Is technical information in addition to reviews helpful?

[ElectroMan]

A long time ago hi-fi reviews used to rate products on tech specs, and measured how close they got to the specs. If they exceeded them, then wow, that was a great amplifier/whatever!

Then somebody noticed that products with mediocre measurements could actually sound better ...

 

[Anonymous]

ElectroMan:
A long time ago hi-fi reviews used to rate products on tech specs, and measured how close they got to the specs. If they exceeded them, then wow, that was a great amplifier/whatever!

Then somebody noticed that products with mediocre measurements could actually sound better ...

So are you saying that specs are compleatly irrelevant?

Now im not joining the argument, What hi fi do a great job and ive been reading it for years on and off and have bought(after demo) many things on thier recomendation, Im not really fussed if they quote specs or not in the main...although there may be the odd occassion when it might be handy eg subs and speakers real frequency range maybe? easy enough to do i use a program called REW to set my sub up that would do the trick! But like i said it's no real deal for me the reviews i guess are designed to appeal to a wide range of people HI FI nuts to HI FI novices!

 

[drummerman]

ElectroMan:
A long time ago hi-fi reviews used to rate products on tech specs, and measured how close they got to the specs. If they exceeded them, then wow, that was a great amplifier/whatever!

Then somebody noticed that products with mediocre measurements could actually sound better ...

Better? Different, purely subjective. I'd rather have a product that is well engineered, measures well and sounds good. The issue here was tv sets where deviations from accepted standards usually result in picture anomalities. That's not to say that a tv picture can't be judged subjectively and that one setting is right and the other wrong for the end user but I for one like to have the reasons shown to me, in form of measurements or graphs, perhaps with an explanation of how the reviewer managed (or not) to calibrate plus it assures me that apart from a subjective review, all the products have been given an equal chance.

Some people still praise Marantzes mid nineties CD63KI's etc for their warm, engrossing sound. I have no problem with that, I owned one, but the fact remains that some of the very distinct sonic signature was due to very high jitter. It took a trichord modified Genesis to convince me that a more accurate sound was actually one I preferred. I read about it, including lab specs though if I remember correctly jitter was only beginning to be understud where it is now an integral part of good cd design for many, though not all, manufacturers. So clearly measurements are important. Whether you as the end user find it necessary to know why something sounds the way it does is personal and I would not expect everyone to agree. I myself have owned high distortion/poor measurement valve systems that I very much enjoyed. Point is, I find it helpful to see in digits/graphs and expert reviews why something looks/sounds the way it does thats all.

 

[drummerman]

garethwd:ElectroMan:
A long time ago hi-fi reviews used to rate products on tech specs, and measured how close they got to the specs. If they exceeded them, then wow, that was a great amplifier/whatever!

Then somebody noticed that products with mediocre measurements could actually sound better ...

...
Now im not joining the argument ..., ... Im not really fussed if they quote specs or not in the main...although there may be the odd occassion when it might be handy eg subs and speakers real frequency range maybe? easy enough to do i use a program called REW to set my sub up that would do the trick! ...

I think you just did ... I'm sure you just did

 

[Anonymous]

You have a point there! I think i kinda saying that theres the odd occation when id like a few more details but its not very often, but in fairness i can see What hi fi's reason for not getting to techy.....

 

[ElectroMan]

I wasn't really suggesting there's no merit in technical reviews.

You may be right that it's gone too far the other way. Even if something sounds good (at least to reviewers), it might be nice to know if it delivers on the spec (I'm sure some people would think they were being ripped off if they weren't getting the full watts per channel, for instance).

And I am right in thinking that Quad, in the past, stopped sending stuff for review to magazines that did purely subjective tests?

I don't know what the balance should be. If something has a great spec, and the tecnical measurements are really impressive, does that mean it will sound good? And if something were to do quite poorly on the test bench, but sounded fantastic, would most people care about measurements?

 

[professorhat]

drummerman:Point is, I find it helpful to see in digits/graphs and expert reviews why something looks/sounds the way it does thats all.

Trouble is fella, as soon as you start introducing those few graphs / digits that your average punter doesn't understand, said punter will flick through the mag in the shop, see the graphs and technical data and, without reading it, probably put it back on the shelf. These guys / gals are just looking to buy a new TV and just want to see a few reviews, not graphs and technical data they don't understand - it's not to say they're dumb in any way, but just they have absolutely no interest in trying to figure out what all this technical information is and, if they see it in the magazine, even if it's not actually related to the main review, they will assume it is and move on.

And I think this is what Andrew means about magazines which do include this information not selling well. You have to remember, the majority of sales are not to enthusiasts like you and I, but to someone who's picking the mag off WH Smiths shelf. And that mag has probably a 5 - 10 second window of opportunity to sell itself to that person. Graphs and technical data = put back on the shelf (for the majority). Many reviews with simple reviewing system = kerrching, take it to the counter!

This is all guesswork on my part, but the sales figures certainly seem to back it up.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Indeed, prof chap, as evidenced by the endless fulminating about the star ratings, suggesting that a lot of people aren't even reading the reviews, just the stars.

And it's not just consumers who do this: I've encountered several high-ups in the consumer electronics industry in the past who get the magazine each month and simply flick through it seeing how many stars their products get, and how many their rivals achieve.

 

[drummerman]

Sure, fully understand that. It's a proven format and if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

It's no real problem for me if they continue to publish the way it is now, I just opened a subject for discussion, mostly because I was/am bored because of a stinking cold.

There are other, more specialised publications/media providers for anyone interested in more than plain speaking reviews. It does the job, folks like and buy it, that includes me occasionally.

 

[Anonymous]

Eddie Pound:
Human subjective reviewing can't always be consistent.

This is true. But conversely, the product with the best objective performance result won't necessarily be the one that sounds or looks best to you.ÿ