Hi all,
I just read the review of the new B&W 606 S2 and one thing wasn't clear to me. In many other hifi and hi-end audio publications, the testing procedure is made clear, not just the list of system components used and measurements are taken to both validate the manufacturers specifications and performance claims vs a real world test. Many of these publications review super high-end equipment and so whilst for most What Hifi readers these are OTT and unnecessarily technical, what they do is often clearly expose false claims or actual issues in audio performance. You guys don't do any of this. The final but most important thing is this level of rigorous testing process and measurement ensures when a writer makes claim about one review sample vs a previous model or competing product they can be absolute about differences. This is really useful to anyone wanting to buy the best in class. More often than not they have ALL of the products and models to test endlessly and measure back to back. End result - a very clear account of a product and its relative performance to peers.
So my question for your editor/writer of the B&W 606 s2's is did you have the the previous model 606 to directly compare the s2 against? The article makes many, many subjective references of differences and improvements between the two. Honestly, unless they used the 606 for a very long time and only just switched to the s2 how would they really know? They can't. It's been proven time over our brains inability to recall these subtle differences, especially as time elapses. How can you be certain that updating the caps in the crossover would bring all these positive changes, especially if you don't even measure anything. I have made high-end speakers for decades and fully understand the economics of commercial spealer building - that crossover components used at this level are pretty darn low grade, so a few select upgrades can make a notable but would hardly make radical difference- given what they would used in the s2. Back to back testing both models is really the only way for anyone to be sure. So, did you have the original 606 there or are you guys just guessing? If you did, then you didn't say and dare say you would have gone further in the comparison.
I have read What Hifi since 1988 and I am a fan. But unless you did test the two B&W models back to back the article like a great number of others you publish, is highly subjective at best, based on your writers ability to recall a product they most likely tested a year ago. I don't see anything in the article stating such a comparison. It looks like your readers just have to trust your writers recall and trust a pretty flimsy, subjective review.
Further, and very surprisingly, there's no mention of, let alone direct testing of the product vs competitors. This is lame, you want people to subscribe but you don't even test a product and at least directly compare it with another leading model? If you were writing for a car magazine you wouldn't last long.
People read your title as they have both a passion for music and audio reproduction and spend their hard earned money subscribing or enduring the many ads for great articles that really give them a great account of what is the best kit available. The lack of detail (did you even ask B&W about what the changes in the s2 addressed/improved?), not directly testing of models and competitors and zero measurement to back it all up results in a wooly account at best that can't be trusted or backed up.
I recognise this was a fairly short review and that you do run group tests, but this post serves to highlight that overall, your team seem to write like The Sun when many readers want a bit more fact checking, comparative testing and rigorous journalism they can trust so they can buy product with confidence. Ultimately, its your brand, trust and reputation on the line. I know you can do better and think you need to go article deeper and do a better job of finding the best in class.
What do others on here and manufacturers think?? I'd like to know.
I just read the review of the new B&W 606 S2 and one thing wasn't clear to me. In many other hifi and hi-end audio publications, the testing procedure is made clear, not just the list of system components used and measurements are taken to both validate the manufacturers specifications and performance claims vs a real world test. Many of these publications review super high-end equipment and so whilst for most What Hifi readers these are OTT and unnecessarily technical, what they do is often clearly expose false claims or actual issues in audio performance. You guys don't do any of this. The final but most important thing is this level of rigorous testing process and measurement ensures when a writer makes claim about one review sample vs a previous model or competing product they can be absolute about differences. This is really useful to anyone wanting to buy the best in class. More often than not they have ALL of the products and models to test endlessly and measure back to back. End result - a very clear account of a product and its relative performance to peers.
So my question for your editor/writer of the B&W 606 s2's is did you have the the previous model 606 to directly compare the s2 against? The article makes many, many subjective references of differences and improvements between the two. Honestly, unless they used the 606 for a very long time and only just switched to the s2 how would they really know? They can't. It's been proven time over our brains inability to recall these subtle differences, especially as time elapses. How can you be certain that updating the caps in the crossover would bring all these positive changes, especially if you don't even measure anything. I have made high-end speakers for decades and fully understand the economics of commercial spealer building - that crossover components used at this level are pretty darn low grade, so a few select upgrades can make a notable but would hardly make radical difference- given what they would used in the s2. Back to back testing both models is really the only way for anyone to be sure. So, did you have the original 606 there or are you guys just guessing? If you did, then you didn't say and dare say you would have gone further in the comparison.
I have read What Hifi since 1988 and I am a fan. But unless you did test the two B&W models back to back the article like a great number of others you publish, is highly subjective at best, based on your writers ability to recall a product they most likely tested a year ago. I don't see anything in the article stating such a comparison. It looks like your readers just have to trust your writers recall and trust a pretty flimsy, subjective review.
Further, and very surprisingly, there's no mention of, let alone direct testing of the product vs competitors. This is lame, you want people to subscribe but you don't even test a product and at least directly compare it with another leading model? If you were writing for a car magazine you wouldn't last long.
People read your title as they have both a passion for music and audio reproduction and spend their hard earned money subscribing or enduring the many ads for great articles that really give them a great account of what is the best kit available. The lack of detail (did you even ask B&W about what the changes in the s2 addressed/improved?), not directly testing of models and competitors and zero measurement to back it all up results in a wooly account at best that can't be trusted or backed up.
I recognise this was a fairly short review and that you do run group tests, but this post serves to highlight that overall, your team seem to write like The Sun when many readers want a bit more fact checking, comparative testing and rigorous journalism they can trust so they can buy product with confidence. Ultimately, its your brand, trust and reputation on the line. I know you can do better and think you need to go article deeper and do a better job of finding the best in class.
What do others on here and manufacturers think?? I'd like to know.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram