|
Well, I own the well acclaimed Wharfedale Diamonds and am very pleased
with them. I think the problem the HiFi mags found was that they
expected something as unconventional as the Diamonds were (when
they were released). What they got was a good, competent speaker,
and in a relative way, they were probably disappointed.
HiFi Review, (the best HiFi mag I've read, and still not that good)
slated the cartridge I just bought. In the end, I believed my ears
instead of their reviews, and bought the cartridge (a REGA Bias).
I'm also interested in the usefulness of reviews in general. There
is a choice between subjective and objective reviews. Subjective
reviews bring into doubt, the opinions of the reviewer. Objective
reviews bring into doubt, the validity of the measurements used.
What do the people think!!
Mark.
|
| When coosing my CD player and amp I read a number of different
magazines and from the reviews selected a number of components to
audition. The important thing is to read at lest two different reviews
of the same item before making any sort of decision and don't listen to
the reviewers final thumbs up/down statement, just look at the comments
made about the type of sound the item produces and see if you like your
music thay way.
For the record the amp & CD I bought (AR A-04 & Technics SLP-350) sound
great but my tape deck and speakers (Yamaha KX-300 & Celestion DL6)
were not given good reviews but sounded fine to my ears, so I bought
them.
Stephen.
|
| The consensus seems to be that the only review that counts is the
buyer's. Magazine reviews are often an insult to the reader's
intelligence in their avoidance of technical pitfalls via omission,
or contain so much technical detail that the main objective of the
item being reviewed is obscured. That's not to say they're not enter-
taining, but at best magazine reviews should be used only to compile
a shortlist of what to audition.
Also most magazines now tread a wary path between approval and
otherwise of products they review, lest they suffer the anger of
their advertisers. Even HiFi Review is becoming part of the
establishment; when it was The Flat Response it was far more
provocative. I long for old days at Popular HiFi (now defunct) when
the editor, one Paul Benson, stated in his editorial that most of
the kit advertised in his magazine was rubbish! He didn't get fired,
but let's say no one stood in the way of his leaving. Trouble is,
he was most likely right up to a point. The Linn/Naim/religion
controversy was in full flight then; not always informative but
a good read.
It's the novices I feel sorry for. It was bad enough when they were
only intimidated by the old, analogue-orientated jargon, but now
they have all the crap that's spouted (both pro and anti) digital
audio to deal with as well. Couple that with dealers more interested
in imposing their ideas on to buyers, and the image hifi has in the
UK of being the preserve of a few well-heeled eccentrics, it's no
surprise that people will spend 100's to watch the trash Sky pours
forth, but won't take audio seriously as worthwhile home entertainment.
They certainly get no help from today's mags.
I have feeling things are better elsewhere in Europe, in North America
and other parts of the world. Any non-UK readers out there to agree
or otherwise?
Dave
|