WHF Credibility

jaxwired

Well-known member
Feb 7, 2009
284
6
18,895
Visit site
First of all, I love WHF. It's a fantastic magazine. In fact, I literally pay 10 times the subscription price of local competitors to receive it in my country.

Now, with that said, I was dissapointed to see the section in this month's issue commented on the sound quality of audio racks. These comments jepordize WHF review credibility. Why not review audio racks for stability, appearance, and utility? In reality, that's all they can provide.

Keep up the otherwise good work,

-Jax
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I know what you mean.

In a recent issue WHF featured a £10,000 ADAM loudspeaker and didn't even tell of its freqency response!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I just fail to understand why there are numerous typo, grammatical errors in EVERY issue I have ever bought - doesn't anybody proof-read before it goes out to print?

As a claimed authority in A/V, this in my opinion, is unacceptable.
 

professorhat

Well-known member
Dec 28, 2007
992
22
18,895
Visit site
Cable arguments have been exhausted (we all pray anyway). Time to move on to racks...
emotion-7.gif
 

Joe Cox

Content Director, What Hi-Fi?
Staff member
May 31, 2007
271
14
18,895
Visit site
jaxwired:
First of all, I love WHF. It's a fantastic magazine. In fact, I literally pay 10 times the subscription price of local competitors to receive it in my country.

Now, with that said, I was dissapointed to see the section in this month's issue commented on the sound quality of audio racks. These comments jepordize WHF review credibility. Why not review audio racks for stability, appearance, and utility? In reality, that's all they can provide.

Keep up the otherwise good work,

-Jax

Well, I hate to disagree... When was the last time you tested six AV racks side-by-side? I can only recommend you give it a try as you really should hear a difference. Of course - as ever - if you can't hear a difference, then by all means spend your money elsewhere.
 

Simon Lucas

New member
Jun 5, 2007
84
0
0
Visit site
jaxwired:Why not review audio racks for stability, appearance, and utility? In reality, that's all they can provide.

Unlike Joe, I don't hate to disagree. I just disagree.
 

The_Lhc

Well-known member
Oct 16, 2008
1,176
1
19,195
Visit site
ValianTX: I just fail to understand why there are numerous typo, grammatical errors in EVERY issue I have ever bought - doesn't anybody proof-read before it goes out to print?

As a claimed authority in A/V, this in my opinion, is unacceptable.

The ability to spell does not guarantee a knowledge of Hi-Fi.

They're producing a magazine, not a dictionary. It's mildly irritating I guess, but I think you're over-reacting slightly.

And I'm annoyed that you didn't make any spelling mistakes in your post, how am I supposed to get my kicks now?
 

Andy Clough

New member
Apr 27, 2004
776
0
0
Visit site
ValianTX:
I just fail to understand why there are numerous typo, grammatical errors in EVERY issue I have ever bought - doesn't anybody proof-read before it goes out to print?

As a claimed authority in A/V, this in my opinion, is unacceptable.

I think you're exaggerating a tad. OK, there might be the occasional typo but every page is proof-read by at least three people, including the Editor. In fact, he's down at the printers right now with our Managing Editor checking the pages as they roll off the printing presses. And remember, we are human.
emotion-1.gif
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
professorhat:
Cable arguments have been exhausted (we all pray anyway). Time to move on to racks...
emotion-7.gif


Nah, keep up, we're on mains power at the moment...
 

Clare Newsome

New member
Jun 4, 2007
1,657
0
0
Visit site
Eddie Pound:
I know what you mean.

In a recent issue WHF featured a £10,000 ADAM loudspeaker and didn't even tell of its freqency response!

It was actually a £12000 pair of active speakers - you can read the ADAM Audio Tensor Gamma review here, where we concentrate on context, features, positioning, system matching and (most importantly of all) performance. All of those, in our minds, are far more key than quoting a frequency response figure (26Hz-50kHz, as you're asking).
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Clare Newsome:Eddie Pound:
I know what you mean.

In a recent issue WHF featured a £10,000 ADAM loudspeaker and didn't even tell of its freqency response!

It was actually a £12000 pair of active speakers - you can read the ADAM Audio Tensor Gamma review here, where we concentrate on context, features, positioning, system matching and (most importantly of all) performance. All of those, in our minds, are far more key than quoting a frequency response figure.

Clare,

The review states that these speakers include digital amplifiers.

Can you elaborate on that?
 

Clare Newsome

New member
Jun 4, 2007
1,657
0
0
Visit site
Eddie Pound:Clare Newsome:Eddie Pound:
I know what you mean.

In a recent issue WHF featured a £10,000 ADAM loudspeaker and didn't even tell of its freqency response!

It was actually a £12000 pair of active speakers - you can read the ADAM Audio Tensor Gamma review here, where we concentrate on context, features, positioning, system matching and (most importantly of all) performance. All of those, in our minds, are far more key than quoting a frequency response figure.

Clare,

The review states that these speakers include digital amplifiers.

Can you elaborate on that?

Not personally, as I haven't had a tech briefing on those speakers. I know a man here who has, though - i'll ask him to comment.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thank you, Clare.

I was just confused because the ADAM website says this:

"Important note: there are no bits and bytes involved, so "Digital
Amplifier" is a misleading description of the principle"


Your technical team should let the chaps at ADAM know that they are wrong.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Andrew Everard:You know what? I don't think you were confused at all.

You are correct, Andrew.

It was just another piece of poor journalism.
 

Andrew Everard

New member
May 30, 2007
1,878
2
0
Visit site
You have to realise that not all readers have a brain the size of a planet, and that when writing for a non-specialist readership some shortcuts will be made in order to explain the principle of what we are saying.

Poor journalism? I don't think so - which of these gets the story from yesterday over more immediately to a non-specialist readership?

"CHANCELLOR Alistair Darling hammered the nation with painful tax hikes yesterday to pay for the gaping black hole in Britain's finances."

Or

"The chancellor gambled on a rapid economic recovery and took an axe to his public spending plans as projected government borrowing surged to a peacetime record"

Anyway, to return to the matter in hand...

We could quote the entire Adam Audio explanation, which is that

"

active_tech.jpg


In recent years amplifier technology has experienced its second big
change after going from tubes to transistors some 40 years ago.
You can still find semiconductors in this new generation of amplifiers,
but the signals to be amplified are treated in a completely new
and different way.


"PWM (Pulse Width Modulation) - sometimes referred to as Class D
amplification in contrast to the normal A or AB transistor amplifiers,
and sometimes called Switching Amp Technology - converts the incoming
signal to a series of rectangular waveforms of equal height. The
width of the rectangles varies in time and the relation of the width
of the rectangles represents the musical signal. This waveform can
be amplified much more simply, as the transistors are not modulated
anymore; instead they are used as switches that only turn the power
supply voltage on and off. In the case of a single sine wave this
looks as follows:

pwm.gif


Even a very fast mechanical switch could do the job, but power
transistors turn out to be a better choice for the task, so PWM
amplifiers still look pretty much like the classic Class AB designs.
Important note: there are no bits and bytes involved, so "Digital
Amplifier" is a misleading description of the principle.


"The main advantage of PWM amplifiers is their extremely high efficiency
(>90%). As a consequence the heat to be dissipated is only one
fifth of earlier designs, leading to much lower temperatures within
the amps and making the use of heat sinks obsolete.

This principle has been known for decades, but time was needed to
develop units that are at the leading edge in sonic reproduction
quality and that still have the high efficiency mentioned previously.


"The ADAM units presented here use the new technology for both the
amp and the power supply section (i.e. no more transformers) and
combine it with state of the art input and filter sections to achieve
the best in multichannel active studio monitoring.
"

Or we could take lengthy quotes as to how the speakers' underlying technology is designed from the ICEPower papers, but I suspect that would send the majority of readers to sleep while pleasing only a few propellerheads, while most are more interested in how the product performs and our opinion of it. That's why they buy the magazine.

But anyway, have fun with your tricks and traps. Glad they keep you happy.
 

professorhat

Well-known member
Dec 28, 2007
992
22
18,895
Visit site
Well I'm outraged. I was intending to buy a pair of £12,000 speakers based entirely on the fact that I thought they had digital amplifiers in them.

Couldn't care less what they sound like so I ignored the rest of your review...
emotion-14.gif
 

jaxwired

Well-known member
Feb 7, 2009
284
6
18,895
Visit site
Joe Cox:

Well, I hate to disagree... When was the last time you tested six AV racks side-by-side?

With all due respect, whatever test you did perform was likely flawed.

If you actually set up six racks with identical equipment, the fact that they would be positioned differently would allow room acoustics to impact the sound far more than the rack itself.

However, I doubt you have 6 identical setups. Instead you likely broke down and re-configured the equipment for each test. This would require a significant gap in time between auditions. Far too big a gap to obtain an reliable evaluation. The instrument you are using (brain/ears/memory) is not sensitive enough to measure the fine degree of change you ascribe to the racks without a very minimal time gap.

Obviously a blind test would settle the matter... For me, common sense makes it unnecessary. Again, no disrespect intended. I fully admit that I don't know everything and I could be wrong (but it's rare).

-Jax
 

John Duncan

Well-known member
jaxwired:Joe Cox:

Well, I hate to disagree... When was the last time you tested six AV racks side-by-side?

With all due respect, whatever test you did perform was likely flawed.

If you actually set up six racks with identical equipment, the fact that they would be positioned differently would allow room acoustics to impact the sound far more than the rack itself.

However, I doubt you have 6 identical setups. Instead you likely broke down and re-configured the equipment for each test. This would require a significant gap in time between auditions. Far too big a gap to obtain an reliable evaluation. The instrument you are using (brain/ears/memory) is not sensitive enough to measure the fine degree of change you ascribe to the racks without a very minimal time gap.

Obviously a blind test would settle the matter... For me, common sense makes it unnecessary. Again, no disrespect intended. I fully admit that I don't know everything and I could be wrong (but it's rare).

-Jax

Having seen how it all works, I can assure you you're wrong...
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts