WHF Credibility

[Ravey Gravey Davy]

Once the cable threads are re-exhausted,several forumites have been shot,flamed or banned,then it is obviously time to turn to the last remaining option- have a go at the magazine(again) - life can be so circular- What phase of the moon is it.

And those of you who think you know everything are b****y annoying to those of us who do.

 

[Anonymous]

Just for clarity here Jax, of the six racks tested, three came pre-constructed and involved little alteration before the test, while the other three arrived here flatpacked and were constructed completely beforehand.

They weren't positioned differently - each was tested in the same position as it's predecessor using the same equipment, tracks, and quite possibly the dust particles in the air - although most likely in a totally different order. It is entirely possible that a storm of mutant dust particles could have sent our collective cochleas out of kilter, but without the aid of an aural inspection, we'll take it as read that they're all working fine.

So let's just go over your rarity once again, for those who may have missed it...

* No difference in positioning
* Six identical set ups used in test
* No significant time gap between tests - a minute or so to move equipment across, sit on sofa, sip coffee, read War and Peace etc etc
* Acoustically neutral (and certified so) room used

To my eyes that's not so much rare as overcooked.

When Joe meant 'side by side' he meant in the same test - not literally side by side a la Johnny Marr's four Fender Twins during the recording of 'How Soon Is Now?', he was, in fact, using a figure of speech. So, to avoid such confusion, let's sum up what he meant -> You're wrong.

 

[John Duncan]

Chris Gilson:and quite possibly the dust particles in the air - although most likely in a totally different order

Ah but doesn't Brownian Motion invalidate the tests, Chris?

 

[RodhasGibson]

Well Andrew I"M Decent and you"ve got my support if nothing else. When will the bickering go away?

 

[jaxwired]

Chris Gilson:So, to avoid such confusion, let's sum up what he meant -> You're wrong.

Well, one thing I'm sure of is you all actually do believe it to be true. That's reassuring.

I think most reasonable people agree that there are numerous high end audio products that make highly dubious claims regarding sound quality improvements. Too bad the audio community is unable to separate the frauds from the genuine article. But then again, there's money in those replacement volume nobs...

 

[Anonymous]

No blind testing?

 

[Andrew Everard]

RodhasGibson:Well Andrew I"M Decent and you"ve got my support if nothing else.

Thank you for your support - I shall wear it always...

 

[Andrew Everard]

Eddie Pound:No blind testing?

Only if they're electric blinds.

 

[RodhasGibson]

And don"t forget the tights

 

[Andrew Everard]

Will the last person to leave this thread please take off the tights.

 

[Anonymous]

I subscribe to many other hi-fi and a/v magazines. Unfortunately, these errors appear to be a trend with WHF only.

It is unacceptable that a magazine that is widely regarded in publication as an authority contains these errors - hi-fi knowledge alone doesn't cut it. Ironically, long articles in HFC are written in perfect English, while short ones in WHF are inundated with errors.

I find these errors very easily when I read, and they are annoying. Why? Because they diminish my view of the quality of the magazine as a whole - that's my opinion. The magazine represents all that you do, and with a worldwide distribution, it does not auger well for you.

If the Editors continue to regard these as an 'over-exaggeration', or 'mildly irritating' and view this as of little or no importance, then so be it.

Just don't claim to be the best or world class. You have to be seen to be the best in every respect.

 

[Anonymous]

Don't the metal racks pick up unwanted RFI if they aren't properly screened?

 

[Simon Lucas]

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

Or, more correctly: "As a claimed authority in A/V this, in my opinion, is unacceptable."

Got to keep those subbing skills sharp.

 

[professorhat]

ValianTX:while short ones in WHF are inundated with errors.

Oh come on, but that is an exaggeration. I know where you're coming from, there are sometimes a few typos in each issue but to say short articles are "inundated" with mistakes is just not true. Most of the errors I see are page numbers being put incorrectly which is of course down to the advertising being shuffled around at the last minute and nothing the guys here have any control over.

 

[Anonymous]

A misplaced comma? You do a lot worse in every issue Simon. I'm just an individual while you represent the magazine. Who's got bigger credibility issues?

What I find particularly amusing is the way all you 'Editors' just laugh it off without considering this as a constructive criticism.

 

[Simon Lucas]

No, you're right. Your mistakes are trifling, hardly worthy of comment. Mine are seismic.

 

[Anonymous]

EDITED BY MODS - please do not attack other members

 

[Andrew Everard]

ValianTX:What I find particularly amusing is the way all you 'Editors' just laugh it off

We aim to entertain as well as inform...

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, I see that now.

 

[Anonymous]

I am actually stricken with the response from WHF editors. I would have expected an apology and a promise to fix/not repeat any errors - in a true best-in-class customer service fashion. I understand you may have interpreted certain posts as an attack on your magazine but it is a bit appaling to see a level of arrogance and counterattack on consumers - I really hope this is not indicative of the company and the magazine in general.

 

[Andrew Everard]

ValianTX:Yes, I see that now.

Good. So now, maybe if we can work out the reason, we can get home...

 

[Anonymous]

This thread's getting as entertaining as a cable thread now.

BTW Valian, you won't win with Mr Everard, better to keep on his side.

 

[Andrew Everard]

chainrock:I am actually stricken with the response from WHF editors. I would have expected an apology and a promise to fix/not repeat any errors - in a true best-in-class customer service fashion. I understand you may have interpreted certain posts as an attack on your magazine but it is a bit appaling to see a level of arrogance and counterattack on consumers - I really hope this is not indicative of the company and the magazine in general.

Just responding in a manner befitting the comments made. And we're not interpreting them as anything of the sort, even if that's how you choose to interpret how you feel we're interpreting them.

 

[RodhasGibson]

EDITED BY MODS - please do not attack other users

 

[Anonymous]

On the subject of credibility I was surprised that in the April 09 article on "The big question of Upscaling which kit does it best ?" didn't mention deinterlacing performance which does vary from product to product and can have a significant affect on upscaling.

Given deinterlacing is a fundamental stage prior to upscaling it may have been useful to know how different products performed without being limited to "player only" deinterlacing i.e. 576p output. It appears that only progressive output was used from the players although the Pio LX71, Sony DBP-S5000, Sony BDP-350 and Denon 2500BT all support interlaced output at native DVD resolution. Using this output would provide a better benchmark of a display or AVR's video processing including scaling. Limiting the deinterlacing to player appears flawed in assessing which product really provides the best video processing.

Das