WhatHiFi[WHF] - has been for years a publication and website I always favoured andlooked up to. But nowadays, unfortunately only one or possibly two issues ayear are worth reading or "add any value". Going the way of T3 andits similars, the quality and standard of products under review in WHF seems tobe slipping lower and lower. Notwithstanding the fact that WHF has always(successfully) sought to meet the needs and expectations of a 'middle andupper' market, choosing products for all pockets and budgets, the terminologyused today to describe so many of the star products leads to an incorrectunderstanding for many of the rating itself. So many of WHF’s readers go awaywith the mistaken impression that mid level products can rival really top endHiFi in terms of soundstage, depth, breadth and listenbility – producing, forexample a - "sensational, focussed and precise sound" etc etc on anequal footing. How misinformed this would be - a £5000 or £10,000 system cansound fantastic, but its still a universe away from the effortless presence andsubtle touch of a £100,000 system. WHF ratings don't make this clear. Anotherexample, WHF has never even touched that I can recall, on the differencebetween traditional British, European and American size of sound - a crucialdeciding factor once experienced. Yes phrases like, "go and listen beforechoosing" and "compared to rivals" and "itscompetition" caveat a best in class reflection, but when it really comesdown to it, little qualitative difference is written in to theseratings. To be fair, ratings of 1-5 in any market are limiting for reviewers;they can only go so far before falling into hyperbole, which is why manyhigh-end reviews prefer 0-100. Perhaps WHF could add something ( a colour?) toqualify the rating band a given product falls into – price brackets are notenough.
Sadly nowmore than ever, for WHF, educating ‘us, the masses’ on real HiFi seems oflittle interest, in favour of cheap and cheerful "instant impact"offerings. Its incredible how WHF continues to give certain marques 5+starapprovals, when blatantly the wider (global) HiFi community punch technicallyand emotionally* credible critique that awards the same items with a 70-80% outof 100, at best. More often than not, many of these items fail dismally on‘sound quality’ alone, when compared to similarly priced rivals.
(*HiFi analysts correctly stipulate the difference between a technical andemotional view - what looks good on technical charts and sonic analyzers cansometimes disappoint when left to aural critique. But both have to beconsidered)
What is the context of my diatribe here? WHF’s ratingsare plastered all over the UK’s hifi stores, on and off-line; in magazines andsupplements, on company websites and in their pamphlets and catalogues. So manypeople buy on the basis of WHF’s ratings (myself included) and in many cases wehave been and remain happy customers – so everyone’s a winner? Not quite. WHF’shigh review standards, technical insight, and quality hunt of before is justnot the case any longer. So many far better new products are being passed overnowadays in favour of “old favourites”, however many times readers put forwarda review request – just look at how many (legitimate) entries that remainunanswered on “how does X compare with its new rival Y?” there are on theseforums. Is WHF afraid to challenge its own ratings with new contenders? Surelytoppling a previous winner with a new, better product is a good way toencourage and maintain manufacturing competivity and quality that consumersthen benefit from. And why does WHF just ‘go quiet’ on so many requests,despite very healthy uptakes on its forums? Do some HiFi marques remain infavour with WHF, because they PAY to get WHF’s 5 star awards?
Just as the financial world has turned on theirRatings’ Agencies, questioning the objectivity of their reviews, perhaps thesame needs to happen with the T3, Stuff and WHF’s out there, as the votingtrends across these “objective reviews” seem increasingly similar. I recentlynoted that some of WHF's assessments have even been copied across word for wordfrom other, older review sources. Back up your argument you say? Singling outnames in a forum like this is of little benefit, there would be as many pro asagainst such views. It might be easier to say: take some of the names that WHFconsistently award 5 stars to, and see what other reviews the 'Net brings up;note how their reviews are pitched, and see what a real 5Star (or 95%) reviewlooks like. Look at the price difference, but more importantly, look at whatnew technology is being employed, that in some instances literally blows allthe competition out of the water.
I hope this criticism is taken the right way, asconstructive rather than destructive. With high expectation to a return tostandard, of a publication that has long stood as a vote for Quality overQuantity – evidenced in the superb, similarly titled article published in WHF(page 154 of Dec 09 issue) on the mass decent into lower bitstreams in favourof cramming more titles on a disc. WHF this is what you were about, please canwe have more of that going into 2010.
Sadly nowmore than ever, for WHF, educating ‘us, the masses’ on real HiFi seems oflittle interest, in favour of cheap and cheerful "instant impact"offerings. Its incredible how WHF continues to give certain marques 5+starapprovals, when blatantly the wider (global) HiFi community punch technicallyand emotionally* credible critique that awards the same items with a 70-80% outof 100, at best. More often than not, many of these items fail dismally on‘sound quality’ alone, when compared to similarly priced rivals.
(*HiFi analysts correctly stipulate the difference between a technical andemotional view - what looks good on technical charts and sonic analyzers cansometimes disappoint when left to aural critique. But both have to beconsidered)
What is the context of my diatribe here? WHF’s ratingsare plastered all over the UK’s hifi stores, on and off-line; in magazines andsupplements, on company websites and in their pamphlets and catalogues. So manypeople buy on the basis of WHF’s ratings (myself included) and in many cases wehave been and remain happy customers – so everyone’s a winner? Not quite. WHF’shigh review standards, technical insight, and quality hunt of before is justnot the case any longer. So many far better new products are being passed overnowadays in favour of “old favourites”, however many times readers put forwarda review request – just look at how many (legitimate) entries that remainunanswered on “how does X compare with its new rival Y?” there are on theseforums. Is WHF afraid to challenge its own ratings with new contenders? Surelytoppling a previous winner with a new, better product is a good way toencourage and maintain manufacturing competivity and quality that consumersthen benefit from. And why does WHF just ‘go quiet’ on so many requests,despite very healthy uptakes on its forums? Do some HiFi marques remain infavour with WHF, because they PAY to get WHF’s 5 star awards?
Just as the financial world has turned on theirRatings’ Agencies, questioning the objectivity of their reviews, perhaps thesame needs to happen with the T3, Stuff and WHF’s out there, as the votingtrends across these “objective reviews” seem increasingly similar. I recentlynoted that some of WHF's assessments have even been copied across word for wordfrom other, older review sources. Back up your argument you say? Singling outnames in a forum like this is of little benefit, there would be as many pro asagainst such views. It might be easier to say: take some of the names that WHFconsistently award 5 stars to, and see what other reviews the 'Net brings up;note how their reviews are pitched, and see what a real 5Star (or 95%) reviewlooks like. Look at the price difference, but more importantly, look at whatnew technology is being employed, that in some instances literally blows allthe competition out of the water.
I hope this criticism is taken the right way, asconstructive rather than destructive. With high expectation to a return tostandard, of a publication that has long stood as a vote for Quality overQuantity – evidenced in the superb, similarly titled article published in WHF(page 154 of Dec 09 issue) on the mass decent into lower bitstreams in favourof cramming more titles on a disc. WHF this is what you were about, please canwe have more of that going into 2010.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram