May Issue

[admin_exported]

The new issue arrives this Thursday - 3rd April. It's a packed issue in which we've rated every UK Blu-ray player and compiled a bumper feature which concerns your next TV.

That's right, we've seen the future and are ready to tell you all about it before you make your next big TV purchase...don't go shopping without it. In other news, we've tested luxury MP3 players, micros, budget headphones and rated a 32in Full HD TV.

Plus, we've rated a TV which can receive films, photos and music directly from your PC - wirelessly. Let us know your thoughts, questions and future requests right here...

 

[timwileman]

hi

is the 3rd april date for the shops or subscribers?

 

[Andrew Everard]

Both.

 

[jamesbub]

Have just recieved my May copy. O dear, ALL THE TEXT IS BLURRED, PICS MISSING, TEXT MISTYPED, MIS SPELT

DOES ANYONE PROOF READ IT BEFORE GOING OUT?

IT'S GETTTING THAT BAD I'M CONSIDERING CANCELLING WHAT USED TO BE A VERY GOOD MAG.

THE QUALITY HAS GONE DOWNHILL RECENTLY I GUESS YOUR TRYING TO SAVE MONEY.?

 

[Anonymous]

It's a very good and useful mag, but there are always mistakes in it......

Prices wrong, spelling mistakes, wrong items against costs etc, but it's funny finding them lol

 

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi James

You are correct that there are some fairly glaring printing errors in this latest issue.

I hope you believe me when I say that we find these issues as frustrating as you do.

The problem was a font clash between our repro house and the printer, which meant that almost every instance of the Small Caps font we use came out as gobbledegook - although those pages were fine when they left us.

Unfortunately, and embarrassingly for us, this is the font we use whenever we mention the name of the magazine in full. So there are a number of occasions when what looks like an alien alphabet is used. You will also see the same situation on the tabs on the Blu-ray Super Test.

I can only apologise for these, but assure you that they were completely beyond our control.

Any other typos etc will be down to us, of course. We do our utmost to ensure that these do not occur, but I have no doubt that some do slip through the net.

I'm fairly confident when I say that I hate these things happening far more than you do - and rest assured we're doing everything we can to produce as perfect a magazine as possible.

All the best

Jonny

 

[Anonymous]

How can I get my hands on this issue in Canada? We're still waiting for the April edition to hit the shelves!

I'd like to get a copy of the May issue for your CD player & monitor reviews. Can I order from the UK directly?

Cheers!

 

[Anonymous]

A couple of points from the May issue I noticed apart from the above...

- Have you stopped listing names on the Q&A advice pages? No names at all on all the queries...

- Page 3 states a 1,000,000 readers or something like that (not got it in front of me) but your circulation figures at the back of the magazine states 59,000. Which is correct?

Apart from these it's been another great issue.

 

[Anonymous]

Hi. We stopped listing readers' names on queries some time ago. In part, that was because we felt it didn't really contribute much to the page (and deleting them meant we could use the space taken up for longer or more answers), but it was also because we increasingly receive queries via the forum, and we found that many forum user names are either too long or too obscure to make sense in print.

As to the circulation question: 59,000 refers to the audited circulation figure for the magazine in the UK. However, What Hi-Fi? Sound and Vision sells globally, with bespoke, translated versions on sale in France, Spain, India, Russia, South Africa, Ukraine and more. Our international readership enables us to claim the 1,000,000 figure.

 

[Thaiman]

[quote user="Andy Kerr"]Our international readership enables us to claim the 1,000,000 figure.[/quote]

phenomenal!

Well Done

 

[Clare Newsome]

And there's more global expansion to come, too.... Hope to bring you some exciting news soon.

Add in the website, which is going great-guns - already hundreds of thousands of unique users every month, and millions of page impressions - and no wonder we're so busy!

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks Andy for the reply.

Hadn't honestly noticed the names disappearing before this month's issue.

On an international front I'd love to see WHFS&V rubbing shoulders with the US big boys when I'm out in the States...any chances in the future?

 

[Anonymous]

Who's picture is on the front cover?
I say this because usually the piccy is a still from a film or TV programme, whereas this months cover pic looks like something you'd find on the cover of Womas Own...

jules.

 

[Clare Newsome]

[quote user="jules153"]Who's picture is on the front cover?

I say this because usually the piccy is a still from a film or TV programme, whereas this months cover pic looks like something you'd find on the cover of Womas Own...

jules.[/quote]

It's the lovely Eva Longoria (or is that Eva Longoria-Parker these days?) from Desparate Housewives, back on TV this month. We won't comment on what our wonderful printers did to the image...

 

[Clare Newsome]

[quote user="Gatwick Flyer"]
On an international front I'd love to see WHFS&V rubbing shoulders with the US big boys when I'm out in the States...any chances in the future?

[/quote]

Never say never!

 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="Clare Newsome"][quote user="jules153"]Who's picture is on the front cover?

I say this because usually the piccy is a still from a film or TV programme, whereas this months cover pic looks like something you'd find on the cover of Womas Own...

jules.[/quote]

It's the lovely Eva Longoria (or is that Eva Longoria-Parker these days?) from Desparate Housewives, back on TV this month. We won't comment on what our wonderful printers did to the image...

[/quote]

Talking of images...

For as long as I can recall mags have been using stills from current film/video releases when reporting/testing screens. This doesn't really help someone reading the report/review but just fills the grey/black void. Hasn't technology caught up so that photographers can take a realistic photograph of what images on the screens look like?

 

[Anonymous]

I imagine you'll prefer the next cover....You won't confuse it with Womans Own ; )

 

[Anonymous]

Hustler?

 

[Anonymous]

I think that the Blu Ray reviews were very unfair to the PS3..

No HD Audio from HDMI? (only the best HD Audio from HDMI)

No BD1.1 (BD2.0 is better!!!)

Picture while it was once stunning...(Picture gets updated all the time through the updates.)

These reviews must be a year old.

 

[Andrew Everard]

But all these specs were updated between the magazine going to press and you reading it. Unlike a website, the self-updating printed magazine hasn't been invented yet.

 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="Andrew Everard"]
But all these specs were updated between the magazine going to press and you reading it. Unlike a website, the self-updating printed magazine hasn't been invented yet.

[/quote]

The PS3 has had BD2.0 for a few months. It had BD 1.1 a year ago, and everyone knew that HD sound was coming.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Then clearly we are biased against the PS3, right? Could be why we recommend it so often on these forums.

 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="Andrew Everard"]
Then clearly we are biased against the PS3, right? Could be why we recommend it so often on these forums.

[/quote]

Well you have been recommending it based on your oppinion that it was BD1.0? With not so good picture quality? And no HD sound in the works? Why were you recommending it then?

 

[Andrew Everard]

We still recommend it as an all-rounder. And look at how many times we've told PS3 owners not to bother switching to the Panasonic player, but to wait and see what happens over the coming months.

 

[cwalduck]

Nice to see the blu-ray shootout but, Can we please have
some Blu-ray reviews that suggest the relative performance for non 24fps displays?
I feel a bit let down by the display manufacturers (Sony in this case) fab
KDL-40W2000 but neglected to inform it's customers about 24fps even though they
were pushing the blu-ray format.