what hifi..wtf?.. [Archive] - The Art of Sound Forum

The Vinyl Adventure

10-02-2010, 11:48

has anyone seen the review of marks g1000hd's in what hifi... im not even sure i feel comfortable bringing atention to such negativity ... but this is the second time in 3 days i have discoverd reviews in what hifi that really dont seem to make eny sence to me - the other was the review of the usher s520's
what hifi claim marks cables dont get to grips with dynamics, and can sound soggy. yet they talk about the qed interconects being packed with detail. both of those statements are exactly the oposite to my findings. replacing the qed's in my system with marks made the most obvious cable improvement i have heard...
they talk about the ushers as if they are an average pair of speakers ...
yet when compared to every pair of monitor audios (a brand whathifi seem to love) that we stock in the shop right up to the rs8's the ushers to my ear were far better
i know what hifi's questionable views have been discussed before... im just quite shocked by these two reviews!

Dave Cawley

10-02-2010, 11:52

Do an A/B on the Usher 520 and the Focal 705V, and the Focals are 50 quid cheaper.

I would like to try the MG cables one day?

Dave

chris@panteg

10-02-2010, 11:52

What Hifi give good reviews to the kit it seems to advertise month by month ' coincidence or just luck ' :rolleyes:

Steve Toy

10-02-2010, 11:57

This is not the first time they have written such blatantlly erroneous reviews. Back in 2001 they described Focal 806 speakers as being the complete opposite to how they really sound. They said they were undynamic but with a smooth treble. The reality was they had the dynamics to knock you into the next room (for their size and price) but a treble to take your ears off.

WHF reviews have zero credibility in my view. The magazine is good for entertainment value that's all, a comic to read on the bus back from town.

The Vinyl Adventure

10-02-2010, 11:58

Do an A/B on the Usher 520 and the Focal 705V, and the Focals are 50 quid cheaper.

I would like to try the MG cables one day?

Dave

got my ushers for £160 ..
i did audition the 705v and the 806v and liked them both ... but then was offerd the ushers and couldnt really say no... im really pleased with them!

i have a spare set of g1000hd's dave, would you like a loan of them?

Steve Toy

10-02-2010, 12:03

We need to get some samples sent to a proper hi-fi magazine. I wonder if David or Alan would be interested?

hifi_dave

10-02-2010, 12:04

Surely you don't expect to get sense from What Hi-Fi do you ? It used to be written by know-nothing paper pushers on the Haymarket payroll who had no Hi-Fi knowledge whatsoever. They never even published their names. I haven't read a copy for years, is it still the same ?...:scratch:

Joe

10-02-2010, 12:07

I was about to post something similar. Haven't even looked at a copy of WTF for about ten years.

Dave Cawley

10-02-2010, 12:11

The 520's are now £360 a pair about 75 quid more than the Focal 705V !!

Yes, would like to try the MG, does he offer dealer discounts?

Regards

Dave

Filterlab

10-02-2010, 12:18

The Vinyl Adventure

10-02-2010, 12:20

The 520's are now £360 a pair about 75 quid more than the Focal 705V !!

Yes, would like to try the MG, does he offer dealer discounts?

Regards

Dave

email him....

The Vinyl Adventure

10-02-2010, 12:38

I used to read WHF in my early hi-fi days (late 80s), but it got to a point where the same old manufacturers were winning 'awards' month after month, year after year. In the end I ditched it for Hi-Fi Choice, and I still read HFC today. Much more informative and no Haymarket goons.

...yeah the what hifi/cyrus thing used to make me laugh... although it seems to have eased off a bit now
is a bit like "which" and panasonic tv's...
there must be something funny going on?

Dave Cawley

10-02-2010, 12:43

email him....

Done that just now!

Dave

Steve Toy

10-02-2010, 12:48

I warned Mark that he would likely get a poor review in WTF.

hifi_dave

10-02-2010, 13:13

I warned Mark that he would likely get a poor review in WTF.

Was that a Freudian slip ??? (WTF)....:eyebrows:

Dave Cawley

10-02-2010, 13:21

Hi Hamish

Samples are now on their way to me. There may even be a more expensive DC version soon!

Regards

Dave

Filterlab

10-02-2010, 13:22

...yeah the what hifi/cyrus thing used to make me laugh... although it seems to have eased off a bit now
is a bit like "which" and panasonic tv's...
there must be something funny going on?

Precisely what I had in mind. On the Which / Panasonic thing, Panasonic TVs are generally regarded as the best by almost all reviewers, and being on my third Panasonic plasma and seventh Panasonic TV I can wholeheartedly agree.

Still, it does make one wonder nonetheless. :scratch:

The Vinyl Adventure

10-02-2010, 13:38

Precisely what I had in mind. On the Which / Panasonic thing, Panasonic TVs are generally regarded as the best by almost all reviewers, and being on my third Panasonic plasma and seventh Panasonic TV I can wholeheartedly agree.

Still, it does make one wonder nonetheless. :scratch:

i have a panny plasma too...

wtf used to do swop between sony and panny each year raving about one then the other ... seemingly iregardless of the actuall quality of picture...
they also manipulate the reviews to favour certain brands by missmatching high end sets with low end ones and quoting high street prices for the ones they like and rrp's for the ones they dont...

Themis

10-02-2010, 14:16

Cable reviews are nonsense in "normal" hifi magazines. They have a price-gives-quality formula that defeats any honest quality scale.

I'm struggling to find a "honest" cable review, even on Stereophile.

Filterlab

10-02-2010, 14:22

wtf used to do swop between sony and panny each year raving about one then the other ... seemingly iregardless of the actuall quality of picture...
they also manipulate the reviews to favour certain brands by missmatching high end sets with low end ones and quoting high street prices for the ones they like and rrp's for the ones they dont...

I believe the word for them is 'Muppets'. :lol:

REM

10-02-2010, 15:16

I used to read WHF in my early hi-fi days (late 80s)........ In the end I ditched it for Hi-Fi Choice, and I still read HFC today. Much more informative and no Haymarket goons.

Not to sure about HFC these days last one I read had a so called review of my speakers so I bought the thing just out of interest. Now I know reviewers have a living to make but just copy and pasting the manufacturers' description of the product and reprinting the measurements done by another mag does not constitute a review in my book.

Reading WTF in the late 80's, surely not, everyone knows the only mag to be reading in the 80's was The Flat Response....:sofa:

Filterlab

10-02-2010, 15:29

Not to sure about HFC these days last one I read had a so called review of my speakers so I bought the thing just out of interest. Now I know reviewers have a living to make but just copy and pasting the manufacturers' description of the product and reprinting the measurements done by another mag does not constitute a review in my book.

What speakers do you have? I auditioned mine after reading an HFC review and they were spot on with their comments.

**EDIT** Duh, read the signature Rob you fool. :doh:

leo

10-02-2010, 15:49

I'll read reviews but at the end of the day they are just somebody elses opinion, nothing more, doesn't mean we'd all agree with their conclusions

Spectral Morn

10-02-2010, 16:06

I can tell you all why WH reviews are 1 odd and 2 why you can predict what sort of review items will get (if you know anything about the kit in for review)....except if the review is done outside the magazine headquarters (some are, but more are not)

A number of years ago What Hi-Fi had a number of purpose designed rooms made. 1 for Home Cinema, 1 for PC related items-I-Pods etc and a Hi-Fi room. The Hi-Fi room is so dead acoustically it does for sound what a warm blanket and a gallon of syrup would do...it kills dynamics, detail etc. So only bright, leaner, forward sounding kit does okay (or better) here. Its the only type of thing that cures the overly warm room, and gives a balanced sound. To have a balanced sound your room needs to have some liveness in it, but not to much. Ergo Qed Silver Anniversary gets great reviews.....and so on and so on...:scratch: just think about it.

So this is why kit leaning to the brighter side of neutral does well. Its the fault of the room. I could tell you horror stories of the inept way reviews used to be done, but apparently that is all in the past.

Not heard any of Marks cables so I can't comment on them, but if they are neutral or just to the warmer side of things thats why he didn't do well imho.

Regards D S D L

DSJR

10-02-2010, 16:33

Arcam and marantz (amongst others IIRC) made their amps ring slightly to make them more "exciting" to amateur mag reviewers...

WHY THE FUGG did Mark Grant decide to give one of the best cables out there to these idiots I'll never know.....

By someone who knows the QED wires from long experience.........

They're nt known as WTF for nothing. Hopefully the TV's on the front will put off audio buyers and the rag will be absorbed into What Video & TV before too long...

The Grand Wazoo

10-02-2010, 16:38

Reading WTF in the late 80's, surely not, everyone knows the only mag to be reading in the 80's was The Flat Response

The Flat Response was long gone by the late 80's - the silly-mag was HiFi Review by then.

Steve Toy

10-02-2010, 16:43

WHY THE FUGG did Mark Grant decide to give one of the best cables out there to these idiots I'll never know.....

As I said, I did warn him but it was too late. He'd already sent them.

DSJR

10-02-2010, 16:50

:(

It won't affect business as I suspect that much of his income is from "us" and those we recommend these cables to.

QED sells through Sevenoaks primarily I suspect, although I remember from past experience that as their stores made hugely more from Chord Co (almost twice as much IIRC and with a lovely tubular curvy display rack) this latter make was recommended instead...

Kris

10-02-2010, 16:53

It's his own fault for sending them to WHF and a mistake he'll live to regret.

No matter how bad WHF is, it's the main mag in all shops and supermarkets, so it sells by the bucketload. Unfortunately. A good review in WFH will mean lots of ££££ in sales, a bad review the opposite.

So now when recommending Mark Grant Cable4s, as well as the 'never heard of him' and 'they're as cheap as chips so must be crap' lines, we'll also have to contend with the 'They got a crap review, so they must be crap' brigade.

I'd love to read the review but there's no way I'm gonna buy that mag. I'll have a read next time I go to Morrisons.

Public announcement for any non AOS member reading this thread - Do NOT believe what you read in WHF, listen with your own ears, you won't be disappointed.

hifi_dave

10-02-2010, 17:01

All publicity is good publicity or so I'm told.....:rolleyes:

The good news is that WHF is only on the shelves for a couple of weeks and then it's in landfil - where it belongs.

Peter Galbavy

10-02-2010, 17:02

Advertising buys editorial. The converse being a lack of advertising ...

Marco

10-02-2010, 17:33

So this is why kit leaning to the brighter side of neutral does well. Its the fault of the room. I could tell you horror stories of the inept way reviews used to be done, but apparently that is all in the past.

Not heard any of Marks cables so I can't comment on them, but if they are neutral or just to the warmer side of things thats why he didn't do well imho.

Very interesting, Neil. Aside from any 'commercial bias' (for want of a better term!) what you say makes sense, as Mark's cables are essentially very neutral and revealing in character - they are most certainly not warm sounding, though :)

I was talking about the What Lie-Fi? thing yesterday with Mark, and he realises that it was a bad move, but I know why he did it.

No matter, I've spoken with David Price and Mark's cables will be getting reviewed soon in a proper hi-fi magazine ;)

Marco.

Jonboy

10-02-2010, 18:55

I use to buy that shit mag every month and got totally disillusioned by the fact that i bought some kit on their recommendation to be told the next month that it was no longer a 5 star product because some thing else had taken thier fancy and your chosen piece was no longer worthy of the same praise or accolade, it must be ten years since i last bought a copy, try finding a reviews of valve stuff, i bet there a bit thin on the ground. i must confess did have a flick through one recently and not sure why it's still called What hifi:(

I'm finding KK's vintage reports in Hifi choice quite interesting though, more up my street;)

Spectral Morn

10-02-2010, 19:12

I use to buy that shit mag every month and got totaly dissalusioned by the fact that i bought some kit on their recommendation to be told the next month that it was no longer a 5 star product because some thing else had taken thier fancy and your chosen piece was no longer worthy of the same praise or acalade, it must be ten years since i last bought a copy, try finding a reviews of valve stuff, i bet there a bit thin on the ground. i must confess did have a flick through one recently and not sure why it's still called What hifi:(

I'm finding KK's vintage reports in Hifi choice quite interesting though, more up my street;)

I think you mean Hi-Fi News.

He was with Choice for awhile, after he fell out with Paul Miller(at Hi-Fi News), but all was forgiven so he went back...not sure who forgave who, or what it was about though.

Regards D S D L

anthonyTD

10-02-2010, 19:18

marks cables dont get to grips with dynamics, and can sound soggy.:lol::lol::lol:
but seriously, i am quietly confident that anyone who audition's Mark Grant interconects in a decent and revealing system will undoubtably find that the opposite to the statement above is in fact the case!:)
A...

Spectral Morn

10-02-2010, 19:26

Very interesting, Neil. Aside from any 'commercial bias' (for want of a better term!) what you say makes sense, as Mark's cables are essentially very neutral and revealing in character - they are most certainly not warm sounding, though :)

I was talking about the What Lie-Fi? thing yesterday with Mark, and he realises that it was a bad move, but I know why he did it.

No matter, I've spoken with David Price and Mark's cables will be getting reviewed soon in a proper hi-fi magazine ;)

Marco.

Long conversations with a significant number of distributors and manufacturers revealed the issues with the What Hi-Fi towers listening room. The info was good up until two Septembers back (after I left the industry I haven't had any updates on the room since then). I do know Haymarket spent a lot of money on the rooms, wanting them to be state of the art etc, but cocked up badly on the Hi-Fi room...way to much damping etc. They killed it acoustically...warm...way to warm.

I haven't mentioned the fact that there are not to many trained staff there, after all Haymarket circulate staff among the titles, including the editors position. I think the current editor does have a bit of a clue...assuming he hasn't changed recently. I think the biggest issue, for me, is that there is no set reference system to compare and contrast with. Imho that makes things hard.

My own take on the name is....What no Hi-Fi.

Its a poor title regardless, and is sadly the first and for many only port of call when they (the general public) want to know about Audio or Home Cinema kit. Choice isn't much better these days imho. Hi-Fi News is better..finally. Not sure about Hi-Fi + still. So the only magazine I get every month is Stereophile, imho it is the best title out there (imho), though its going a wee bit to much down the computer audio road, but I suppose thats the future (and it needs to be covered, though I don't read it); + is doing a wee bit to much of that too recently..oh well.

Regards D S D L

Jonboy

10-02-2010, 19:27

I think you mean Hi-Fi News.

He was with Choice for awhile, after he fell out with Paul Miller(at Hi-Fi News), but all was forgiven so he went back...not sure who forgave who, or what it was about though.

Regards D S D L

Whoops it's been a long day Neil, i don't even buy Hifi Choice:o

Spectral Morn

10-02-2010, 19:31

Whoops it's been a long day Neil, i don't even buy Hifi Choice:o

No problem....:)

Regards D S D L

DSJR

10-02-2010, 19:38

Well, my dynamics are better than ever and the HD cable excels with bass extension, "tunefulness" of bass lines and treble extension and purity. A damned good all-round cable which, IMO, just lets the partnering equipment do its job.

Thanks Mark for doing such a great job and thanks too Marco for recemmending them to us...

hifi_dave

10-02-2010, 19:43

hifi_dave

10-02-2010, 19:50

I'm not sure if it's still the same at What but the reviewers were taken from Haymarket staff - nothing to do with Hi-Fi. So you could get a kid from What Camera or What Caravan or What Ever, given a heap of speakers to 'go and listen to' or a pile of CD players to 'play with' and write a review. So can anyone wonder why the reviews are sh*te ???

Surely, they have tightened things up nowadays and are far more professional....:rolleyes:

DSJR

10-02-2010, 19:52

Well, they ALL worshipped at the Cyrus altar for some years and I believe Mr Everard (shut that door :lol:) is a vehement Naim fan...

markf

11-02-2010, 03:41

I had a look at a picture of the cable in question (Mark Grant G1000HD) and it looks like the
heatshrink goes over the whole RCA housing, can you open the connector without disturbing
the heatshrink ?

The Grand Wazoo

11-02-2010, 08:01

Mark,
Why would you want to get inside?

bigmarty

11-02-2010, 13:28

Hi Folks, I have the Mark Grant G1000HD in my system and I rate them very highly. I must admit that I do sometimes buy WhatHIFI :o but not any more. Rather than spending £4.40 once a month for the mag I will buy a CD instead or maybe a bottle of wine...:lol: this will be known for ever more as the Mark Grant fund :cheers:

Marty

MartinT

16-02-2010, 14:51

Surely everyone knows that WHF is for the small room only, although it is inferior to the usual stuff being only single-ply.

hifi_dave

16-02-2010, 14:56

If you take out all the pile-it-high-flog-it-cheap ads, there's only about five minutes reading matter, so it wouldn't do me for the loo....:eyebrows:

DSJR

16-02-2010, 15:09

Is the turnover still dropping? Before too long it'll be combined with What TV & Video, or whatever it's called...

UV101

16-02-2010, 15:23

I'll jump on the bandwagon too!!!

WHF is total nonsense! When I was considering my speakers, thought I'd take a look to see what was about in my price range. I've experience with Kef in both my TL's I built a while back and my pals 104/2's (before the drivers fell to bits!!!) I thought I'd give whatever the current kef range was a go. WHF raved about them. If I'm being completely honest and fair without exaggeration, compared to the Focal's of the same price, they were similar to listen to. *"But only if i'd left the Focal's in their boxes whilst listening!!!!" They were awful (Kefs that is). How on earth you can get such night and day difference in the same speaker value (around the £1k mark) I'll never know. How WHF can recommend/like/whatever it is they do, such items I fail to understand. The only conclusion I can come up with is that the reviewers must be deaf.

Nice adverts tho!

Mart

16-02-2010, 15:26

Sorry folks.

But the mag needs to be re-christened.

I name it: WSWT (What Shite We Talk).

On a serious note I'm rather bemused that the worst mag out there thats written by the most poorly informed and inexperienced half baked bunch of Ipod tasters is one of, if the biggest selling of hifi mags going.

Its beats hen racing on a large scale.

PS: Some one said its only any good to use in the loo, I have to disagree as the bullshit its full of leaves your arse in a worse state tha when you started.

Yours fragrantly, Mart.

DSJR

16-02-2010, 18:06

But mags such as Sound on Sound apparently outsell WTF by multiples - that's what I'm given to understand anyway...

Audio is a TINY industry now and the handful of titles still on sale only sell in the 30 - 50,000's (WTF) and a very few thousand (10 to 15K) for everything else... I don't have the definitive figures but I don't think I'm very far wrong...

The Vinyl Adventure

16-02-2010, 19:35

they rave about all monitor audio speakers... im not saying they are wrong on all fronts the rs6 we sell in the shop seem ok (as hard as it is to judge anything there) but they also give the rs8's 4 "stars" and say they are only let down by a bit to much bass.. they are actually right ... there is too much bass, but they understate how much.. they are way way over bassy.. but still get 4 stars... it doesnt make any sence what so ever in relation to the gh1000hd review... how they can give a cable that lower mark out of 5 when giving an obviously way over bassy speaker such a high review ... well its fucking nonsence...
im still cheezed off about this nonsence!

Marco

16-02-2010, 19:49

Guys,

They've put the, erm, 'review' on-line now (see link below)...

You can add your own comments, which I would urge you all to do. Let's tell What Lie-Fi? what we think of the blinkered fantasy-land shite they've written about the G1000HDs!! ;)

http://www.whathifi.com/Review/Mark-Grant-G1000/

Marco.

Spectral Morn

16-02-2010, 20:10

What a completely useless waste of words. How could anyone get anything from that. Its so edited it barely makes sense (English used isn't great either). Everything that is bad and useless in modern audio reviews. What reference system (are we told in the main article ?), was the cable run in properly, did they have it the right way round (if that matters with MG cables...I think it does with most myself), etc, etc , etc......waste of time:doh::(

Heck the paper WH is made of would be bad for lighting a fire or wiping your bum with...useless imho.

Regards D S D L

The Vinyl Adventure

16-02-2010, 20:13

i have left a comment, but it doesnt seem to have apeared?.. does it go off for censorship before its published?

Kris

16-02-2010, 20:14

Interesting to see that whoever reviewed it didn't put their name to the review . . .

Also interesting to see the 'tech specs'

3.5mm-to-RCA - Yes
RCA phono - No

:scratch:

What did they do, plug it into an ipod and played 128Kb mp3's? :lol:

The Vinyl Adventure

16-02-2010, 20:15

...its there now
come on everyone who owns these cables, help back up mark's designs

bigmoog

16-02-2010, 20:28

using my franklandian/stewardian scaling system

this is my rating of UK and US Hifi rags:

What Hifi (not rated as its a 'which' mag, targeted at the plasma screen/argos/curry's upgrader)

Hifi Critic 1/10 (12 quid!!!! to get bored rigid with its worthy tedium it oozes 80's flatness and reminds me of hifi review/flat response )
HiFi Choice 1.8/10 (a quick read in WHS)
Hifi+ 2.5/10 (massively declined now slowly flatlining...signs of improvements)
Thee Absolute Sound 3/10 (a shadow of its former self, I still buy it tho)
Stereophile 4.5/10 (the printed item is just too slim these days)
Hifi News 4.6/10 (improved over the past coupla ears, still a shadow tho')
Hifi World 5.5/10 (needs fettling to really shine, enjoyable though, endless rb250/rb300 reviews/ and 'deccas/103s' 'are kak' are rilly boring imho - they need to get on the pace pronto)

thus its average overall for the UK audio press in my opinion

UK hifi rags could learn from my favourites which are LP magazin, Image Hifi and other (german) mags and various jap mags and the US diy press.

:ner:

Spectral Morn

16-02-2010, 20:35

...its there now
come on everyone who owns these cables, help back up mark's designs

Nicely said Hamish.

It actually says as well, write your own review...any one want to lend me some MG cables :eyebrows: I will show them how it is done. Only problem is there is probably a very limited word count, drat :doh:

Regards D S D L

Themis

16-02-2010, 21:07

I owed Mark a review for his marvelous cables. So, I posted a summary there, too. ;)

Marco

16-02-2010, 21:10

Nice work guys... Keep the reviews coming - I'll be adding my own thoughts there later ;)

Marco.

Alex_UK

16-02-2010, 21:19

WHF is the only mag available in Tesco, Sainsbury etc - that's why it is so popular - Hobson's choice.

The Vinyl Adventure

16-02-2010, 21:30

WHF is the only mag available in Tesco, Sainsbury etc - that's why it is so popular - Hobson's choice.

and the fact they they review a lot of lower end kit... its one thing missing from some of the other mags, and thats some more reviews of more accesable hifi....
it seems to me hifi mags are either wtf and its inconcistant drivel or pretensiousness from the rest ... although i to prefer "hifi world" overall, it actually seems like it is writen by humans as aposed to audiophile garble spouting robots

Clive

16-02-2010, 22:58

Print mags are so low volume nowadays and as a result not easy to buy in many newsagents. Unfortunately WHF is the most available. Internet mags reach much larger readerships and reviews show up on google.

I received a G1000HD i/c a couple of days ago. I'm very impressed, I'd still be impressed if the cables were several times the price. Anyway, I plan to do my part in writing a fair review but this will be for an internet magazine with a huge readership.

Kris

16-02-2010, 23:07

As posted in the user reviews:

i do wonder if sponsorship is a telling factor in the 2 stars you offer for these quality cables

Yes, one has to wonder . . . .:rolleyes:

The Vinyl Adventure

16-02-2010, 23:15

Print mags are so low volume nowadays and as a reuslt not easy to buy in many newsagents. Unfortunately WHF is the most available. Internet mags reach much larger readerships and reviews show up on google.

I received a G1000HD i/c a couple of days ago. I'm very impressed, I'd still be impressed if the cables were several times the price. Anyway, I plan to do my part in writing a fair review but this will be for an internet magazine with a huge readership.

which one?

As posted in the user reviews:

Yes, one has to wonder . . . .:rolleyes:

indeed!

DSJR

16-02-2010, 23:22

The G1000HD would sell for nigh on £300 if sold through a dealer. Mark would have to order up some fancy packaging (that sometimes costs as much as the cable...) to "present it" on the dealers' shelves and VAT would get involved.

Spectral Morn

16-02-2010, 23:27

which one?

indeed!

I think Clive writes for Enjoy the Music.com.

Regards D S D L

Clive

16-02-2010, 23:31

I think Clive writes for Enjoy the Music.com.

Regards D S D L
Yes, that's one....either I'm seriously deaf or WHF are seriously wrong.

Spectral Morn

16-02-2010, 23:35

Yes, that's one....either I'm seriously deaf or WHF are seriously wrong.

Wrong..I would imagine. I haven't heard a MG cable, but as WHF get so much wrong..I am not surprised at this result.

Regards D S D L

UV101

16-02-2010, 23:42

The only conclusion I can come up with is that the reviewers must be deaf.
My conclusion of WTF or whatever its called

Yes, that's one....either I'm seriously deaf or WHF are seriously wrong.

Just my opinion but I've personaly concluded that the deafness lies in the WHF department.

I've just added the online maagazine to my bookmarks btw :cool:

Steve Toy

17-02-2010, 03:06

I'd like to put it to the editor of WTF the fact that I told Mark he'd likely get a bad review after he told me that he'd sent off some samples to them despite the fact that I personally consider these i/cs to be punching in the £1000+ territory.

markf

17-02-2010, 03:49

Makes you wonder what WHF would have writen were the cables priced at £1000+

Rare Bird

17-02-2010, 04:05

I wouldnt loose any sleep over it tbh.

lovejoy

17-02-2010, 08:59

So who's ever taken that magazine seriously? I wouldnt loose any sleep over it tbh.

Sadly, quite a lot of people. When I worked in hi-fi retail, the number of people who strolled into the shop with a copy tucked under their arm and a look that said "don't try to bullshit me sunshine, I've got my bible with me" was quite astonishing, especially when the awards issue hit the shelves. It was always a real battle to convince people that merely choosing the award winners and putting them all together as a system *NEVER* got you the best, or even a very good sounding system.

I'm sure this is probably still the case.

Rare Bird

17-02-2010, 09:10

Crickey you were one of the elite with 'Hi-Fi Answer' under your arm then :eyebrows:

Marco

17-02-2010, 09:17

In those days It'd have been a copy of 'Razzle' under my arm, a can of Tennents lager in my pocket and pish stains on my jeans.... :eyebrows: ;)

Marco.

Spectral Morn

17-02-2010, 09:55

Sadly, quite a lot of people. When I worked in hi-fi retail, the number of people who strolled into the shop with a copy tucked under their arm and a look that said "don't try to bullshit me sunshine, I've got my bible with me" was quite astonishing, especially when the awards issue hit the shelves. It was always a real battle to convince people that merely choosing the award winners and putting them all together as a system *NEVER* got you the best, or even a very good sounding system.

I'm sure this is probably still the case.

Just over a year ago, it was still the same. Nothing changes. Even when they heard a better set up...they still went for the What Hi-Fi 5 stars/awards crap. They didn't trust their own ears :doh::( A few months after the purchase (either with us[rarely], or elsewhere, the phone calls or visits would start..."I am not sure about this set up...what's wrong with it?"etc Anyone remember the Quad 12l speakers..."best thing since sliced bread". "Oh I like Roksan, but I want Quad speakers"..they would say..we would use Ruark Epilogue's in our demos. They would go buy the Quad's Mail order, and not like them....then want the Ruark's. "Will you do a trade in".....if only you had trusted your own ears, and our advice.

Seven Oaks has most of their stocking profile based on what What Hi-Fi says....sad, very sad:(, but works commercially.

leo

17-02-2010, 09:58

Spectral Morn

17-02-2010, 10:06

I'm like most on here as in never take magazine reviews too serious . unfortunately some do take them serious, luckily Mark Grant has many supporters on here to defend his products, in all honesty its needed after that review, they couldn't have shit on those cables any more if they tried:(

A change in the direction of reviews at What Hi-Fi towers led the, in part, to the downfall of Cable Talk. From the best to near the worst overnight. They have done that with a number of brands over the years. What was good suddenly a month later is crap....but the question is why? Imho what is good or excellent remains so, even if something else comes along that may be better. The problem is there are very few universal products or systems in which they will always perform to their best. That previous 5 star product still is (if the review written is representative of the product) excellent, but may not be in your system, music, taste or room.

Regards D S D L

Mike Reed

17-02-2010, 11:05

(English used isn't great either).

Regards D S D L

Can't see any problem with the English, Neil, ignoring hyperbole.

What HiFi has always been the Comic Cuts of the audio magazine world, and I've always thought it was read by non audiophiles (although I do peek on occasion!), even in the heyday of magazines, the late seventies and eighties.

It has so little to recommend it that to insinuate (???) their editorial staff may be illiterate could be construed as cruel.

Guess a smiley would be in order here (if I only knew how!)

Alan Sircom

17-02-2010, 11:13

Ali Tait

17-02-2010, 11:21

Can't remember the last time I bought any audio mag.

DSJR

17-02-2010, 11:29

When I was on the road for a career killing two years (!!!!! :steam: :(), I visited many Sevenoaks stores, the larger of which regularly had the WTF readers buying award winning boxes with either QED SA or even Micro speaker cables to wire the amp with (and whatever interconnect they were told to buy). The sales staff of many but not all of these stores were, to me, little more than box shifters.

Go to Audio T though, and you'd find clients with a budget and asking the staff's advice on a matching system to suit their needs, although the higher profit lines gave more commisiion IIRC..

The desperation of the current climate may have changed things now perhaps..

Nick

17-02-2010, 11:37

End of the day, it's just another opinion that you can take or leave.
I'm sure we'd all be a lot poorer if we'd believed in every magazine hyped/flavour of the month product. Come to think of it the same could be said of internet fora hypes/flavours of the month too ;)

Rare Bird

17-02-2010, 11:40

Not bought a mag since 'Hi-Fi Answer'..

Alan Sircom

17-02-2010, 11:41

Can't remember the last time I bought any audio mag.

A big part of the problem is that the old cliche of someone walking into a store with a copy of one of the audio mags under their arm is becoming historic. The problem is they aren't buying the magazines and they aren't going to the stores.

There's lots of talk of the internet replacing the magazines, and this is fair comment. I spend more of my time working the internet than ever before and this is only set to increase as time goes on. But it's a direct replacement - the people reading e-zines and going on the forums are typically former readers of hi-fi magazines and buyers of hi-fi. Their spend on new products has fallen to a trickle.

But those people who walk through the doors still do so with a copy of a magazine under their arm, there are just less of them. It's why advertisers still spend the bulk of their advertising in print in audio - even though our website has more readers than Hi-Fi+ and The Absolute Sound combined, and much of our printed content goes online soon after publication, we still see that the magazine is a part of the decision-making process for those actually buying.

This poses a serious problem for larger hi-fi manufacturers. They see that people spend more of their time on discussion forums, but the amount of real-world sales such places generate have always been minimal. Instead, forums have their own zeitgeist, often a direction away from more mainstream products. That's fine, but without the mainstream, the artisans wither and die.

Whether you like it or not, the UK hi-fi market would be in a considerably worse state without What Hi-Fi than it is with the magazine in place.

Steve Toy

17-02-2010, 11:48

Alan, it is not about getting rid of WHF but about honesty in reviewing. Is it just a coincidence that I predicted Mark Grant's poor review despite the fact that I rate those i/cs so highly?

Alan Sircom

17-02-2010, 12:03

The Vinyl Adventure

17-02-2010, 12:32

One of the problems with any star-rated reviewing protocol is it can engender a 'winner stays on' attitude. The highest rated product then becomes its own reference point. This means if X received a top review, the next product in that category will be compared directly to X. If a product does badly, it's not because it is intrinsically bad, but it's because it isn't 'X' enough.

This usually continues until something actually out-does X in X's terms, and becomes the new X. Or, someone else comes along and says 'let's start from scratch'... and a new version of X emerges.

This happens pretty much universally, but is usually dictated by the tastes of an individual. That means you know what someone does and does not like over time.

WHF works collectively, and that makes it harder for those benchmarks to be defined and overthrown.

That doesn't sound sensible or logical to me! I can see that taste will come into it but surly it's a reviewers job to be fair and to an extent impartial! I much prefer a review that I can read and judge from the comments if it will be to my taste ... Eg "some might find it sounds a touch warm" rather than a review that is based on someone taste "it sounds warm to me". The former is an observation the later comes accros as a negative but both mean exactly the same.
Also reviews are made up of many variables, so how any product can become a complete referance makes nonsence to me, especially in a hobby that is as subjective as this.

The Vinyl Adventure

17-02-2010, 12:35

The only way marks cable could get a bad review legitimately is if it was listened to in a bad system that had previously been made paletable by interconnect with a strong signature....
Or maybe marks cables just don't work to well with cyrus for some reason ;)

Themis

17-02-2010, 12:53

No, I tested them with a Cyrus 8xp : they were as perfect as they could be. ;)

Rare Bird

17-02-2010, 13:02

Alan Sircom

17-02-2010, 13:08

That doesn't sound sensible or logical to me! I can see that taste will come into it but surly it's a reviewers job to be fair and to an extent impartial! I much prefer a review that I can read and judge from the comments if it will be to my taste ... Eg "some might find it sounds a touch warm" rather than a review that is based on someone taste "it sounds warm to me". The former is an observation the later comes accros as a negative but both mean exactly the same.
Also reviews are made up of many variables, so how any product can become a complete referance makes nonsence to me, especially in a hobby that is as subjective as this.

In essence, all reviews come down to this:

"This is my reference. It sounds like this. Here is someone else's product. It doesn't sound like my reference. Therefore it's not as good as the reference."

What you reference against ultimately defines the entire reviewing process. Some subjective-only reviewers use the sound of live acoustic instruments in a natural environment as a reference point. This works very well, although does leave some electronic music sounding flat. Some uber-objectivists insist that the reference point be a series of measurements to demonstrate how good or bad a product is against a notional ideal. Most fall somewhere between these two points. The only clash is when you get products that are subjectively excellent and objectively poor - which benchmark is the most fundamental? The answer to this remains unclear and varies from reviewer to reviewer.

OTOH, some establish a self-referencing benchmark. This changes the script to:

"I like this product. It sounds like this. Here is someone else's product. It doesn't sound like my product. Therefore it's not as good as my product."

This is difficult to overcome, but easy to follow if you know the products that person likes - you know that either you should give them the product or on no account should you ever consider such a suggestion. The real problem emerges when you have no idea what those products are, but you know they are used to reference other products.

Alan Sircom

17-02-2010, 13:13

You'll get nowhere but be brainwashed by rags.Large majority of people buy them cos they don't have a mind enough to direct themselves, they rely on what the rag says buy.The whole hifi industry was destroy (for a lot) in the late '70's-80's by magazines & such like.

It might not sound right to you, but better a brainwashed majority of buyers than no buyers. At least some of those you consider brainwashed can be deprogrammed/rebrainwashed at a later date.

That can't happen if people are blissfully unaware of the existence of anything beyond a dock for their iPhones.

DSJR

17-02-2010, 13:18

Alan, you've just summed up the whole 1980's vibe in the UK "Terrible Two" based dealers..

"I love Linn turntables and Naim amps! NOTHING ELSE sounds like these products, therefore EVERYTHING ELSE IS WRONG!!!!!!!!"

I can say the above 'cos that's how I and many others I knew felt at the time for a short while.

Oh, to wield such power as those company bosses (one in particular) could back then. I just hope they weren't laughing at "us" behind their backs - hmmmm.......

Marco

17-02-2010, 13:35

Hi Alan,

"This is my reference. It sounds like this. Here is someone else's product. It doesn't sound like my reference. Therefore it's not as good as the reference."

Ok, but what happens if the judgement criteria that were used to assess the efficacy of your 'reference' were flawed in some way? There could be a whole host of reasons why that may have been the case. Then the validity of your constant 'reference' becomes virtually worthless!

Therefore, to be truly objective, one *must* remain open-minded at all times and seek to test and re-evaluate one's 'reference' regularly, and in a variety of circumstances, in order to maintain the validity of said 'reference' as the basis from which one judges all else of a similar nature.

That's how you do things properly!! The fact is, 'references' must be continually re-evaluated and updated (if necessary) in order to remain relevant.

Basically though, 'What Hi-Fi?' don't know their arse from their elbow, and thus their 'reviews' have zero credibility amongst the discerning enthusiasts who populate forums such as this. That might not matter to 'What Hi-fi? or their readership, but ultimately it will matter in terms of the truth prevailing regarding just how good Mark's cables are, and the protection of the excellent reputation of his products now and in the future.

Marco.

P.S You should consider reviewing his cables in your magazine, unless of course you feel that the badge snobs amongst your readership wouldn't entertain using them because they're too cheap... ;)

DSJR

17-02-2010, 13:51

Was the cable actually listened to?

I know of some review (and one 5 star) products returned unopened with the manufacturers tape on..

HiFi dave and I could tell many, many stories and in later years he know many more movers and shakers in the industry than I did.....

Marco

17-02-2010, 14:14

Hi Dave,

I know of some review (and one 5 star) products returned unopened with the manufacturers tape on..

I don't doubt that's the case when it comes to mainstream rags such as WHF, which appear to be almost devoid of morals. I'm afraid that I don't believe for one second that commercial bias didn't play a significant part in the ridiculous 'review' Mark's cables were given.

They probably took one listen to them and thought 'jeez, these cables are too bloody good to be allowed to succeed (and thus affect the popularity of our 'reference' cables and the advertising revenue we get from their manufacturer), so let's put a spanner in the works by rubbishing them'.

Cynical, moi? Hardly - I'm merely being a realist! ;)

Marco.

MartinT

17-02-2010, 14:26

You'll get nowhere but be brainwashed by rags

Hold on: I have read hi-fi magazines since I was a boy and I've had, on the whole, great enjoyment from them. I have found titles like Hi-Fi Answers, Hi-Fi News, Gramophone, Stereophile, Hi-Fi World and (on the fringes) Wireless World edifying and educational.

When deciding on new equipment surely any independently minded person will use the reviews to generate a shortlist only? Used in this way, as a guide, you can go to a dealer and listen to 2-3 shortlisted items and form your own opinion. Without a shortlist you won't know where to start and the danger is that you will lean on the dealer's opinions too heavily. Go for WHF 5-star items and the opposite will occur and you will rely on the magazine's opinions too heavily.

The trick with magazines is to get to know the reviewer's system and tastes. That way (whether you agree or disagree with him), his outcomes can better guide you as to what you may like. Again, shortlisting is the approach to take, then go listen and use only your own judgement in the final selection.

BTW, there is a worse magazine than WHF called Which? magazine. A review of amplifiers could be summarised as "all amplifiers basically sound the same so the winner is this one with more buttons and lights on it". Absolute single-ply!

trailer

17-02-2010, 14:28

My first "system" was bought over 20 years ago from WHF recommendations and then from an online only dealer. I think it was a Kenwood 3020 amp and some Wharfedale speakers.

You've got to start somewhere.

As you take an interest in something further I think you soon realise that these types of magazines reviews shouldn't be taken as gospel.

Ali Tait

17-02-2010, 14:48

Yes indeed.I started with a NAD 3020.

Alan Sircom

17-02-2010, 15:18

Hi Alan,

Ok, but what happens if the judgement criteria that were used to assess the efficacy of your 'reference' were flawed in some way? There could be a whole host of reasons why that was the case. Then the validity of your constant 'reference' becomes virtually worthless!

Therefore, to be truly objective, one *must* remain open-minded at all times and seek to test and re-evaluate one's 'reference' regularly, and in a variety of circumstances, in order to maintain the validity of said 'reference' as the basis from which one judges all else of a similar nature.

That's how you do things properly!! The fact is, 'references' must be continually re-evaluated and updated (if necessary) in order to remain relevant.

Basically though, 'What Hi-Fi?' don't know their arse from their elbow, and thus their 'reviews' have zero credibility amongst the discerning enthusiasts who populate forums such as this. That might not matter to 'What Hi-fi? or their readership, but ultimately it will matter in terms of the truth prevailing regarding just how good Mark's cables are, and the protection of the excellent reputation of his products now and in the future.

Marco.

P.S You should consider reviewing his cables in your magazine, unless of course you feel that the badge snobs amongst your readership wouldn't entertain using them because they're too cheap... ;)

This is why the reference point should remain outside of the audio system itself. If you base your frame of reference on a product's ability or inability to reproduce a live acoustic instrument (or instruments) in a natural ambience, or if you base it on attempts to adhere to a notionally perfect set of measurements for that product, you are at least internally consistent. You can then cross-check that against music that you know well enough to know how it sounds on good and not so good equipment.

You need to periodically reassess the benchmarks, as you also need to revisit live concerts, to minimise 'drift'. But, realistically, the only difficulty arises when you have something that either polarises opinion among subjective reviewers or something that measures well and sounds bad, and vice versa. These are more philosophical hurdles than problems with the referencing process.

If you use these external references, the problem of re-evaluation virtually goes away - you are judging products on the basis of their performance in absolute terms, not relative ones. If the external references change the yes, there needs to be a course correction, but I don't see how these things can change - there's no 'new way to listen to Beethoven' and although measurement refines and moves forward, "we never knew that" moments are comparatively rare in audio test circles. That all being said, there remains questions of component compatibility and context, and this is where 'benefit of the doubt' creeps in.

As to the cables, as I said to Mark in IM, I'd be happy to review them, but I need to find an appropriate reviewer beforehand. I'm off cable reviewing for several months and the others are so used to cables costing 1,000x as much as Mark's designs, I am not sure how they would cope.

Marco

17-02-2010, 15:56

Hi Alan,

This is why the reference point should remain outside of the audio system itself. If you base your frame of reference on a product's ability or inability to reproduce a live acoustic instrument (or instruments) in a natural ambience, or if you base it on attempts to adhere to a notionally perfect set of measurements for that product, you are at least internally consistent.

I agree. I use the former method as a matter of course. I wonder what 'frame of reference 'What-Hifi?' use? ;)

You need to periodically reassess the benchmarks, as you also need to revisit live concerts, to minimise 'drift'. But, realistically, the only difficulty arises when you have something that either polarises opinion among subjective reviewers or something that measures well and sounds bad, and vice versa. These are more philosophical hurdles than problems with the referencing process.

Personally, I wouldn't be overly concerned what other reviewers thought of a particular cable, unless the opinions belonged to people whose ears I trusted and respected. In which case, I'd bear it in mind, but ultimately the results of what my own ears revealed would be the final arbiter, even if they flied in the face of those obtained by others.

If you use these external references, the problem of re-evaluation virtually goes away - you are judging products on the basis of their performance in absolute terms, not relative ones. If the external references change the yes, there needs to be a course correction, but I don't see how these things can change - there's no 'new way to listen to Beethoven' and although measurement refines and moves forward, "we never knew that" moments are comparatively rare in audio test circles. That all being said, there remains questions of component compatibility and context, and this is where 'benefit of the doubt' creeps in.

Indeed. In the case of cables, one has to be as certain as possible that they aren't being judged on their ability to act as tone controls. Often a sonically neutral cable (as far as this is possible), such as the Mark Grant G1000HDs, are blamed for revealing previously unheard deficiencies (such as tonal aberrations) in the partnering system or individual components within it, rather than praised for their neutrality....

As someone with a deep hatred of applying 'bandages' to hi-fi systems, I'd place 'honesty' as being the most important effect of my chosen cables way above anything else, as I'd hate the cables I use to mask deficiencies in my system which I may mistakenly try to 'fix' by employing the use of brighter or duller sounding varieties, and thereby end up missing the point completely. Far better to fix the problem at source! The 'best' cable, after all, (if you genuinely value high-fidelity) is the one with the least sonic signature.

As to the cables, as I said to Mark in IM, I'd be happy to review them, but I need to find an appropriate reviewer beforehand. I'm off cable reviewing for several months and the others are so used to cables costing 1,000x as much as Mark's designs, I am not sure how they would cope.

Lol. Nice one - I didn't think you'd be up for doing that.

Don't let RG near them, though - he'd need a brandy and wee lie down after the MG's outperformed his favourite Nordosts :eyebrows:

Marco.

Nick

17-02-2010, 16:17

Don't let RG near them, though - he'd need a brandy and wee lie down after the MG's outperformed his favourite Nordosts :eyebrows:

Marco.

Or maybe you'll need the brandy when he agrees with WTF :lolsign:

Dave Cawley

17-02-2010, 16:18

Alan Sircom

17-02-2010, 16:23

Personally, I wouldn't be overly concerned what other reviewers thought of a particular cable, unless the opinions belonged to people whose ears I trusted and respected. In which case, I'd bear it in mind, but ultimately the results of what my own ears revealed would be the final arbiter, even if the results flied in the face of those obtained by others.

That's not what I mean. I'm talking about things like the Stereophile review of the Reference 3a MM DeCapo I loudspeakers from 2003. Art Dudley absolutely loved these speakers, but John Atkinson was surprised that AD wasn't more troubled by the measured resonance. This makes it at once a 'good' and 'bad' product, depending on viewpoint. Whether that ends up as a 'good' or 'bad' product ultimately hangs on the policy of the magazine and the weighting the reader places on both sides of the argument.

It's part of the reason why I still take a dim view on publishing measurement in print - the right product for the listener might not be the one with the best measurement. Sadly, too many people consider measurement to be the lone confirmation of good design and dismiss potentially more suitable designs on the basis of measured criteria that may have little or no relevance.

Don't let RG near them, though - he'd need a brandy and wee lie down after the MG's outperformed his favourite Nordosts :eyebrows:

RG is officially off reviewing anything that would constitute a conflict with his Nordost hat. Sources, electronics, speakers... fine. And he does a very good job with these things. But cables, power products, anti-static goos and pointy things that go under equipment are a big no-no.

Marco

17-02-2010, 16:52

That's not what I mean. I'm talking about things like the Stereophile review of the Reference 3a MM DeCapo I loudspeakers from 2003. Art Dudley absolutely loved these speakers, but John Atkinson was surprised that AD wasn't more troubled by the measured resonance.

Perhaps the measured resonance wasn't an issue in his set-up, or was considered relatively unimportant as far as his ability to enjoy the quality of music they reproduced was concerned?

I know that if I really loved the sound of a pair of speakers, I wouldn't give a toss about any 'measured resonance'. Basically, if I can't hear it, or it doesn’t detract from my enjoyment of the music, then it's not a problem!

This makes it at once a 'good' and 'bad' product, depending on viewpoint. Whether that ends up as a 'good' or 'bad' product ultimately hangs on the policy of the magazine and the weighting the reader places on both sides of the argument.

Sorry, but I don't really understand why one would allow oneself to be so concerned or influenced by someone else's findings? Sure the bottom line is if, after listening to the speakers concerned, and you consider them as excellent, then that is what you write no matter what a reviewer in another magazine thinks?

I know that if I were reviewing equipment or speakers for a magazine, I'd simply tell it as I heard it and let others be the judge of my findings, regardless.

Or is there something here I'm not getting? :)

It's part of the reason why I still take a dim view on publishing measurement in print - the right product for the listener might not be the one with the best measurement. Sadly, too many people consider measurement to be the lone confirmation of good design and dismiss potentially more suitable designs on the basis of measured criteria that may have little or no relevance.

I couldn't agree more! When I'm reading magazine reviews of products, I all but ignore the 'technical spec' bit, as it largely means nothing to me. I simply read the subjective opinion and decide if the reviewer values the same things (sonically) as I do, and/or if I consider that he's 'in tune' with how I enjoy music to be reproduced. Endless technical babble simply makes my eyes glaze over with boredom :rolleyes:

RG is officially off reviewing anything that would constitute a conflict with his Nordost hat. Sources, electronics, speakers... fine. And he does a very good job with these things. But cables, power products, anti-static goos and pointy things that go under equipment are a big no-no.

Glad to hear it! ;)

Marco.

P.S Nick, lol! :eyebrows:

Nick

17-02-2010, 17:04

Steve Toy

17-02-2010, 17:15

Let's forget the good/bad aspect or the star rating in the review. The devil is in the detail. The WHF sonic characteristics description of the G1000HD was itself wide of the mark.

Nick

17-02-2010, 17:58

Let's forget the good/bad aspect or the star rating in the review. The devil is in the detail. The WHF sonic characteristics description of the G1000HD was itself wide of the mark.

But it's only someone's opinion, Steve, as valid, or not, as your own with regard to these cables. As long as you're happy, then it's all good. If a manufacturer sends product to be reviewed they must surely know that it could go one of two ways.

My point is that someone disagreeing with your assessment of the MG cables doesn't by default make them wrong. It just makes them differ from you in taste and/or opinion and possibly system parameters/desires. :)

Kris

17-02-2010, 18:12

My point is that someone disagreeing with your assessment of the MG cables doesn't by default make them wrong. It just makes them differ from you in taste and/or opinion and possibly system parameters/desires. :)

I agree, however we're not just talking one persons opinion here, we're talking a lot of people's opinions that are totally opposite to the WHF review.

So either the review is right and everyone else is wrong, or Vice versa.

On the basis of probability, and given that the WHF listening room is suspect, and also that the reviewer has remained anonymous, I can only conclude (not having heard the cables in question) that the review is very off the mark, and therefore wrong.

DSJR

17-02-2010, 18:31

This is my take as a dealer:

I haven't got back to Mark yet, but as a dealer I can tell you that Mark could be charging 4 to 5 times more than he does for the £75.00 G1000HD to give me the discounts I'm used to. Then he could put then in a nice wooden box. The £75 cable might then cost about £600 and at that price it would be a bargain and get good reviews in magazines that are comfortable with that level of cable.

Regards

Dave

I take it that you like them then Dave?

Have you a means of trying out balanced cables? Mark has sent me one which I like very much and shall keep, which could sell for £100 per metre pair, but I'm not confident to say if it's competitive with others.

Kris

17-02-2010, 18:33

I'm off cable reviewing for several months and the others are so used to cables costing 1,000x as much as Mark's designs, I am not sure how they would cope.

Alan, are you admitting that price has a direct effect on how reviewers listen to products?

Surely any product should be given the same chance regardless of price, and only after initial reviewing should the price be taken into consideration when comparing the item with other s from different price points and deciding value for money?

If a £50 product is only reviewed in the context of a £50 product and in comparison to other products in the same price range, then one will never discover how good (or bad) the product is in the greater scheme of things.

I'm waiting for a reviewer to have the balls to admit that some cheep products wipe the floor with £1K+ or even £10K+ products. Is a £5K cable actually worth £5K in sound quality? Is it actually £4,950 better than a £50 cable? Or, as many of us suspect, is the upper echelons of the 'audiophile' business just a money printing con?

Kris.

The Vinyl Adventure

17-02-2010, 18:42

Dave Cawley

17-02-2010, 18:43

Hi Dave

I'm glad someone read my post.

Yes I like them, too inexpensive would be my criticism!

Yes my CD-amp and pre-amps are all XLR balanced so I could try one, two or three.

Regards

Dave

The Vinyl Adventure

17-02-2010, 18:46

Hi Dave

I'm glad someone read my post.

Yes I like them, too inexpensive would be my criticism!

Yes my CD-amp and pre-amps are all XLR balanced so I could try one, two or three.

Regards

Dave

aw dave, i read it too... with interest! :)

Steve Toy

17-02-2010, 18:49

But it's only someone's opinion, Steve, as valid, or not, as your own with regard to these cables. As long as you're happy, then it's all good. If a manufacturer sends product to be reviewed they must surely know that it could go one of two ways.

My point is that someone disagreeing with your assessment of the MG cables doesn't by default make them wrong. It just makes them differ from you in taste and/or opinion and possibly system parameters/desires.

I find that particularly hard to swallow when the criteria they use is the same as mine. I'd understand if my idea of dynamic was their idea of in-yer-face but what they've done is state that the Bugatti Veyron is a bit slow.

This is why I said above to move away from the good/bad or the star rating and examine the detail of the description. The summative assessment is indeed arbitrary; the formative assessment wide of the mark.

In the past I've not had issue with WHF's summative scores but the formative assessment has suggested to me that they haven't even auditioned the product, or if they have, the formative assessment may have been altered or swapped with that of another product.

Marco

17-02-2010, 19:24

I agree, however we're not just talking one persons opinion here, we're talking a lot of people's opinions that are totally opposite to the WHF review.

So either the review is right and everyone else is wrong, or Vice versa.

On the basis of probability, and given that the WHF listening room is suspect, and also that the reviewer has remained anonymous, I can only conclude (not having heard the cables in question) that the review is very off the mark, and therefore wrong.

Precisely, Kris. The way that WHF described how the G1000HDs 'sound' is quite simply WRONG - end of. Of course we know the real reasons for their rather ignorant remarks..........

I'm waiting for a reviewer to have the balls to admit that some cheep products wipe the floor with £1K+ or even £10K+ products.

Me too. I'm waiting in particular for one of the mags to have the balls to include a Sound Hi-fi (or similar) modified Technics SL-1200 in a 'shoot-out' with so-called recognised 'high-end' turntables at around the £2-3k mark. I'm sure that the results would be rather interesting! ;)

Will any of them do it, though? HFW have reviewed one on its own, but I'd like to see a comparative test between it and the usual 'prestige-badged suspects' at around the £2-3k price level.

Alan, would Hi-fi+ have the balls to do this?

Marco.

Mike Reed

17-02-2010, 19:24

Having trawled through this thread wondering if it was about the rejection of Mark Grant's cable (s) or the questionable reviewing generally in What HiFi (or, as I gather, a.k.a. WTF), I have engendered a growing interest in these cables that I know nothing about.

The power of advertising would in this case seem to hang on a thread, as it were. Wonder if, as Alan Sircom has intimated, this is a microcosm of the future.

Over a generation ago,HiFi magazines (except WHF) used to be eagerly awaited by me, read cover to cover, discussed with friends and their reviews coveted and drooled over. However, one gets older, wiser, more circumspect and generally grizzled. Moreover, magazines then were all about two channel audio (apart from the halcyon days of quadraphonics). Now they have to cater for all and everything, which is not a recipe for success, i.m.o.

Can someone direct me to Mark Grant's offerings, as I need a longer i/c from pre. to monoblock powers than my current one metre Anthem?

Nick

17-02-2010, 19:26

I agree, however we're not just talking one persons opinion here, we're talking a lot of people's opinions that are totally opposite to the WHF review.

So either the review is right and everyone else is wrong, or Vice versa.

On the basis of probability, and given that the WHF listening room is suspect, and also that the reviewer has remained anonymous, I can only conclude (not having heard the cables in question) that the review is very off the mark, and therefore wrong.

I take your point. But and there is a but, that train of thinking implies that there is actually a universally right answer. Sure there are a lot of people here who are waxing lyrical about the cables. Who is to say that the WTF voice would be the only dissenter in a comparable sample of other listeners ?

I'm not coming down on the side of the WTF review, in fact I have no opinion of the product in question. It seems to me that some people have taken umbrage when if they are happy then the point is moot.

The Vinyl Adventure

17-02-2010, 19:29

Mike

http://markgrantcables.co.uk/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=43_1&products_id=165&zenid=v3f6d7u79gp8tr0n0jid4ebik7

Mike Reed

17-02-2010, 19:32

Can someone direct me to Mark Grant's offerings, as I need a longer i/c from pre. to monoblock powers than my current one metre Anthem?

Okay, I've found it in another section.

Marco

17-02-2010, 19:48

Hi Nick,

Who is to say that the WTF voice would be the only dissenter in a comparable sample of other listeners ?

We could of course argue about this all day, but my honest answer would be that they'd either have to be deaf or have very badly put together systems.

Remember, we're not talking here about subtle preferences between one listener and another regarding the sonic performance of Mark's cables (which I could understand and appreciate), but a fundamental out-and-out slating! That just doesn't make any sense. The fact is, the discrepancy in opinion is much too great, unless one factors in commercial bias and/or a poorly matched review system.

Marco.

DSJR

17-02-2010, 19:58

They reviewed them still sealed in the bag. Simple as that!!!

Nick

17-02-2010, 19:59

Hi Nick,

We could of course argue about this all day, but my honest answer would be that they'd either have to be deaf or have very badly put together systems.

Remember, we're not talking here about subtle preferences between one listener and another regarding the sonic performance of Mark's cables (which I could understand), but a fundamental out-and-out slating! That just doesn't make any sense. The fact is, the discrepancy in opinion is much too great, unless one factors in commercial bias.

Marco.

Marco, I'm not one to argue when there is no obvious correct outcome. :) I'm still doubtful that there is a universal panacea for all situations but I'm happy as a sand boy when people find something they really like and tell others about their experiences. I tend to rail against this when it becomes more evangelical than anecdotal, then again I've been known to tread the preaching path myself now and then :lol: It would be a boring old world indeed if we all ended with exactly the same stuff.

DSJR

17-02-2010, 20:11

Marco and HiFi dave will tell you how anti-cables I am and I only bought these to start with to see what all the fuss was about. My home made wires are fine enough, but the 1000HD cables took what I was used to and opened it further. For £83 or so including P&P it's a steal IMO

Marc B

17-02-2010, 20:12

What a bizarre thread ?

Is this thread really about a low score in a magazine review or more about your "flavour of the month favourite cable" being disliked by a magazine?

Either way , it isn't much of a shock for a magazine, which seems to highly rate bright and etched cables and electronics, to dislike a more mellow or full sound.

As for wanting the cables to be more expensive, are you people crazy ? Cables are a total rip off as it is and now someone has come along who sells them at a "more realistic" price, you think they should put them in a wooden box and charge more ?

madness

each to their own I guess. :lol:

Gazjam

17-02-2010, 20:13

The Vinyl Adventure

17-02-2010, 20:16

I don't think the suggestion was that mark should put them in a wooden box and charge more ... Just that he could!

Spectral Morn

17-02-2010, 20:23

Andrew Everards a smart enough guy, and he doesn't seem to bend over the way some do (NO direct comment on any in-the-house reviewers/editors/reviewers!), so I wonder what the guys (and girls - hi claire) at WTF make of this thread?

Cos you can take it to the bank (in old money) that they have seen this and are talking about it at the watercooler....

Oh to be a fly on the wall... :)

There have been bigger alleged issues in the past and they don't seem to change imho..same old same old or so it seems to me. Biggest issue is ultra shallow reviews which are more picture/s than text. No way of understanding where the review is coming from, or how it got there. Not just an issue with WHF, but they are the worst (imho) example of this in current printed audio magazines.

Regards D S D L

Gazjam

17-02-2010, 20:23

And I'll buy a set of Marks cables.....once I know the definative verdict on them compared to my Hitachi LC-OFC cables (at the princely sum of £6 per meter)

Jerry (jandl100) I'm awaiting your review...
The hitachis were head and shoulders better than anything else I'd tried (including Nordost Blue Heaven, Chord Chameleon, Linn Mic cable dnm reason......)

pay £80 for an interconnect? Now that the Hitachis made me Foo-free and wisened up?
Well better that than pay £500 for a bit of foo that actually works?

The Vinyl Adventure

17-02-2010, 20:27

I know I'm being incredibly pedantic here, but the review is actually contradictory anyway

For Colourful bass; good midrange; detailing
Against
Brash, confused, dynamically disappointing

and

.... It prefers, instead, to shout them at point-blank range, so detailing is steamrollered over.

I'm not sure that picking fault with the review to this level is productive... But I thought it worth pointing out anyway :)

Steve Toy

17-02-2010, 20:27

I think this is the most likely scenario.

Can I remind folks that it would be more significant to focus on the formative assessment and not the summative score.
The former is where the blatant inaccuracies lie, the latter is just a matter of opinion.

You could give Gerwurstraminer wine a low score because you didn't like the taste but if you described it as sweet you clearly haven't tasted it.

Marco

17-02-2010, 20:31

I'm still doubtful that there is a universal panacea for all situations but I'm happy as a sand boy when people find something they really like and tell others about their experiences.

Me too, and I agree with that premise. Thing is though, when it comes to cables, in my opinion there *is* indeed a "universal panacea" - and it's simply the ones which impose the least sonic signature as possible on the music reproduced.

Now of course we could argue until the end of time as to what constitutes as "the least sonic signature as possible", *but* presuming that this effect was measurable (and thus provable objectively) then one would automatically use examples of said cables, safe in the knowledge that they were one of the most sonically neutral available.

It's different with the rest of the reproduction chain (equipment and speakers), as you're dealing with different 'flavours' (due to many different factors) that will appeal to some people more than others, but with cables it shouldn't be like that. Remember that there is no such thing as a 'good cable'; merely ones which are 'less bad'!

The fact is, if your goal is to achieve true fidelity then you can't seek 'flavours' in cables - you simply want a piece of wire which relays the signal from one box to the other with the minimal amount of interference.

I believe that the GH1000Ds represent the closest and most cost effective examples I've heard of such cables.

I tend to rail against this when it becomes more evangelical than anecdotal, then again I've been known to tread the preaching path myself now and then. It would be a boring old world indeed if we all ended with exactly the same stuff.

Again I agree, although praising Mark's cables has got nothing to do with 'evangelism'; merely having the desire to recommend a superb product to like-minded enthusiasts in the hope that they too will derive from it the same excellent results. However, let's be absolutely clear here, as I consider this very important.......

The reason why people are 'up in arms' about the ridiculous review in WHF of the Mark Grant cables is not because a notorious hi-fi comic has 'slagged off' the cables some of us here use, but because an honest and dedicated manufacturer of a genuinely superb (great value) product doesn't deserve to suffer and (potentially) have his livelihood adversely affected by biased and blinkered reviewing - or, at the very best, fatally flawed reviewing due to issues with the chosen test system and/or room used.

*That* is what one must bear in mind here, and why AOS will be doing everything in its power to right this injustice! :)

Marco.

Alan Sircom

17-02-2010, 20:37

Alan, are you admitting that price has a direct effect on how reviewers listen to products?

Surely any product should be given the same chance regardless of price, and only after initial reviewing should the price be taken into consideration when comparing the item with other s from different price points and deciding value for money?

If a £50 product is only reviewed in the context of a £50 product and in comparison to other products in the same price range, then one will never discover how good (or bad) the product is in the greater scheme of things.

I'm waiting for a reviewer to have the balls to admit that some cheep products wipe the floor with £1K+ or even £10K+ products. Is a £5K cable actually worth £5K in sound quality? Is it actually £4,950 better than a £50 cable? Or, as many of us suspect, is the upper echelons of the 'audiophile' business just a money printing con?

Kris.

No, I'm saying I wouldn't want a potentially good cable destroyed because my cable reviewers are too used to the very best cables. If you are used to first class travel, the difference between two business classes are hard to differentiate. That strikes me as setting up a 'damning with faint praise' review.

Price stratified reviews exist because audio is a very broad church. Someone in the market for thousands of pounds worth of cable isn't going to buy a £80 cable, in the same way as people in the market for a Savile Row suit aren't really going to be in the market for something from M&S, no matter how good.

Unfortunately, stepping out of those strata help no-one. Sometimes products fight above their weight, but they are the exceptions not the rule. So, if we were to compare a £50 product against a £5,000 product and the more expensive one was better after all, what would be the point in that review?

Mike Reed

17-02-2010, 20:43

I know I'm being incredibly pedantic here, but the review is actually contradictory anyway

)

In contradiction, you're not a pedant! It does seem to be inconsistent at best!

Alan Sircom

17-02-2010, 21:00

The reason why people are 'up in arms' about the ridiculous review in WHF of Mark's cables is not because a hi-fi comic has 'slagged off' the cables some people here use, but because an honest and dedicated manufacturer of a genuinely superb great value product doesn't deserve to suffer and (potentially) have his livelihood adversely affected by biased and blinkered reviewing - or, at the very best, fatally flawed reviewing do to issues with the chosen test system and/or room used.

*That* is what one must bear in mind here! :)

Marco.

Sorry, this really doesn't work. The fact that there are people who like this cable... all well and good. That it didn't figure in WHF's review is unfortunate for the manufacturer. That is all.

A magazine is not there to preserve the livelihood of manufacturers, big or small. It is there to review.

People complain that there aren't enough negative reviews in magazines. What I've found is they complain all the more when there are negative reviews, because they take them as a slight against their pet product. If you want more thorough reviews, you have to accept that sometimes your loved ones will get kicked over a few times.

So seriously guys, get over yourselves.

Steve Toy

17-02-2010, 21:12

hifi_dave

17-02-2010, 21:18

Alan, the formative assessment is flawed. They described Gerwurstraminer as sweet/the Bugatti Veyron is a bit slow in their view.

If they gave the Veyron 2 stars because it was expensive to run and unsuitable for a family they could not be challenged for that.

But they said it was slow.

Do I need to provide any more analogies?

Chuck in a Rolex or two, a Patek Phillipe and a Ducati and you've become KK...:rolleyes:

The Vinyl Adventure

17-02-2010, 21:34

Sorry, this really doesn't work. The fact that there are people who like this cable... all well and good. That it didn't figure in WHF's review is unfortunate for the manufacturer. That is all.

A magazine is not there to preserve the livelihood of manufacturers, big or small. It is there to review.

People complain that there aren't enough negative reviews in magazines. What I've found is they complain all the more when there are negative reviews, because they take them as a slight against their pet product. If you want more thorough reviews, you have to accept that sometimes your loved ones will get kicked over a few times.

So seriously guys, get over yourselves.

if it wasn't so vastly inacurate then maybe it wouldn't have caused so much fuss, it's not even like there is one single person who even slightly relates to the review, never mind agrees with it... The user reviews on whathifi's site, by both memebrs and non members of this forum agree it's wrong... There isn't a single other cable that gets 2 stars!
Never mind get over our selves, this is an open forum that allows people to comment on this sort of thing as much as they like and when a review like this this happens, if we disagree with it to the obvious extent that we do, I think it's right that we do comment enough to hopefully undo even a fraction of the damage to a very good bit of kit that that so called hifi magazine has done.

Marco

17-02-2010, 21:35

Hi Alan,

No, I'm saying I wouldn't want a potentially good cable destroyed because my cable reviewers are too used to the very best cables.

I know what you're getting at, but if that situation actually exists then I find it most bizarre. Surely your reviewers have the wherewithal to factor out cost/exclusivity in products and simply use their ears as the final arbiter when ascertaining the efficacy of a product?

If a £65 cable outperforms a £6000 one, sonically, in the chosen test system, then it is by definition the better cable regardless of anything else.

If you are used to first class travel, the difference between two business classes are hard to differentiate. That strikes me as setting up a 'damning with faint praise' review.

I understand your analogy, and agree to an extent, but that sort of stuff really shouldn't affect the ability of your reviewers to recognise a great product, regardless of cost. If it does, then I really don't know what to say....

Price stratified reviews exist because audio is a very broad church. Someone in the market for thousands of pounds worth of cable isn't going to buy a £80 cable, in the same way as people in the market for a Savile Row suit aren't really going to be in the market for something from M&S, no matter how good.

Why not if the £80 cable is actually the best sounding option? Or are we dealing with snob value here?

I agree that what you say is often the reality, but speaking as someone who could afford to buy a Savile Row suit (if I wanted to), I would unquestionably choose an M&S one instead *if* it were more practical and better suited (no pun intended ;)) to my needs. I don't give a shit about labels and/or trying to impress people!

My policy is that any luxury item I buy *must* be for the right reasons - and if it's very expensive then I have to justify the cost to myself in a meaningful sense. I won't pay through the nose for a product just for the sake of owning something recognised as 'exclusive' or 'desirable'. That makes no sense to me whatsoever, although I fully understand that some other people may think differently.

Sometimes products fight above their weight, but they are the exceptions not the rule. So, if we were to compare a £50 product against a £5,000 product and the more expensive one was better after all, what would be the point in that review?

It would show that the £5000 product deserved its price tag - simples :)

I'm all for praising expensive equipment *if* it's expensive for the right reasons - namely that in some way it represents the current 'state-of-the-art' in terms of sonic performance, construction and reliability.

It's only when I believe that what one is mainly paying for is the 'prestige value' of a 'famous brand', or products introduced to the market purely to 'fleece' people with more money than sense, that I will speak out against this and show examples of much less expensive products that I believe are superior.

Sadly, in my experience, the world of high-end audio is often flooded with equipment that's, as they in Glasgow, 'all fur and nae knickers'!

Marco.

Marco

17-02-2010, 21:46

Sorry, this really doesn't work. The fact that there are people who like this cable... all well and good. That it didn't figure in WHF's review is unfortunate for the manufacturer. That is all.

So seriously guys, get over yourselves.

Sorry, that's nonsense - and I've already (along with Hamish, below) pointed out why.

if it wasn't so vastly inacurate then maybe it wouldn't have caused so much fuss, it's not even like there is one single person who even slightly relates to the review, never mind agrees with it... The user reviews on whathifi's site, by both memebrs and non members of this forum agree it's wrong... There isn't a single other cable that gets 2 stars!
Never mind get over our selves, this is an open forum that allows people to comment on this sort of thing as much as they like and when a review like this this happens, if we disagree with it to the obvious extent that we do, I think it's right that we do comment enough to hopefully undo even a fraction of the damage to a very good bit of kit that that so called hifi magazine has done.

Hear, hear! :clap:

Alan,

People complain that there aren't enough negative reviews in magazines. What I've found is they complain all the more when there are negative reviews, because they take them as a slight against their pet product. If you want more thorough reviews, you have to accept that sometimes your loved ones will get kicked over a few times.

I wouldn't have a had a problem with that had the 'review' reflected some semblance of reality. Clearly though it didn't.

A magazine is not there to preserve the livelihood of manufacturers, big or small. It is there to review.

I completely agree with your first sentence, but I would add: "fairly, professionally, and without commercial bias" to the end of your second sentence.

Clearly, given the bullshit that was written in WHF about the Mark Grant G1000HDs, they are grossly incapable of the latter.

Marco.

Alan Sircom

17-02-2010, 21:54

Alan, the formative assessment is flawed. They described Gerwurstraminer as sweet/the Bugatti Veyron is a bit slow in their view.

If they gave the Veyron 2 stars because it was expensive to run and unsuitable for a family they could not be challenged for that.

But they said it was slow.

Do I need to provide any more analogies?

No, the formative assessment is not flawed. It is because the cables were used in a system that did not suit their performance. Or they did not suit the tastes of the reviewer. These things happen.

Steve Toy

17-02-2010, 21:58

We are drifting away from the core issue: the WHF descrption does not fit the interconnect. Therefore the review in its entirety has zero credibility.

As Dave said, they probably reviewed it still sealed in the bag.

Marco

17-02-2010, 22:02

No, the formative assessment is not flawed. It is because the cables were used in a system that did not suit their performance.

Nicely, and if I may say so, very tactfully put!

Actually, I strongly believe that What Hi-fi? are biased as a result of, erm, 'looking after the interests' of their major advertisers. We shall say no more about it, though ;)

Marco.

Steve Toy

17-02-2010, 22:08

Marco, that'll hurt and you've dared say what others including myself may be thinking.

Alan Sircom

17-02-2010, 22:08

Er, the word 'libel' just shot into my head. I suggest you moderate your tone. And quickly.

Spectral Morn

17-02-2010, 22:10

I too am concerned at what you just typed Marco.

There were certainly problems in the past at What Hi-Fi, but bar their overly damped/warm listening room..I am not aware of any current issues. I do feel though that some of the reviewers on staff lack the right experience/have none or just plain can't hear..but that's as far as it goes imho...though that is pretty serious in and off its self. Any review based media should have both excellent full-time staff and free lancers on board. To give credibility and weight to what they write...be it on-line or in print...anything less is a waste of time imho.

Regards D S D L

Marco

17-02-2010, 22:12

Er, the word 'libel' just shot into my head. I suggest you moderate your tone. And quickly.

Sorry, it's something I feel strongly about. If the editor of What Hi-fi? wishes to sue me for my comments I will gladly accept personal responsibility for them and deal with the matter accordingly.

"Tone", however, moderated as requested :)

Marco.

Alan Sircom

17-02-2010, 22:15

Then I have to bow out of this thread and this forum immediately. I cannot and will not be a party to, nor can I condone, what are defamatory and actionable statements.

The Vinyl Adventure

17-02-2010, 22:16

I'm not sure I entierly buy the idea that they are actually biased, I think that they might just very be guilty of giving unknown brands less of a chance before writing them off... and maybe leaving too much to assumtion as aposed to actually spending a bit of time with a product .... It was after all just a small corner of one page .. They are perhaps too busy listening to thier Cyrus hifi's to be worried about a little small brand cable!

Marco

17-02-2010, 22:16

Then I have to bow out of this thread and this forum immediately. I cannot and will not be a party to, nor can I condone, what are defamatory and actionable statements.

What if it's true, though? I'm afraid that unlike others I'm not afraid to say these things!

However, given the premise in the British justice system of 'innocent until proven guilty', we'll give them the benefit of the doubt ;)

I'd be sorry to lose you, Alan, but I'm not going to retract what I honestly believe is true.

Marco.

Steve Toy

17-02-2010, 22:40

I've had to take the scissors to a few posts, including my own. We must stop short of making libellous statements.

markf

17-02-2010, 23:18

The magazine did seem to like the Merlin Mozart cables and it seemed like they were comparing
the two, so perhaps that's something that could be tried.

Dave Cawley

17-02-2010, 23:31

They described Gerwurstraminer as sweet/the Bugatti Veyron is a bit slow in their view.

Steve, wow! they did? where?

Dave

Dave Cawley

17-02-2010, 23:32

I've had to take the scissors to a few posts

Not again................ even your own posts, WHY?

Dave

Joe

17-02-2010, 23:36

'Then I have to bow out of this thread and this forum immediately. I cannot and will not be a party to, nor can I condone, what are defamatory and actionable statements.'

Now I'm confused. Who just bowed out?

Marco

17-02-2010, 23:41

Alan Sircom, which is a shame. Obviously he didn't like what I'd written. I don't know why he was taking it so personally though as it was nothing to do with his magazine.

The fact is, I think we'd all be rather naïve if we didn't acknowledge that 'underhand activities' do occur in the industry, so I'm afraid that I'm not scared to say what others are thinking - that's just the way I am!

Marco.

Joe

17-02-2010, 23:43

Thanks. That is a shame.

As I've not heard the cable or read the magazine I'll refrain from further comment.

Dave Cawley

17-02-2010, 23:45

What happened to the message from Steve in-between my two posts above? This is all very strange?

Dave

DSJR

17-02-2010, 23:46

Can someone try a Merlin Mozart by comparison and see if it's they way it was described?

Marco

17-02-2010, 23:52

Hi Dave,

I've had to take the scissors to a few posts

Not again................ even your own posts, WHY?

Dave

Posts have now been restored as they were before, except a couple of mine which I've reworded a little.

Marco.

Dave Cawley

17-02-2010, 23:57

They described Gerwurstraminer as sweet/the Bugatti Veyron is a bit slow in their view.

Steve, wow! they did? where?

Dave

Marco

18-02-2010, 00:10

From the WHF site from Clare Newsome:

neil, I know Mark Grant has been in touch re another sample; we're happy to re-test products if it's shown we could have had a faulty review model.

Now given that Mark doesn't send out faulty anything to anyone (he's extremely fastidious in terms of his product quality), let alone cables that were going to be reviewed in a magazine, the above is simply a convenient get out clause after their 'review' has been exposed for the sham that it was.

This would not have happened had members of AOS not entered their site and complained. So well done, chaps - Mark deservedly gets another bite at the cherry :)

I'll be watching very closely to see what happens with the second samples he sends in for appraisal to WHF - this will be most interesting... Hopefully they'll remove the wax from their lugholes this time! ;)

Oh, and if Mark's cables get the review they deserve in WHF, second time around, I shall withdraw my remarks and write a public apology to the editor Andrew Everard - promise!

Marco.

Steve Toy

18-02-2010, 00:13

Nice one!

Steve Toy

18-02-2010, 01:41

Sorry, it's something I feel strongly about. If the editor of What Hi-fi? wishes to sue me for my comments I will gladly accept personal responsibility for them and deal with the matter accordingly.

Whilst I admire Marco's honesty in saying what he thinks, rightly, wrongly, fairly or unfairly, everyone reading needs to understand that admin can express viewpoints which are independent of those of the forum itself and others who share the responsibilty for managing this place.

If you read the 'forum rules' section which comes with the Vbulletin software and is not written by us, it basically says that you own your own posts and you take responsibility for what you write.

Marco

18-02-2010, 01:53

Quite.

If I've got something to say which I think is justified, I'll bloody well say it - I most certainly won't gagged! ;)

I've no idea though why Alan went off in a huff; it's not as if I was aiming my comments at Hi-fi+ or him...... :scratch:

Marco.

Themis

18-02-2010, 05:16

No, the formative assessment is not flawed. It is because the cables were used in a system that did not suit their performance. Or they did not suit the tastes of the reviewer. These things happen.
Hi Alan,

this could be indeed true. Theoretically.

In practice, though, there is nothing in the few lines of the review implying that (or even letting the reader suppose that) such a possibility exists.
For a good reason: if it was the case, then the opinion of the reviewer loses all its value. Indeed, who cares about the personal tastes of an (unknown) reviewer who is not even able to detect systemic incompatibilities (if this could possibly be the case).

I'm afraid, the reason for the particular review lies somewhere else.

DevillEars

18-02-2010, 06:36

If I've got something to say which I think is justified, I'll bloody well say it - I most certainly won't gagged!
I've no idea though why Alan went off in a huff; it's not as if I was aiming my comments at Hi-fi+ or him......

Hi Marco,

"Freedom of Speech" is a privilege, but brings with it certain responsibilities and accountabilities.

Yes, one is entitled to hold opinions and to express those opinions, but there is a fine line between what constitutes an 'opinion' and what can be interpreted as defamatory. That fine line tends to lie in the wording/semantics of the expressed opinion. If the opinion as expressed is defamatory it will be regarded as 'slander' (if spoken) or libel (if written) and the party defamed has the right to take legal action to defend himself in a court of law.

Should such a situation arise, the onus is on the defamer to either prove the truth of any statement or accept the consequences as determined by the court. These consequences can include heavy damages awards based on predicted losses that would be incurred by the defamed party.

Don't get me wrong - I have no issue with freedom of speech and agree 100% with your sentiment that you should not "be gagged" (implying that the gagging is forced on you by a third party). The only person who should have any influence over the opinions you express and how you express them is yourself.

Call it discipline, call it caution, call it whatever you like - it is an essential component in a world that is becoming more and more litigious - where people will sue other people at the drop of a hat (and then drop the hat themselves).

Alan's first reaction to your comments re What HiFi:

Er, the word 'libel' just shot into my head. I suggest you moderate your tone. And quickly.

:was phrased as a heads-up warning to you regarding the possible consequences of what you had posted.

To provide one possible explanation of Alan's reaction to an indication that you were not going to 'moderate your tone' which was:

Then I have to bow out of this thread and this forum immediately. I cannot and will not be a party to, nor can I condone, what are defamatory and actionable statements.

:Alan is the editor of a magazine that competes with What HiFi and his involvement in a thread (and forum) that could be the cause of any legal action would open him (at a personal level) and his publisher to being sued for participation. Given that the publisher probably has significantly higher financial resources than you do, it is likely that the 'suer' would include them as he would have a better chance of extracting significant damages from their coffers than from your wallet. :)

With HiFi+ now owned by an American publishing house, they are probably hyper-sensitive to the risks posed by libel suits and would have made it clear to Alan in his contract to avoid all circumstances that would pose such a risk.

When you responded to his first 'warning' with the words:

If the editor of What Hi-fi? wishes to sue me for my comments I will gladly accept personal responsibility for them and deal with the matter accordingly.

:Alan was forced to dissociate himself - both personally and as editor of HiFi+ - from the post/thread/forum.

His decision to 'get the Hell outa Dodge' was most likely predicated by a combination of his employment contract and the risks to himself at a personal level.

I don't blame Alan - I don't think he had any other option - and I don't believe it was personal either.

My $0.02 worth...

BTW: Libel laws and how they handle joint responsibility vary from country to country, so I have no idea on how British law views the joint responsibility aspect of forum 'management' and 'moderators'.
So you may want to consult a tame lawyer to find out whether or not it would be advisable for the management team / moderator team to post 'dissociation' responses to protect themselves.
Standard forum 'disclaimers' are not always 100% effective (particularly if drafted based on the laws of a country other than the home base of the forum with the resultant potential for 'gaps' in the disclaimer).

Dave

Beechwoods

18-02-2010, 07:31

For what it's worth, Dave, I think your assessment is likely to be spot on... Alan's status as Editor of a competitor publication will mean he has to be particularly cautious in these situations :)

That said, everyone's entitled to express an opinion, within certain (legal) limits. And Marco's tweaked his posts since Alan's initial comments were made.

Themis

18-02-2010, 07:44

Alan's reaction is very professional and well justified, imho.

(it's a pity, of course, for the conversation, but it's a serious and understandable decision)

MartinT

18-02-2010, 08:22

Has anyone asked Alan if he would consider staying now that things have been put right? Aftetr all, AoS is enriched with his presence and we would all suffer his loss.

StanleyB

18-02-2010, 08:36

Alan and his colleagues have been of great assistance when it came to getting my DACs reviewed in WHF:). I might not have been in agreement with some of their conclusions, but whenever they felt that the review sample might have had a problem I have always sent them a replacement right away.

The kids are on holiday this week, so Alan is probably taking a break. I have been in and out myself all week, and making sure the kids are entertained. So I don't think we should send out a search party for Alan just yet.

John

18-02-2010, 08:56

I think Mark sending out another review model will only confirm the magazine views
I only heard the cable once and thought it was a well balanced cable that provided very good value for money
For me the review says everything about the creditabiltyy of the magazine
Does anyone know the actual equipment What Hifi uses

Steve Toy

18-02-2010, 09:03

Such allegations have actually been made on the thread linked tor the online version of the negative review on WHF where Hamish made his complaint (by others not by Hamish). Their response was to both deny such allegations and, significantly, point out that Mark Grant does actually advertise in the magazine.

This means that the most anyone can theoretically accuse them of is incompetence, something they are now prepared to put right.

My own belief is they made a mistake somehow but they did not ddeliberately give the G1000 HDs a bad review against their own better judgement.

Marco is entitled to his viewpoint. It is his viewpoint and not mine and it is NOT the view of AOS.

StanleyB

18-02-2010, 09:05

I think Mark sending out another review model will only confirm the magazine views
Taking into account that my post on the matter has been deleted by admin in the last few minutes, it is difficult for the likes of me to know if there is any bias being portrayed somewhere. But in my view sending out a replacement does not constitute admitting that there is a problem.

Kris

18-02-2010, 09:09

People complain that there aren't enough negative reviews in magazines. What I've found is they complain all the more when there are negative reviews, because they take them as a slight against their pet product. If you want more thorough reviews, you have to accept that sometimes your loved ones will get kicked over a few times.

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Alan here. Ignoring for a moment what the product reviewed was, it is refreshing to see a damning negative review for a change, even if it was badly written up and self contradictory . . . . .

I too would be very interested to read what peoples opinions of the Merlin cables are. Seeing as WHF compared Marks with Merlins, it would only be fair and right for people here to do the same. Has anyone here heard them? If not, would it be possible for someone to buy a set so that a comparison can be made in the AOS room at the show?

Kris.

Dave Cawley

18-02-2010, 09:17

Taking into account that my post on the matter has been deleted by admin in the last few minutes

What did you say Stan?

Regards

Dave

Spectral Morn

18-02-2010, 10:22

StanleyB

18-02-2010, 10:43

Taking into account that my post on the matter has been deleted by admin in the last few minutes

What did you say Stan?

In a nutshell? That the WHF folks are also human and fair as can be, judging from my own experience:).

Marco

18-02-2010, 10:52

Taking into account that my post on the matter has been deleted by admin in the last few minutes, it is difficult for the likes of me to know if there is any bias being portrayed somewhere. But in my view sending out a replacement does not constitute admitting that there is a problem.

Stan, before I get to the other stuff, what post of yours was deleted?

I haven't deleted anything and neither has Steve, or to my knowledge has any other member of the management team, so we're at a loss as what's happened :scratch:

Marco.

Spectral Morn

18-02-2010, 10:56

Stan, before I get to the other stuff, what post of yours was deleted?

I haven't deleted anything and neither has Steve, or to my knowledge has any other member of the management team, so we're at a loss as what's happened :scratch:

Marco.

Nor I

There were some data drop outs last night. If you posted during a data drop out it might not appear(I think). Though if it was there and is now not..well that's odd.

Regards D S D L

Dave Cawley

18-02-2010, 11:01

In a nutshell?

Hardly libellous then? Do you know what the system was that they used for review?

Regards

Dave

DSJR

18-02-2010, 11:04

Well, they're going to give the cables another try. Fair do's..

I heard some Merlin cables a brief listen at the end of my part-time stint at Listen Inn and found them to be very good as I recall, rather refined and un-exaggerated as I find the MG cables to be. I'm starting to find the treble "splatter" of some less exalted cables a bit annoying, although cheaper setups may prefer this as extra "detail."

Themis

18-02-2010, 11:06

I too would be very interested to read what peoples opinions of the Merlin cables are. Seeing as WHF compared Marks with Merlins, it would only be fair and right for people here to do the same. Has anyone here heard them? If not, would it be possible for someone to buy a set so that a comparison can be made in the AOS room at the show?

Kris.
I don't have Merlin's but I have some 2,5m HQ (like this: http://www.amazon.fr/Cordon-audio-vid%C3%A9o-qualit%C3%A9-5m%C3%A8tres/dp/B000O77UB6/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1266491050&sr=1-9) costing 10€ and I can say they are bloody good indeed.
But nothing to do with Mark's cables, of course.

symon

18-02-2010, 11:07

Stan, I think you posted a reply for this thread in the thread started by Andre on reasons for having hi-fi.

StanleyB

18-02-2010, 11:09

Stan, before I get to the other stuff, what post of yours was deleted?

I haven't deleted anything and neither has Steve, or to my knowledge has any other member of the management team, so we're at a loss as what's happened :scratch:
I just updated Firefox at 11AM otherwise I could have dragged up the page again.

StanleyB

18-02-2010, 11:13

Stan, I think you posted a reply for this thread in the thread started by Andre on reasons for having hi-fi.
I didn't since I haven't even read that thread from Andre, but if it ended up there then it's definitely something for Marco to look into and see if it a BB thread indexing problem.

symon

18-02-2010, 11:19

Here: http://theartofsound.net/forum/showpost.php?p=102945&postcount=58

anthonyTD

18-02-2010, 11:27

hi all,
only just read through this thread so not had chance to coment while alan was still contributing,:( i would just like to add that my findings with the mark grant cables in my own system were also at odds with the reviewer from that mag, but as have already been said, sometimes a system that is tailored to a paticular taste can be somewhat polluted by an alian entity such as in this instance a cable type, this in my opinion was the main reason why the cable in question was given the review it was, unfortunetly it was the way that that review and its conclusions were put over that has brought about the reaction from some of the members here, however, that does not mean that AOS or its members should dismiss the views of that mag, or other reviewers remarks on this subject just because they feel an injustice has occured on the count of one product that may or may not have been reviewed in-correctly by that reviewer, sometimes people get things wrong, but as stated in the begining of this post, it may well have been down to the type of system setup and prefrence of said system that led to the comments made about this product and nothing more, i just hope that if a second review of this product goes ahead that the reviewers in question will actualy audition this product fairly and give as honest opinion as to its merits and posible shortfalls as is posible within the system provided, and will only comment on its performance within the context of that system and make that point quite clear this time around.
A...

Spectral Morn

18-02-2010, 11:37

I didn't since I haven't even read that thread from Andre, but if it ended up there then it's definitely something for Marco to look into and see if it a BB thread indexing problem.

Hi Stan

I just moved it for you. Its in its time context as you posted it...Post 174

Regards D S D L

Spectral Morn

18-02-2010, 11:39

Hi Alan

Glad to have you back...I understand why you left last night.

Regards D S D L

StanleyB

18-02-2010, 11:41

Spectral Morn

18-02-2010, 11:44

Cheers Neil:). It helps to add balance to the thread. If it wasn't for the likes of WHF some of us quality dealers would be enjoying lower sales, whilst the market would be full of poor quality high priced products sold next to bacon and eggs in the supermarkets. :eek:, they do that already//.

No problem Stan

I am glad What Hi-Fi worked out for you...others though over the years (undeservedly imho), from time to time, have not been as blessed.

I noticed your comment about updating Firefox last night. I myself have now abandoned FireFox way to flakey ime recently (since the update to 3 and all the following updates (maybe 4 will be better. Firefox know there are problems with their current browser version)...now using Google Chrome and it works much better on my PC.

Regards D S D L

Marco

18-02-2010, 12:01

Hi Alan

Glad to have you back...I understand why you left last night.

Regards D S D L

I must be in some kind of black hole or something, as I can't see where Alan has returned.... Are you talking about on this thread? :scratch:

Marco.

Marco

18-02-2010, 12:16

Ah, I see he's started his own thread now... :)

Marco.

Spectral Morn

18-02-2010, 12:19

I must be in some kind of black hole or something, as I can't see where Alan has returned.... Are you talking about on this thread? :scratch:

Marco.

I noticed his being on-line earlier and then his return...;):) Now he's gone.

Regards D S D L

Steve Toy

18-02-2010, 15:02

Have a look at this thread started by me nearly nine years ago. The issue was very similar in that I exposed what I considered to be a flawed review of a product that I knew but didn't actually rate all that highly:

http://forums.naim-audio.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/48019385/m/5371956252/p/1

Joe

18-02-2010, 15:13

Here's what baffles me. AoS is a subjectivist forum,where what counts are people's opinions, not measurements or specs or what have you. So why get so irate when someone's opinion differes from your own; I mean, there's no absolute right or wrong involved, surely?

Steve Toy

18-02-2010, 15:17

Joe, circular argument. It's already been covered. Have another swim round the bowl...

Summative scores are a matter of opinion. Formative descriptions can be wrong. Gewurstraminer is not sweeter than Sauternes. You may express a preference for one over the other but to say that Gerwurstraminer was sweet would be wrong.

If you have a panel of say six people conducting hands-on subjective listening tests (I've done this btw) all will likely agree on how given products sound. What they won't necessarily agree on, however, is which they prefer.

This was basically the point I made in the Naim thread back in 2001. I chose a better example in a product that I did not particularly rate. As such I didn't really have so much of an issue with the star rating but with the formative description. It was inaccurate in my view.

markf

18-02-2010, 16:54

Steve,
you keep comparing to German sausage which doesn't really help anyone.

So the magazine said of the cable in question :-

"Top-end frequencies are brash" " inability to get to grips with dynamics"

and "Pit this against a class-leader like the Merlin Mozart and its shortcomings are fearful. "

I think you would need to get a hold of a set of Merlin cables before you can dispute their findings.

The Vinyl Adventure

18-02-2010, 17:00

Surely it's possible to disagree with thier comments based on your own experience of the thin they are commenting on
that said I do think it would be interesting to hear one of thesse merlins though... It certainly might she a bit of light on what hifis views!

Joe

18-02-2010, 17:03

Like Alan and others have said; OK to express disagreement, astonishment etc, not OK (as in potentially libellous) to allege or imply dishonesty or incompetence.

Themis

18-02-2010, 17:06

There's no use Hamish... it can always be said that "in the system of the reviewer" , "to his taste" blah blah... whatever the cables.
Easy.

The Vinyl Adventure

18-02-2010, 17:08

I guess your right

Themis

18-02-2010, 17:09

Like Alan and others have said; OK to express disagreement, astonishment etc, not OK (as in potentially libellous) to allege or imply dishonesty or incompetence.
Dishonesty you need proofs. But incompetency ? Why would you need proof ?
Saying someone is incompetent expresses a simple opinion. Unless the "incompetent" can prove his "competency" somehow ?

Steve Toy

18-02-2010, 17:13

I would say the review was maybe incompetently written. I would not say the reviewer was incompetent.

The Vinyl Adventure

18-02-2010, 17:22

I said it before, but I think they just didn't give it a chance, it was only a little corner of one page review. Maybe it was just lazily done and they didn't spend much time witht the cable.
The one thing that I don't understand is, if as literally every other review says, these cables are transparent and have very little signature ... Surely those types of atributes are the hardest to miss if you know the equipment it's being used with....
Anyway, I think the fact that we all disagree qith whathifi's review of these cables has pretty much been covered :)

DSJR

18-02-2010, 17:45

If the top end was brash, rather than brighter, then I'd say it was more clearly reproducing problems further back in the chain - or they got the direction wrong as well.....

There's certainly more bass extension (tuneful and meatier) together with a seemingly more extended top end, which I find as clean as a whistle. Less able commercial alternatives sound vague and "splattery" to me - I cannot think of a better word to use - sorry...

I wonder if the Merlins might not be pushing the mid at the expense of anywhere else...

Nick

18-02-2010, 17:47

One has to wonder if there would be such a hoohah if this wasn't the forum
flavour of the month ;)

You can't really call a review incompetent just because it differs from your own viewpoint. Different would have been less pejorative and less confrontational perhaps.

I think it's perfectly possible for people to hear things in different ways and hence pick out other areas of performance that irk or impress them.

YMMV etc;

DSJR

18-02-2010, 17:55

Steve Toy

18-02-2010, 17:55

Already covered. Circular argument.

Spectral Morn

18-02-2010, 18:05

The little Mozart is only £35 for a 1m pair. Worth trying at this price and the review comments posted show the WTF preference for an assertive and "dynamic" sounding wire.

WTF certainly like these cables as a range. A bit like they used to like Ecosse and QED..

P.s. The Merlin wires I tried years ago were flat in the vein of Nordost IIRC.....

And the reason, as I stated earlier (imho) is because their listening room is overly warm and heavily damped. This I think is the main reason for the items that do well doing well, and the ones that don't doing badly. If your products are neutral or just to the warmer side of things, or just warm, they will do badly in this type of room imho.

Regards D S D L

Ammonite Audio

18-02-2010, 18:09

Steve,
you keep comparing to German sausage which doesn't really help anyone......

Damn! Beat me to that one :)

Themis

18-02-2010, 18:16

Marco

18-02-2010, 19:23

Hi Nick,

One has to wonder if there would be such a hoohah if this wasn't the forum flavour of the month ;)

I'm afraid that the "flavour of the month" comment is way off the mark, rather ignorant, and shows a distinct lack of understanding of what has been written here (at length) about Mark's cables in general and also the review in WHF - as such, I'm getting rather tired of reading remarks like this from you, so please give it a rest :rolleyes:

What cables do you use and how would you react if they were being described in a magazine review in a completely alien way to how you hear them (and also how they were intrinsically designed to work) - especially when someone's livelihood is potentially at risk?

Just to make it absolutely clear for the benefit of your (seemingly) cynical mind... If WHF had reviewed Mark's cables and came to the same ridiculous conclusion, but Mark wasn't a trade member here, then we would've simply laughed it off as nonsense written by a hi-fi comic we have little respect or time for.

The "hoohah", however, is that on AOS we take exception to the products of one of our valued trade members being badly misrepresented in a magazine with quite a large circulation, and thus the potential damage this could cause to their business. We look after the interests of our trade members here and stick up for them. What problem do you have with this exactly?

It's always easy to criticise when you're sitting safely on the sidelines!!

Marco.

Nick

18-02-2010, 22:08

Hi Nick,

I'm afraid that the "flavour of the month" comment is way off the mark, rather ignorant, and shows a distinct lack of understanding of what has been written here (at length) about Mark's cables in general and also the review in WHF - as such, I'm getting rather tired of reading remarks like this from you, so please give it a rest :rolleyes:

What cables do you use and how would you react if they were being described in a magazine review in a completely alien way to how you hear them (and also how they were intrinsically designed to work) - especially when someone's livelihood is potentially at risk?

Just to make it absolutely clear for the benefit of your (seemingly) cynical mind... If WHF had reviewed Mark's cables and came to the same ridiculous conclusion, but Mark wasn't a trade member here, then we would've simply laughed it off as nonsense written by a hi-fi comic we have little respect or time for.

The "hoohah", however, is that on AOS we take exception to the products of one of our valued trade members being badly misrepresented in a magazine with quite a large circulation, and thus the potential damage this could cause to their business. We look after the interests of our trade members here and stick up for them. What problem do you have with this exactly?

It's always easy to criticise when you're sitting safely on the sidelines!!

Marco.

Hi Marco

Well I can see I'm not "flavour of the month".

Your response is in keeping with the confrontational approach through this whole issue.

My remark was meant slightly tongue in cheek, that's why I added the winking emote. There was really no need to start throwing personal insults into the discussion. Ignorant and cynical ? Was that really necessary ?

Is it not possible to express an opinion that differs to your own without being personally attacked ?

I haven't anywhere professed an opinion of Mark's cables nor would I unless I'd had personal experience. I am smart enough to know that for every 10 people who think they're the cat's pjs there would be 10 others who would differ in that assessment. I think if anything in this has irked me it's the way you present what is your opinion as a cast in stone fact.

FYI I use Kubala-Sosna cables and have done for the last 3 years. Never felt the need to look elsewhere. If someone reviewed them and said they sounded shite I'd live with it, I know what I like and I don't need support of others to confirm my own taste.

I think I will bow out of this little fracas now before it becomes even more nasty.

Marco

18-02-2010, 23:24

Hi Nick,

My remark was meant slightly tongue in cheek, that's why I added the winking emote.

Yes but the problem is you've been making "slightly tongue in cheek remarks" of that nature throughout this thread and the 'joke' is wearing thin. Since we're talking about what 'irks' us; that is what has 'irked' me.

Also, anything I write here is only my honest opinion (always based on considerable experience) - nothing else. One automatically reads people's posts on forums under the premise of 'IMHO', unless it's specifically indicated otherwise. Clearly though you have other ideas.

What I said was not intended as a personal attack, but simply a statement of how you're coming across. If you scroll back, you'll notice that when you first started making your "slightly tongue in cheek remarks" I laughed at them, but only until I realised what the real motive was behind it.

If you think that Mark Grant products are simply "flavour of the month" and that we're all just fawning fanboys smarting from criticism of our favourite cables then quite simply you've not understood a word I or anyone else here who uses these cables has written.

FYI I use Kubala-Sosna cables and have done for the last 3 years. Never felt the need to look elsewhere. If someone reviewed them and said they sounded shite I'd live with it, I know what I like and I don't need support of others to confirm my own taste.

Good for you and neither do I. However, if you think that's what this thread is about then you've got even less of a grip on reality than I thought you had!! Try reading and digesting properly what people have written. If there's one thing I can't stand is unjustified cynicism.

Also, others are entitled to react differently without the need to be subjected to your incessant sarcastic remarks, thinly disguised as being jokingly "tongue in cheek". Here, have one of these on me ";)"

I think I will bow out of this little fracas now before it becomes even more nasty.

I think perhaps you should Nick because clearly we're poles apart on how we view this situation.

Marco.

Joe

18-02-2010, 23:29

You must have missed this bit of Nick's post:

'FYI I use Kubala-Sosna cables and have done for the last 3 years'

Crazy name, crazy guy!

Marco

18-02-2010, 23:39

Hi Joe,

I've now acknowledged that info - see my recent edit :)

Marco.

Steve Toy

19-02-2010, 03:33

I'm afraid that the "flavour of the month" comment is way off the mark, rather ignorant,

Nick this isn't actually ad hominem if you look carefully. Too many people on forums fail to understand the ad hominem concept properly. You are obviously one of them. Ad homonem is essentially attacking the person rather than his expressed viewpoint.

Marco said the comment you made was ignorant. Your lack of understanding that this does not state that you yourself are ignorant is also rather ignorant, not that I'm even remotely confident that you'll get my drift ;)

The same applies to libel as it's a form of ad hominem.

However, this is getting a little too confrontational although I agree it is frustrating when folks can't appreciate the idea that formative descriptions need to have some semblance of accuracy. Attempts by me to provide analogies in order to support this concept have been ignorantly or (as in obtuse failure to understand the analogy) dismissed as "comparing to German sausage."

The strong point about the G1000HDs is dynamics (they made £400 Siltechs that I used to use sound decidedly flat and muddled at the top end in comparison) and yet this was the very thing the WHF review found lacking. Something is clearly amiss although I'm happy to believe it could be down to any one or more of several factors like the acoustics of the dem room favouring brighter sounding products, mixing the G1000HD interconnects with those of another manufacturer in a pre/power amplification system or something else that does not involve foul play.

I wonder if the WHF reviewers would actually prefer the unscreened version in their listening environment?

Nick

19-02-2010, 07:09

Marco/Steve

I feel the need to respond to your replies.

You both make the leap of thinking you can read my mind or my intention. You also seem to consider me to be in some way below your exalted position of knowledge and expertise, at least that's the way your comments come across. The problem here is that neither of you actually know me and yet you make many personal assumptions about me.

Steve despite your fancy use of Latin you in fact then proceed to make your remarks entirely "ad hominem", "not that I'm even remotely confident that you'll get my drift" for example.

Marco you too tend to make assumptions about my train of thought.

"Good for you and neither do I. However, if you think that's what this thread is about then you've got even less of a grip on reality than I thought you had!! Try reading and digesting properly what people have written. If there's one thing I can't stand is unjustified cynicism."

in response to my comment regarding my choice of cables. This comment was reinforcing my lack of interest in what a review might say about any particular choice of product I might make. Not an attack on anyone here.

It's very easy to take a piece of flat text and attach to it all kinds of meanings that simply aren't there. If my humourous comments, and whatever you say that was their intent, didn't hit the mark then I'm sorry. A little levity often eases what was/is an unnecessarily tense situation.

Products get reviewed and sometimes the reviews don't agree with a personal viewpoint. Manufacturers are surely aware that these things can go one of a few ways. It is very laudable that you support your trade members, again not something I attacked or have issue with despite your earlier hint.

I have no wish, nor was it my intent, to antagonise anyone. If that was the case then it was purely unintentional.

Marco

19-02-2010, 08:46

I have no wish, nor was it my intent, to antagonise anyone. If that was the case then it was purely unintentional.

Hi Nick,

That's fine; I accept that. I'm sorry for how I reacted towards you. Unfortunately the written word is loaded with potential misinterpretations (including the use of smilies), and this is what often causes many arguments on forums! :)

I guess that what exacerbated things was the "forum flavour of the month" comment regarding Mark's cables, as despite how you meant it, I interpreted it as you implying that my use of them was simply a 'latest whim' (that I would only end up replacing them with something else soon, or that I had jumped on some sort of bandwagon), rather than my very carefully considered choice of cables arrived at after a lengthy auditioning process. Basically, I felt that you were underestimating and demeaning my reasons for choosing them.

The fact is that nothing I use in my system gets there without extremely careful consideration. I am not someone who chops and changes my kit or the cables I use. The Mark Grants are *so* good that I doubt I'll ever use anything else - it's as simple as that.

I've just recently retired £800 Transparent mains leads for Mark's £45 ones, too, as they were just embarrassingly better, so what does that tell you? ;)

Anyway, let's put this misunderstanding behind us and move on :cool:

Marco.

Themis

19-02-2010, 08:52

Anyway, let's put this misunderstanding behind us and move on :cool:

Yes, please. :cool:

Nick

19-02-2010, 09:32

Anyway, let's put this misunderstanding behind us and move on :cool: Marco.

Done deal, Marco :champagne:

Marco

19-02-2010, 09:40

:mex:

:grouphug:

Marco.

Filterlab

19-02-2010, 11:08

You can't really call a review incompetent just because it differs from your own viewpoint. Different would have been less pejorative and less confrontational perhaps.

I think it's perfectly possible for people to hear things in different ways and hence pick out other areas of performance that irk or impress them.

YMMV etc;

Excellent post Nick, and hits the nail squarely on the bonce.

Marco

19-02-2010, 11:22

Different would have been less pejorative and less confrontational perhaps.

Indeed. It was this bullshit that did it:

What really lets this cable down though, is its inability to get to grips with dynamics. Bonham’s trademark drumming becomes jumbled and confused, and the sound lacks cohesion and definition, ending up as a soggy, pulpy mass.

It's *so* obviously the overactive imagination of a pubescent hack (looking through his dictionary of 'hi-fi negatives'), who normally reviews 'What Caravan?', or some such ;)

Either that or some bizarre sonic mismatch with the test components. It's one of the other, because G1000HDs simply don't cause that type of sonic effect in a well-matched system.

Marco.

The Grand Wazoo

19-02-2010, 12:43

The problem with all this is that no-one can confidently say the reviewer didn't hear what was reported, whether the disparity originates from the system, the mind of the reviewer, the room or some other factor.
I can see a danger in another set being submitted – what if the result is the same? That will really do damage to Mark's sales.
Is Mark Grant in a position to demand that another system or room is used? – I doubt it.
Do you think a re-review is going to result in Mark's cable trouncing the magazine's reference cable now and that being reported? – I doubt it.

One thing's for sure in my mind, whatever another set sounds like in the chosen system no-one's going to be eating any humble pie over this, and at best I'd think you could only hope for one more star and some slightly less negative narrative.

As some others have already said, the problem with having your products reviewed is that you might not like the result. I'd have thought Mark's natural customer base would be slightly beyond the What Hi-Fi stage by now anyway.

Does Marks website quote customers comments? - I'm sure there could be some pretty juicy endorsements on AoS that he could use if the authors and management agreed.

Steve Toy

19-02-2010, 13:33

We'll just have to see. Mark is sending two samples this time to eliminate one particular possibility. Btw I strongly disagree with the idea that we all hear things differently. We don't. I place such credence in the subjective process of evaluation because it is remarkably consistent. It is a pity some have been somewhat obtuse regarding the analogies I have used with cars and wine for example. Here's another: some prefer the colour blue to red. This is not because they see blue as red. Some ale drinkers prefer the pale, bitter tasting beers to the richer maltier ones. This is not to say that the maltier beers taste bitter or vice versa.

The G1000HD excels in dynamic contrast. Whether you like that or prefer another more laid-back presentation is the factor. Whether there was a miismatch either in the room, with the choice of partnering components or even another pair of interconnects in the system is another matter.

Hopefully having two pairs will help.

I do believe the review was somehow flawed because the description of the sonic flavour does not fit.

Joe

19-02-2010, 13:48

But some products genuinely divide opinion. If I were to write a review of Marmite, I'd say it smelt horrible and tasted worse and all the Marmite lovers would say my review was incompetent.

Steve Toy

19-02-2010, 14:05

Your argument falls apart because you used qualatitive language (good/bad/nice horrible) rather than descriptive language. What exactly is it about the taste of Marmite that makes it divide opinion?

If the WHF review simply stated that the G1000HD sounded horrible there would be no issue. The issue was that the description did not fit.

Does Marmite taste sweet, like oranges to anyone?

I'm beginning to see why there are so many problems with the subjective approach to evaluation. Some people cannot get past the me like/me no like stage.

Stages to subjective evaluation

1) Establishing that there is a difference.

2) Establishing that the difference is for better or worse.

3) Identifying what the differences are and perhaps returning to 2 to consider any trade-offs, i.e. preferable in some identifable aspects, less preferable in others.

There are too many people on forums saying do x because it sounds better. This is meaningless!

The Vinyl Adventure

19-02-2010, 14:06

I think you have diluted your point a little there steve, I previously got and agreed with your wine analogy (slightly odd as it was ;) ) but, you can't say that different peoples persepetion don't vary, some people might see what you see as blue as red... You just don't know! I admit that far difference is quite unlikely but you still can't prove it either way - and that's because the language used to describde the colour (or type of sound or whatever) will be the same. For eg I'd someone sees what you call blue as red they will still describe is as a cool colour as that is what they have learnt is a cool colour, despite the fact it's red... I hope that makes sence (I'm a little hungover today).

My point though is that steve is right they have stated facts about the cable that even If they do here things differently still don't make sence... To come to the conclusion that these cables steamroll over detail, is quite simply false. Something that reveals detail can never to anyone steamroll over it, one is the oposite of the other ... It's as bizare as the reviewer saying the cable is blue is colour, it simply isn't... Or as steve said such a wine is sweet, or such a car is slow ... The facts are false as they are such that they are not open to interpretation! The cable alows detail through, if it steamrolled over it, it wasn't the cable ... It is a transparent cable everyone on this forum who has had the cables in thier system agrees and has used the same words (transparant neutral open). not whathifi though (in fact fuck it they did say detailed in the pros, then contradicted in the review) therefore something has gone wrong at what hifi ... It realy is that fucking simple...

Joe

19-02-2010, 14:08

Your argument falls apart because you used qualatitive language (good/bad/nice horrible) rather than descriptive language. What exactly is it about the taste that makes it divide opinion?

Actually, I don't know. I dislike whisky too, but other than saying 'I don't like it' like a child would, I can't articulate my dislike any further.

Just as well I'm not a restaurant critic!

The Vinyl Adventure

19-02-2010, 14:12

I'm not acusing what hifi of anything, I just think a mistake has been made or they were reviewed on a system that showed up previously unseen system faults. After all that's what these cables do they are transparent they will show through what is there even if it is a hifi that is steamrolling over detail... In the same system these merlin cables could have toned the system down a bit ... As made it sound good, but as soon as a transparent cable was put in to much of the crap came through???

Steve Toy

19-02-2010, 14:23

Agreed 100% Hamish (and with your post above.)

Lets be clear about this: my stance and that of AOS is that we have no reason to suspect foul play.

Steve Toy

19-02-2010, 14:25

Actually, I don't know. I dislike whisky too, but other than saying 'I don't like it' like a child would, I can't articulate my dislike any further.

Just as well I'm not a restaurant critic!

Fair enough Joe. It's a pity a few others could not be so honest.

Steve Toy

19-02-2010, 14:35

I think you have diluted your point a little there steve, I previously got and agreed with your wine analogy (slightly odd as it was ;) ) but, you can't say that different peoples persepetion don't vary, some people might see what you see as blue as red... You just don't know! I admit that far difference is quite unlikely but you still can't prove it either way - and that's because the language used to describde the colour (or type of sound or whatever) will be the same. For eg I'd someone sees what you call blue as red they will still describe is as a cool colour as that is what they have learnt is a cool colour, despite the fact it's red... I hope that makes sence (I'm a little hungover today).

Perhaps my choice of blue versus red for the colour analogy was unfortunate especially given the political connotations associated with these colours. However there is convention regarding warm and cool shades or hues of given colours on colour charts as used by interior designers and artists in general. There is convention over which colours or shades/hues within a colour work harmoniously, complimenting each other and which clash, just as combinations of two notes in music can either be either discordant or concordant.

I believe that such conventions and consistencies exist in the appraisal of audio.

The descriptions in all these cases are consistent. It is only the choices thereafter that are to individual taste.

DSJR

19-02-2010, 14:57

John Bonham's drumming sounds great on my system - and that's with BC2's........

Re Whisky - I have to sweeten the cheaper blended brands, but the wonderful malts I've tried in my life are better taken neat, so I get the subtlety of the flavours - oh yes indeedy :lol:

The Grand Wazoo

19-02-2010, 15:24

Steve,
I disagree with your assertion that we all hear things the same, but perhaps not to the degree that has been described by the different parties in this case. Our hearing is a perception brought about by many factors & the final influence on sound is the human body. Our ears are different shapes & sizes, some are stuffed full of wax, some are stuffed full of hair, some are fleshier or bonier than others. Part of the perception of sound is brought about by transmission through the bones – we're all different sizes & therefore our bones are too, some folks are fat, some thin. How can these factors not have an influence?
Your analogy to colour is interesting and Hamish is correct. I constantly argue with my wife over colours – For example, what she may call a shade of red, I may call a shade of orange. More people will probably agree with her because she is a trained artist and has a lot of experience working with colour. But that does not make me wrong. To me, it's orange and there is nothing anyone can say or do to recalibrate my perception and make me see it as red. I appreciate this is rather more subtle than the red/blue example Hamish uses but my point is that it's all about how an individual describes a personal perception that can lead to differences of opinion. That's not to defend the reviewer in question or anyone else – maybe that person shouldn't be a reviewer because their ability to describe a perception is so far removed from what the majority hear, I don't know. Either way, we'll never know what was actually heard.

Try describing a the flavour of a red wine. Now eat a square of dark chocolate, take another sip of the same wine. Describe the flavour of the wine. It's the same wine as before. The flavour of the wine is the same. The perception of the flavour is now vastly different.

Steve Toy

19-02-2010, 15:40

The perception of the flavour is now vastly different.

You need to clear your palate. The intensity of the chocolate (I'm presuming it is of the milk-free 70%+ cocoa variety) is going to mask all the subtle flavours of the wine. What you are asking is for someone to look at the tonal contrast on a Picasso print immediately after staring into bright lights.

For example, what she may call a shade of red, I may call a shade of orange.

When you begin mixing yellow paint into red paint the shade of red changes to something still red but progressively more orange as you add more yellow paint. Where do you draw the line between it still being a shade of red and becoming a shade of orange?

WHF did not make this mistake in my view. They didn't mistake orange for red. They said it was green.

The Grand Wazoo

19-02-2010, 15:50

Yes, but I'm trying to demonstrate the difference between perception and actual properties.

....and who's to say the reviewer didn't go to a Motorhead gig the night before, for instance? That'd have the same effect on yer lug'oles as staring into a bright light!

Steve Toy

19-02-2010, 15:52

Well, hopefully the night before the second bite of the cherry they'll stay at home and listen to Sarah Brightman instead.

DSJR

19-02-2010, 15:53

Take a system with a screaming treble and immediately replace it with a neutral one, or alternatively, replace a boomy thumpy system with a neutral to crisp sounding one. Your reaction will go one of two ways - either total rejection of the neutral one, or a sigh of relief after the boom or fizz....

Alan Shaw posted a little test on his forum a few months back. two pictures of a painting or print of a bowl of fruit IIRC. The first was as original and the second had a "Freeview TV" done on it - the whites and blacks were crushed to make the contrast appear greater and the colours were increased in saturation. Almost everyone preferred the bodged pic as the original looked too "boring" to the viewers. Our perception of sound is far cruder than our eyesight and our hearing is so easily fooled unless we're used to some sort of natural reference IMO.

Take an interconnect with a lean and clear, but toppy presentation. Balance your system around it and then replace with a neutral interconnect made simply but with attention paid to inner conductor dialectric and careful shielding. This latter will sound too bassy and possibly boring as the excitement factor is missing by comparison. A HUGE problem with instant comparisons.

Major changes in my system have needed a few hours of intermittant listening for me to get used to the differences (although my career has helped me draw quick conclusions aided by further listening). I found that with all the MG cables now in my system, I just fitted and soon forgot about them, everything just seeming to be a little clearer and easier to hear - easier tune playing and cleaner rhythms in Linn speak.....