Question for WHF reviewers

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
A

admin_exported

New member
Aug 10, 2019
2,556
5
0
I have just been reading the section of the website discussing your testing procedures/facilities (which I must say look very nice indeed!)

I would like to ask if there is any particular reason why you never conduct blind (or even better, double blind) tests. Surely this kind of testing procedure could only be good for the magazine's credibility. Personally I would find it especially helpful if the double blind method were employed for group tests and supertests.

Do other readers/subscribers agree?
 
I would love to see such an article. "We reviewed 5 mid-priced (amps, CD players, interconnects ...) and wrote detailed notes in totally blind testing sessions. The order of testing was randomized and reviewers were did not discuss results until after submitting their reviewing notes. Results were compiled by a third party and are presented unedited for each brand in the following pages." No intent of stepping on anyone's toes, but the one comparing the $xx,000 speaker cables and interconnects with simple, quality stuff would be especially interesting.
 
Andy510:I would like to ask if there is any particular reason why you never conduct blind (or even better, double blind) tests.

As has been discussed at great length on these forums, we do. Frequently.
 
ted_canuck:I would love to see such an article. "We reviewed 5 mid-priced (amps, CD players, interconnects ...) and wrote detailed notes in totally blind testing sessions. The order of testing was randomized and reviewers were did not discuss results until after submitting their reviewing notes. Results were compiled by a third party and are presented unedited for each brand in the following pages." No intent of stepping on anyone's toes, but the one comparing the $xx,000 speaker cables and interconnects with simple, quality stuff would be especially interesting.

I don't disagree with you, but you're missing the point of What Hi Fi, which is first and foremostly a business, and a successful one at that. It's formula of easy-to-read (I'm not talking about the testing, which I'm sure is rigorous) reviews have made it the market leader, as has its award/star system. To include detailed reviews of the type you suggest would probably deter many readers, and, after all, there are many other review magazines and websites out there.

The other thing to remember is that WHF reviews far more items than other magazines do. Personally, if I want to see an in depth review I go to Stereophile, but the odds of them having reviewed the item in which I'm interested isn't high. With WhatHifi, ok, the reviews might be lightweight, but at least I'll find the product and have an indication about its price and what it's like. However, an outline of the review criteria would be useful.
 
8009514:How about 'blind testing' using members of the public instead of WHF reviewers? or a mix of both.
Have you ever tried describing and writing down the differences you hear between systems so that it makes sense to anyone else? Very difficult.
 
In response to Mr Everard, I haven't scoured the forums so wasn't aware of this. If this is the case then it might be worth mentioning on the relevant section of the website, as well as in the magazine itself.

Anyway I would be interested to hear about your experiences of this type of testing. For example, when you have a panel of reviewers independently evaluating either a single product or a range of products for a group test, to what extent do they tend to arrive at the same conclusions? And are there times when you have trouble deciding on a preference between products that, on paper at least, should be worlds apart?
 
igglebert:8009514:How about 'blind testing' using members of the public instead of WHF reviewers? or a mix of both. Have you ever tried describing and writing down the differences you hear between systems so that it makes sense to anyone else? Very difficult.

Appreciate that, but I always feel that in the world of HiFi the reviewers will be looking for what can be very subtle differences. Hence we get the use of expressions like 'great dynamics, articulate bass, insightful sound etc. etc.' I find it hard to get my head round exactly what is meant by some of the terms used. Words like 'tinny, bassy, good, stunning' are far easier for me to comprehend, and these are the sort of descriptions which a non-expert is more likely to use. And which I could understand far more easily.

I'm not saying that every review should include comments from people of the street, but now and again, especially if there's a 'blind test being done on something like speaker cables' then I feel it might add something to the overall thing.
 
I know what you mean about the terminology - I remember once reading a review which described the sound as "fruity" - what the hell does that mean?!
 
Andy510:

In response to Mr Everard, I haven't scoured the forums so wasn't aware of this. If this is the case then it might be worth mentioning on the relevant section of the website, as well as in the magazine itself.

Or you could have scoured...
 
igglebert:8009514:How about 'blind testing' using members of the public instead of WHF reviewers? or a mix of both. Have you ever tried describing and writing down the differences you hear between systems so that it makes sense to anyone else? Very difficult.

Damn near impossible. Theres no guarantee that the terminology will match your interpretation of it when you get round to hearing the kit in question.

Mind, WHF seem to use fairly plain english - im not sure ive ever read something described as fruity in the mag - and have explained some terminology in the mag itself too.

Its the same with music reviews, even when reviewers dont bother to be descriptive, but just try to be safe by saying "sounds a bit like metalllica circa '87". Weeeeell, not to me, cloth ears lol!
 
Tarquinh - even as I was typing my comment, that thought crept into my mind. I absolutely agree that the primary reason to read What HiFi is to get reviews of specific pieces of equipment that you are considering laying out serious coin to own, and it appears to do that well. So my interest isn't really about converting the whole format and abandoning the "Prime Directive" as they used to say on Star Trek. However, the occasional article along the lines of "Cardas vs. zipcord in blind tests" or "Tubes vs. Solid State: How did our experts do in double blind comparisons" would make for very interesting "Special Features" ... Am I off base?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom