Are these the best speaker's in the world?
- Thread starter DaveyF
- Start date
No it's a blog. But if so, there should be greater frequency. I mean how interesting would it be to get HP's every day thoughts during the review process? It would be fascinating to see if and how (or for that matter any reviewer) his reaction and feelings about a product changes.
Myles,
Thanks, just made it clear in my post.
Should we have Big Brother in High-end? With weekly evictions from the listening room voted by WBF members?
Then why are they 20x the price? That's my point - there is nothing about them that screams ultra high end aesthetically. When you look at Magico or Wilson, you get a sense that a lot of thought went into the ENTIRE product, not just a compilation of high dollar components stuck in a run of the mill cabinet design. I guarantee you if I'm spending $200k on speakers, I'm not buying something that looks like that. Sorry, but I'm in the camp that I have to look at my speakers too. I'm OK with buying a butt ugly speaker if it sounds good and doesn't cost an arm and a leg. At $200k, you should be able to get the best of both worlds in the same package, no?
Myles,
Thanks, just made it clear in my post.
Should we have Big Brother in High-end? With weekly evictions from the listening room voted by WBF members?
Remember The Truman Show? I actually have thought about doing a running blog.
They are "The best loudspeaker on earth. Period."
How's that for a short review?
I hate long reviews. Most of them are so poorly written. It's a joke. I stopped subscribing to the Hifi Critic after the Alexia review. Colloms didn't bother proofing the thing. On page 14 he's got a citation to a figure and then some question marks there as a place holder but never filled in the figure number. Might as well be a fill-in-the-blanks review. He also forgot to put the recommended stamp at the end of the review.
They are "The best loudspeaker on earth. Period."
How's that for a short review?
Self-promotion is the worst form of advertisement....
They are "The best loudspeaker on earth. Period."
How's that for a short review?
I hate long reviews. Most of them are so poorly written. It's a joke. I stopped subscribing to the Hifi Critic after the Alexia review. Colloms didn't bother proofing the thing. On page 14 he's got a citation to a figure and then some question marks there as a place holder but never filled in the figure number. Might as well be a fill-in-the-blanks review. He also forgot to put the recommended stamp at the end of the review.
Have you ever been a publisher?
I understand the issue with aesthetics and appearance. I think it's clear that for NOLA form follows function, and Carl obviously believes that his cabinet design (which has many engineering principles / features, not all visible in those photos)
is important to the sound.
as for your other point, it continues to baffle me. Look at a Magico S3 and then an S7, or a Wilson Sasha W/P or Alexia and then an XLF, or the cheapest MBL and the the most expensive; is there any doubt they are from the same manufacturer?
Disclaimer: IME with similarlly priced speakers from those and other manufacturers, I clearly prefer the NOLA's , although I haven't heard the Concert Grands or the XLF's to compare them.
Have you ever paid more than $100 for a 12 month subscription to a magazine? I guess I am being ridiculous because I formed some expectations based on that high price. I proofread documents all of the time. It's not that difficult to proofread. If that's not something Colloms can do, then maybe he should consider publishing a free online magazine.
Have you ever paid more than $100 for a 12 month subscription to a magazine? I guess I am being ridiculous because I formed some expectations based on that high price. I proofread documents all of the time. It's not that difficult to proofread. If that's not something Colloms can do, then maybe he should consider publishing a free online magazine.
Actually I started and ran two high-end audio magazines.
Now I asked a question and don't obfuscate. Proofreading one or two documents is a long way from putting together a magazine. (and I proofread engineering journals for spending money in college.) Trust me. It's a lot different putting 30 articles and other things together. Did you ever stop and consider errors creep in just during the layout phase too. The beauty of being on the net is that it's easily correctable. I used to hire two-three proofreaders and errors still crept through that I had to correct if it wasn't too costly in the blues.
Look even at Stereophile , that has a full time staff and you'll find several errors every issue.
And sadly, subscriptions, whether they be on paper or on the net, don't pay for expenses to run a magazine. No one does anything for free.
I appreciate your response Myles. Before I bitched about it to you, I bitched on Colloms' HiFi Critic Forum. My thread was simply deleted.
Yes. Maybe I should have plunked down another $120 to read more Ethernet cable reviews or speaker reviews in rooms with glass front walls.
You know what else happens when a business doesn't offer a value for the price paid?
Yes. Maybe I should have plunked down another $120 to read more Ethernet cable reviews or speaker reviews in rooms with glass front walls.
You know what else happens when a business doesn't offer a value for the price paid?
Myles, your comment about the subscription fee being insufficient is noticeable to me also as a subscriber. I noticed that the tone in the responses to reader letters offering their criticism is very defensive and hostile. It's almost as if the hardcover magazines just don't care what the subscribers think, as long as the ad dollars keep rolling in.
I think the whole reviewer model is defunct. The problem with almost all reviewers is they just can't bring anything valuable to the review. Very few reviewers have an acceptable listening space so there's no valuable baseline. Why can't these magazines get the manufacturers to chip in to build a single high quality listening space? The reviews should be done in one high quality space. That would take care of the reviewers that are into it just for the freebies and would also offer a high quality baseline for comparison.
I think the whole reviewer model is defunct. The problem with almost all reviewers is they just can't bring anything valuable to the review. Very few reviewers have an acceptable listening space so there's no valuable baseline. Why can't these magazines get the manufacturers to chip in to build a single high quality listening space? The reviews should be done in one high quality space. That would take care of the reviewers that are into it just for the freebies and would also offer a high quality baseline for comparison.
IMHO HiFi Critic is a well balanced audio magazine, evidencing a strong British attitude towards audio. It has a nice group of reviewers and some contributors from the industry. Surely if follows an orientation created by Martin Colloms and Paul Massenger, that will not please everyone. It has a very small team, and usually runs behind schedule, its organization having simultaneously a friendly and somewhat amateurish flavor. It is rather expensive, in part due to distribution costs and the small number of subscriptions. IMHO it supplies good entertainment and information, so I consider it good value for money - I understand IMMV.
BTW, if we do not need to read it with urgency, it is possible to individually buy any issue except the more recent one at a reduced price.
BTW2, yes, I am old fashioned - I like LPs, tapes, CDs and paper magazines!
BTW, if we do not need to read it with urgency, it is possible to individually buy any issue except the more recent one at a reduced price.
BTW2, yes, I am old fashioned - I like LPs, tapes, CDs and paper magazines!
I had no idea that existed. Thanks Lee. I've never really spent time on Jeff's ultra audio. Is he the only reviewer?
The manufacturers really run these magazines. If there was ever a time for manufacturers to cooperate with one another, they should do so to change the reviewer model. Having a single review room would save a tremendous amount of money.
Similar threads
Members online
- Juiced
- hopkins
- bryans
- Rexp
- Stbo
- Geoffkait
- Ferris010
- Johan K
- fbhifi
- bonzo75
- Tontoverde
- RCanelas
- Argonaut
- littlej
- hesavary
- audio.bill
- Pacha
- aLLeARS
- tapepath
- Robh3606
- tpsully99
- JM1221
- wbfhet
- exile
- Toymanmark
- kirillg12345
- dminches
- jadedavid
- matthias
- Beckola66
- WildPhydeaux
- sandervdp
- ecwl
- vintage_tube
- TST
- jaxdr
- schlager
- tony22
- andromedaaudio
- GSOphile
- labelo
- Gryffles
- kodomo
- Alinous
- davetheoilguy
- SlapEcho
- Mark212121
- Ron Resnick
- af428
- yowzuh
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |