I have been reading this magazine for several years now and have noticed a discrepancy in the way some products are reviewed.
For example, a product A was awarded 5 stars, won against product B(4 stars), C(4 stars), D(3 stars) and E(5stars) in a group test.
Fine but then at the end of the year when award time comes, a new product F is introduced to challenge our A(5 stars).
They found that product F is better than A, so A is downgraded 1 star to 4 stars. New ranking becomes F=5stars, A=4 stars. So item A is now lower ranked than product E(5 stars) earlier. This doesnt make sense as item A clearly bettered E in the earlier group test but now became inferiorly rated cf item E. Status of others eg B, C, D remain the same as they did not compete with F. Best example is the Dynaudio 52SE which was initially 5 stars those days..till Ruark Sabre III came about, then it became 4 stars but other speakers which competed in a group test with Dyn 52SE remained at 5 stars despite the Dyn 52SE winning the group test. Just doesnt sound very consistent or logical or fair.
Sorry guys, just wanted to highlight what ppl and I myself have realized about this flaw in the review system/style adopted for your
kind attention.
The item A should have maintained its status of 5 stars but comments can be made regarding the superiority of F. Otherwise to be
fair, product B,C, D and E also have to be demoted a star each to maintain consistency across the board...hehehe
PS: Same thing happened to the Quad 11L which was speaker of the year for 2 consecutive years and all the praise it garnered from the magazine during its prime time, eventually got demoted to 4 stars too after a newer product came around. However those speakers which were less favoured earlier compared to the 11Ls retained their 4 or 5 star status, making the 11L suddenly lower
ranked than them now..simply illogical.....They could have just stated the 11Ls despite being good in its time, is no longer the top gun in their category, but retain its star rating as it didnt regress in sound in any way. Similarly for Rotel RA-05...regular readers would know what I speak of. However, WHF does have its time of consistency, as in the case of B&W 805s whereby they are no longer the top in their price category, losing out to WIlson Benesch Square-1, but they still retained its 5-star status with a footnote in their review...now that's more fair and consistent...it lends credence to what they write if done this way, not the former method of star-deduction....
Cheers!
For example, a product A was awarded 5 stars, won against product B(4 stars), C(4 stars), D(3 stars) and E(5stars) in a group test.
Fine but then at the end of the year when award time comes, a new product F is introduced to challenge our A(5 stars).
They found that product F is better than A, so A is downgraded 1 star to 4 stars. New ranking becomes F=5stars, A=4 stars. So item A is now lower ranked than product E(5 stars) earlier. This doesnt make sense as item A clearly bettered E in the earlier group test but now became inferiorly rated cf item E. Status of others eg B, C, D remain the same as they did not compete with F. Best example is the Dynaudio 52SE which was initially 5 stars those days..till Ruark Sabre III came about, then it became 4 stars but other speakers which competed in a group test with Dyn 52SE remained at 5 stars despite the Dyn 52SE winning the group test. Just doesnt sound very consistent or logical or fair.
Sorry guys, just wanted to highlight what ppl and I myself have realized about this flaw in the review system/style adopted for your
kind attention.
The item A should have maintained its status of 5 stars but comments can be made regarding the superiority of F. Otherwise to be
fair, product B,C, D and E also have to be demoted a star each to maintain consistency across the board...hehehe
PS: Same thing happened to the Quad 11L which was speaker of the year for 2 consecutive years and all the praise it garnered from the magazine during its prime time, eventually got demoted to 4 stars too after a newer product came around. However those speakers which were less favoured earlier compared to the 11Ls retained their 4 or 5 star status, making the 11L suddenly lower
ranked than them now..simply illogical.....They could have just stated the 11Ls despite being good in its time, is no longer the top gun in their category, but retain its star rating as it didnt regress in sound in any way. Similarly for Rotel RA-05...regular readers would know what I speak of. However, WHF does have its time of consistency, as in the case of B&W 805s whereby they are no longer the top in their price category, losing out to WIlson Benesch Square-1, but they still retained its 5-star status with a footnote in their review...now that's more fair and consistent...it lends credence to what they write if done this way, not the former method of star-deduction....
Cheers!
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram