Why did hifi+ publish a rip off issue?

Indubitably. I just understand what it means....

Paul

 

griffo, if you read the lead in blurb it explains that like their policy of not publishing negative reviews their awards policy is based on very loose criteria like - well it's cool and we like it.
spxy, i bet if hi-fi+ published an issue in shops and didn;t sent it to subscribers (even if they knocked a quid or so off) there'd be just as much pissing and whining because thye didn;t get a copy- maybe roy was right about internet forums .
i think hf+ is probably the best rag out there and even if i don;t agree with roy g's taste in sound, music or cables i can identify with his philosophy.
cheers


julian

 

Doug self's amp book is great, but I understand his philosophy is simply...

'the way I design amplifiers is the only way to do it, and if it doesn't have my topology, its wrong.
It doesn't matter how it sounds, if you use all the tricks to reduce distortion, it will be the best amplifier there is.
If you don't, its not worth having'

totally the opposite to what I have found and heard.

like merlin says, just listen and enjoy. we don't know it all yet....

fwiw, I like the naim sound, I find it infectious and tonally just right, sure there are areas like soundstaging it could do more of, but when you have the prat, other amps just sound slow and ploddy.

But according to self, it doesn't have his optimised design, the naim design is based upon an RCA circuit in the 1960/70's afaik, and self would say its poor.
no current mirrors, asymmetrical slew rates, all that,
I haven't heard a tranny amp better, and I bet it would walk all over self's, much as I respect his knowledge, and clarification of amp design, his work is superb in that respect.

 

Don't think so Paul.

All his rantings are based the assumption that because he cannot measure something it does not exist.

Imagine where the world would be today if everyone was as ignorant as that.

 

The Naim design is based on the Lin topology that Self works from and is a 'Class B biased for minimum distortion' setup. So all in all quite Selfish and actually very devoid of subjectivist tweakery. After all it uses tantalums for coupling...

Paul

 

If you were that "ignorant" it would be a blessing

 

I think the ranting comes from the religious fundamentalists implying that effects only exist when they're not being looked for and who have produced no confirmed example ever of a supernatural audio effect.

If you and your brethren ceased claiming to perceive untestable realities then there would be no arguments. But given that you do I think you ought to avoid the 'deaf and bitter' insults to anybody who takes your claims at face value, examines them and fails to agree with you.

So, explicitly, what are the 'ridiculous assumptions'? What is your explanation for the effects you claim vanishing in the presence of a null test?

Paul

 

Did someone mention Null Test?

 

Maybe you'd understand me a little better eh datty

 

naim don't have cascodes, mirrors, darlington, beta enhanced VAS stages, or complementary output stages, anything which doesn't, self rejects right away.
I find his book really great, but a bit off putting when he says, it must be this way or not at all.

most power amps now are lin in the sense they are 3 stages, differential, voltage and buffer. I have seen more than most, I would guess.
its incredible tho the infinite variations on a theme.
you are an objectivist, Paul? just listen, use your ears, in the end, the heart wins over the head, always.
If I don't like how somehting sounds, doesn't matter how it measures, if I like its sound, doens't matter how it measures.

 

But what about money. Let's say for the sake of argument that it's possible to build a decent amplifier - that measures well - for $500/ch (and that does appear to be the case), then what is the purpose of a $5000/ch "boat anchor mono block" amplifier with inferior measurements? [A $50 amp with inferior measurements at least has a cost advantage ]

Are people really using their ears? What other factors might make the "heart win over the ears"?

 

It just might sound better to music lovers' ears Datty but your plots simply wouldn't tell you that and therefore you would simply refuse to believe it.

Camels spring to mind.

 

The inconvenient demonstration that the error produced by a good conventional amplifier is less than audible. You haven't been able to explain why the error returns when the null test is dismantled.

Of course Self doesn't assume that he can measure everything, but everything that the subjectivists have claimed has failed to be seen. If you didn't claim specific effects and then allocate causes then you wouldn't be so ridiculous.

One decent proof that you can actually hear the difference between amps or cables that conventionally meaure similarly would do the trick. Then you'd be able to talk about 'not everything that can be heard can be measured'.

Paul

 

Ah....I was worry all you lot have abandon this wonderful playground and move to the alternative other hifiplus playground. Nice to see the 'debate' is this as entertaining.

 

testing great != sounding great. as one is an objective thing and the other is subjective. apples and oranges you see. at least that's my take on things.
cheers


julian

 

Well, what the plots would tell me is whether there is sufficient measured difference for there to be an audible difference.

For example, it's fairly well accepted that some people like the euphonic nature of valves - and we can measure that.

So, if there were a measureable difference big enough for it to be audible, I'm quite prepared to beleive that some people will choose the technically inferior product. In effect, the music lovers you are refering to are "deaf" to distortion..

 

Roy G's policy - this is the guy who originally stated in the early days of Hifi+ that awards were pointless - changes his mind and introduces them, then 2 years down the line gives an entire issue to awards - some policy.

Agree with not printing negative reviews as they benefit nobody, although where was his follow up to his negative review of the Graham Robin tonearm ?

 

well you can alter your views I suppose.

what happened to RG coming onto ZG?

 

merlin, your new forum was founded as a reaction to the way that subjectivist/objectivist debates can turn nasty so it's odd that you're happy to kick the nastiness off over here in a thread that had up to that point been pretty civilised.

...especially those that preach one thing on their own forum and do the opposite elsewhere

Michael.

 

We still havent answered the question of why they published this issue.I'd always given the magazine the benifit of the doubt when people suggested they might be favoring some manufacturers over overs and not just because they believe their stuff sound good.But why now double the review total of certain manufactuers in one swipe and produce an issue of very little new content?Just how important is advertising to them, is it so important that they will now forgo actual magazine content in order to please certain companies?
Now I'm suspicious.