What-hifi? I am beginning to once again ponder on if they are "legit"

[bowei006]

We have all heard of what hifi the site but I have always wondered if they are actual audiophiles of sorts?
 
Their "reviews" are more like 2 paragrah blurbs if that and some of their ratings are questionable in my opinion.
 
What do you guys think?

 

[Radio_head]

They are a marketing tool.  That is all.
 
They are not unique in this manner, as most audiophile publications and websites are funded by the products they end up reviewing and contain almost no constructive criticism or meaningful data other than what's fed to them by the manufacturers.

 

[bowei006]

Quote:

They are a marketing tool.  That is all.
 
They are not unique in this manner, as most audiophile publications and websites are funded by the products they end up reviewing and contain almost no constructive criticism or meaningful data other than what's fed to them by the manufacturers.

I find that most of these websites have similar designs like trustedreviews or legit reviews....the majority of their audio reviews talks about how everything sounded better. No dip it did, it's a DAC and amp(what I usually look at) so unless it was terrible, it would of course be better than laptop out. Now tell me how it compares to others in it's class, and I want a page on it's sonic qualities, what you liked, your own subjective preferences and etc. None of those sites ever had those. [size=medium]

ಠ_ಠ​

[/size]
 
There are some scores that I do agree with from what hifi and others........but those are few.
 
I won't say most audiophile publications, how about most publications that try to review audiophile stuff? Innerfidelity imo and Tyll's parent company have some great articles. Sure we or I may not agree on some views but they can back it up a lot and always add a lot of data including that they personally liked it and etc.
 
I do not take the word of any of these sites:
Digital trends
legit reviews
trusted reviews
What hifi
Cnet (unless by Guttenburg, who is not affiliated with Cnet, just a guest writer)
 
if they are on audio.

 

[Radio_head]

Most is most.  Innerfidelity and JA's measurements in Stereophile are in the minority among all the dreck that's out there.

 

[bowei006]

Quote:

Most is most.  Innerfidelity and JA's measurements in Stereophile are in the minority among all the dreck that's out there.

I don't know of many other snake oil audio publications..but then again, other than stereophile(which I seldome read) and innerfidelity, the only other ones I read are headfonia and CLEIOS's IEM reviews on head fi..... I don't typically go for the not as well known products :/
 
Can you name a full audiophile publication that is..largely.....dreck? Just wondering
 
You can add head fi to the list if you want to include the number of "OMG THESE SOUND SO AWESOME 5/5" reviews on the products here. Lots of noise here.

 

[Radio_head]

Sounds like you're really more in the headphone realm - if you follow speakers and the analog world, there's a whole lot of bridges being sold.  I'd rather not call the main offenders all out by name.  Tyll and JA are the rare breed whose material sticks out a mile by virtue of the honesty and integrity, melding of objective data and correspondence of subjective impressions, and a wealth of knowledge and research in their field.  

 

[bowei006]

Ok thanks! I was wondering as im sure I do know most of the major headphone audiophile review piblications that are deficated to headphone audio. Not too much snake oil really.

 

[LizardKing1]

Quote:

I do not take the word of any of these sites:
Digital trends
legit reviews
trusted reviews
What hifi
Cnet (unless by Guttenburg, who is not affiliated with Cnet, just a guest writer)

A good example of why Steve Gutternberg shouldn't be regarded as a good audio reviewer. He can't tell apart dynamic compression (lowering the dynamic range) and file compression (FLAC to MP3, for example).
 
Also he has some laughably dumb and short-minded opinions on what objectivism is, like it's striving for pure flatness all the way:       source
 

[size=13.63636302947998px]The intimacy of headphones puts them in another category compared with other audio components. Measurements can't measure that, and in some ways it's more important for a headphone to feel good than sound good.[/size]

 
 

[size=13.63636302947998px]What really bugs me are the people who insist on ABX testing. I'm no scientist, but it's weird that blind testing mostly proves there are no differences even when two products are very different. Blind testers can't reliably tell the difference between coffee and tea. The audio guys who steadfastly believe in blind testing have it easy, they can buy the cheapest crap and live happily ever after![/size]

 

[bowei006]

Quote:

A good example of why Steve Gutternberg shouldn't be regarded as a good audio reviewer. He can't tell apart dynamic compression (lowering the dynamic range) and file compression (FLAC to MP3, for example).
 
Also he has some laughably dumb and short-minded opinions on what objectivism is, like it's striving for pure flatness all the way:       source
 
 
 

I've read some.....*cough cough* articles and comments from Guttenberg to so I know what you mean but he still gets my watch
 
LOL:
 
 

 To my ears lossless files add a glare or edge to the music and flatten the soundstage. Please don't misunderstand, I think FLAC or Apple Lossless sound perfectly fine, just not on par with a CD, when played on a high-end audio system.

Theoretically, if you ripped that FLAC file perfectly with EAC or dBpoweramp (some of the best availble for consumers) with C2 secure ripping and all those secure ripping settings done right...... I don't see how you can then tell to my face that the CD that the file that was more or less perfectly ripped from into a lossless copy will sound exorbinantly better or even obviously better. I'm detecting placebo in that first article.

 

[mark2410]

oh some of their "reviews" are terrible, just unspeakably bad.
 
however, a lot isnt horrifying but its just very very brief.  its not very specialist and it aims at its target market which isnt the most informed people in the world.
 
then again some of the things they say are just outright bull poop.

 

[bowei006]

Quote:

oh some of their "reviews" are terrible, just unspeakably bad.
 
however, a lot isnt horrifying but its just very very brief.  its not very specialist and it aims at its target market which isnt the most informed people in the world.
 
then again some of the things they say are just outright bull poop.

I agree with all 3 statements. They are mainly for people that just want to see 5 stars and justify buying something in my opinion.
 
It's so brief sometimes that I can't even make a counter argument or prove them wrong or even know if they are talking bull sometimes.

 

[mark2410]

i do kinda like their website though for reviews.  they are short , sort of to the point and are enough to give you an idea of whether something is likely to be to your tastes

 

[bowei006]

Quote:

i do kinda like their website though for reviews.  they are short , sort of to the point and are enough to give you an idea of whether something is likely to be to your tastes

The shortness however gives you little idea of what to expect and I have seen a ridiculous amount of 5 stars there. I wouldn't mind if not for that I know What hi fi 5 star logo is placed EVERYWHERE by companies that get it, be it next to a TV etc etc.

 

[ImperialX]

I don't really take anything I read seriously when it comes to head-fi. I don't believe anything until I hear it myself at the local Jaben.

 

[bowei006]

Quote:

I don't really take anything I read seriously when it comes to head-fi. I don't believe anything until I hear it myself at the local Jaben.

Problem is, head fi is here because most of us can't do that.