This is ridiculous.

[bla4444]

Hi everyone!

This is my first topic so I am a little sorry about it, but I tought I have to say my opinion about the reviews.

First of all I don't want to be a Troll, but a lot of review I read here made me behave like a Troll.

The second piont that I know most people think sound quality is very subiective and I think they are right. It don1t seems to be smart to rate sound quality with only one simpe number saying one is more than the other. But there are some evident thing, which are damaged here.

I saw that a lot of review said that cowon players ha medicore sound but the ipods/iphones always shine. If I did a direct comparsion with cowon i9+ and ipod 6 gen I don't thought the ipod has any better sound quality. (Actually I prefer the cowon but it is a metteer of taste, ipod was not bad either).

With headphones you write a lot of intresting thing for example Grados which nearly always get 5 star, while with sennheisers mostly 4 being mentioned that anyway grado is better. With the senn hd 595 and grado sr80i it is quite ridiculous. For me the hd 595 is clearly superior to grado sr 80 which was quite harsh for me. But 3star with hd 598 was surprising for me too.

The akg k 812 get 5 star while senn hd 800 only four ("and by the way grado is better").

And it happend that a rebranded earphone get 4star whil the original one get only 2. (Jamo vs klipsch).

So all in all I have to conclude that the two most likely expication is Whathifi reviewers know nothing or very few about sound quality (headphones) and write thier reviews depend on the mood they are in. Or they write their reviews with leading bias toward some company.

Judgeing sound quality is subjective and generate a lot of emotions, and disagreement (mainly this is the reason I wirte this text).

But after I have visited this page many times I saw so many confusing writing that I have supposed I write this. Of course everybody has a favourite meal as most audiofan has a favourite headphone but to say that the beefsteak deserv only 3 star but the fish and chips worth 5 star is very confusing.

I think you should write your reviews with more responsibility because this is a very popular site leading many consumer on their purchase, and I think there are many disleading writing here.

 

[MajorFubar]

The whole point of the magazine is to rate audio and video equipment against each other and to tell you which products in the reviewers' opinion perform best for the money. By the very nature of the process it's a subjective decision.

 

[dalethorn]

Hi everyone!

This is my first topic so I am a little sorry about it, but I tought I have to say my opinion about the reviews.

First of all I don't want to be a Troll, but a lot of review I read here made me behave like a Troll.

The second piont that I know most people think sound quality is very subiective and I think they are right. It don1t seems to be smart to rate sound quality with only one simpe number saying one is more than the other. But there are some evident thing, which are damaged here.

I saw that a lot of review said that cowon players ha medicore sound but the ipods/iphones always shine. If I did a direct comparsion with cowon i9+ and ipod 6 gen I don't thought the ipod has any better sound quality. (Actually I prefer the cowon but it is a metteer of taste, ipod was not bad either).

With headphones you write a lot of intresting thing for example Grados which nearly always get 5 star, while with sennheisers mostly 4 being mentioned that anyway grado is better. With the senn hd 595 and grado sr80i it is quite ridiculous. For me the hd 595 is clearly superior to grado sr 80 which was quite harsh for me. But 3star with hd 598 was surprising for me too.

The akg k 812 get 5 star while senn hd 800 only four ("and by the way grado is better").

And it happend that a rebranded earphone get 4star whil the original one get only 2. (Jamo vs klipsch).

So all in all I have to conclude that the two most likely expication is Whathifi reviewers know nothing or very few about sound quality (headphones) and write thier reviews depend on the mood they are in. Or they write their reviews with leading bias toward some company.

Judgeing sound quality is subjective and generate a lot of emotions, and disagreement (mainly this is the reason I wirte this text).

But after I have visited this page many times I saw so many confusing writing that I have supposed I write this. Of course everybody has a favourite meal as most audiofan has a favourite headphone but to say that the beefsteak deserv only 3 star but the fish and chips worth 5 star is very confusing.

I think you should write your reviews with more responsibility because this is a very popular site leading many consumer on their purchase, and I think there are many disleading writing here.

First of all, high fidelity as a concept is not subjective - it has a very precise goal, although the very-near realization of that goal is very difficult.

Secondly, the WhatHiFi reviews of headphones are "house reviews" from samples provided by the manufacturers, who also provide ad money to support the site. Certainly you should be able to find independent reviews that are more critical.

 

[drummerman]

The whole point of the magazine is to rate audio and video equipment against each other and to tell you which products in the reviewers' opinion perform best for the money. By the very nature of the process it's a subjective decision.

Indeed. However, compared to some other publications this one does not tell you which reviewers opinion it is.

Over time you can build a picture of what sound someone likes and, with enough experience/reading/auditioning get an idea of how this translates to your own liking and thus shortlist products based perhaps on a particular reviewers notes.

Saying that, my own taste kind of co-incides with this magazine. Like them, I like the cyrus/naim/grado sound ie. a more rythmical, driving sound rather than overt subtlety/imaging though the two dont have to be mutually exclusive.

 

[MajorFubar]

WhatHiFi reviews of headphones are "house reviews" from samples provided by the manufacturers, who also provide ad money to support the site.  Certainly you should be able to find independent reviews that are more critical.

We all know what this is hinting at. And in the old days when this site was more proactively moderated, suggestions of such corruption would commonly bring out the banning stick.

 

[rich51080]

Head-fi.org is the place to go if you want reviews on headphones. Best forum on the net in my opinion.

 

[dalethorn]

WhatHiFi reviews of headphones are "house reviews" from samples provided by the manufacturers, who also provide ad money to support the site. Certainly you should be able to find independent reviews that are more critical.

We all know what this is hinting at. And in the old days when this site was more proactively moderated, suggestions of such corruption would commonly bring out the banning stick.

What you're suggesting isn't moderation, it's cowardice.

EDIT: BTW, a $300 "free" review item, if it's not returned, does not in itself "pay" for a review. The review is paid for by Payroll Services, who get their money from the site revenue. There are no hints or speculation whatever in that statement.

 

[bigboss]

Just because this site's reviews may be different to yours doesn't mean they've been swayed by ads. Many products have received 5 star reviews despite manufacturers not advertising here. AVI actually publicly defames What Hi Fi. They even refused to give a sample for review. So What Hi Fi bought them. Here are the reviews:

http://www.whathifi.com/avi/adm91/review

http://www.whathifi.com/avi/adm9/review

Unless you have evidence supporting your allegations, don't make potentially libellous statements. You've already been banned from Head-Fi, AV forums, Luminous Landscape, Audiokarma and Changestar. Why?

 

[dalethorn]

Just because this site's reviews may be different to yours doesn't mean they've been swayed by ads. Many products have received 5 star reviews despite manufacturers not advertising here. AVI actually publicly defames What Hi Fi. They even refused to give a sample for review. So What Hi Fi bought them. Here are the reviews:

http://www.whathifi.com/avi/adm91/review

http://www.whathifi.com/avi/adm9/review

Unless you have evidence supporting your allegations, don't make potentially libellous statements. You've already been banned from Head-Fi, AV forums, Luminous Landscape, Audiokarma and Changestar. Why?

Someone has been banned from Changstar? From Head-Fi? Is that a joke? Nobody serious reads those anymore than they read the L.A. Times or USA Today. Libelous allegations? Like what? Seems to me you "doth protest too much", which is suspicious. Now stop being silly and talk about real issues.

 

[bigboss]

 Now stop being silly and talk about real issues.

Exactly.

 

[dalethorn]

Now stop being silly and talk about real issues.

Exactly.

You're on notice "big boss" for making a serious personal attack in your previous post. I didn't attack you or anyone else. You have no evidence of any wrongdoing on my part in connection to any banning from any websites, and in fact there was no wrongdoing. The fact that a self-confessed animal abuser on luminous landscape had me removed isn't a negative against me. There's a huge volume of material on the Web regarding "banned from head-fi", and don't think you're not part of the kind of smear campaigns that are used by low-class scum to disparage others who disagree with them.

You stop being part of the problem, and an apology would be good.

 

[Native_bon]

I think people should be able to express their views without attack. Yes I do not my self agree with some reviews. For example in a latest group test of speakers on hifi choice, the KEF R500 my called bright. I have listened to the R500 many times with many amps & never sounded bright.

If the reviews sound wrong to you who is anyone to say you are wrong. The thing that still surprises me today how do know if some people hear different frequencies better or less than others..?

 

[spiny norman]

I think you'll all find International Willy-Waving Day is next weekend.

 

[jjbomber]

Or they write their reviews with leading bias toward some company.

You'd better not read this month's mag. Blatent advert for the iphone just in time for Christmas.

 

[spiny norman]

You'd better not read this month's mag. Blatent advert for the iphone just in time for Christmas.

Business as usual, then.

 

[Native_bon]

Hum.. one of my post went missing..*bad*

 

[dalethorn]

Hum.. one of my post went missing..*bad*

I tell people all the time that when they elect me to office, I'll sit down the first day and wait for the lobbyists to come trailing in. At that point they will ask "Well, Dale, what's it gonna be?" - And then I pat my well-fed tummy and take a puff on my cigar and say "Business as usual." - Sometimes I get a reaction like "I wonder what he's really thinking?" - Most times people just assume I'm kidding. But it would be great fun to be in that position sometime, just to savor the moment. I'm actually pro business, but I think commercial interests need to have a sense of humor given their license to do business as usual.

 

[dalethorn]

I think people should be able to express their views without attack.

............

If the reviews sound wrong to you who is anyone to say you are wrong. The thing that still surprises me today how do know if some people hear different frequencies better or less than others..?

Many of the sites where discussions take place are like buddy-clubs, where certain people just aren't welcome. Here at WhatHiFi it's been very civil for a long time now, but there were flare-ups in the past. Hopefully those won't happen again.

 

[bigboss]

 Now stop being silly and talk about real issues.

Exactly.

You're on notice "big boss" for making a serious personal attack in your previous post.  I didn't attack you or anyone else.  You have no evidence of any wrongdoing on my part in connection to any banning from any websites, and in fact there was no wrongdoing.  The fact that a self-confessed animal abuser on luminous landscape had me removed isn't a negative against me.  There's a huge volume of material on the Web regarding "banned from head-fi", and don't think you're not part of the kind of smear campaigns that are used by low-class scum to disparage others who disagree with them.

You stop being part of the problem, and an apology would be good.

You haven't understood my post at all. There was no personal attack. You were banned from Head-Fi due to similar allegations that you've made here. I was interested to know why you were banned from others. I only wanted to show you how relaxed moderation has become here to allow us to discuss topics freely. I don't think it is right to take advantage of this and make baseless allegations against What Hi Fi without concrete evidence.

 

[dalethorn]

Now stop being silly and talk about real issues.

Exactly.

You're on notice "big boss" for making a serious personal attack in your previous post. I didn't attack you or anyone else. You have no evidence of any wrongdoing on my part in connection to any banning from any websites, and in fact there was no wrongdoing. The fact that a self-confessed animal abuser on luminous landscape had me removed isn't a negative against me. There's a huge volume of material on the Web regarding "banned from head-fi", and don't think you're not part of the kind of smear campaigns that are used by low-class scum to disparage others who disagree with them.

You stop being part of the problem, and an apology would be good.

You haven't understood my post at all. There was no personal attack. You were banned from Head-Fi due to similar allegations that you've made here. I was interested to know why you were banned from others. I only wanted to show you how relaxed moderation has become here to allow us to discuss topics freely. I don't think it is right to take advantage of this and make baseless allegations against What Hi Fi without concrete evidence.

Maybe you need to read up on defamation. You did it. You tried deliberately to smear my reputation with no facts behind it. And there are facts. You're a troll apparently, part-time at least, and I hope for your sake and the sake of civility here that you learn what you did.

As far as what I did, to respond appropriately to the original poster, you go ahead and submit that to some intelligent person/moderator here and we will see. I know what the OP claimed, and I deflected his rant better than anyone else. In the real world, people tend to their own interests first, and when earning a living that means making money. I don't accuse anyone of graft or corruption - the organization here is too big and well-watched to have any more of that than any other company. But, this organization acts on self-interest as does any company, and you seem to have a problem understanding that.

 

[Vladimir]

My general impression is that reviews today don't take themselves seriously and thus they don't expect us to take them seriously. "Back in the days" audio reviews were written if not by engineers or psychoacoustic specialists, then by tech buffs who know at least the Ohm's law. Today reviews are more social blurb than peer reviewed academic looking articles. They are written by professional writers and wordsmiths who can write you about anything after they do some quck research. Since I work as a designer, I worked with and hired copywriters for clients projects. From solar panels, to sheet metal work, to dentist equipment, they can write about anything, including audio reviews. Sometimes doing the research means just reading manufacturer's marketing materials. This is what makes or breaks a good review these days. Just how much time per article is the copywriter spending on research vs actual writing.

The error rate in more technical topics is huge, but customers generally can't catch them and mostly never find out after buying the products. If the review didn't work for you, it worked for someone and she/he is happy with the outcome. Chances with these broad spectrum reviews are it works more thant it doesn't. When it doesn't and hits a loud criticism, we just dismiss it as "well it's subjective", "well it didn't work just in your case".

Klipsch and Jamo are the same company. Unfortunatly the copywriter didn't learn that in his research before writing the article and went on how the two exact same products under different brand are completely different. He may have heard a difference on expectation bias, he may have just written something and not even audition the products, or just got one faulty product and it sounded different, who knows. If it was a tech buff with OCD and bloated ego, he would do a lot more investigating before submiting an article. You can count on his obsessive need to be objective and taken seriously, and that he did his homework well before telling you how to spend your money. But no one ever hires those abrassive types since they may get the publication in trouble with advertisers/manufacturers, or even readers. The light and cheerfull generic copywriter is a great lubricant for trade to go on with everyone smiling. Well except for the OP in this situation.

 

[Verity Burns]

Oh hi there folks*bye*

Just thought I'd chip in here to reassure anyone who might think that ads and reviews are any way related here or in the mag, that they are absolutely not. And if I had a pound for every time a review of mine (both here at WHF and other places that I've worked) had been accused of being paid for or biased or that I was in the pocket of one manufacturer or another, I'd be a very rich person indeed.

Instead I'm just a humble tech journo reviewing day in, day out, and working within a knowledgable and passionate team to bring you the reviews you are able to read here every day. Don't agree with us? That's absolutely your choice. Go ahead and write your own review if you wish, but claiming our reviews are swayed/affected by advertisers, just because our opinion is different to yours is really quite insulting.

We all take our jobs very seriously indeed - no review or star rating is decided upon lightly, nor is it decided by one person. We have a whole team of reviewers who listen to and look at every product, compare them to the competition and decide what each should get. Every single review is a process, and far from a quick or flippant one. How anyone thinks a publication could enjoy the longevity that What Hi-Fi? has operating in any other manner is beyond me.

I hope I've been able to clear up any confusion.

Verity

 

[Vladimir]

Save your fingertips Verity. Consumer paranoia cannot be defeated.

 

[bla4444]

Thanks for your reply to all.

I think it so simple to say that "If you do not agree write your own review" but if a person write an opinion is not the same as if a magzine do this. I realize that it is not possibe to write reviews that suits for everybody because the big differences in people likings. But as somebody said on the beginning of this topic judgeing audio equipment is not clearly subjective.

Some may say that, for example..."px 100 ii is much better sounding headphone than akg k 701, it has better puncy bass, and you are not bothered by disturbing amount of detail"

If "someone" write it, it remains an opinion, if a leading hifi magazin write it, it will become more than just one opinion.

The reason because I wrote my original post that I thought that beyond subjection, and differences in tastes, there are some objective value in this hobby, and I can' t realize this in whathifi? headphone reviews.

I don' t want to insult anybody, especially not for his/her liking. But being a hifi magazine and write a "subjetive" review is different than, being an average man/woman and tell your opinion.

 

[dalethorn]

Thanks for your reply to all.

I think it so simple to say that "If you do not agree write your own review" but if a person write an opinion is not the same as if a magzine do this. I realize that it is not possibe to write reviews that suits for everybody because the big differences in people likings. But as somebody said on the beginning of this topic judgeing audio equipment is not clearly subjective.

Some may say that, for example..."px 100 ii is much better sounding headphone than akg k 701, it has better puncy bass, and you are not bothered by disturbing amount of detail"

If "someone" write it, it remains an opinion, if a leading hifi magazin write it, it will become more than just one opinion.

The reason because I wrote my original post that I thought that beyond subjection, and differences in tastes, there are some objective value in this hobby, and I can' t realize this in whathifi? headphone reviews.

I don' t want to insult anybody, especially not for his/her liking. But being a hifi magazine and write a "subjetive" review is different than, being an average man/woman and tell your opinion.

You could read Innerfidelity, which has a lot of technical data, but also their subjective evaluations are pretty accurate too. While no one reviewer is ever perfect, those who specialize and work really hard at it can give you a lot of useful information.

The large gear sites like WhatHiFi here also give you lots of useful information, but that information will be different in a lot of respects from Innerfidelity for example, and not because one is wrong and the other right, but because they have different approaches and serve (usually) a different customer base.

There are a lot of objective standards in hi-fi, but since this is about music, the standards should act as a guideline in focusing on the best stuff you can get for your money - standards aren't meant to tie your hands and tell you what to like. You decide.