3) in the whole category.

Radios - Denon TU-1800DAB: winner for the 4th year!

Speaker packages - Q Acoustic 5.1 1010i - winner for second-year running

Subwoofers - B&W PV1 - winner for third year running; Monitor Audio RS-W12 - winner for second year

Stereo amplifiers - Cyrus pre/power winner for second-year running

Stereo speakers - three sets out of the six winners were repeat victors: B&W 685; ATC SCM11; Tannoy Mercury F1 Custom

Headphones - Grado SR60 - Award winners since time began

CD players - Marantz CD6002 - Award winner for second year

Accessories - Atacama Equinox rack and Partington Superdreadnoughts have been Award winners for many years.

Hope that puts some things in perspective!

 

[idc]

Ajani:

It's interesting to see how different HiFi mags can see products differently:

Here on WHF the results for the DAC shootout were:

Cambridge Audio DacMagic - 5 Stars

Musical Fidelity V-DAC - 4 Stars

Beresford TC-7510 - 5 Stars

While in HiFi World the results were reversed:

Cambridge Audio DacMagic - 4 Globes and $

Musical Fidelity V-DAC - 5 Globes

Beresford TC-7510 - 4 Globes

Also interesting is that the overall descriptions of the sound of each product seemed pretty similiar across both mags, but the products prefered differed completely.

I ignore the star ratings and review winners as that is too subjective. I prefer the more objective description of the sound of different products. If such descriptions are the same between more than one source, then I am satisfied I will get what I am expecting. I know what type of sound I prefer. Descriptions will get me to the right product, not star ratings.

I will buy products I have not been able to listen to based on description of the sound. I would never buy products purely on their star rating or awards won.

 

[SteveR750]

chebby:
With respect to WHF (and all the magazines) their advice can never be free of all bias. They are businesses that are answerable to the 'bottom line' a long way before giving totally impartial advice. Just as a dealer raises the spectre of obsolescence to get us buying more gear year-in-year-out then so too do the magazines.

In a lot of cases the best, most impartial, advice would be to say... "your gear was fantastic in 2001 and it still is, so save your money if it still works".

However, such advice does not move boxes or magazines, so we have to be kept in a constant state of expectancy* for the "Next Great Thing". (Even though it is usually the "Last Great Thing" rehashed to use less labour, parts and materials but cost more.)

This is not a criticism. It is capitalism after all. Magazines and dealers and manufacturers have a duty to maximise profits and look after jobs & shareholders etc by maximising our sense of 'loss' when a new product eclipses our own (perfectly good 99% of the time) kit.

Impartial it ain't though.

*I get this too. Not judging, just observing.

This was my (less eloquently put) point also. WHF exists like any business to make money for its investors, not solely to advise the public on their choice of equipment etc; this is merely the modus operandi used to generate profits. On te subject of star ratings, I recall that the B&W DM303 was awarded product of of the year in 03 I think. It was awarded 5 stars in a group test, most of which had 4 stars, but one other maybe tow also had 5 stars. A year later and the DM303's were down to 4 stars, but the losing competitors in the original supertest retained their 5 stars, which since I had bought a pair of 303's struck me as grossly unfair!

 

[Andrew Everard]

SteveR750:WHF exists like any business to make money for its investors, not solely to advise the public on their choice of equipment etc; this is merely the modus operandi used to generate profits.

We don't have investors, we have an owner.

And we do exist solely to advise the public, maintaining an editorial independence of advertising concerns way beyond that of some other magazines in this field; advertising is sold on the reach of the magazine, ie its circulation, not the results of tests.

 

[SteveR750]

Andrew Everard:

SteveR750:WHF exists like any business to make money for its investors, not solely to advise the public on their choice of equipment etc; this is merely the modus operandi used to generate profits.

We don't have investors, we have an owner.

And we do exist solely to advise the public, maintaining an editorial independence of advertising concerns way beyond that of some other magazines in this field; advertising is sold on the reach of the magazine, ie its circulation, not the results of tests.

but I'd be surprised if the owner (who you might therefore call the "investor") would allow / want a business that simply lost money, or even just broke even? It would be a very rare altruistic business person that would be content to operate purely as a service to the public without any financial return

 

[Clare Newsome]

You'd be surprised. Being a privately owned company, we can - and have - a different ethos to those with shareholders/the city to answer to (and i've worked for both kinds of company).

It's all about having the resource to create appealing magazines/websites - if you get that right, hopefully the money follows.

More here on our company philosophy, if you're interested.

 

[SteveR750]

Thanks for the link, intersting though this page tells me more about what is important:

http://www.haymarket.com/companycontent.aspx?content=8

I too work for a private family owned company who share many of the same corporate values as described by haymarket. They are in crude terms one way (and there are alternative styles and cultures) to achieve the same goal of increased profits, in your case through a greater involvementy of its employees in the operating and managing of the business which should result in a more effective product. I agree that most Western companies (I have worked for a Japanese transplant for 5 years which had a very different culture) are so beholden to short term investor demands that there simply is not enough time given to nurture creative thinking and stability within an organisation.

Ultimately though, I doubt that Sir Heseltine has any more ambition to throw money away any more than you or I or the owners of the company I work for!

 

[Clare Newsome]

And you'll see from those financials that more than half the profits are ploughed back into new projects and acquisitions - all about offering more, again.

I don't understand your insistence on using emotive phrases like 'throwing away money'. We can - and do - turn away some revenues because we don't think they're right for our mags/readers/ethos. We also accept that we will - and do - lose revenue due to editorial stance (eg advertisers pulling ads when we run a poor review).

 

[SteveR750]

Sorry, I'm not being deliberately emotive - I think we are in violent agreement about what how haymarket is run!

My point is simply that in most cases unless you are running a charity, every business exists ultimately to make money (unless you happen to live in a communist state perhaps). Therefore, you have to make profits to survive - what you do to make it and what you subsequently do with the profits is what often dictates success or failure. How much profit a business owner demands is a personal decision, but I have not come across many, indeed any business owners who are content at not making any profits in the long term.

I think as you said earlier, if the product is good then hopefully profits will follow, I agree totally that for example taking a strong ethical stance would support any claim for having a good product!

 

[chebby]

I just bought the HFW issue mentioned by by the OP.

It is very confusing about the Beresford. (Page 18) It shows a photo of the TC-7520 and mentions it's USB capability (only the TC-7520 has USB) and quotes the correct TC-7520 price. However the review insists on calling it a TC-7510 throughout.

Given that level of inaccuracy how can one take seriously anything they say about any of the DACs reviewed? Although the sound-quality description of whatever Beresford they think they reviewed was very favourable.

It would not be forgivable if they reviewed Monitor Audio RS6 but photographed and quoted prices and specs for an RS1. (Also only one digit difference in the name.)

Yeah I know, "don't be picky Trevor, no-one cares about getting one number in the model description wrong, and it's not a DacMagic so who cares?"

 

[Anonymous]

chebby:
I just bought the HFW issue mentioned by by the OP.

It is very confusing about the Beresford. (Page 18) It shows a photo of the TC-7520 and mentions it's USB capability (only the TC-7520 has USB) and quotes the correct TC-7520 price. However the review insists on calling it a TC-7510 throughout.

Given that level of inaccuracy how can one take seriously anything they say about any of the DACs reviewed? Although the sound-quality description of whatever Beresford they think they reviewed was very favourable.

It would not be forgivable if they reviewed Monitor Audio RS6 but photographed and quoted prices and specs for an RS1. (Also only one digit difference in the name.)

Yeah I know, "don't be picky Trevor, no-one cares about getting one number in the model description wrong, and it's not a DacMagic so who cares?"

The saying goes something like....The man who never made a mistake, never made anything. But the man who continues to make mistakes will never make anything.....

HFW are not exclusive in this context.......

 

[Clare Newsome]

Indeed not - we got so excited with the Denon AVR-1910 this issue that we managed to call it the AVR-1909 at some stage

 

[Ajani]

chebby:
I just bought the HFW issue mentioned by by the OP.

It is very confusing about the Beresford. (Page 18) It shows a photo of the TC-7520 and mentions it's USB capability (only the TC-7520 has USB) and quotes the correct TC-7520 price. However the review insists on calling it a TC-7510 throughout.

Given that level of inaccuracy how can one take seriously anything they say about any of the DACs reviewed? Although the sound-quality description of whatever Beresford they think they reviewed was very favourable.

It would not be forgivable if they reviewed Monitor Audio RS6 but photographed and quoted prices and specs for an RS1. (Also only one digit difference in the name.)

Yeah I know, "don't be picky Trevor, no-one cares about getting one number in the model description wrong, and it's not a DacMagic so who cares?"

I think people would be quick to point out what the correct model number is of the product reviewed, but I don't think any reasonable person would think it invalidates the entire DAC test... Calling it a 7510 instead of a 7520 is a pretty simple mistake...

 

[JoelSim]

Clare Newsome:
And you'll see from those financials that more than half the profits are ploughed back into new projects and acquisitions - all about offering more, again.

I don't understand your insistence on using emotive phrases like 'throwing away money'. We can - and do - turn away some revenues because we don't think they're right for our mags/readers/ethos. We also accept that we will - and do - lose revenue due to editorial stance (eg advertisers pulling ads when we run a poor review).

This stance has to be applauded.ÿ

 

[Ajani]

SteveR750:
Sorry, I'm not being deliberately emotive - I think we are in violent agreement about what how haymarket is run!

My point is simply that in most cases unless you are running a charity, every business exists ultimately to make money (unless you happen to live in a communist state perhaps). Therefore, you have to make profits to survive - what you do to make it and what you subsequently do with the profits is what often dictates success or failure. How much profit a business owner demands is a personal decision, but I have not come across many, indeed any business owners who are content at not making any profits in the long term.

I think as you said earlier, if the product is good then hopefully profits will follow, I agree totally that for example taking a strong ethical stance would support any claim for having a good product!

I find it sad to see all these negative views of business. Not every company is designed to squeeze out every last drop of "short term" profits. Unethical and greedy business practices are generally far more sucessful in the short term, since once consumers realize you are ripping them off, they tend to spend their money elsewhere. The most succesful UK Mag (WHF) and US Mag (Stereophile) both insist that if you produce a quality product then you'll make money. A major part of the success of these two mags is that their readers trust the opinions of the reviewers... so while taking pay offs to give manufacturers glowing reviews might be good for short term profits, it would kill reader confidence in the long run, causing sales to drop and ad revenue to decline.

 

[pete321]

SteveR750:but I'd be surprised if the owner (who you might therefore call the "investor") would allow / want a business that simply lost money, or even just broke even? It would be a very rare altruistic business person that would be content to operate purely as a service to the public without any financial return

Obviously Haymarket are in business to make money, they make money from advertising and you could argue that there might be a case for an electronics company to pay more for their advertising if they thought their products were going to be reviewed favourably. However, if you think about it, if that was the case, smaller companies such as Cyrus and Arcam would never have received good reviews, it'd just be Japanese giants. In that respect I think we can rely more on WHF for impartial advice than a dealer who only sells a limited range. If those 5 star reviews were continually judged to be unfounded by the readers, the magazine would soon lose credibilty and have no readers to advertise to. Obviously that's not the case, I know I've being buying it for years and Andrew's just fallen off his chair!

 

[JoelSim]

pete321:
SteveR750:but I'd be surprised if the owner (who you mightÿthereforeÿcall the "investor") would allow / want aÿbusiness that simply lost money, or even just broke even?ÿÿIt would be a very rare altruistic business personÿthat would be content to operate purely as a service to the public without any financial return

Obviously Haymarket are in business to make money, they make money from advertising and you could argue that there might be a case for an electronics company to pay more for their advertising if they thought their products wereÿgoing to be reviewed favourably. However, if you think about it, if that was the case, smaller companies such as Cyrus and Arcam would never have received good reviews, it'd just be Japanese giants. In that respect I think we can rely more on WHF for impartial advice than a dealer who only sells a limited range. If those 5 star reviews were continually judged to be unfounded by the readers, the magazine would soon lose credibilty and have no readers to advertise to. Obviously that's not the case, I know I've being buying it for years and Andrew's just fallen off his chair!

And the advertising costs are based on many factors including reach as Andrew said. Less impartial advice, less reach, less money.

ÿ

 

[the record spot]

chebby:
I just bought the HFW issue mentioned by by the OP.

It is very confusing about the Beresford. (Page 18) It shows a photo of the TC-7520 and mentions it's USB capability (only the TC-7520 has USB) and quotes the correct TC-7520 price. However the review insists on calling it a TC-7510 throughout.

Given that level of inaccuracy how can one take seriously anything they say about any of the DACs reviewed? Although the sound-quality description of whatever Beresford they think they reviewed was very favourable.

It would not be forgivable if they reviewed Monitor Audio RS6 but photographed and quoted prices and specs for an RS1. (Also only one digit difference in the name.)

Yeah I know, "don't be picky Trevor, no-one cares about getting one number in the model description wrong, and it's not a DacMagic so who cares?"

Yes, it's a pretty confusing mistake, but - bearing in mind Clare's comment above - it doesn't uniquely apply to HFW. Maybe David Price was still spending too much time with his hot rodded SL1210 from last month instead of diligently pursuing his editorial duties!

Mind you, still a top notch mag though; can't afford half the stuff in it, but sitting as I am listening to the Stones Metamorphosis album on SACD through two products they've championed in the past (my CD player and speakers), I'm happy to take their opinions to heart.

 

[PJPro]

Just to be clear....is Tarzan the owner?

 

[SteveR750]

Ajani:SteveR750:
Sorry, I'm not being deliberately emotive - I think we are in violent agreement about what how haymarket is run!

My point is simply that in most cases unless you are running a charity, every business exists ultimately to make money (unless you happen to live in a communist state perhaps). Therefore, you have to make profits to survive - what you do to make it and what you subsequently do with the profits is what often dictates success or failure. How much profit a business owner demands is a personal decision, but I have not come across many, indeed any business owners who are content at not making any profits in the long term.

I think as you said earlier, if the product is good then hopefully profits will follow, I agree totally that for example taking a strong ethical stance would support any claim for having a good product!

I find it sad to see all these negative views of business. Not every company is designed to squeeze out every last drop of "short term" profits. Unethical and greedy business practices are generally far more sucessful in the short term, since once consumers realize you are ripping them off, they tend to spend their money elsewhere. The most succesful UK Mag (WHF) and US Mag (Stereophile) both insist that if you produce a quality product then you'll make money. A major part of the success of these two mags is that their readers trust the opinions of the reviewers... so while taking pay offs to give manufacturers glowing reviews might be good for short term profits, it would kill reader confidence in the long run, causing sales to drop and ad revenue to decline.

Then I haven't explained my view clearly enough! There is a difference between facing up to the ask in hand, and the manner in which you do it. Personally I am against short term profiteering at the expense of a long term view and that includes employee satisfaction and morale., read my posts and you should glean that from them at least! I am lucky (like the Haymarket employees) to be employed in an organisation that is family owned, takes pride in its culture and its people, and that feeling is shared by most empoyees. I totally agree that there IS another way to short termism, which sadly we Brits are so very keen to do - if you want an intersting insight to this from an "outsider" read Brian Trubshaw's account of the development of concorde (he was one of the test pilots). It's interesting to note that 30 years or so later, the French partner has now what is the biggest plane manufacturer in the world, whereas we, the other partner has an assortment of subsidiary component parts manufacturing businesses.

 

[JoelSim]

SteveR750:Ajani:SteveR750:
Sorry,ÿI'm not being deliberately emotive - I think we are in violent agreement about what how haymarket is run!

My point is simply that in most cases unless you are running a charity, every business exists ultimately to make money (unless you happen to live in a communist state perhaps). Therefore, you have to makeÿprofits to survive - what you do to make it and what you subsequently do with the profits is what often dictates success or failure. How much profit a business owner demands is a personal decision, but I have not come across many, indeedÿanyÿbusiness owners who are content at not making any profits in the long term.

I think as you said earlier, if the product is good then hopefully profits will follow, I agree totally that for example taking a strong ethical stance would support any claim for having a good product!

I find it sad to see all these negative views of business. Not every company is designed to squeeze out every last drop of "short term" profits. Unethical and greedy business practices are generally far more sucessful in the short term, since once consumers realize you are ripping them off, they tend to spend their money elsewhere. The most succesful UK Mag (WHF) and US Mag (Stereophile) both insist that if you produce a quality product then you'll make money. A major part of the success of these two mags is that their readers trust the opinions of the reviewers... so while taking pay offs to give manufacturers glowing reviews might be good for short term profits, it would kill reader confidence in the long run, causing sales to drop and ad revenue to decline.ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿ

Then I haven't explained my view clearly enough!ÿ There is a difference between facing up to the ask in hand, and the manner in which you do it. Personally I am against short term profiteering at the expense of a long term view and that includes employee satisfaction and morale., read my posts and you should glean that from them at least! I am lucky (like the Haymarket employees) to be employed in an organisation that is family owned, takes pride in its culture and its people, and that feeling is shared by most empoyees. I totally agree that there IS another way to short termism, which sadly we Brits are so very keen to do - if you want an intersting insight to this from an "outsider" read Brian Trubshaw's account of the development of concorde (he was one of the test pilots). It's interesting to note that 30 years or so later, the French partner has now what is the biggest plane manufacturer in the world, whereas we, the other partner has an assortment of subsidiary component parts manufacturing businesses.

We're lucky that many in this industry are enthusiasts and are only too willing to help if you are polite and keen.

ÿ

 

[fatboyslimfast]

Excellent point, excellently put.

 

[the record spot]

SteveR750:I totally agree that there IS another way to short termism, which sadly we Brits are so very keen to do - if you want an intersting insight to this from an "outsider" read Brian Trubshaw's account of the development of concorde (he was one of the test pilots). It's interesting to note that 30 years or so later, the French partner has now what is the biggest plane manufacturer in the world, whereas we, the other partner has an assortment of subsidiary component parts manufacturing businesses.

I perhaps wouldn't be quite so quick to refer - albeit indirectly - to Rolls-Royce as a "subsidiary parts manufacturing business" given that without many of their products rather a lot of Airbus and Boeing product would be relegated to large expensive gliders...!