HiFi and AV reviews - Please explain
Discussion
Why do the magazines and formal review sites tend to disagree with people's opinions on the likes of PH or other user generated content sites?
Take for example Panny plasmas, they are hailed as still the best TVs (now pioneer have stopped making the Kuro) on here and yet they are an also ran when you read the magazines. Thoughts?
Take for example Panny plasmas, they are hailed as still the best TVs (now pioneer have stopped making the Kuro) on here and yet they are an also ran when you read the magazines. Thoughts?
No idea why the discrepancy. Would prefer to check on avforums or the like for real life reviews rather than depend on a magazine for a purchase like that.
Advertising ? Maybe. Maybe its the reviewer's personal bias. Some people prefer LCD/LED and some prefer plasma. Similar bias may be affecting reviews of other equipment too.
Advertising ? Maybe. Maybe its the reviewer's personal bias. Some people prefer LCD/LED and some prefer plasma. Similar bias may be affecting reviews of other equipment too.
What's most intresting about such magazines is how say, a 50" plasma might get 5 stars but the 46" identical model may get less, while an LCD gets 5.
Now the plasma/LCD debate might rage on but you find most people with an interest have a distinct preference, so you think a magazine review panel would be more consistent.
Now the plasma/LCD debate might rage on but you find most people with an interest have a distinct preference, so you think a magazine review panel would be more consistent.
rhinochopig said:
Take for example Panny plasmas, they are hailed as still the best TVs (now pioneer have stopped making the Kuro) on here and yet they are an also ran when you read the magazines. Thoughts?
Well, this is the list of awards for the 42V10:http://www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/Products/VIE...
...some are online, some magazines. Not sure what that says, other than the magazines that have them as also-rans disagree with the ones that don't.
On a pro-audio forum I am on, I saw about a well respected poster who is a top audio engineer who was asked to freelance write for a magasine.
He reviewed a new microphone from the most well respected company. It was printed as a glowing recommendation.
On a few threads he was asked about this, as his view seemingly disagreed with the common consensus.
It transpired that his freelance article was edited. They kept the best parts but deleted the sections where it did not perform well or was compared to other similar prices microphones which were better or better value.
The article was edited and printed, and the the manufacturer put an ad on the opposite page that month, and ever since.
And this was for a well respected industry magasine with only a few ads. Times that pressure by ten for something like 'What AV' or similar...
He reviewed a new microphone from the most well respected company. It was printed as a glowing recommendation.
On a few threads he was asked about this, as his view seemingly disagreed with the common consensus.
It transpired that his freelance article was edited. They kept the best parts but deleted the sections where it did not perform well or was compared to other similar prices microphones which were better or better value.
The article was edited and printed, and the the manufacturer put an ad on the opposite page that month, and ever since.
And this was for a well respected industry magasine with only a few ads. Times that pressure by ten for something like 'What AV' or similar...
JustinP1 said:
On a pro-audio forum I am on, I saw about a well respected poster who is a top audio engineer who was asked to freelance write for a magasine.
He reviewed a new microphone from the most well respected company. It was printed as a glowing recommendation.
On a few threads he was asked about this, as his view seemingly disagreed with the common consensus.
It transpired that his freelance article was edited. They kept the best parts but deleted the sections where it did not perform well or was compared to other similar prices microphones which were better or better value.
The article was edited and printed, and the the manufacturer put an ad on the opposite page that month, and ever since.
And this was for a well respected industry magasine with only a few ads. Times that pressure by ten for something like 'What AV' or similar...
Interesting, thanks. Other than here, where is the best place to go for impartial advice then as even Plotters, Der. et al, haven't experienced all the kit available.He reviewed a new microphone from the most well respected company. It was printed as a glowing recommendation.
On a few threads he was asked about this, as his view seemingly disagreed with the common consensus.
It transpired that his freelance article was edited. They kept the best parts but deleted the sections where it did not perform well or was compared to other similar prices microphones which were better or better value.
The article was edited and printed, and the the manufacturer put an ad on the opposite page that month, and ever since.
And this was for a well respected industry magasine with only a few ads. Times that pressure by ten for something like 'What AV' or similar...
I've decided that all the AV and Hi Fi magazines talk an absolute load of rubbish, with What Hi Fi being the worst offender. Here's a simple checklist for bulls
t:
- Are any objective numerical measurements carried out on the kit?
- Is any technical understanding of the kit demonstrated by the review?
- Does it simply waffle on about 'transparency' and 'muddiness' or some other such meaningless tripe?
- Does it espouse the different sound qualities of metal wires that can clearly be shown to have negligible effect?
- Is it full of ads from the manufacturers of the kit being reviewed?
- Any suggestion of blind listening testing being carried out?
What Hi-Fi falls down very badly on every count. Even so, I guess that they generally try to make a decent job of a subjective review, but it's about as much use as asking the bloke down the pub what he thinks IMO.
I've found the following sites to be very informative:
www.audioholics.com
http://sound.westhost.com/articles.htm
Edited to add AVForum reviews are pretty authoritative and have a measurement/techy bias that rings true for me, but I'm not remotely experienced in TVs, having only just bought my first non-CRT TV for the kitchen/family room. Having said that, I based the purchase on specs, price and reviews at avforum and others. I bought a 32" relatively entry level LCD from Samsung, and it still seems like a decent deal for £309 to me.
t:- Are any objective numerical measurements carried out on the kit?
- Is any technical understanding of the kit demonstrated by the review?
- Does it simply waffle on about 'transparency' and 'muddiness' or some other such meaningless tripe?
- Does it espouse the different sound qualities of metal wires that can clearly be shown to have negligible effect?
- Is it full of ads from the manufacturers of the kit being reviewed?
- Any suggestion of blind listening testing being carried out?
What Hi-Fi falls down very badly on every count. Even so, I guess that they generally try to make a decent job of a subjective review, but it's about as much use as asking the bloke down the pub what he thinks IMO.
I've found the following sites to be very informative:
www.audioholics.com
http://sound.westhost.com/articles.htm
Edited to add AVForum reviews are pretty authoritative and have a measurement/techy bias that rings true for me, but I'm not remotely experienced in TVs, having only just bought my first non-CRT TV for the kitchen/family room. Having said that, I based the purchase on specs, price and reviews at avforum and others. I bought a 32" relatively entry level LCD from Samsung, and it still seems like a decent deal for £309 to me.
Edited by tybalt on Wednesday 9th December 00:23
Thudd said:
It's all subjective, and there is bound to be some corporate bias.
No it isn't.To use a motoring analogy: a car magazine for enthusiasts is likely to talk about how much a car weighs, and how much power it's got. They might even provide measurements for in gear acceleration and test the manufacturers claims about acceleration. There are plenty of things that you can measure, and the ideal performance of hi-fi is in the name. Hi fidelity reproduction of sound. This is measurable and quantifiable. It's might be tricky to nail down, but I don't even see any attempt from the usual hi-fi magazines.
As for TVs, there are again lots of measurable aspects of performance. You only have to read a review from any decent website to see that.
There's certainly an element of subjectivity and preference, but it ain't all there is to hear.
Trouble is with reviews, they're reviewing on a wide gamut of points.
Its just like cars.
Throw budget away, throw looks away, throw whizzy features away and compare on performance and you get a vastly different answer than if you just said 'what is the best product of a particular type in the world'?
Even when reading a review everyone has a different level of importance as to what weighting they put on particular features.
So they're worthless, essentially.
Trouble is because they've gained weight and due to the internet being the corrosive force it is the concept of traditional retail placing service first and allowing the customer to choose the correct product based on their needs is all but impossible because someone somewhere is kicking the st out of it, slinging it out of the back door and people are buying on price and price alone.
Now if you add to this a healthy advertising budget and all expenses paid reviewer trips to flash destinations for product launches it does make sense how certain Korean brands have got ideas way above their station.
Its just like cars.
Throw budget away, throw looks away, throw whizzy features away and compare on performance and you get a vastly different answer than if you just said 'what is the best product of a particular type in the world'?
Even when reading a review everyone has a different level of importance as to what weighting they put on particular features.
So they're worthless, essentially.
Trouble is because they've gained weight and due to the internet being the corrosive force it is the concept of traditional retail placing service first and allowing the customer to choose the correct product based on their needs is all but impossible because someone somewhere is kicking the s
t out of it, slinging it out of the back door and people are buying on price and price alone.Now if you add to this a healthy advertising budget and all expenses paid reviewer trips to flash destinations for product launches it does make sense how certain Korean brands have got ideas way above their station.
Plotloss said:
Trouble is with reviews, they're reviewing on a wide gamut of points.
Its just like cars.
Throw budget away, throw looks away, throw whizzy features away and compare on performance and you get a vastly different answer than if you just said 'what is the best product of a particular type in the world'?
Even when reading a review everyone has a different level of importance as to what weighting they put on particular features.
So they're worthless, essentially.
Trouble is because they've gained weight and due to the internet being the corrosive force it is the concept of traditional retail placing service first and allowing the customer to choose the correct product based on their needs is all but impossible because someone somewhere is kicking the st out of it, slinging it out of the back door and people are buying on price and price alone.
Now if you add to this a healthy advertising budget and all expenses paid reviewer trips to flash destinations for product launches it does make sense how certain Korean brands have got ideas way above their station.
Talking of buying on price alone Its just like cars.
Throw budget away, throw looks away, throw whizzy features away and compare on performance and you get a vastly different answer than if you just said 'what is the best product of a particular type in the world'?
Even when reading a review everyone has a different level of importance as to what weighting they put on particular features.
So they're worthless, essentially.
Trouble is because they've gained weight and due to the internet being the corrosive force it is the concept of traditional retail placing service first and allowing the customer to choose the correct product based on their needs is all but impossible because someone somewhere is kicking the s
t out of it, slinging it out of the back door and people are buying on price and price alone.Now if you add to this a healthy advertising budget and all expenses paid reviewer trips to flash destinations for product launches it does make sense how certain Korean brands have got ideas way above their station.
, did the money transfer ok?Plotters is bang on the coin.
Fact is, having squirreled away one of the last Kuros recently, I'm spending an inordinate amount of late night time when I should be angling zeds watching just what the best to-date (still) was capable of.
Using Gandalf's failsafe guide to movie watching () it's quite incredible, it really is.
The gulf between it and all the Korean stuff is vast and an hour's worth of Braveheart (Blu-ray) had me reaching, metaphorically speaking, for the superlatives catalogue.
You can't explain this, it just is; like a Rhorl'd Carrera GT, Warwick'd 956 or Roeser'd Ruf.
The truly depressing thing is that the best of the rest (Panasonic plasma, JVC/Philips LCD) can be optimised to within supping distance of the old meister but people have been sold such a fake bill of goods c/o the press and marketing in general that 'the truth' is often (but not always) lost in the blind hysteria for perceived bang/$.
There is a fair chunk of crap which goes down at these awards, within the mags and in some of the online debates the jibber jabber is farcical although tbf, it's quite understandable why punters would seek their guidance therefrom, even though to those of us with both the experience and genuine passion, you can only look at the pedalling of profound mediocrity and do your best: there are still a wide body of peeps who understand that a good deal is value based and that quality, in relative terms, always costs.
Fact is, having squirreled away one of the last Kuros recently, I'm spending an inordinate amount of late night time when I should be angling zeds watching just what the best to-date (still) was capable of.
Using Gandalf's failsafe guide to movie watching (
) it's quite incredible, it really is.The gulf between it and all the Korean stuff is vast and an hour's worth of Braveheart (Blu-ray) had me reaching, metaphorically speaking, for the superlatives catalogue.
You can't explain this, it just is; like a Rhorl'd Carrera GT, Warwick'd 956 or Roeser'd Ruf.
The truly depressing thing is that the best of the rest (Panasonic plasma, JVC/Philips LCD) can be optimised to within supping distance of the old meister but people have been sold such a fake bill of goods c/o the press and marketing in general that 'the truth' is often (but not always) lost in the blind hysteria for perceived bang/$.
There is a fair chunk of crap which goes down at these awards, within the mags and in some of the online debates the jibber jabber is farcical although tbf, it's quite understandable why punters would seek their guidance therefrom, even though to those of us with both the experience and genuine passion, you can only look at the pedalling of profound mediocrity and do your best: there are still a wide body of peeps who understand that a good deal is value based and that quality, in relative terms, always costs.
derestrictor said:
Plotters is bang on the coin.
Fact is, having squirreled away one of the last Kuros recently, I'm spending an inordinate amount of late night time when I should be angling zeds watching just what the best to-date (still) was capable of.
Using Gandalf's failsafe guide to movie watching () it's quite incredible, it really is.
The gulf between it and all the Korean stuff is vast and an hour's worth of Braveheart (Blu-ray) had me reaching, metaphorically speaking, for the superlatives catalogue.
You can't explain this, it just is; like a Rhorl'd Carrera GT, Warwick'd 956 or Roeser'd Ruf.
The truly depressing thing is that the best of the rest (Panasonic plasma, JVC/Philips LCD) can be optimised to within supping distance of the old meister but people have been sold such a fake bill of goods c/o the press and marketing in general that 'the truth' is often (but not always) lost in the blind hysteria for perceived bang/$.
There is a fair chunk of crap which goes down at these awards, within the mags and in some of the online debates the jibber jabber is farcical although tbf, it's quite understandable why punters would seek their guidance therefrom, even though to those of us with both the experience and genuine passion, you can only look at the pedalling of profound mediocrity and do your best: there are still a wide body of peeps who understand that a good deal is value based and that quality, in relative terms, always costs.
Can't you and the other wise folk, who speak with an authority born out of having seen a broad spectrum of kit in direct comparison, put a wiki to together for the rest of us HiFi peasants?Fact is, having squirreled away one of the last Kuros recently, I'm spending an inordinate amount of late night time when I should be angling zeds watching just what the best to-date (still) was capable of.
Using Gandalf's failsafe guide to movie watching (
) it's quite incredible, it really is.The gulf between it and all the Korean stuff is vast and an hour's worth of Braveheart (Blu-ray) had me reaching, metaphorically speaking, for the superlatives catalogue.
You can't explain this, it just is; like a Rhorl'd Carrera GT, Warwick'd 956 or Roeser'd Ruf.
The truly depressing thing is that the best of the rest (Panasonic plasma, JVC/Philips LCD) can be optimised to within supping distance of the old meister but people have been sold such a fake bill of goods c/o the press and marketing in general that 'the truth' is often (but not always) lost in the blind hysteria for perceived bang/$.
There is a fair chunk of crap which goes down at these awards, within the mags and in some of the online debates the jibber jabber is farcical although tbf, it's quite understandable why punters would seek their guidance therefrom, even though to those of us with both the experience and genuine passion, you can only look at the pedalling of profound mediocrity and do your best: there are still a wide body of peeps who understand that a good deal is value based and that quality, in relative terms, always costs.
Kind of a PH AV / HiHi awards.
Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff