bigboss
Moderator
The November issue is certainly better than the October one & much better than the previous issues!
-
When should you upgrade your hi-fi? How to control ‘upgradeitis’
Thanks, bigboss - and gel. Hope it's clear we took a lot of everyone's feedback on board - plus that we continue to evolve! There'll be yet more tweaks as we ramp up to our Awards issue and biggest mags of the year. And, of course, a new look for the Ultimate Guides, too.
For those of us on here who like rear views...........
Would it be possible to insert the rear view photos on the Facts and Figures Columns of each supertest where all readers would need is a plastic magnifying glass to see this content. The front view is well covered! Maybe you could provide a small magnifying glass as a free gift with the Mag like you did with the Thx Specs.
Just a thought.
Would it be possible to insert the rear view photos on the Facts and Figures Columns of each supertest where all readers would need is a plastic magnifying glass to see this content. The front view is well covered! Maybe you could provide a small magnifying glass as a free gift with the Mag like you did with the Thx Specs.
Just a thought.
The subscription I got for Xmas has yet to run out, so I still read the mag. But, revamp or not, its becoming an increasingly depressing experience. TVs are boring - why put them all over your cover every month and then proceed to go on and on about them? Music is better than TV, focus on that. And, as I've said before, you should ditch that guide. Reading from front to back, you kind of get into the mag then all of a sudden, half way through, its like "oh, is thats it? Time to put mag down". Guess you do it to make the mag look thick and value for money on the shelves of WH Smith, but its really annoying.
My recipe for a better magazine:
1) Dial back the over-focus on TVs. Who cares about that stuff? There's naff all any good to watch on them anyway.
2) Do more on music and sound. Music is good.
3) Throw the Guide in the bin and flesh the mag out with more reviews and articles.
4) Stop giving Apple 5 stars for everything they do, regardless of the fact their products are brains on a stick for the zombie hoardes.
My recipe for a better magazine:
1) Dial back the over-focus on TVs. Who cares about that stuff? There's naff all any good to watch on them anyway.
2) Do more on music and sound. Music is good.
3) Throw the Guide in the bin and flesh the mag out with more reviews and articles.
4) Stop giving Apple 5 stars for everything they do, regardless of the fact their products are brains on a stick for the zombie hoardes.
bigboss
Moderator
bennyboy71:
The subscription I got for Xmas has yet to run out, so I still read the mag. But, revamp or not, its becoming an increasingly depressing experience. TVs are boring - why put them all over your cover every month and then proceed to go on and on about them? Music is better than TV, focus on that. And, as I've said before, you should ditch that guide. Reading from front to back, you kind of get into the mag then all of a sudden, half way through, its like "oh, is thats it? Time to put mag down". Guess you do it to make the mag look thick and value for money on the shelves of WH Smith, but its really annoying.
My recipe for a better magazine:
1) Dial back the over-focus on TVs. Who cares about that stuff? There's naff all any good to watch on them anyway.
2) Do more on music and sound. Music is good.
3) Throw the Guide in the bin and flesh the mag out with more reviews and articles.
4) Stop giving Apple 5 stars for everything they do, regardless of the fact their products are brains on a stick for the zombie hoardes.
The number of TVs launched are much higher than any other AV product, so you're bound to find more of them. It's obvious that you're a music person & are not interested in TVs. but that does not necessarily mean that it is the case with other readers as well. I personally don't like the guide in the 2nd half of the page as well, but readers find it useful to have a ready reckoner to check on a product quickly. Regarding Apple products, well, that's the reviewer's opinion. You are free to disagree on it. I personally don't like Apple products that much. Although I think WHF should concentrate on the music/video aspects only while testing products(smartphones, for example) and should make it clear on the review page.
The subscription I got for Xmas has yet to run out, so I still read the mag. But, revamp or not, its becoming an increasingly depressing experience. TVs are boring - why put them all over your cover every month and then proceed to go on and on about them? Music is better than TV, focus on that. And, as I've said before, you should ditch that guide. Reading from front to back, you kind of get into the mag then all of a sudden, half way through, its like "oh, is thats it? Time to put mag down". Guess you do it to make the mag look thick and value for money on the shelves of WH Smith, but its really annoying.
My recipe for a better magazine:
1) Dial back the over-focus on TVs. Who cares about that stuff? There's naff all any good to watch on them anyway.
2) Do more on music and sound. Music is good.
3) Throw the Guide in the bin and flesh the mag out with more reviews and articles.
4) Stop giving Apple 5 stars for everything they do, regardless of the fact their products are brains on a stick for the zombie hoardes.
The number of TVs launched are much higher than any other AV product, so you're bound to find more of them. It's obvious that you're a music person & are not interested in TVs. but that does not necessarily mean that it is the case with other readers as well. I personally don't like the guide in the 2nd half of the page as well, but readers find it useful to have a ready reckoner to check on a product quickly. Regarding Apple products, well, that's the reviewer's opinion. You are free to disagree on it. I personally don't like Apple products that much. Although I think WHF should concentrate on the music/video aspects only while testing products(smartphones, for example) and should make it clear on the review page.
Agree with BB regarding the Guide pages, but I think the website would be a better place to find this info.
The rest of the magazine could then include bigger reviews with advertising spread through out and perhaps make room for some reader reviews/feedback (after the WHFSAV official reviews of course).
Alternatively the added space could be used for one off supplement style features. Concentrating on one particular item such as DAC's or a specific manufacturer launch such as the new Q series.
The rest of the magazine could then include bigger reviews with advertising spread through out and perhaps make room for some reader reviews/feedback (after the WHFSAV official reviews of course).
Alternatively the added space could be used for one off supplement style features. Concentrating on one particular item such as DAC's or a specific manufacturer launch such as the new Q series.
Surely due to publishing lead times the online space is a better place for news-related topics and reader feedback?
For example, the KEF launch couldn't be covered in the magazine until at least the next issue, which is four weeks off, and reader feedback on a product reviewed last month may not make much sense to readers of the following issue unless the original review was republished in the magazine.
Do also bear in mind that the Guide at the back only appears to take up so much of the magazine because retailers like to have their multipage adverts in among its pages, which tends to bulk it out a lot more than the normal editorial pages - first tests, features, supertests, group tests, etc... In fact, in the last 80 or so pages of the current issue, there are almost 50 pages of advertising.
For example, the KEF launch couldn't be covered in the magazine until at least the next issue, which is four weeks off, and reader feedback on a product reviewed last month may not make much sense to readers of the following issue unless the original review was republished in the magazine.
Do also bear in mind that the Guide at the back only appears to take up so much of the magazine because retailers like to have their multipage adverts in among its pages, which tends to bulk it out a lot more than the normal editorial pages - first tests, features, supertests, group tests, etc... In fact, in the last 80 or so pages of the current issue, there are almost 50 pages of advertising.
Indeed. Since the redesign, when we added extra test pages to every issue, the actual number of editorial pages devoted to the Buyer's Guide is now its smallest-ever percentage of the magazine. And it continues to research well among readers as an essential part of the magazine; remember, not everyone buys every issue, or has the ability/inclination to dip in and out of this website regularly.
We still cover more products and subjects than anyone else - just do a page or test count on any other magazine in the market - plus attempt to meet the needs of the largest groups of people.
More than 10 million TV sets will be sold in the UK this year.... that's a lot of households needing advice.
But keep the feedback coming!
We still cover more products and subjects than anyone else - just do a page or test count on any other magazine in the market - plus attempt to meet the needs of the largest groups of people.
More than 10 million TV sets will be sold in the UK this year.... that's a lot of households needing advice.
But keep the feedback coming!
There are almost 50 pages of advertising.......
Which I completely understand are there for a very good reason, both consumer information and buying options along with important revenue for the magazine, also the retailers need the space for obvious reasons.
But I think the website offers the options that you state and space for the buying guide.
I realise the lead time for getting the Q series in to the mag is quite some way from the actual launch, and I should have added that you could have a very in depth look at the range with extra space.
Do agree that perhaps reader feedback is better served within the forum, not all readers of the magazine are forum users
Which I completely understand are there for a very good reason, both consumer information and buying options along with important revenue for the magazine, also the retailers need the space for obvious reasons.
But I think the website offers the options that you state and space for the buying guide.
I realise the lead time for getting the Q series in to the mag is quite some way from the actual launch, and I should have added that you could have a very in depth look at the range with extra space.
Do agree that perhaps reader feedback is better served within the forum, not all readers of the magazine are forum users
theo12:There are almost 50 pages of advertising.......
Which I completely understand are there for a very good reason, both consumer information and buying options along with important revenue for the magazine, also the retailers need the space for obvious reasons.
But I think the website offers the options that you state and space for the buying guide.
Yes, but given that the advertisers want to advertise within the buying guide, that would drop almost 80% of our advertising. How much would you like to pay for the magazine each month? £10? £15??
theo12:Not all readers of the magazine are forum users
Umm, I think you've just shot your 'put the buying guide on the website' argument in the foot.
Which I completely understand are there for a very good reason, both consumer information and buying options along with important revenue for the magazine, also the retailers need the space for obvious reasons.
But I think the website offers the options that you state and space for the buying guide.
Yes, but given that the advertisers want to advertise within the buying guide, that would drop almost 80% of our advertising. How much would you like to pay for the magazine each month? £10? £15??
theo12:Not all readers of the magazine are forum users
Umm, I think you've just shot your 'put the buying guide on the website' argument in the foot.
Andrew Everard:theo12:There are almost 50 pages of advertising.......
Which I completely understand are there for a very good reason, both consumer information and buying options along with important revenue for the magazine, also the retailers need the space for obvious reasons.
But I think the website offers the options that you state and space for the buying guide.
Yes, but given that the advertisers want to advertise within the buying guide, that would drop almost 80% of our advertising. How much would you like to pay for the magazine each month? £10? £15??
I did not know that advertises preferred that section. Think I will stick with the current cover price
theo12:Not all readers of the magazine are forum users
Andrew Everard:Umm, I think you've just shot your 'put the buying guide on the website' argument in the foot.
Not if you point people to the website
Also interested to know why advertisers prefer that section of the mag (buying guide is not an answer!!
)
EDITED BY MODS for clarity of who's saying what
Which I completely understand are there for a very good reason, both consumer information and buying options along with important revenue for the magazine, also the retailers need the space for obvious reasons.
But I think the website offers the options that you state and space for the buying guide.
Yes, but given that the advertisers want to advertise within the buying guide, that would drop almost 80% of our advertising. How much would you like to pay for the magazine each month? £10? £15??
I did not know that advertises preferred that section. Think I will stick with the current cover price
theo12:Not all readers of the magazine are forum users
Andrew Everard:Umm, I think you've just shot your 'put the buying guide on the website' argument in the foot.
Not if you point people to the website
Also interested to know why advertisers prefer that section of the mag (buying guide is not an answer!!
EDITED BY MODS for clarity of who's saying what
theo12:Also interested to know why advertisers prefer that section of the mag (buying guide is not an answer!!
)
Actually, it is the answer.
Actually, it is the answer.
fair enough the buying guide stays
As you said, I like the current cover price.
might it be a bit early for more changes to the mag seeing as this is the second issue since the changes?
As you said, I like the current cover price.
might it be a bit early for more changes to the mag seeing as this is the second issue since the changes?
Thanks for the mod, I haven't quite got the mulitple quote thing worked out yet.
Heres to the next issue.
Also would like to say that the 50 inch supertest was a cracker
Heres to the next issue.
Also would like to say that the 50 inch supertest was a cracker
theo12:Also would like to say that the 50 inch supertest was a cracker
Thanks, it's appreciated.
Thanks, it's appreciated.
Just a question - do film distributors/studios pay you to splash their films all over the TVs in your reviews?
If so, I guess that might explain why you feature them so heavily.
If not, can you at least show better films? God, some of the choices you make are so mainstream in their rubbishness, they're embarrassing. The A Team? The Expendables? Adam Sandler's new craptastic venture on the cover? You're really aiming at the high end of your readership there.
If so, I guess that might explain why you feature them so heavily.
If not, can you at least show better films? God, some of the choices you make are so mainstream in their rubbishness, they're embarrassing. The A Team? The Expendables? Adam Sandler's new craptastic venture on the cover? You're really aiming at the high end of your readership there.
No, we're not paid to use the stills we do - they are typically chosen to be bright, fun and punchy.
And mainstream? Yes, unashamedly so - see also comment re 10 million TV sets sold.
And mainstream? Yes, unashamedly so - see also comment re 10 million TV sets sold.
guys, regarding the 50in supertest, i would have expected to see the participants put up against the kuro? as the lg50pk990 was when tested on its own earlier in the year?.
the performance of the test winning v20 compared to the kuro would have been especially interesting to read about, given that most reviewers to have already reviewed it, have compared it directly with the kuro, most very favourably too..
i think with these high end sets, kuro comparisms are important going forward, why have a benchmark if you dont use it?
i think each tv's performance relative to the kuro gives people a real feel for just how good, or not any tv is. bar putting every comparable tv in one giant supertest, which is obviously not realistic, its surely the best way to gauge overall performance? not just performance relative to other tv's in the same test..
the performance of the test winning v20 compared to the kuro would have been especially interesting to read about, given that most reviewers to have already reviewed it, have compared it directly with the kuro, most very favourably too..
i think with these high end sets, kuro comparisms are important going forward, why have a benchmark if you dont use it?
i think each tv's performance relative to the kuro gives people a real feel for just how good, or not any tv is. bar putting every comparable tv in one giant supertest, which is obviously not realistic, its surely the best way to gauge overall performance? not just performance relative to other tv's in the same test..
Andrew Everard:Pointless. You can't buy the Kuro sets any more. You really are rather obsessed, aren't you?
why the sarcasm andrew? i thought i made some good points? is it correct to say that the kuro is no longer whfi's referance tv then? if so, what is?
why do you still compare tv's against it? vt20, sony hx903 etc?
why the sarcasm andrew? i thought i made some good points? is it correct to say that the kuro is no longer whfi's referance tv then? if so, what is?
why do you still compare tv's against it? vt20, sony hx903 etc?
No, it's incorrect to say that it's not still used as a benchmark, but for the majority of readers referring to a TV they can't buy, and of which many will never have heard, is of minimal relevance compared to how the sets they can actually buy compare to each other, especially in a comparison such as the one in the new issue.
Apologies if you feel I was being sarcastic - I wasn't. Rather I was shaking my head in disbelief that we, or rather you, seem to have been going round and round the same track on these forums for at least the past three months. At least.
Apologies if you feel I was being sarcastic - I wasn't. Rather I was shaking my head in disbelief that we, or rather you, seem to have been going round and round the same track on these forums for at least the past three months. At least.
Indeed , we compare sets against the Kuro when it's truly comparable - eg flagship sets being tested (including first time around for the LG - that review is still on record) that Kuro owners might want to swap their sets for.
We also keep flagship sets to test against cheaper sets where applicable.
All this was applied in this 50in Supertest - no need to mention it at all at this price level, we felt.
Trust us, when we find something that truly does surpass all - as opposed to some - of the late lamented Kuro performance, at a real-world price, we'll mention it.
We also keep flagship sets to test against cheaper sets where applicable.
All this was applied in this 50in Supertest - no need to mention it at all at this price level, we felt.
Trust us, when we find something that truly does surpass all - as opposed to some - of the late lamented Kuro performance, at a real-world price, we'll mention it.
Andrew Everard:
No, it's incorrect to say that it's not still used as a benchmark, but for the majority of readers referring to a TV they can't buy, and of which many will never have heard, is of minimal relevance compared to how the sets they can actually buy compare to each other, especially in a comparison such as the one in the new issue.
Apologies if you feel I was being sarcastic - I wasn't. Rather I was shaking my head in disbelief that we, or rather you, seem to have been going round and round the same track on these forums for at least the past three months. At least.
no need to apologise andrew, i was just making a few points, its no big deal..
No, it's incorrect to say that it's not still used as a benchmark, but for the majority of readers referring to a TV they can't buy, and of which many will never have heard, is of minimal relevance compared to how the sets they can actually buy compare to each other, especially in a comparison such as the one in the new issue.
Apologies if you feel I was being sarcastic - I wasn't. Rather I was shaking my head in disbelief that we, or rather you, seem to have been going round and round the same track on these forums for at least the past three months. At least.
no need to apologise andrew, i was just making a few points, its no big deal..
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram