What Hi-Fi magazine............ total bollocks?
Michael Jones
news:pl4tsuspktnbhsprq...@4ax.com...
> In the 2002 Awards What Hi-Fi did a little piece on minidisc in the
> 'recorders' section. I quote :
>
> "It was five years ago that we first gave an Award to a Minidisc
> recorder. Until then cassette had been the only recording option
> available..."
>
> What a spectacular display of ignorance! Here are five recording
> options the writers at What HiFi are blissfully unaware of :
>
> Reel to reel
> CDR/W
> DAT
> DCC
> VHS audio
Well, I'm certainly not in the habit of defending WHF, but you're being a
little harsh. The magazine's remit is affordable hi-fi separates in current
production; 'affordable' probably rules out DAT which, five years ago and
today, remains a pro-audio format with decks generally *starting* at the
price of a Nakamichi tape machine; CDR/W standalone decks weren't, if my
memory is correct, that widely available in 1997 and those that were (I
recall early Philips and Pioneer units) pretty expensive - and the media was
pricey then too; DCC was dying - there may not have been any new lines
coming out; reel-to-reel of the 1/4" 2-4 channel variety was strictly a
secondhand thing.
That leaves VHS which, it has to be said, is probably a bit of a minority
concern for audio recording (I remember the confusion my asking around for a
SCART-4xRCA cable caused a few years ago - "what, you don't want the video
pins to connect to anything?"), and few models of VCR featured adjustable
recording levels.
I'm probably being a bit generous to WHF here!
Mike.
Michael Jones
> Also note that minidisc has been around a lot longer than 5 years, as
> the article naively suggests. As if a medium only becomes "available"
> when WHF give it an award - LOL!
Fair enough - though '97 was really the year MD broke through in Europe,
with realistically priced portables and blanks.
> Depends what you consider affordable? I paid £250 for my first DAT
> machine, a Sony DTC750, about 8 years ago. A decent Nakamichi would
> certainly have cost double or triple that.
£250 *brand-new*? But point taken, as there were a few DAT decks available
in the mid-90s for an RRP of 500 quid or less. The Tascam DA20MkII, which
seems to be the workhorse DAT machine in many project studios, still has a
list price of 575 quid. By '97, I think the profile of DAT in the domestic
environment had fallen to such a degree that WHF was probably ignoring the
format altogether.
> True about standalones but WHF? (or should I call them WTF?) didn't
> specify "standalones only"... they simply mentioned recording options.
WHF has never, to my knowledge, been big on computers - except perhaps with
regard to encouraging its readers to stick a decent amp and speakers on the
end of the soundcard. I'm sure there's another organ (or five) in whichever
publishing empire owns WHF (is it Emap?) which covers PC/Mac peripherals, so
no reason for WHF to mention them.
> >reel-to-reel of the 1/4" 2-4 channel variety was strictly a
> >secondhand thing.
>
> Probably against their commercial interests to mention it.
It's never been that sort of magazine - I could imagine Hi-Fi World urging
its readers to hunt down an old ReVox or Fostex for high-quality recordings,
but WHF concentrates on the new and shiny.
> My Panasonic NV-F65 is, remarkably, still going strong after what.. 12
> years solid use? It has phono in/outs sockets for hifi use, and manual
> record level setting (non of that auto levelling crap they insist on
> building into videos these days). Again - hifi recording was and is a
> video recording option with VHS tape.
My NV-HD90 is seven years old and probably dates from the time Panasonic
started to go downhill on build quality; the transport is on its last legs
and it doesn't offer adjustable rec-level. Fine for recording FM though.
> Regardless, whatever the pro's and con's which each of these mediums -
> WTF are grossly insulting to the intelligence of readers.
I'm not sure it's an intelligence issue - it's an interests issue, and WHF
probably judge that just right. The magazine really isn't for wizened old
audio enthusiasts like us (ok, like *me*); I would no more expect WHF to
provide a sound technical and historical overview of home audio than I would
the free booklet they hand out in Richer Sounds. It's when the likes the
Hi-Fi News and Record Review get stuff wrong that it's time to write a
stinging letter (not that I can be bothered).
Mike.
Screwed & Tired
..It's when the likes the
> Hi-Fi News and Record Review get stuff wrong that it's time to write a
> stinging letter (not that I can be bothered).
>
> Mike.
Hi-Fi News (& RR) is now just about the same as What Hi-Fi and other
British magazines, except Hi-Fi +..
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
Granted Hi-Fi+ is almost as loopy as UHF or TAS, but HFN is hardly
down at the WHF level............................
BTW, they dropped the (&RR) in October 2000.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Joe Hutcheon
Pinkerton) wrote:
>On 11 Nov 2002 03:40:43 -0800, bou...@netzero.com (Screwed & Tired)
>wrote:
>>
>>Hi-Fi News (& RR) is now just about the same as What Hi-Fi and other
>>British magazines, except Hi-Fi +..
>
>Granted Hi-Fi+ is almost as loopy as UHF or TAS, but HFN is hardly
>down at the WHF level............................
It's slithering down that slippery slope though.
>BTW, they dropped the (&RR) in October 2000.
At about the same time they renamed their CD review section 'software'
yeucchhh!!!
Joe Hutcheon
wrote:
>I would actually rate the Richer Sounds booklets higher. At least
>there's some technical content! I skimmed a few more articles in WHF
>and well.. into the recycling it goes. I mean.. does anybody *really*
>need a diagram to show how to connect a CD player to an amp?
Er, no. Though if I ever bought into this home cinema malarkey I
suppose some hints as to what to plug in where might come in useful.