Clare Newsome:Omegaminx:
Well, I supposed WHF staff should take readers' opinion(s) into account and not be judgemental or assume someone is trolling.
Take it as a constructive comment and see if it's logical.
More than happy to take opinions into account - that's one of the beauties of this Forum, where threads like this give us invaluable feedback. However, there is occasionally some 'history' behind certain comments and viewpoints that we have to handle!
Re the star-rating issue, it's key for us to be consistent, and we are - we're consistent to our core reviewing criteria of performance-per-pound.
If a product is no longer as good value as it was when we first reviewed it - thanks to newer, better-value competition coming along - then our ratings should reflect that, once we've comparatively tested the products in question.
But the ratings are there as a guideline, to help you make a shortlist for your own auditioning. You may not care a product has been outclassed by newer competition, as it may still be a far better product for your ears/eyes/system.
For example, as mentioned many times here previously, I use several four-star products in my system by choice, as they suit my set-up/tastes.
Glad to be heard. Anyway, whether WHF drops a star or two from a product doesnt really disrupt my enjoyment of the product in particular. I'm just trying to highlight a point that this system despite being comprehensible isnt very consistent across the board (pls read my very first post on this subject to understand what I mean).
Example: If we look back Dec 2003 at the Dynaudio 52SE group test against ATC SCM12, Spendor S3/5se, B&W 705
Verdict: Dynaudio 52SE(5 stars-winner), ATC 12(5 stars), Spendor S3/5se (4 stars), B&W705 (4 stars)....
Fast forward to the next review between Ruark Sabre III against Dyn 52SE, Ruark Sabre III(5 stars-winner), Dynaudio 52SE(dropped a star to 4 stars)...no problem there but on reflection, that means the Dyn 52SE has fallen behind ATC SCM12 which stands at 5 stars still as there was no corrective adjustments made. Similarly, the Dyn 52SE has become on par now with B&W 705 and Spendor 3/5se which garnered 4 stars earlier from the group test.
Herein lies the inconsistency I was referring to. I dont really care whether you drop all 5 stars from the Dyn 52SE because I dont own them anyway. In fact, I was using the ATC SCM12 and SCM7 then, thus I paid careful attention to those reviews. Similarly, Rotel RA-05 amp received the same treatment and those pretty Quad 11L/12L which was at some time winner of their own group test at 1 time but I'm lazy to dig thru the mag collection just to quote them. Hope you see while it's valid striking off stars from products as they age, it has to be done to others reviewed in the same group as well to maintain consistency. Otherwise if you pit the Dyn 52SE against say, the ATC SCM11 now, you might want to drop another star from the Dyn 52SE making them a 3-star now, even worse rated than the old B&W 705 or Spendor S3/5se earlier---just simulating ok
But I do realize that this mainly happens to budget or medium priced hifi. At least the high end pricy kits don't get such treatment.
I do agree with some forumers here that personal enjoyment is the ultimate factor that matters regardless of WHF rating as to be honest, I disagree with WHF ratings 1/3 of the time when auditioning products...goes to show taste differs
Pls take my comments as a reader's opinion, simple as that. I don't intend to argue my point till it makes sense to anyone but this point is shared by many who follow your magazine through the years. Just to be fair, I also read other mags eg HF Choice, HF News, HF World, Stereophile, The Absolute Sound(TAS), Tone Audio(e-mag), Audioholics, HF Wigwam forums...
Cheers...
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram