RodhasGibson
Well-known member
No its just you my friend,lets leave it at that shall we. 99% of us, just enjoy the mag warts and all. If it doesn"t suit you so be it. Get an early night cos its school tomorrow eh.
I think some posters should leave there current jobs and get a job in comedy. Or politics!! The way some deflect questions with sarcasmis pathetic!
Well that's the thing - in my book a business should never respond in a matter befitting customer comments...
bobbyg81:I think some posters should leave there current jobs and get a job in comedy. Or politics!! The way some deflect questions with sarcasmis pathetic!
chainrock:Well that's the thing - in my book a business should never respond in a matter befitting customer comments...
I think your book has just made you contradict yourself.
I think your book has just made you contradict yourself.
As any regular users of these Forums will know, we certainly take feedback on board - as well as constructive criticism - and attempt to act on it to the benefit of all. For example, we recently invested in an extra member of production staff to address subbing issues.
However, with far, far more editorial pages than our rivals - typically 105+ per month - we can't promise to be totally error-free, even if it is our aim.When we/you spot mistakes, we'll post corrections online, too, and in the magazine, to clarify matters.
What we can promise is that our main focus will always be on the comparative testing of products, by the team, in our dedicated facilities. Oh, and answering as many questions as we can up here (surely that commitment forgives us the odd typo or two?)
However, with far, far more editorial pages than our rivals - typically 105+ per month - we can't promise to be totally error-free, even if it is our aim.When we/you spot mistakes, we'll post corrections online, too, and in the magazine, to clarify matters.
What we can promise is that our main focus will always be on the comparative testing of products, by the team, in our dedicated facilities. Oh, and answering as many questions as we can up here (surely that commitment forgives us the odd typo or two?)
Andrew Everard:
chainrock:Well that's the thing - in my book a business should never respond in a matter befitting customer comments...
I think your book has just made you contradict yourself.
See that's what i am talking about.
chainrock:Well that's the thing - in my book a business should never respond in a matter befitting customer comments...
I think your book has just made you contradict yourself.
See that's what i am talking about.
chainrock:Andrew Everard:
chainrock:Well that's the thing - in my book a business should never respond in a matter befitting customer comments...
I think your book has just made you contradict yourself.
See that's what i am talking about.
Don't take the bait!
chainrock:Well that's the thing - in my book a business should never respond in a matter befitting customer comments...
I think your book has just made you contradict yourself.
See that's what i am talking about.
Don't take the bait!
chainrock:See that's what i am talking about.
What? You say we are not responding appropriately, then you say
chainrock:in my book a business should never respond in a matter befitting customer comments...
Isn't that a total about-turn?
What? You say we are not responding appropriately, then you say
chainrock:in my book a business should never respond in a matter befitting customer comments...
Isn't that a total about-turn?
Finally a sensible post!!
Good to see the smileys being put to good use!!
A picture paints a thousand words and all that!!
Good to see the smileys being put to good use!!
A picture paints a thousand words and all that!!
Interesting discussion. Note : The only sensible response from WHFSAV befitting someone of her position - Clare Newsome. Kudos to you for stepping in!
Be proactive to constructive comments, trivial or not. We all want the magazine to be 'the best of the best', that's all.
Humility, not arrogance.
Be proactive to constructive comments, trivial or not. We all want the magazine to be 'the best of the best', that's all.
Humility, not arrogance.
Ravey Gravey Davy
Well-known member
EvilWolf:
Interesting discussion. Note : The only sensible response from WHFSAV befitting someone of her position - Clare Newsome. Kudos to you for stepping in!
Be proactive to constructive comments, trivial or not. We all want the magazine to be 'the best of the best', that's all.
Humility, not arrogance.
The trouble is the humility pot is only so big,and when there are constant petty attacks it can get emptied too quickly- why should people have to be overly polite(or proactive) to those repeatedly undeserving of it.-and it is more likely righteous indignation rather than arrogance when the pot is empty.
The customer can only be king if he/she occasionally shows signs of royalty themself.
Interesting discussion. Note : The only sensible response from WHFSAV befitting someone of her position - Clare Newsome. Kudos to you for stepping in!
Be proactive to constructive comments, trivial or not. We all want the magazine to be 'the best of the best', that's all.
Humility, not arrogance.
The trouble is the humility pot is only so big,and when there are constant petty attacks it can get emptied too quickly- why should people have to be overly polite(or proactive) to those repeatedly undeserving of it.-and it is more likely righteous indignation rather than arrogance when the pot is empty.
The customer can only be king if he/she occasionally shows signs of royalty themself.
Life is so much better when you stop being anal about everything, so the originator of this post should enjoy hi-fi for what it is! I love it! and little typos will not change what I think of the magazine.
EvilWolf:
Interesting discussion. Note : The only sensible response from WHFSAV befitting someone of her position - Clare Newsome. Kudos to you for stepping in!
Be proactive to constructive comments, trivial or not. We all want the magazine to be 'the best of the best', that's all.
Humility, not arrogance
Couldnt agree more.From some of the posts ive read recently arrogance seems to be the order of the day and this stupid ' I am more audiophile than you attitude'. We can all use google and pretend to be knowledgeable. But if you are proved wrong admit it!!
I suggest an arrogance and sarcasm amnesty.
Interesting discussion. Note : The only sensible response from WHFSAV befitting someone of her position - Clare Newsome. Kudos to you for stepping in!
Be proactive to constructive comments, trivial or not. We all want the magazine to be 'the best of the best', that's all.
Humility, not arrogance
Couldnt agree more.From some of the posts ive read recently arrogance seems to be the order of the day and this stupid ' I am more audiophile than you attitude'. We can all use google and pretend to be knowledgeable. But if you are proved wrong admit it!!
I suggest an arrogance and sarcasm amnesty.
Andrew Everard:
chainrock:See that's what i am talking about.
What? You say we are not responding appropriately, then you say
chainrock:in my book a business should never respond in a matter befitting customer comments...
Isn't that a total about-turn?
See Andrew, my point was that customer-service oriented businesses such as yours should focus less on "being right" and proving a point and instead on focusing more on satisfying the customer and avoiding any conflict, let alone actually challenging a customer.
It is not a about-turn as we were interpreting "befitting" differently.
chainrock:See that's what i am talking about.
What? You say we are not responding appropriately, then you say
chainrock:in my book a business should never respond in a matter befitting customer comments...
Isn't that a total about-turn?
See Andrew, my point was that customer-service oriented businesses such as yours should focus less on "being right" and proving a point and instead on focusing more on satisfying the customer and avoiding any conflict, let alone actually challenging a customer.
It is not a about-turn as we were interpreting "befitting" differently.
John Duncan
Well-known member
chainrock:let alone actually challenging a customer
I'm not sure I agree. If somebody comes to me in my place of work and tells me I'm rubbish at my job, I shall defend my position robustly to them. Would you not?
I'm not sure I agree. If somebody comes to me in my place of work and tells me I'm rubbish at my job, I shall defend my position robustly to them. Would you not?
lazar1980
Well-known member
chainrock:It is not a about-turn as we were interpreting "befitting" differently.
I was using the conventional 'appropriate to' sense. I fear you were confusing befitting with belittling, if I may be so humble as to suggest so.
I was using the conventional 'appropriate to' sense. I fear you were confusing befitting with belittling, if I may be so humble as to suggest so.
Big Aura
Well-known member
wow - just read through all of this. There's a fair degree of "chippyness" out there. Speaking as someone who devotes a fair degree of his time to spotting (and exploiting) typos, there are fairly few in WHFS&V. Typos frequently appear in national broadsheets, so the odd one in a specialist magazine shouldn't cause undue concern.
But the original post (which, strangely I think I drew attention to, but got no reply (as far as I can tell)), does interest me. A stand should either do its job or not (keep kit steady or wobble).
Just like the great (!) HDMI debate, as someone relatively new to Hi-Fi, I would be very grateful if a cleverer sort than me could spell out exactly how one stand can be "tonally [...] too bright" or could "lack warmth" or give "thick sounding" base.
All said, I do love the mag.
Garry
(PS on the typo front - QED Silver Anniverary XT is listed as "directional", but the biwire version isn't - not sure that's correct (
)).
But the original post (which, strangely I think I drew attention to, but got no reply (as far as I can tell)), does interest me. A stand should either do its job or not (keep kit steady or wobble).
Just like the great (!) HDMI debate, as someone relatively new to Hi-Fi, I would be very grateful if a cleverer sort than me could spell out exactly how one stand can be "tonally [...] too bright" or could "lack warmth" or give "thick sounding" base.
All said, I do love the mag.
Garry
(PS on the typo front - QED Silver Anniverary XT is listed as "directional", but the biwire version isn't - not sure that's correct (
Having just read the thread from start to finish it is filled with pettiness that reminds me of the playground.
For those people who do not value this forum and / or magazine go and take your hook. You bring nothing constructive to the table.
I also see great sensitivity and a big reaction by the What Hi Fi team which puzzles me. What politics and undercurrents that are going on here I do not know, but is there more to this than meets the eye?
PS, not very good at spelling, or proof reading.
For those people who do not value this forum and / or magazine go and take your hook. You bring nothing constructive to the table.
I also see great sensitivity and a big reaction by the What Hi Fi team which puzzles me. What politics and undercurrents that are going on here I do not know, but is there more to this than meets the eye?
PS, not very good at spelling, or proof reading.
Big Aura:
But the original post (which, strangely I think I drew attention to, but got no reply (as far as I can tell)), does interest me. A stand should either do its job or not (keep kit steady or wobble).
Just like the great (!) HDMI debate, as someone relatively new to Hi-Fi, I would be very grateful if a cleverer sort than me could spell out exactly how one stand can be "tonally [...] too bright" or could "lack warmth" or give "thick sounding" base.
Thank you! I know there are lots of people that agree with my skepticism regarding audio rack sound quality improvements.
But the original post (which, strangely I think I drew attention to, but got no reply (as far as I can tell)), does interest me. A stand should either do its job or not (keep kit steady or wobble).
Just like the great (!) HDMI debate, as someone relatively new to Hi-Fi, I would be very grateful if a cleverer sort than me could spell out exactly how one stand can be "tonally [...] too bright" or could "lack warmth" or give "thick sounding" base.
Thank you! I know there are lots of people that agree with my skepticism regarding audio rack sound quality improvements.
professorhat
Well-known member
I think it's fair to be skeptical until you've tried it out for yourself (then you'd know one way or the other in your own mind). However, you also suggested that WHF's credibility was at stake because they found a difference sonically between racks. I've seen quite a few posts on here of people who've upgraded their hi-fi racks and stated they noticed the difference. Is it placebo, is it something else, I've no idea, but I would be wary of criticising someone who has tried it out if I had done no such trial for myself...
trevor79:For those people who do not value this forum and / or magazine go and take your hook. You bring nothing constructive to the table.
I suspect you are not talking about my post, however, several people have commented with similar opinions and I would like to address that. My original post and subsequent posts were respectful and polite. I feel I raise a very valid issue regarding both the magazine's credibility and the credibility of the industry in general.
Robust discussion of "snake oil" topics is healthy and appropriate. In fact, I'd say it was imperative given the black eye the industry has over the many very expensive dubious products marketed to the audio enthusiast.
Example: http://www.musicdirect.com/product/72730
Like you, I very much enjoy the magazine and this forum. That is all the more reason to address this topic. It would be nice to see the audio press openly debunk some of these products themselves. This would truly bring a new level of credibility to the hobby.
I suspect you are not talking about my post, however, several people have commented with similar opinions and I would like to address that. My original post and subsequent posts were respectful and polite. I feel I raise a very valid issue regarding both the magazine's credibility and the credibility of the industry in general.
Robust discussion of "snake oil" topics is healthy and appropriate. In fact, I'd say it was imperative given the black eye the industry has over the many very expensive dubious products marketed to the audio enthusiast.
Example: http://www.musicdirect.com/product/72730
Like you, I very much enjoy the magazine and this forum. That is all the more reason to address this topic. It would be nice to see the audio press openly debunk some of these products themselves. This would truly bring a new level of credibility to the hobby.
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram