Originally posted by uncle eric
One of the problems I have with most publications in this country is the lack of overall information regarding their reviews.
Its common knowledge that the performance of a certain piece of hardware, can be improved or degraded by partnering that piece with inferior or superior equipment.
[...]
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but surely this information is of considerable importance.
I couldn't agree more - and guess what? In WHF's review of the Gallos (yes, I went out and bought a copy to see for myself) there's NO MENTION about the listening room, not even basic size and shape, there's no mention of partnering equipment and no name put on the review!!
Compare this to a review in, say, Hifi News, where you will be told the partnering equipment (often a choice of epuipment including the reviewer's own references and selected 'matching' components), you're told (or at least would know from regular reading) about the room, esp where that room had a notable or important effect on the performance of the component under review and - very importantly - you are told who carried out the review.
This allows you to put that particular review into context both in terms of that reviewer's other reviews in the past and in terms of what that reviewer's personal tastes and prejudices are. WHF does not do, or make possible, ANY of this. It's reviews are therefore TOTALLY WORTHLESS.
Just to highlight another crazy comment from the same edition - WHF drools over Quad's new CD-P99 cd player. It then lists one of it's great features as a drawback ("against -")!!! I'm referring to the digital inputs it has. In an age where many people have multiple digital sources (MD, CD, DVD, MP3player, HTPC, digital radio, etc...) This is a damn good idea, allowing you to use the very fine DACs in this piece of equipment for ALL your digital sources. And the dumbass schmucks at WHF list this as a drawback! W - T - F ???
The people who write and 'review' for WHF magazine are cowboys IMO.