"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:
That's really my point - some people who see 'Bush' might associate
that product with decent sound and engineering or yore, and somehow
express that sentiment in tests.

They'd have to be very old. It's a very long time since Bush made
decent gear - if ever. And never decent Hi-Fi.


No, sorry Dave, gotta disagree with you on that one. When they were
still trading as Rank Bush Murphy, and finally abreviated to RBM up to
the latter part of the seventies, they made one of the best, and most
innovative CTV chassis that there has ever been. I worked for many
years on the A823 chassis, and without any shadow of a doubt, when
correctly set up, it was capable of producing a better, more natural
picture, than any competitor that it had.

Going back a little before that, the range of transistor radios that
they did ( I've still got the one I had as a kid ), and before that,
their range of table top valve radios like the DAC10, were superb
performers, and quality built. They represented the epitome of good
British engineering design and quality, and in my opinion, maintained
that right up to their final demise, when the company name was sold
off, and then became synonymous with the crap that carries the name now.

My parents had a 21 inch Bush set bought new about '60 - and one of the
most expensive sets on the market. No black level clamp, wouldn't resolve
3 megs on the test card and had crappy sound from two tiny loudspeakers.
It was also less than reliable.

But the point was about audio. Leak and others were making decent gear in
the '50s. Bush never bothered.

--
*Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Yeah, OK. I'll concede that one ... |:-{

Arfa

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

My parents had a 21 inch Bush set bought new about '60 - and one of
the most expensive sets on the market. No black level clamp, wouldn't
resolve 3 megs on the test card and had crappy sound from two tiny
loudspeakers. It was also less than reliable.

But the point was about audio. Leak and others were making decent
gear in the '50s. Bush never bothered.

Must admit - promised myself I'd get a pocket DAB when the price dropped
below 50 quid, so far the Bush one at Argos is the only one I've seen so
far, but the name is stopping me.

Might get one and take it back if it's as bad as it could be.
--
Cocker Spaniel Pups for Sale - ready now - two black dogs left

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:

That's really my point - some people who see 'Bush' might associate that
product with decent sound and engineering or yore, and somehow express
that sentiment in tests.


They'd have to be very old. It's a very long time since Bush made decent
gear - if ever. And never decent Hi-Fi.


Our family had a Bush all-in-one record player; I seem to remember that
it sounded quite respectable and certainly lasted 30+ years with near
daily use. I'm not sure that I'm 'very' old. But if you say it wasn't
decent sound or engineering by the standards of the day (1955, I'd
guess) I have no idea, so I defer. And of course the amplification was
valve ;-)

Rob

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:

I wrote to them recently concerning their testing procedure for audio
electronics. I don't subscribe, although I occasionally leaf through
library copies when I'm supposed to be working :-)


In answer to the Q: do you use blind testing and matched levels, she
said 'yes'. However, she went on to say that it's not always needed
because, as they're completely independent, there is nothing to gain
from recommending any particular model.


When she says, "not always needed", does she mean, "but we don't always
bother to use blind methods"? Or does she mean, "We always do that, but
feel it isn't always strictly needed?" It seems an ambiguous answer to me.


Indeed.

The magazine/association may be 'independent', but the individuals coming
to the tests may have their own individual pre-conceptions. Thus one of the
aims of 'blind' methods is to try and ensure they don't bring these to bear
for any reasons other than those which are intended to be relevant.


That was my point, but other contributors to this thread don't seem to
agree.


I thnk this is generally fine, and nice of them to respond. It's also
rather vague - I think I'll reply asking them to publish the detail of
their tests (level matching, respondent selection, room, other kit,
music and medium used), and suggest that they think about:


FWIW I tend to regard any test or measurement methods whose details are
unspecified as being of dubious value. If you don't know exactly how the
results were obtained, how can you assess their reliability?


Indeed again - I think that, as they go to all that trouble in the first
place, they could at least publish the test protocol.



I think that would do me - I don't really want to know about cables, and
while some technical data (power output maybe) might be useful, I don't
think they have the expertise to measure/interpret the information.
Just knowing that people can reliably and qualitatively differentiate
is a pretty good start IMO.


One snag is that people may give 'reasons' for 'differentiating' which are
actually incorrect. This may mean that their conclusions may not apply in
your or my case as the report implies. Without sufficient details and a
cautious approach this may reduce or negate the value of the reports...

FWIW I still recall an old 'Which?" report which essentially told those who
had no prior understanding that the Quad ESL57 and the Goodmans Maxim
sounded the same and were similar in use... The problem here is an
over-simplification of the findings or characteristics which may mislead
the innocent.


Really?! I think in the case of compatability, they should just read and
report the contents of the manual. But I am very surprised they found
those two speakers to have similar sound, and I can't think of a test
situation that would actually produce that result.

Rob

As I recall, the issue involved gave "blob" ratings to products based on
their "value for money". The Quads and the Goodmans both got maximum blobs
(either 4 or 5, I don't remember) showing that they were both equally very
good value for money. I don't recall at any time that they said that they
sounded the same.

If VfM is the main criterion, as it seems to be for "Which", then they are
probably right that both the Quads and the Maxims are both equivalent in
VfM.

Shows how useless the VfM rating are though, when trying to make a decision
on almost anything. It would have been just as useless if they had been
evaluating fruit (Oranges vs Pears anyone?)

S.


"Rob" wrote in message
...
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:

I wrote to them recently concerning their testing procedure for audio
electronics. I don't subscribe, although I occasionally leaf through
library copies when I'm supposed to be working :-)


In answer to the Q: do you use blind testing and matched levels, she
said 'yes'. However, she went on to say that it's not always needed
because, as they're completely independent, there is nothing to gain
from recommending any particular model.


When she says, "not always needed", does she mean, "but we don't always
bother to use blind methods"? Or does she mean, "We always do that, but
feel it isn't always strictly needed?" It seems an ambiguous answer to
me.


Indeed.

The magazine/association may be 'independent', but the individuals coming
to the tests may have their own individual pre-conceptions. Thus one of
the
aims of 'blind' methods is to try and ensure they don't bring these to
bear
for any reasons other than those which are intended to be relevant.


That was my point, but other contributors to this thread don't seem to
agree.


I thnk this is generally fine, and nice of them to respond. It's also
rather vague - I think I'll reply asking them to publish the detail of
their tests (level matching, respondent selection, room, other kit,
music and medium used), and suggest that they think about:


FWIW I tend to regard any test or measurement methods whose details are
unspecified as being of dubious value. If you don't know exactly how the
results were obtained, how can you assess their reliability?


Indeed again - I think that, as they go to all that trouble in the first
place, they could at least publish the test protocol.



I think that would do me - I don't really want to know about cables, and
while some technical data (power output maybe) might be useful, I don't
think they have the expertise to measure/interpret the information.
Just knowing that people can reliably and qualitatively differentiate
is a pretty good start IMO.


One snag is that people may give 'reasons' for 'differentiating' which
are
actually incorrect. This may mean that their conclusions may not apply in
your or my case as the report implies. Without sufficient details and a
cautious approach this may reduce or negate the value of the reports...

FWIW I still recall an old 'Which?" report which essentially told those
who
had no prior understanding that the Quad ESL57 and the Goodmans Maxim
sounded the same and were similar in use... The problem here is an
over-simplification of the findings or characteristics which may mislead
the innocent.


Really?! I think in the case of compatability, they should just read and
report the contents of the manual. But I am very surprised they found
those two speakers to have similar sound, and I can't think of a test
situation that would actually produce that result.

Rob

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
FWIW I still recall an old 'Which?" report which essentially told those
who had no prior understanding that the Quad ESL57 and the Goodmans
Maxim sounded the same and were similar in use... The problem here is an
over-simplification of the findings or characteristics which may mislead
the innocent.

Well, the Maxim because of its tiny size had little in the way of cabinet
resonances so in that way was fairly close to the ESL. They were super
speakers - provided you didn't need much level. And it wouldn't surprise
me if it was, indeed, the closest match to an ESL at the time.

--
*Great groups from little icons grow *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
FWIW I still recall an old 'Which?" report which essentially told
those who had no prior understanding that the Quad ESL57 and the
Goodmans Maxim sounded the same and were similar in use... The problem
here is an over-simplification of the findings or characteristics
which may mislead the innocent.

Well, the Maxim because of its tiny size had little in the way of
cabinet resonances so in that way was fairly close to the ESL. They were
super speakers - provided you didn't need much level. And it wouldn't
surprise me if it was, indeed, the closest match to an ESL at the time.

I'd need to find a copy of the 'review' to check. But IIRC the similarities
were along the lines of having similar levels of efficiency, and power
output capability, and bass, with both avoiding the LF box resonances and
booms of larger boxes at that time. However as Serge has said, it was
probably mainly shown as a matter of 'blobs' mean prizes... :-)

Mind you, people at Armstrong never complained about "Which?" since they
did a report that listed the 521 as being highly-rated for a combination of
value for money and low price. The result was a *very* large increase in
sales - far more than after any audio mag reviews. So the "Which?" reports
can have a large impact on sales.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Well, the Maxim because of its tiny size had little in the way of
cabinet resonances so in that way was fairly close to the ESL. They
were super speakers - provided you didn't need much level. And it
wouldn't surprise me if it was, indeed, the closest match to an ESL at
the time.

I'd need to find a copy of the 'review' to check. But IIRC the
similarities were along the lines of having similar levels of
efficiency, and power output capability, and bass, with both avoiding
the LF box resonances and booms of larger boxes at that time.

So indeed not a bad comparison for a non technical mag?
I've not read the article - I'd guess it was long before I started taking
Which.

However as
Serge has said, it was probably mainly shown as a matter of 'blobs' mean
prizes... :-)

As in points mean prizes? ;-)

Which have never recommended *purely* on price. Only when it comes into
the value for money part - as of course it must.

Mind you, people at Armstrong never complained about "Which?" since they
did a report that listed the 521 as being highly-rated for a combination
of value for money and low price. The result was a *very* large increase
in sales - far more than after any audio mag reviews. So the "Which?"
reports can have a large impact on sales.

Heh heh. Makers who get a good review love Which. Those who don't say its
testing methods are faulty. 'Twas ever thus...

All I can say is I've not been disappointed when buying any of their 'best
buys'.

--
*When I'm not in my right mind, my left mind gets pretty crowded *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:44:52 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
FWIW I still recall an old 'Which?" report which essentially told those
who had no prior understanding that the Quad ESL57 and the Goodmans
Maxim sounded the same and were similar in use... The problem here is an
over-simplification of the findings or characteristics which may mislead
the innocent.

Well, the Maxim because of its tiny size had little in the way of cabinet
resonances so in that way was fairly close to the ESL. They were super
speakers - provided you didn't need much level. And it wouldn't surprise
me if it was, indeed, the closest match to an ESL at the time.

True enough - they both had sweet midrange, little bass and beamy
treble.... :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering