WHF Star Rating System

[Al ears]

I don't think they are true reviews, its about promoting hifi and advertising

******************************************************************************************************************************

I agree with the above quote, and that if you did give the reviews scores in the 100% range purely based on sound quality etc, and not taking into acount the price that some of the cheaper stuff would be better than some of the much dearer stuff, and of course this would be bad for sales regarding the much dearer stuff, I have no doubt that this is true

You could easily devise a new rating system for the above, its quite easy really

I may be wrong about in this one particular example, but please read the information below:-

(Just out of interest the Denon Ceol N7 got 5 stars, but the Denon Ceol N8 got 4 stars, and am am sure the audio electronics have not changed at all, whilst the current Marantz MRC610 got 5 stars, I may be wrong but it apears they are perhaps trying to "promote" the Marantz more than the Ceol, and the new current Denon Ceol N9 has not been reviewed yet !)

I don't think there is a conspiracy here the N8 simply appears to be a cheaper version of the N7 and also lacks both Bluetooth and DAB for which it gets marked down. Obviously the other manufacturers have improved their systems in the meantime and these cover all bases better than the N8.... simples.

The Ceol N9 probably hasn't been reviewed because they haven't been sent one yet.

Just how is this promoting Marantz? You've lost me there.

 

[SteveR750]

Bear in mind that occasionally, some items get marked down a star after time, even though there has not been a new review! This was the case with the B&W DM303s a few years ago, they were a 5 star annual award winner. Within 2 years they were a 4 star product (with the same speaker of the year in 20xx comment in the magazine database).

Every review has to be taken in context, not least of all your own calibration to the reviewers ears. For example, some years ago, a friend and I were arguing over cars, best handling cheap cars. He dismissed my claims on the basis I hand't driven them, my argument was based upon having driven and come to same conclusion with that particular reviewer on a number of other cars. That said, I've not yet read a review of the SCM40s that tallies with any "expert" review. Every one of them seems to feel obliged to add somewhere in their appraisal a comment about ruthlessness, and brutally revealing; as if these are detrimental qualities, whereas in reality they are far from harsh, in fact I've found them to be as smooth as any ProAc ribbon tweeter, and a whole lot less grating than their soft domes. Point being, there is undoubtedly an expectation bias amongst magazine reviewers too, it's human nature.

 

[CnoEvil]

That said, I've not yet read a review of the SCM40s that tallies with any "expert" review. Every one of them seems to feel obliged to add somewhere in their appraisal a comment about ruthlessness, and brutally revealing; as if these are detrimental qualities, whereas in reality they are far from harsh, in fact I've found them to be as smooth as any ProAc ribbon tweeter, and a whole lot less grating than their soft domes. Point being, there is undoubtedly an expectation bias amongst magazine reviewers too, it's human nature.

Though tbf, ruthlessly revealing and harsh are not the same thing; in the same way that analytical and clinical are not necessarily the same.

 

[SteveR750]

That said, I've not yet read a review of the SCM40s that tallies with any "expert" review. Every one of them seems to feel obliged to add somewhere in their appraisal a comment about ruthlessness, and brutally revealing; as if these are detrimental qualities, whereas in reality they are far from harsh, in fact I've found them to be as smooth as any ProAc ribbon tweeter, and a whole lot less grating than their soft domes. Point being, there is undoubtedly an expectation bias amongst magazine reviewers too, it's human nature.

Though tbf, ruthlessly revealing and harsh are not the same thing; in the same way that analytical and clinical are not necessarily the same.

I agree, but so many reviews associate the two adjectives. Ruthless as an adjective to describe sound infers unpleasant, as it's always used in the context of poor recordings. I'd much prefer unwaveringly, unfalteringly, or even stoically. That implies an honesty that is positive, not negative.

 

[ivavcr]

My take on WHF star rating system and WHF reviews in general, is that they can not be taken seriously. Primarily because they are very inconsistent. Some products from the same price bracket will receive demerit points for having a single pair of speaker terminals only while that is not even mentioned as a flaw for another product. Quite often, there is a confusion between build quality and esthetics. We all know that beauty is in the eye of a beholder and the build quality, good o bad, is something else.

I do not want to sound like 90's (because I am 50's) but to me, there are darlings who are constantly getting 5 stars - no matter what! Each new series they produce is so much better than the previous one that was also 5 stars.

Anyway, reviews and their respective star ratings have a great entertinment value!

 

[Snooker]

Quote BigH

I don't think they are true reviews, its about promoting hifi and advertising

End of Quote

******************************************************************************************************************************

I agree with the above quote by BigH, and that if you did give the reviews scores in the 100% range purely based on sound quality etc, and not taking into acount the price that some of the cheaper stuff would be better than some of the much dearer stuff, and of course this would be bad for sales regarding the much dearer stuff, I have no doubt that this is true

You could easily devise a new rating system for the above, its quite easy really

As stated in my last post I have no doubt that the above is why the review system stays the same !

 

[bigboss]

I don't think they are true reviews, its about promoting hifi and advertising?

******************************************************************************************************************************

I agree with the above quote, and that if you did give the reviews scores in the 100% range purely based on sound quality etc, and not taking into acount the price that some of the cheaper stuff would be better than some of the much dearer stuff, and of course this would be bad for sales regarding the much dearer stuff, I have no doubt that this is true

You could easily devise a new rating system for the above, its quite easy really

I may be wrong about in this one particular example, but please read the information below:-

(Just out of interest the Denon Ceol N7 got 5 stars, but the Denon Ceol N8 got 4 stars, and am sure the audio electronics have not changed at all, whilst the current Marantz MRC610 got 5 stars, I may be wrong but it apears they are perhaps trying to "promote" the Marantz more than the Ceol, and the new current Denon Ceol N9 has not been reviewed yet !)

You do know that Denon and Marantz are brands of the same manufacturer (D&M Holdings), don't you?

 

[Snooker]

Yes I do, and I understand what you are saying, but they just seem to be pushing the Marantz in my opinion (Marantz is typically £100 dearer than the Ceol when both are first put on the market etc, and both units probably sound about the same without a 20% difference which the review suggested, as most people have said it is more or less the exact same electronics in both units and that they are sisters etc, the review compared the Ceol N8 with the Marantz MCR610 but did not say if it was as good as the Ceol N7 which still has 5 stars, just wish they could have compared it to the Ceol N7 to make the review more rounded and meaningful)

Again I think that the main reason the review rating system is not changed to a system not including the price of a product is because some of the cheaper systems will be better than some of the dearer or much dearer systems, so reducing sales of the dearer products etc

 

[SteveR750]

Yes I do, and I understand what you are saying, but they just seem to be pushing the Marantz in my opinion (Marantz is typically £100 dearer than the Ceol when both are first put on the market etc, and both units probably sound about the same without a 20% difference which the review suggested, as most people have said it is more or less the exact same electronics in both units and that they are sisters etc, the review compared the Ceol N8 with the Marantz MCR610 but did not say if it was as good as the Ceol N7 which still has 5 stars, just wish they could have compared it to the Ceol N7 to make the review more rounded and meaningful)

Again I think that the main reason the review rating system is not changed to a system not including the price of a product is because some of the cheaper systems will be better than some of the dearer or much dearer systems, so reducing sales of the dearer products etc

Is the product database in the back of the magazine no longer tiered by price bands?

 

[spiny norman]

You do know that Denon and Marantz are brands of the same manufacturer (D&M Holdings), don't you?

You do know they're not called D&M Holdings anymore, don't you? ;-)

 

[matthewpiano]

The star ratings are pretty meaningless. They only reflect an opinion and the speed with which an item can 'lose a star' suggests that the rate of development in hi-fi is much faster than it actually is in reality. Hi-Fi isn't really progressing IMO and I feel there are plenty of products from the past that compete favourably with much more expensive kit of today.

 

[bigboss]

You do know that Denon and Marantz are brands of the same manufacturer (D&M Holdings), don't you?

You do know they're not called D&M Holdings anymore, don't you? ;-)

What's in a name?

 

[spiny norman]

What's in a name?

D+M Group presumably thought there's enough in it to re-brand itself.

 

[bigboss]

What's in a name?

D+M Group presumably thought there's enough in it to re-brand itself.

And so it has 2 names (DMGlobal)...

 

[spiny norman]

And so it has 2 names (DMGlobal)...

I think one is just a web address, but if you say so. After all, you are the boss.