In article .com,
andy
wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Advertisers want their product to reach the largest audience. So if a
more objective assessment of the products on test produced a bigger
readership most would be happy.

If the magazine switched from reviews promoting audible differences
between cables to valid reviews of cables would the manufacturers of
such really view the magazine as a positive vehicle for promoting their
products compared to others?

Those who rely on products which *don't* actually produce any difference
compared with many (cheaper) alternatives may not. However any whose
products *do* provide a different result which some users may prefer, might
be happy with such a change.

Would it be a bad thing if those who were upset ceased to advertise? I
suspect not. Particularly as those whose products *do* offer something
might find the extra publicity boosted their sales, and thus gave them more
money with which to advertise...

And the manufacturers of digital electronics and amplifiers?

How many audiophiles would regularly purchase such a magazine? Surely
most audiophiles want to believe in significant audible differences
between components and are not going to purchase such magazines when
there are alternatives sustaining their beliefs.

They may also wish to feel that the magazine is providing them with
reliable information upon which they can make a well-founded decision
regarding what they may, themselves, find gives them an improved result.
Also to steer them clear of wasting time or money on items that won't make
any difference to what they hear.

TBH I suspect that the sales of such magazines - and the 'technical'
interest in audio - has dwindled because people become dissatisfied with
the lack of real explanations, and/or find that their own experiences may
simply not agree with the opinions they read in 'reviews'. Why spend money
on a mag when you start finding their opinions don't agree with what you
find yourself?...

If such audio magazines were commercially viable I strongly suspect that
one or two would have survived when they switched content to what we now
have a few decades ago.

The problem is that reviews based on genuine merit of the products may also
require the reviewer to:

1) Have a deep knowledge of how such things actually work, and what
factorsd may or may not be able to affect the results.

2) Have the (expensive) equipment and (expensive) time to investigate a
product to suitable depth/detail.

3) Then being able to explain clearly the results of (1) and (2) in a way
that will allow readers to make their own choices on the basis of
understanding the product, not relying on the opinions of the reviewer.

The snag is that (2) can be costly, and the magazines may simply not be
able to pay enough for someone to live on the proceeds

(1) can also be costly as it may involve the person putting in a lot of
time and effort long before any ability to 'do a review' becomes possible
for them.

Thus someone having a quick listen and then write a few hundred words of
'golden eared opinions' is much cheaper and easier. No need for test gear.
No need to spend time understanding or measuring anything, or having any
clue about the relevant engineering, science, etc.

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 . com, andy
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
I see no reason to think that all potential advertisers have a
'collective line' on such things. Hence as with pretty much anything a
magazine says, you risk annoying some by pleasing others.

What proportion of advertisers would be pleased by a switch to reviews
claiming little to no audible difference between the majority of
components (given the obvious exceptions)?

You pre-suppose that the 'majority of components' sound the same. If this
is the case, then perhaps people should be told this. And they should be
told what products, in what circumstances, may not sound the same, to
enable them to make well informed decisions based on their own
circumstances and preferances.

However I'd suggest that the reality is that some components *do* produce
different results to other, and this will manifest or not, depending on the
circumstances of the user. Thus this is the area which an informative
magazine can profit from. It is no more 'true' to say all components all
sound the same in all circumstances as it is to say that they all sound
difference in all circumstances. If the second proposition was true, then
the magazines would indeed be rendundant beyond telling people what
components were avialable, and its appearance/size/cost. However I don't
think this is the case.

Regardless of the truth, surely this is running down the whole industry.
Would manufacturers want to advertise in such pages given the
alternatives?

Why would it "run down the whole industry" for people to be better
informated as to which items may sound indistinguishable, and which do not?

It is not just about numbers but numbers of readers the advertisers want
to reach.

So why alienate *readers* by failing to provide them with useful
information in exchange for their cash?... :-)

I'm sure that a sensible editor won't want to annoy potential
advertisers if there is no need to do so. But I don't necessarily
think this means that what appears is driven by this, or that the mag
is 'censored' for such reasons.

I would suggest this is the wrong round. Since advertising forms the
bulk of the magazines profitable income the content is arranged to
attract advertising. This does not make the magazines evil but it does
mean they shy away from things that are going to hurt business and
gravitate towards things that are going to help. And the cold, hard,
clinical, objective truth may get bent a little in the process.

The cold hard truth may also be that people come to find out when they
can't rely upon what they are told. Hence a magazine that either lies to
customers, or hides the truth from them, is likely to find that its readers
slowly evaporate. No readers - no advertising income. The advertisers
advertise to have the readers read (and take seriously) their ad.

So, no, I don't think a different view would be 'suicide' for them.
Nor do I think the editors look at it that way. I think that current
and past editors did what they felt best, and put the views they and
their contributors had to give. I think this is the case even when I
disagree with them.

You know the editors better than I do but I find it hard to believe that
the number one priority of the Hi-Fi News editor is not the
profitability of the magazine.

That is the probable priority. However to stay in employment they also have
to worry about ensuring readers *continue* to buy the magazine. If it gets
a reputation for printing information-free twaddle, or lies, then the
magazine will eventually die, and the editor will be out of a job.

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 .com, Andy
wrote:
If the magazine switched from reviews promoting audible differences
between cables to valid reviews of cables would the manufacturers of
such really view the magazine as a positive vehicle for promoting their
products compared to others?

And the manufacturers of digital electronics and amplifiers?

How many audiophiles would regularly purchase such a magazine? Surely
most audiophiles want to believe in significant audible differences
between components and are not going to purchase such magazines when
there are alternatives sustaining their beliefs.

What makes you think this? Why wouldn't "most audiophiles" want the simple
honest truth if it were available to them, so that they could spend their
money more wisely on things that *really* make a difference?

The truth about pointless and/or expensive goods is of course never going
to be found in a magazine supported by advertising those goods, whether
they are hi-fi goods or anything else. Anyone who wants to blow the
whistle on the confidence trickery of the hi-fi industry through the pages
of a magazine is going to have to find one supported by a completely
unrelated set of advertisers.

Rod.

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 11:08:30 +0200, Fella wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Excellent! Comment withdrawn and apology offered.

It's not me who you should apoligize to. It's Glenn.

He won't take the test - because he already knows what the result
would be. But he keep spouting these fairy tales.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article , Jim Lesurf wrote:
If the magazine switched from reviews promoting audible differences
between cables to valid reviews of cables would the manufacturers of
such really view the magazine as a positive vehicle for promoting their
products compared to others?

Those who rely on products which *don't* actually produce any difference
compared with many (cheaper) alternatives may not. However any whose
products *do* provide a different result which some users may prefer, might
be happy with such a change.

Would it be a bad thing if those who were upset ceased to advertise? I
suspect not. Particularly as those whose products *do* offer something
might find the extra publicity boosted their sales, and thus gave them more
money with which to advertise...

Somehow I doubt this would happen, as some of the items that have the least to
offer are among the most expensive, and the loss of profit from selling, for
example, "passive preamplifiers" at a grand a pop, would definitely be noticed
by those who depend on it.

Somebody once showed me (effectively asking for a second opinion because he
couldn't quite believe it himself) a magazine with a review for one of these
"passive preamplifier" devices. It appeared to be nothing more than a selector
switch and a potentiometer in a box - a very nicely made box with neat wiring
inside and what looked like good quality ccomponents - but still just a switch
and a pot with no amplification at all. How anyone can get away with calling
something a "preamplifier" when it doesn't amplify, and why nobody questions
this, frankly amazes me, but there it was, and they were asking something like
a thousand quid for it, the equivalent of something I once made in an old
toffee tin for next to nothing and with probably no measureable difference in
performance. If things like this actually sell in significant numbers, and
human nature being what it is I suspect they do, then you can bet the
manufacturers of them would definitely not want the truth told about them, and
the withdrawal of what they must pay in advertising would make a big
difference to the magazines.

Rod.

Hi,

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
om...

Somebody once showed me (effectively asking for a second opinion
because he
couldn't quite believe it himself) a magazine with a review for one of
these
"passive preamplifier" devices. It appeared to be nothing more than a
selector
switch and a potentiometer in a box - a very nicely made box with neat
wiring
inside and what looked like good quality ccomponents - but still just
a switch
and a pot with no amplification at all. How anyone can get away with
calling
something a "preamplifier" when it doesn't amplify, and why nobody
questions
this, frankly amazes me,

While I would say that a grand is a lot for a passive device, the name
'preamplifier' seems entirely accurate and appropriate. It's a device
that goes before (pre) the amplifier, no?

Regards,

Glenn.

Fella wrote:

.. Says you; a postman working in a bank. If you were a competent
"scientist" you would not jump up and down like that, shouting "Liar.
Chicken**** Liar! .. Just another lying chicken****!" etc.. at
someone who is presenting the truth the way he sees it. Point out
*what you think* his mistakes are in a civilized manner.

Yes, but Pinkerton doesn't do "civilised". I'm not entirely sure what
mental disorder he has that makes him act aggressively like that towards
anyone who has a differing opinion, but he does strike me as a very
insecure individual.

Others on this group also have a differing opinion, but in contrast they
present it in a civilised manner, which enables one to participate in a
lively and interesting debate.

Pinkerton, on the other hand, resorts to name-calling, personal insults,
and even touches on libel.

Excellent! Comment withdrawn and apology offered.
It's not me who you should apoligize to. It's Glenn.

I'm not going to hold my breath. The weather forecast in hell is hot for
the foreseeable future, I don't hold out any hope of it freezing over
any time soon. ;-)

--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Most mid-range and upwards separates don't have cables thrown in these
days. It seems to be just the Japanese trash that does.
You're suggesting the Japanese can't make decent audio equipment? ;-)

No, I was being deliberately facetious. (That's a notch above sarcastic,
for the Pinkertons out there.) A lot of Jap electronics are very very
good, especially at the budget/lower mid end of the market.

Even at the higher end, there's not much that can touch Yamaha for
audio-visual kit. Compare the Arcam and Yamaha AV receivers at the
£1,000 price point and the Yamaha does do a bit better with movies. With
music though the Arcam blows it away.

Anyone looking at getting a budget separates system, I'd recommend Jap
electronics any time. But... don't touch Jap speakers with a bargepole!

There are only two things the Japanese don't do well. Speakers and cars.
Whilst on paper Jap cars look good, they all tend to drive like a pig,
and I wouldn't touch one. Give me German any day, with Jap ICE
electronics and British made speakers...

--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

[1] In the 3 years or so since I've been reading this group, I've never
once seen Pinkerton post anything constructive. His S/N ratio is
probably 1dB...
How typical that you post a flat lie. It blends so well with all the
others. You put yourself forward in your sig line as a technical
professional, and yet you can't even conduct a proper blind comparison
of two cables - sheesh!

Bordering on libel now...

For the record:

Squirrel Solutions has sod all to do with audio. I do servers,
workstations, networking, websites, and a lot of other major boring
****e. But it pays the bills, and more importantly pays for hi-fi.

Therefore I personally have nothing to gain by promoting the use of
decent speaker cables and interconnects. I've done enough tests to
determine that yes, there is a difference. I've also determined that
some people can hear these differences and others can't. For example, my
most recent ex couldn't tell the difference between 4 grand's worth of
Arcam/Mordaunt-Short kit and her £99 Aiwa midi system. The previous
former-SWMBO on the other hand could, and was absolutely amazed when
listening to the acapella intro to Paul Simon's "Diamonds On The Soles
Of Her Shoes" through the current system.

Additionally I've done hearing tests using a sine wave oscillator to
find the upper limits of hearing. My own is around the 22kHz mark, and
when testing other people's hearing who also claimed to hear such a
dramatic difference in cables, we also found a cut-off somewhere over 20kHz.

I've known enough people who can hear a difference, and done enough
tests, to be sure that *up to a point* cables make a difference. That
point depends very much on the kit that's in use. But you'll reach the
point of diminishing returns long before that stage.

However, you'll never accept the opinions of someone who can hear a
difference. And if anyone was to actually take up your test, you'll find
some reason to declare the result invalid.

Perhaps if someone who didn't have such a psychopathic attitude were to
set the same challenge, with the same £1,000 prize for determining
correctly which cable was in use, someone might take them up.

--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 02:23:52 -0800, andy wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:
I see no reason to think that all potential advertisers have a
'collective line' on such things. Hence as with pretty much anything a
magazine says, you risk annoying some by pleasing others.

What proportion of advertisers would be pleased by a switch to reviews
claiming little to no audible difference between the majority of
components (given the obvious exceptions)? Regardless of the truth, surely
this is running down the whole industry. Would manufacturers want to
advertise in such pages given the alternatives?

It is not just about numbers but numbers of readers the advertisers want
to reach.

I think I'm one of those readers. I was in the market for a basic
separates system, but now that I've successfully repaired my old midi (all
it needed was a new laser PUH from grandata.co.uk for just over 11GBP all
inclusive!), I've decided I'll probably spend the money I was going to
spend on separates on components for the planned home entertainment PC
instead. Doing so will *definitely* give me functionality I don't already
have (e.g. recording radio from DVB-T straight to MP3 files for my iRiver
H3xx, pausing live TV, recording to HDD/DVD with a wholly digital path),
and I found the subjective reviews I was reading to be useless for
determining which were "the best speakers under 200GBP", say.

Combine this with Richer's shift towards shifting more and more of their
own-brand product (Cambridge, Gale, Mordaunt-Short) rather than their
original raison d'être of selling discounted end-of-line goods, and
that's another potential source of objective information that I feel I
need to disregard.

Ultimately, I began to wonder how much of a difference I would really hear
between my repaired midi which probably cost over 500GBP in today's money,
and a basic separates system costing about the same. To put it another
way, if I spread that expenditure across my 300+ CDs, would I be able to
expect each to sound at least 20% better (based on original purchase price
of 10GBP each)?

Then again, maybe the magazines and vendors would rather lose ten of me,
in favour of one buyer who spends 10K GBP on a pretty IEC mains cable, or
whatever...

Besides, build the HEPC is kinda fun (for certain values of 'fun' .
Cabling up pre-built components and trying to get them working 'just so'
is just a drag. :-)

Best Regards,
Alex.
--
Alex Butcher Brainbench MVP for Internet Security: www.brainbench.com
Bristol, UK Need reliable and secure network systems?
PGP/GnuPG ID:0x5010dbff http://www.assursys.com/