The Outstading Product Hi-Fi News
- Thread starter tuga
- Start date
This is one of my pet hates, why have a 0-10 scoring system and only use 8, 9 and 10.
The usual excuse is that they only report on stuff they they think sounds good, other stuff gets left on the cutting room floor. Cynically, the magazines and websites have to make money and they do this through selling advertising, often by companies that they are reviewing and so there may some pressure (real or subconscious) to not alienate potential sources of income.
Finally, it could be that everything produced these days is very good and there are no turkeys out there so whatever you buy will sound at least good if not excellent.
There ar some sites out there that are not afraid use the full range of scores - Angrymetalguy is one such site, he/they occasionally give out 1.0/1.5 (including one this week), most often 2.0 to 4.0, occasionally 4.5 and only awards a 5.0 one every year or so.
The usual excuse is that they only report on stuff they they think sounds good, other stuff gets left on the cutting room floor. Cynically, the magazines and websites have to make money and they do this through selling advertising, often by companies that they are reviewing and so there may some pressure (real or subconscious) to not alienate potential sources of income.
Finally, it could be that everything produced these days is very good and there are no turkeys out there so whatever you buy will sound at least good if not excellent.
There ar some sites out there that are not afraid use the full range of scores - Angrymetalguy is one such site, he/they occasionally give out 1.0/1.5 (including one this week), most often 2.0 to 4.0, occasionally 4.5 and only awards a 5.0 one every year or so.
Allan Probin
pfm Member
artoly
pfm Member
You mean my DAC's gold award and this statement might not be true? "....only by a notch behind the DAVE while costing a tenth of its price....". I'm devastated. (Kidding of course).
I think it means is that more due diligence is needed. If you can only find glowing reviews from a particular reviewer, then scaling their enthusiasm and conclusions down is probably in order (much like I think Cambridge people do with their school exams, after they discover they made then too easy).
I think it means is that more due diligence is needed. If you can only find glowing reviews from a particular reviewer, then scaling their enthusiasm and conclusions down is probably in order (much like I think Cambridge people do with their school exams, after they discover they made then too easy).
artoly
pfm Member
Or perhaps that was too simplistic of me.... Now thinking more about subjective sound/style preferences (and whether ours aligns with specific reviewer), undeclared sponsorships or backhanders, pushing angles that get the most 'likes', etc. Sometimes these are discoverable, other times it might be a coin toss.
Well there's your mistake right there.
uncl_nigel
pfm Member
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
I've never reviewed anything for HFN. My assumption is that they aim to review what they think will work well and then report on the good ones.
Also, a magazine runs a risk when making technical 'criticisms' in a published review. This can happen when they make comments about a failing or drawback... that is actually down to a mistake by the reviewer! I've seen many examples of this over the decades. e.g. in the old guides that used to put boatloads of reviews of the same type of item into an issue for 'comparisons' But also in pretty much every monthly at one time or another.
You can also read the gory details of a serious case of that kind on my webpages by a now long-gone reviewer.
Overall, makes more sense to go for what you can say performs well, and simply pass back to makers/designers anything else or decline to review for 'lack of space' or interest.
These days anyone with a clue and some test kit can measure and comment on most kit fairly easily. The main area of difficulty is loudspeakers where reviews that mean much to anyone other than the reviewer can be almost impossible. Choice of room, taste, etc.
Also, a magazine runs a risk when making technical 'criticisms' in a published review. This can happen when they make comments about a failing or drawback... that is actually down to a mistake by the reviewer! I've seen many examples of this over the decades. e.g. in the old guides that used to put boatloads of reviews of the same type of item into an issue for 'comparisons' But also in pretty much every monthly at one time or another.
You can also read the gory details of a serious case of that kind on my webpages by a now long-gone reviewer.
Overall, makes more sense to go for what you can say performs well, and simply pass back to makers/designers anything else or decline to review for 'lack of space' or interest.
These days anyone with a clue and some test kit can measure and comment on most kit fairly easily. The main area of difficulty is loudspeakers where reviews that mean much to anyone other than the reviewer can be almost impossible. Choice of room, taste, etc.
Colin L
High-tech low-life
Why on earth would anyone do that.
tuga
Legal Alien
You would not understand…
ralphfcooke
Well-Known Member
And at least HiFi News does provide some measurements, unlike some of the 'Camm Comics'
Beobloke
pfm Member
You do realise Hi-Fi News does ‘actual measurements’?
Beobloke
pfm Member
As a reviewer for Hi-Fi News, my mantra is “I review the stuff the editor asks me to”!
I’ve not yet felt the need to refuse anything and I genuinely cannot remember he last time I reviewed anything that was a real duffer.
Actually, I tell a lie - I reviewed a £18.99 Tesco CD/radio micro system for Hi-Fi World that had been voted Britain’s Best Stereo System.
It was pretty diabolical but given that it played a CD and picked up radio stations for less than the cost of most LPs I buy, it seemed heartless to be too unkind about it!
Colin L
High-tech low-life
You’re right. I don’t. Hence my post.