June issue of What HiFi: Optical cable group test

[Anonymous]

Not to be paranoid or anything, and not to suggest that I don't value What Hi Fi recommendations and reviews, but its very, very naive to think What Hi Fi isn't influenced by advertising revenues.

If this review makes people question this for the first time then they are working under some serious delusions about the way things like this operate.

Like THE mainstream hi fi magazine which has its own self-styled Oscar night and hands out awards that send revenues for winners rocketing is really going to do a group test of optical cables and tell its readers they're all the same and they may as well go on flea bay and get the cheapest they can find.

 

[Anonymous]

professorhat:
What would quantify as proof though?

ÿ

Good question - I suppose technically verifiable findings? But you have hit the nail on the head, it's impossible to prove there are differences, which is why I can't understand why WHF even tested to begin with. Bear in mind I'm saying this without having read the review, though.

 

[professorhat]

Indeed kind of like asking someone for proof on why they found one amplifier created too bright a sound for them. I think most would struggle!

I'm not sure why that means these things shouldn't be reviewed though...

 

[Anonymous]

professorhat:
Indeed kind of like asking someone for proof on why they found one amplifier created too bright a sound for them. I think most would struggle!

I'm not sure why that means these things shouldn't be reviewed though...

ÿ

Not really, and that's the problem. Basically, optical cables work or they don't, it's the technology. ÿTo claim they sound different is to assign 0s and 1s another attribute which, to date, no-one has ever found. It's like bit-perfect copies of audio files. A bit-perfect copy of a file is exactly that, there can be no difference, no matter what may be claimed.

 

[professorhat]

Don't agree, but as I say, not being drawn in (promise this time!!).

 

[Anonymous]

professorhat:
Don't agree, but as I say, not being drawn in (promise this time!!).ÿ

I'd be quite happy if you proved me wrong, believe me, it's all part of life's rich, if sometimes embarrassing tapestry. You'll have to imagine the smiley I tried to insert there, I'm afraid.ÿ

 

[Andrew Everard]

jazzy639:like I've been told many times: good reviews are awarded to the companies who advertise the most.

Told by whom? It's amazing how people who make this claim never have any evidence to back it up.

And it's emphatically not true, and never has been on this magazine.

Catcher:its very, very naive to think What Hi Fi isn't influenced by advertising revenues.

It's also very very correct to think just that, as it's the truth.

Catcher:If this review makes people question this for the first time then they
are working under some serious delusions about the way things like this
operate.

I'm afraid it's you that's deluded in this case.

Catcher:tell its readers
they're all the same and they may as well go on flea bay and get the
cheapest they can find.

If our reviewers, who have little if any contact with the advertising department - and then only on a social basis rather than a business level -, really thought that, that's exactly what they'd tell the readers to do. After all, think what a good story it'd make...

The thing is, WHFSV has a sufficient lead over the rest of the market in terms of circulation and readership that our advertising sales people don't need to sell on test results or five-star verdicts, but rather on the number of interested buyers who will see the adverts. That's the way they've always sold ads into the magazine: on reach, not on the promise of a good review or two.

If any of our ad sales stuff tried to claim they were able to do that they'd be out of the door in a shot, as would any reviewer complicit in any such plot. And if the magazine worked in the entirely corrupt way you seem to think it does, most of us here wouldn't want to work on it.

This year I will have been working for Haymarket for 27 years, and the business has operated in the same way, with very strict guidelines, for all of that time. So don't go making accusations of the type you have on the basis of hearsay, as I take it as a personal insult as well as an attack on the magazine.

Oh and by the way, there's a rave five-star review of a product in the new issue, from a manufacturer with no advertising and marketing budget whatsoever. See if you can spot it...

 

[Alec]

Tarquinh:al7478:

jazzy639: like I've been told many times: good reviews are awarded to the companies who advertise the most.

You will probably end up regretting this statement.

My response, however, would simply be "Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..."

I don't agree with the statement either, AL7478, but make no mistake, there's a lot of credibility at stake here, and it's up to WHF to prove their findings. jazzy639 is right, it's 0s and 1s, and to find differences is to fly in the face of the technology.

I made no comment on the technology - i was refering directly to the idea of stars for ads. This has been thoroughly dealt with by the staff before, ao i shant repeat their argument. You either take it at face value or you do not. I do. Imagine the consequences if i turned out to be wrong...

Now, do tech mags of all kinds support and aid the market in some ways? Of course, but only because it is a consequence of being such a publication. In other words, WHF will generate sales. But deliberately, for specific companies? No. Furthermore, that would only work if you were the kind who only ever reccommends WHF reccommended products, and who buys based on the alone.

Oh dear, many of you are now thinking.

The zeros and ones thing is different. It is more akin to the belief that the media (all kinds that cover A/V) pushed certain technology before it was ready. In other words, that things are being covered that should not be. But that happens in this world.

 

[Anonymous]

The other thing that seems to have no fact to back it up is the fact that the optical cables reviewed seemed to sound drastically different from one another even the more budget ones that were around the same price and build. I am only saying this as I have tried lots and cannot tell an audible difference whereas hdmi and analogue cables I have.

 

[Anonymous]

Eddie Pound:

In the June issue of the magazine clear subjective difference were identified between optical cables, with each appearing to have their own character.

Did WHF speak with the manufacturers in an attempt to find out why this was?

Were some cables simply "throwing away" certain data?

Have I missed it or does the question remain unanswered?

 

[Anonymous]

Andrew Everard:
jazzy639:like I've been told many times: good reviews are awarded to the companies who advertise the most.

Told by whom? It's amazing how people who make this claim never have any evidence to back it up.

And it's emphatically not true, and never has been on this magazine.

Catcher:its very, very naive to think What Hi Fi isn't influenced by advertising revenues.

It's also very very correct to think just that, as it's the truth.

Catcher:If this review makes people question this for the first time then they
are working under some serious delusions about the way things like this
operate.

I'm afraid it's you that's deluded in this case.

Catcher:tell its readers
they're all the same and they may as well go on flea bay and get the
cheapest they can find.

If our reviewers, who have little if any contact with the advertising department - and then only on a social basis rather than a business level -, really thought that, that's exactly what they'd tell the readers to do. After all, think what a good story it'd make...

The thing is, WHFSV has a sufficient lead over the rest of the market in terms of circulation and readership that our advertising sales people don't need to sell on test results or five-star verdicts, but rather on the number of interested buyers who will see the adverts. That's the way they've always sold ads into the magazine: on reach, not on the promise of a good review or two.

If any of our ad sales stuff tried to claim they were able to do that they'd be out of the door in a shot, as would any reviewer complicit in any such plot. And if the magazine worked in the entirely corrupt way you seem to think it does, most of us here wouldn't want to work on it.

This year I will have been working for Haymarket for 27 years, and the business has operated in the same way, with very strict guidelines, for all of that time. So don't go making accusations of the type you have on the basis of hearsay, as I take it as a personal insult as well as an attack on the magazine.

Oh and by the way, there's a rave five-star review of a product in the new issue, from a manufacturer with no advertising and marketing budget whatsoever. See if you can spot it...

With respect Andrew I am not suggesting that men in Trilby hats and dodgy east London accents are stuffing rolled twenty pound notes in someone's back pocket.

Every journalist of every kind will claim that are are operating in an atmosphere of objectivity oblivious to the concerns of advertisers and proprietors.The facts fly in the face of this claim despite journalists pleas to the contrary.

I am not calling into question the integrity of any one person or claiming to have hard evidence of shady deals.

The point is more subtle than that. What Hi Fi depends on the idea that hi fi technology is in a constant evolutionary process of bringing out newer and better technology that the magazine decodes for the benefits of its readers. I also think there is an assumption about the integrity of hi fi manafacturers. Both the advertisers and the magazine depend on this assumption. I'm not saying the assumption is completely false but what I am saying is its in no ones interests to write a review of optical cables that asserts a lot of companies who happen to buy advertising space in the magazine have lied about the claims of optical cables and given that they have lied we might (within reason) assume other things about claims they make for their other equipment.

If a major piece has ever been written in the magazine that suggests claims made by several hi fi companies are not backed up by any evidence and you go on to advise your readers that in the light of that you advise caution when those claims are made in the future about other pieces of equipment I would be interested to read it.

 

[The_Lhc]

mahargyarelle:Eddie Pound:

In the June issue of the magazine clear subjective difference were identified between optical cables, with each appearing to have their own character.

Did WHF speak with the manufacturers in an attempt to find out why this was?

Were some cables simply "throwing away" certain data?

Have I missed it or does the question remain unanswered?

I don't think the OP was actually expecting an answer, it was rhetorical...

 

[Anonymous]

Hmmm - seems to me as though we deserve one. Yes it may be a rhetorical question and arguments for & against have been submited - by other forum members. However, claims have been made by the mag' and decisions will be made upon them.

 

[Audioholic]

There's no difference between these cables IMO to me. You can say I don't have acute enough ears, but if that's the case then I'm happy cos I'll stick with the cheapest. With analogue interconnects the same isn't true though!

 

[matthewpiano]

mahargyarelle:
Hmmm - seems to me as though we deserve one. Yes it may be a rhetorical question and arguments for & against have been submitted - by other forum members. However, claims have been made by the mag' and decisions will be made upon them.

Anyone who makes a decision without listening first and judging with their own ears deserves everything they get IMO (and I include myself in that because I've bought blind (or should that be deaf) before myself). Depending purely on a magazine review is tantamount to choosing an item to suit somebody else's requirements.f

 

[Anonymous]

the_lhc:mahargyarelle:Eddie Pound:

In the June issue of the magazine clear subjective difference were identified between optical cables, with each appearing to have their own character.

Did WHF speak with the manufacturers in an attempt to find out why this was?

Were some cables simply "throwing away" certain data?

Have I missed it or does the question remain unanswered?

I don't think the OP was actually expecting an answer, it was rhetorical...

I think he was... and I'd be interested too.

IMHO, it's largely irrelevant whether reviewers with years of experience can hear subtle differences between optical cables. What is of more importance is whether I, Joe Public, can hear them with my untrained ears. I can't. Hands up who can. Come on, don't be shy. I'll start a separate thread.

 

[idc]

Catcher:With respect Andrew I am not suggesting that men in Trilby hats and dodgy east London accents are stuffing rolled twenty pound notes in someone's back pocket.

Every journalist of every kind will claim that are are operating in an atmosphere of objectivity oblivious to the concerns of advertisers and proprietors.The facts fly in the face of this claim despite journalists pleas to the contrary.

Hi Catcher, argument time again, excellent! Journalists are a pretty hard headed bunch from my experience. It is very, very difficult to influence and/or manipulate them. Some companies have massive press offices to do such, but not any hifi company of the type that features in any of the hi fi mags. I worked on a student newspaper for a year and we had an instance of an advertiser try to influence content. The stance was very much publish and lose the advertiser. (In the end the advertiser missed one issue and then came back). So I have a bit of evidence and some experience of such. You say the 'facts fly' so give an example.

Catcher:I am not calling into question the integrity of any one person or claiming to have hard evidence of shady deals.

But subtley, you are.

Catcher: What Hi Fi depends on the idea that hi fi technology is in a constant evolutionary process of bringing out newer and better technology that the magazine decodes for the benefits of its readers.

As do all such magazines, this issue must be world wide!

Catcher: I'm not saying the assumption is completely false but what I am saying is its in no ones interests to write a review of optical cables that asserts a lot of companies who happen to buy advertising space in the magazine have lied about the claims of optical cables and given that they have lied we might (within reason) assume other things about claims they make for their other equipment.

If a major piece has ever been written in the magazine that suggests claims made by several hi fi companies are not backed up by any evidence and you go on to advise your readers that in the light of that you advise caution when those claims are made in the future about other pieces of equipment I would be interested to read it.

As Andrew said before, it would be a good story, 'we tested 5 cables and found no difference and think that the companies have been making unfounded claims'. Of course you, with all your evidence and facts could get in touch with the ASA yourself.

 

[Anonymous]

Catcher:I'm not saying the assumption is completely false but what I am saying is its in no ones interests to write a review of optical cables that asserts a lot of companies who happen to buy advertising space in the magazine have lied about the claims of optical cables and given that they have lied we might (within reason) assume other things about claims they make for their other equipment.

I can't recall reading any manufacturer's claims for the sort of qualitative differences reported in reviews of digital cables. The manufacturer's claims tend to centre around the relative future proofing of their products - the ability to cope with more exacting future bandwidth requirements, or to cope with less than ideal environments.

Whilst I haven't been able to discern differences in the performance of digital cables myself I readily admit that I don't have the set up to conduct proper tests. I don't doubt the sincerity of reviewers and posters who claim to discern significant differences in the performance of various digital cables, but it is the unexplained and counter-intuitive nature of such conclusions that makes the debate so interesting.

If the various specifications require that the signal out is identical to the signal in (I don't know that they do - that would be useful input to the debate) then there seems to me no room for differences between two cables both performing to specification. It seems more plausible that any failure to perform to specification would manifest itself in unsubtle ways such as breaks in sound or picture, yet that is not what is reported.

The ability of test subjects to reliably distinguish between products can be evaluated with methods such as double blind tests, but the results of such methods make for pretty dry reading and would probably not sell many magazines. If there is a sound scientific explanation of why and how correctly performing digital cables can give subjectively different results then it would interest me, but once again would probably not sell many magazines.

Those convinced of the differences that they perceive in the performance of digital cables seem more inclined than others to express irritation that the debate continues - I'm not sure why that is. The fact that the debate does continue is an expression of interest in what the magazine publishes, and so the debate will be allowed to continue because what any publication fears most is a lack of interested readers.

 

[Alec]

Theres also much irritation from those who just dont care. As you inadvertantly imply, many dont have reference lefvel systems. So are there many folk belly-aching to whom it ownt actually make much difference?

Probably.

 

[Anonymous]

smithdom:

I can't recall reading any manufacturer's claims for the sort of qualitative differences reported in reviews of digital cables. The manufacturer's claims tend to centre around the relative future proofing of their products - the ability to cope with more exacting future bandwidth requirements, or to cope with less than ideal environments.

From the website of the first company I googled who I knew made digital cables.

"Cambridge Audio's specially-designed digital and optical interconnects
offer the very best link between digital components...The result of this simple upgrade is an instantly discernable improvement in sound quality."

 

[Anonymous]

idc:Catcher:With respect Andrew I am not suggesting that men in Trilby hats and dodgy east London accents are stuffing rolled twenty pound notes in someone's back pocket.

Every journalist of every kind will claim that are are operating in an atmosphere of objectivity oblivious to the concerns of advertisers and proprietors.The facts fly in the face of this claim despite journalists pleas to the contrary.

Hi Catcher, argument time again, excellent! Journalists are a pretty hard headed bunch from my experience. It is very, very difficult to influence and/or manipulate them. Some companies have massive press offices to do such, but not any hifi company of the type that features in any of the hi fi mags. I worked on a student newspaper for a year and we had an instance of an advertiser try to influence content. The stance was very much publish and lose the advertiser. (In the end the advertiser missed one issue and then came back). So I have a bit of evidence and some experience of such. You say the 'facts fly' so give an example.

Catcher:I am not calling into question the integrity of any one person or claiming to have hard evidence of shady deals.

But subtley, you are.

Catcher: What Hi Fi depends on the idea that hi fi technology is in a constant evolutionary process of bringing out newer and better technology that the magazine decodes for the benefits of its readers.

As do all such magazines, this issue must be world wide!

Catcher: I'm not saying the assumption is completely false but what I am saying is its in no ones interests to write a review of optical cables that asserts a lot of companies who happen to buy advertising space in the magazine have lied about the claims of optical cables and given that they have lied we might (within reason) assume other things about claims they make for their other equipment.

If a major piece has ever been written in the magazine that suggests claims made by several hi fi companies are not backed up by any evidence and you go on to advise your readers that in the light of that you advise caution when those claims are made in the future about other pieces of equipment I would be interested to read it.

As Andrew said before, it would be a good story, 'we tested 5 cables and found no difference and think that the companies have been making unfounded claims'. Of course you, with all your evidence and facts could get in touch with the ASA yourself.

Hi Idc,

I am not going to take seriously your request for "facts" that journalists do not operate in a rarefied atmosphere of objective fact gathering because you're either joking or high on something illegal.

It is not a "subtle" insinuation towards Andrew at all. I am a psychiatric nurse and I am compromised in my work by thousands of factors. My awareness of how I am compromised and how I can negotiate that fact makes me a better nurse. My point was that there is a structural reason for the way certain assumptions must operate in a magazine like What Hi Fi, like in almost any publication or occupation, and I wasn't calling into question the integrity of any one person. My point was that What Hi Fi will never publish a major piece saying in their estimation all the claims about digital cables from their manufacturers are false and we recommend people buy the cheapest available,

Your experience on a student newspaper isn't the issue. I suggest you google an organisation called Medialens if you would like an explanation of how structures and systems develop whereby newspapers and journalists operate to agendas that aren't always made explicit. For what it's worth though I have a post graduate qualification in an NCTJ approved journalism training programme and 4 years experience of working as a reporter/chief reporter for a newspaper and agency court reporting.

 

[idc]

A post from a member of the Cambridge or any other cable design team to further explain how 'specially-designed digital and optical interconnects offer the very best link between digital components' works would be good.

 

[idc]

Catcher:Your experience on a student newspaper isn't the issue. I suggest you google an organisation called Medialens if you would like an explanation of how structures and systems develop whereby newspapers and journalists operate to agendas that aren't always made explicit. For what it's worth though I have a post graduate qualification in an NCTJ approved journalism training programme and 4 years experience of working as a reporter/chief reporter for a newspaper and agency court reporting.

So what was your and your collegues reaction to the advertising department appearing in the newsroom or editorial meetings and saying, don't publish this, publish that or else we lose revenue?

Under your argument so far we all work to agendas and what applies to What hifi must apply to all hifi review magazines etc, so where does that leave us?

 

[Anonymous]

Surely it is as simple as measuring the data stream at the optical output of the CD player, and again at the end of the cable.

If What HiFi do not have this basic test equipment, or access to it via a third party, then they are not providing a valuable service to readers.

 

[idc]

Surely there will be some test figures available on the internet for you Eddie, which you can then post so providing a valuable service to the readers of this forum. This would help to advance the debate and maybe influence What hifi future reviews by proving them wrong. There are other hifi magazines that go into the technical side far more than What hifi, so it is not as if anything is being hidden from anyone.