recent WHF cable tests

[lpv]

... if someone say " cable direction is a controversial subject, but we believe it can make a difference. If there are no obvious markings or arrows, look for writing and make sure it reads in the same direction of music flow' I'll stop reading, put the paper back on the shelf, walk and laugh..

What HiFi reminds me my early days with photography when I thought Amateur Photographer is a decent magazine. No, it isn't.

Tests on WHF are at least at the same level infantilism as test on AP.. and WHF will never be Stereophile in the same style as AP will never be British Journal of Phortography.

JUNK IN THe FACE.. yay

 

[the record spot]

Different strokes for different folks. The magazine doesn't set itself out to be Stereophile.

Incidentally, why are you just singling out WHF? The others are just as bad. Hifi+, Hifi News, Hifi World. They've all got them. So be consistent, this isn't unique to one magazine.

 

[Tarxman]

Very true Record Spot, Stereophile may attach a lot of reference material to their reviews and have wizz bang machines on board for testing, but they still review products such as cabling, albeit significantly more expensive cabling. I read what hifi because I find for the most part, the products they review are generally more in my price range. I read stereophile to get an idea of what is out there beyond my price range, so if I ever "hit the big time" I'll know what to look at.

 

[nima]

Personaly I think HFC is much better mag, but WHF obviously has better forum!

 

[BenLaw]

Different strokes for different folks. The magazine doesn't set itself out to be Stereophile.

Incidentally, why are you just singling out WHF? The others are just as bad. Hifi+, Hifi News, Hifi World. They've all got them. So be consistent, this isn't unique to one magazine.

It's a generally pointless and provocative thread, but it makes sense to post about WHF reviews on the WHF forum, and it is a direct (and ridiculous) quote that's being used.

 

[MajorFubar]

As is happens I once looked through the British Journal of Photography, thought it was a complete crock of sh-t that told me nothing I needed to know about buying new cameras, and so instead I bought and enjoyed Amateur Photographer for well over ten years til it turned into basically What Digital Camera. Horses for courses.

 

[Tear Drop]

And why is Stereophile such a high-water mark of hifi journalism?

 

[the record spot]

It's well written, reviews are comprehensive and they provide measurements. Compared to ToneAudio, which doesn't and who's publisher quite happily proclaims that fact, it's a good example of a popular audio title. It's editor's a good egg as well.

 

[BigH]

And why is Stereophile such a high-water mark of hifi journalism?

Because they don't give bad reviews

 

[Al ears]

:rofl:

 

[AlbaBrown]

There needs to be some balance here.

First and foremost, Haymarket are a highly successful (and polished) marketing machine. They're magazines (and websites) cater for people new to the respective industries, or those who like to follow fashion to a degree. (Let's face it advances in audio engineering knowledge/development does not leap forward every year - convenience features, headline specs and functionality do)

There is not enough man hours in a month for them to review products fully (in terms of running in, proper system matching/optimistaion) considering the sheer number of products readers will expect to be covered. Arguably the majority of the readers will have not have the patience, nor inclination to wade through paragraphs of technical analysis or system configuration detailing if such reviews were that thorough.

Plus first and foremost, the staff are journalists. For many of them WHF is one of many steps up the hierachy of Haymarket publications. This hobby/passion of ours is a niche market compared to other pursuits (fishing, motoring, photography, caravaning etc).

I consider WHF to be a slightly more upmarket version of Which?

Hifi Choice's glory days of detailed reviewing, and extensive "blind" group tests are far, far behind them. They are trying to take on Haymarket at their own game by forgiing into a more simplified market driven by offering marketing opportunites to advertising dealers/distributors/manufacturers.

They won't succeed, Haymarket are too experienced and accomplished in that arena.

Other magazines that still engage in recruiting staff who are genuinely passionate about audio/visual reproduction, and reviewing the more specialist brands will always have a tiny influence on the public. Arguably their work is of much greater significance and deserving of more respect, but they are dinasaurs in these modern times.

uggghhh. I feel quite depressed now!

 

[CJSF]

Mmmm . . . Dinosaurs . . . not a good description IMHO, just because its different dont mean its better? Different visually is 'better' perhaps?

However, when we boil it down to how it works and what it sounds like, different can and does fail, not always but often??? This is the world we live in; different, new, re inventing the wheel, keeping up with the Jonses? . . . Kidollogy and marketing, without it, this type of media would needed a fraction of the newsagents shelf space?

I'll run with the dinosaurs thank you.

CJSF

 

[BenLaw]

Mmmm . . . Dinosaurs . . . not a good description IMHO, just because its different dont mean its better? Different visually is 'better' perhaps?

However, when we boil it down to how it works and what it sounds like, different can and does fail, not always but often??? This is the world we live in; different, new, re inventing the wheel, keeping up with the Jonses? . . . Kidollogy and marketing, without it, this type of media would needed a fraction of the newsagents shelf space?

I'll run with the dinosaurs thank you.

CJSF

Didn't understand any of that. Are you saying you don't like WHF?

 

[strapped for cash]

JUNK IN THe FACE.. yay

I'm struggling to decipher several posts on this thread, but clarification is needed on this remark in particular, including the importance of the lower case "e."

 

[CJSF]

Mmmm . . . Dinosaurs . . . not a good description IMHO, just because its different dont mean its better? Different visually is 'better' perhaps?

However, when we boil it down to how it works and what it sounds like, different can and does fail, not always but often??? This is the world we live in; different, new, re inventing the wheel, keeping up with the Jonses? . . . Kidollogy and marketing, without it, this type of media would needed a fraction of the newsagents shelf space?

I'll run with the dinosaurs thank you.

CJSF

Didn't understand any of that. Are you saying you don't like WHF?

Read the preceding contribution by Albabrown?

I'm not saying that, although one does read much of hifi magazines that are not on line, picking bits out as I need. I dont need much . . . I run with the dinosaurs, occasionally diping into new thinking and usually get out again very quickly.

As I say it was a follow on from Albabrown.

CJSF

 

[CJSF]

A further thought . . . perhaps we are questioning the usefulness of modern media beyond the 'marketing opportunity' manufacturers use them for?

Bit of cynicism coming out?

CJSF

 

[BenLaw]

Mmmm . . . Dinosaurs . . . not a good description IMHO, just because its different dont mean its better? Different visually is 'better' perhaps?

However, when we boil it down to how it works and what it sounds like, different can and does fail, not always but often??? This is the world we live in; different, new, re inventing the wheel, keeping up with the Jonses? . . . Kidollogy and marketing, without it, this type of media would needed a fraction of the newsagents shelf space?

I'll run with the dinosaurs thank you.

CJSF

Didn't understand any of that. Are you saying you don't like WHF?

Read the preceding contribution by Albabrown? I'm not saying that, although one does read much of hifi magazines that are not on line, picking bits out as I need. I dont need much . . . I run with the dinosaurs, occasionally diping into new thinking and usually get out again very quickly. As I say it was a follow on from Albabrown. CJSF

I did read it as following on, given the reference to dinosaurs. Still didn't (and still don't) understand any of it.

 

[Alec]

JUNK IN THe FACE.. yay

I'm struggling to decipher several posts on this thread, but clarification is needed on this remark in particular, including the importance of the lower case "e."

I needed a giggle, cheers.

 

[hg]

I consider WHF to be a slightly more upmarket version of Which?

Would you expect a cable review in Which? to be pretty much the same as those in WHF?

 

[BigH]

I consider WHF to be a slightly more upmarket version of Which?

Would you expect a cable review in Which? to be pretty much the same as those in WHF?

Which? are not funded by advertisers!

 

[CJSF]

I did read it as following on, given the reference to dinosaurs. Still didn't (and still don't) understand any of it.

Quote, AlbaBrown:

. . . Other magazines that still engage in recruiting staff who are genuinely passionate about audio/visual reproduction, and reviewing the more specialist brands will always have a tiny influence on the public. Arguably their work is of much greater significance and deserving of more respect, but they are dinasaurs in these modern times.

Things aint what they used to be?

CJSF

 

[strapped for cash]

JUNK IN THe FACE.. yay

I'm struggling to decipher several posts on this thread, but clarification is needed on this remark in particular, including the importance of the lower case "e."

It's a junk thread about a fictional property of cables that had already been discussed to death even before the world-wide-web existed.

Basically you either believe that the audio signal 'flows' one-way down all your cables (from source to loudspeaker), or you understand alternating current.

If you understand the latter, then you realise the current alternates in both directions (at the frequency of the signal) in both conductors of each cable. So therefore 'directionality' has to be a nonsense.

Thanks Chebby.

I get that we're discussing cables and unidirectionality, though I still have no idea what "JUNK IN THe FACE" means, in the context of this thread, or any other. I could guess, but it wouldn't be printable.

 

[hg]

I consider WHF to be a slightly more upmarket version of Which?

Would you expect a cable review in Which? to be pretty much the same as those in WHF?

Which? are not funded by advertisers!

And therefore the reviews would differ in what way?

 

[Native_bon]

pioneer and yamaha Av amps are the only products getting 5 stars from what hifi right now.. Do i care?.. No.. Do i care about this forum yes I do.. I think WHF has done well with this forum.. All the really bad stuff said here yet it still leaves this forum opened for all to air thier opinions.

Best forum ever.., magazine?... :doh:

 

[CJSF]

Things aint what they used to be?

CJSF

I agree. On the whole they are far better now

Mmm . . . do you mean that Chebby or is it just bait?

Not rising to it, but I cant entirely agree. Like most things in this world, the old ways often do have some merit . . . It is he who can pick the meat from the bones that is best off

CJSF