Musical Fidelity Stance with What Hi Fi

[Andrew Everard]

manicm:
Firstly I am not accusing every maker of doing this, or any publication of knowingly accepting such products for review, but there have been a few times where I came across a product where the maker admitted it was modified in some way or the other so a positive outcome could result. I would certainly not be the first in claiming this.

I don't think it's prevalent now, but this has certainly happened in the past. Also, in my country there's a local AV publication which after nearly 20 years I still cannot take seriously. For starters they refuse to do comparative tests - their excuse being that they only select equipment from reputable makers and that a good piece of equipment will always sound great and therefore comparisons will be akin to apples and oranges. And they do review budget and expensive equipment which makes it all the more baffling. Worse, 7 years ago I naively bought a DVD player to replace my CDP as well on their recommendation stating what a great CD player it was - and I wanted to smash it to bits.

And this particular publication gives glowing reviews of 98% of the products they are handed.

So, hearsay and information based on experience of another magazine in another country.

Don't you just love forums...?

 

[John Duncan]

Andrew Everard:Don't you just love forums...?

Professionally or personally?

 

[Andrew Everard]

JohnDuncan:Professionally or personally?

On a Saturday morning, there's a difference?

 

[John Duncan]

Andrew Everard:
JohnDuncan:Professionally or personally?

On a Saturday morning, there's a difference?

Well I tried to leave my work at the factory gate.......

 

[Clare Newsome]

matthewpiano:I think the frightening thing for some manufacturers (and the good thing for consumers) is that What Hi-Fi review products completely independently of the manufacturer. Whereas some other magazines appear to be very much 'in bed' with particular manufacturers and use representatives from them on their reviewing panel (often involving reviews of their own product), WHF are much more watertight in their approach. From all the evidence I've seen (posts on here by the WHF team, information on this website, the actual reviews in the magazine) the manufacturer actually has very little contact with the reviewing process other than the delivery (and occasionally set-up) of their product (WHF staff please correct me if my impression here is wrong).

I also feel, after years and years of reading the major hi-fi magazines, that WHF is not in the slightest bit afraid of upsetting the apple cart if a product from a revered manufacturer fails to make the grade. The badge on the front is forgotten and the sound and operation of the product is paramount - an approach which WHF seems to have in common with their Haymarket sister title What Car. If, for example, a Skoda Octavia proves itself a better all round package than its VW Golf/Jetta stable mate, What Car would have no hesitation in stating that.

Yep, that's the essence of it - other than the distribution/availability of a product (ie will our readers be able to audition it in store/at home without too much trouble) we don't mind who/where kit comes from: it's the performance-per-pound against its competition that matters.

We buy/borrow kit from dealers where we feel a test would feel incomplete without core names - for example, in the last week, Andrew drove to an AV dealer in Hampshire (and back) to pick up/return a high-end Blu-ray player we couldn't get a review sample of (in that case, the manufacturer only had one review unit, and it was elsewhere). I also bought a Sony portable yesterday for an MP3/MP4 test we're doing, as they couldn't/wouldn't get one to us.

And that highlights another issue - often there's no deep conspiracy-theory nonsense behind not getting kit: manufacturers simply don't hold review stock of every item they produce; it'd cost way too much money. As you can imagine, that's got even more of an issue in current economic times.

Fortunately, we have a reasonable budget to buy kit (which we then resell or keep for reference) and have forged good relationships with a range of dealerships to borrow products where available.

However, some of the more specialist brands can be harder to get hold of - and with so many of their rivals (big and small) to review, we're not short of superb hi-fi and AV kit to test!

 

[Ajani]

Tarquinh:
I can understand why some manufacturers and UK distributors don't submit their items for review. After all, if your product is selling well, or if your product sells on luxury/exclusivity, there's little to be gained from putting your gear in for review.

There's also a touch of latest greatest sound about reviews in some magazines, too, which at the moment seems to favour a taut, pacy and detailed one. If you produce products whose criteria are different (and I'd put Musical Fidelity in that camp), then you'll automatically be handicapped, so why risk putting your products up and gaining a lukewarm review?

To some extent I agree.... Different review mags clearly have different sonic priorities (note: I'm talking about respectable publications like UK's WHF & US' Stereophile, not any shady review mags).... WHF does seem to favour a taut, pacy, detailed presentation, which is not the sonic priority of a brand like Musical Fidelity.... So we tend to see MF gear getting a lot of 4 star reviews.... 4 stars, though good, are not a great incentive to submit your products for review.... Since most readers will ignore anything less than 5 stars... So for a brand like MF, it makes more sense to focus on getting their products reviewed by mags/reviewers that favour their sonic priorities... why submit a product to WHF if you are likely to get a 4 star review, if you could submit it to HiFi World and get 5 stars?

It's like kids trying to get ice cream... if you know daddy will buy you a sundae if you even hint that you want ice cream, where as mom would give you a scolding and make you eat some broccoli, then I'm pretty sure you're going to go to dad when you want ice cream.

 

[idc]

chebby:

I have pondered on the possibility of a manufacturer submitting a review 'sample' that is made entirely of highly toleranced/cherry picked components. It would seem identical to a production model, even under close scrutiny. but perform well above the standard the average punter would experience from theirs.

A manufacturer having a specific review sample is almost certainly true, but in a more innocent and reasonable manner than is suggested. If I were a manufacturer I would make absolutely sure that the review product I loaned out had been tested and checked and run in and had no rough edges and did not wobble. I would then check it within an inch of its life once returned and anything that appeared wrong would be fixed. It amazes me that What hifi and other magazines have reviewed products that have broken down, had faults, been badly put together etc. No manufacturer would want that to be published.

So, from the entirely innocent practice of ensuring only the best sample goes out to review a conspiracy theory develops. From threads such as this urban myths develop; 'I heard somewhere that manufacturers doctor their review samples', 'Yeah, I heard that too' and so on. It is down to the internet and forums in particular that so much misinformation, half truths, exaggerations are perpetuated. Anyone who has read this thread may well have witnessed the birth of internet rumour non 15,376,258 of this year alone!

 

[Clare Newsome]

A lot of kit we get is factory-fresh, still in shrinkwrap. We got a product in yesterday like that with a noticeable flaw - hard to believe the company in question would send it out without checking it, but they had: and when we run the review, we'll note it, too, as it could have been any of you getting that product....

 

[Simon Lucas]

Ajani:why submit a product to WHF if you are likely to get a 4 star review, if you could submit it to HiFi World and get 5 stars?

Because people will read it?

 

[idc]

Simon Lucas:

Ajani:why submit a product to WHF if you are likely to get a 4 star review, if you could submit it to HiFi World and get 5 stars?

Because people will read it?

Witness the birth of internet rumour non 15,376,259; people don't read HiFi World!

 

[Simon Lucas]

idc:Witness the birth of internet rumour non 15,376,259; people don't read HiFi World!

It's a good 'un, but it's not my favourite. Internet rumour no. 11,628,387: Buddy Holly's real name was Elvis Costello.

 

[idc]

Simon Lucas:

idc:Witness the birth of internet rumour non 15,376,259; people don't read HiFi World!

It's a good 'un, but it's not my favourite. Internet rumour no. 11,628,387: Buddy Holly's real name was Elvis Costello.

No it isn't, its Charles Hardin Holly, I've just looked it up on Wikipedia.

 

[Andrew Everard]

idc:No it isn't, its Charles Hardin Holly, I've just looked it up on Wikipedia.

You don't want to go believing stuff you read on the internet...

 

[Simon Lucas]

idc:No it isn't, its Charles Hardin Holly, I've just looked it up on Wikipedia.

(a) I meant it was an internet rumour.

(b) You can't believe a single thing you read on Wikipedia. For a while, Wikipedia claimed Bob Marley died in 1758.

 

[idc]

Simon Lucas:

idc:No it isn't, its Charles Hardin Holly, I've just looked it up on Wikipedia.

(a) I meant it was an internet rumour.

(b) You can't believe a single thing you read on Wikipedia. For a while, Wikipedia claimed Bob Marley died in 1758.

(a) I know, just having fun!

(b) I know, he died on the 11th May 1981, I just looked it up in Wikipedia.......bah!