What Hi-Fi's Amp Reviews: A Basket of Unmeasurables?

[GGroch]

The British Audio Magazine What Hi-Fi has published since 1976 and has a loyal following. They are a through-the-looking-glass counterpoint to ASR in that they do no measurements. Instead, they do systematic rigorous listening to each product they review.

Here is a list of all of the Amplifier Characteristics What-HiFi has used to describe audio performance in its six 2023 Amplifier Evaluation Verdicts:
- Musically Cohesive and Dynamically Capable
- Excellent Detail Resolution
- Impressive Punch
- Sonic Composure and Organization
- Sonic Clarity and Control
- Dynamic Contrasts could be stronger, as could Rhythmic Drive
- Agile and Articulate Presentation
-Immaculate with Rhythms
-Wonderfully Musical Insight and Uncluttered
-Expressive Dynamics
- Needs Careful Partnering
- Astonishingly Revealing
- Terrific Timing and Agility
- Some might want a more muscular sound.

My question: do these amplifier characteristics actually exist? I have seen few or none of these terms used in reviews here. Do Amir's objective measurements confirm or contradict any of them? Or, with a nod to Ms. Clinton, is this a basket of unmeasurables?

I can see how "Punch" and "Dynamically Capable" could be related to peak power ratings. I have a hard time figuring out the rest. Are they imaginary?

 

[Gorgonzola]

Let's remember that the Brits invented the term "PRaT"

 

[Vacceo]

Marketing lingo. Amir has provided us with a very comprehensive set of measures to look at in order to determine the performance of an amp.

Of course there is more to an amp, as the build quality, casing, connectors and friendly use are also relevant, but that is part of the user-friendly and aesthetic value of the device, not an element of performance per se.

 

[Doodski]

They are rubbish terms that mean nothing in reality. But you knew that already...LoL.

 

[SIY]

...they do systematic rigorous listening to each product they review.

That is exactly the opposite of what they do.

 

[GGroch]

That is exactly the opposite of what they do.

I said listening, not measuring, not objective, not blind. What Hi-F describes their listening process here.

I am not looking for anyone here to endorse that process.

I am asking whether these amp characteristics can have any objective basis, or are they all the result of fertile imaginations.

 

[solderdude]

I'll have a crack at some of them.

- Musically Cohesive and Dynamically Capable

Dynamically capable could mean lots of power is available (dynamically capable), can play loud and not distort (musically cohesive)

- Excellent Detail Resolution

Low distortion, smooth treble ?
Audiophool speak for 'sounds nice' ?

- Impressive Punch

Lots of power available, maybe even a bass boost (high output Z amp with certain speakers) ?

- Sonic Composure and Organization

Ah... yeah ... well ... you know .... Audiophool speak for sounds nice ?

- Sonic Clarity and Control

Clarity and tight bass (low output Z) ?

- Dynamic Contrasts could be stronger, as could Rhythmic Drive

They should probably not have used vinyl to test stuff if they found that ?
Limp-dick amplifier or insensitive transducers ?

- Agile and Articulate Presentation

a boost in the upper mids, good clarity ?

-Immaculate with Rhythms

good PRaT ? (whatever that is)... well at least the R in PRaT is there. I wonder where the P and T went ?

-Wonderfully Musical Insight and Uncluttered

Audiophool speak for sounds nice ?

-Expressive Dynamics

Goes loud !

- Needs Careful Partnering

Amps with a high output Z that might not play well with all speakers ?

- Astonishingly Revealing

Audiophool speak for sounds nice ?

- Terrific Timing and Agility

good PRaT ? (whatever that is) and we found the T in PRaT ... leaves the Pace.

- Some might want a more muscular sound.

Limp-dick amplifier or insensitive transducers.

 

[Digby]

Needs Careful Partnering

Was this a comment on amplifiers or British men?

 

[SIY]

I said listening, not measuring, not objective, not blind.

You said "systematic rigorous listening." Their described procedure is neither. Not even a shred of basic controls, so neither systematic nor rigorous.

 

[Digby]

You said "systematic rigorous listening." Their described procedure is neither. Not even a shred of basic controls, so neither systematic nor rigorous.

Not true. I can assure you they make tea and take it with hobnobs every listening session. That is both systematic and rigorous in my book.

 

[SIY]

- Musically Cohesive and Dynamically Capable We peeked and knew the brands.
- Excellent Detail Resolution We peeked and knew the brands.
- Impressive Punch We peeked and knew the brands.
- Sonic Composure and Organization We peeked and knew the brands.
- Sonic Clarity and Control We peeked and knew the brands.
- Dynamic Contrasts could be stronger, as could Rhythmic Drive We peeked and knew the brands and we carry adverts for more expensive gear.
- Agile and Articulate Presentation We peeked and knew the brands.
-Immaculate with Rhythms We peeked and knew the brands.
-Wonderfully Musical Insight and Uncluttered We peeked and knew the brands.
-Expressive Dynamics We peeked and knew the brands.
- Needs Careful Partnering We don't want to embarrass our advertisers.
- Astonishingly Revealing We peeked and knew the brands.
- Terrific Timing and Agility We peeked and knew the brands.
- Some might want a more muscular sound. We peeked and knew the brands and we carry adverts for more expensive gear.

Translations in red.

 

[Vacceo]

I said listening, not measuring, not objective, not blind. What Hi-F describes their listening process here.

I am not looking for anyone here to endorse that process.

I am asking whether these amp characteristics can have any objective basis, or are they all the result of fertile imaginations.

Do they perform double blind tests? Even in those cases we can track if there is audible difference and preference, but not much more.

 

[NTK]

Have What Hi-Fi demonstrated that they are able to make their evaluations with an acceptable level of consistency/repeatability? That means, when they evaluate the whatever devices blind using their methodology, are they able to arrive at the same scores repeatedly? If they haven't done that, by everyone of their reviewers, what is the difference between their method and rolling a dice?

 

[GGroch]

Translations in red. i.e.: - Musically Cohesive and Dynamically Capable We peeked and knew the brands.

I'm sure this is an understatement. Their methods are systematically & rigorously biased. They know the brands, which are very cool, expensive, beautifully built, and nearly all European (Naim, Audiolab, Goldmund, Lavardin, Rega). They also physically interact with each product, know it's technology story, and probably have discussed it with the designer. I am jealous.

Most of their reviews are 5 stars, a few are four. This is not at all like rolling dice. This is really high end stuff so it probably is pretty great and multi-star worthy. They did test the Amazon Link Amp which got 2 stars, Amir liked that one better.

My reason for the thread may not be interesting to many others. I have heard terms like slam, musicality, and recently "involvement" applied to audio gear for decades. Do these objectively mean anything?

I just caught some of Joe N' Tells live stream (He hangs out here some). He talked about caring less about certain characteristics, like soundstage, and caring more about how the product makes him feel when auditioning it. If the listening experience makes him smile. He measures, but I do not think he regularly blind tests.

Is that OK?

 

[middlemarch]

No

 

[SIY]

I have heard terms like slam, musicality, and recently "involvement" applied to audio gear for decades. Do these objectively mean anything?

They mean, "We need to attract advertisers."

Sonically, there's a very good reason they peek instead of evaluating ears-only.

 

[amirm]

I was going to post that they really kick our butt in traffic but seems like the gap has reduced:

Still, they are way ahead of us. The fact that totally unreliable, word salad reviews get so much traffic than us should motivate us all to do more to right the audio ship....

 

[Steven Holt]

I was going to post that they really kick our butt in traffic but seems like the gap has reduced:

View attachment 299563

Still, they are way ahead of us. The fact that totally unreliable, word salad reviews get so much traffic than us should motivate us all to do more to right the audio ship....

I am going to paraphrase a very great man who lived a very long time ago : A prophet is without honor on the internet.

 

[Chrispy]

I spent a little time on whathifi some years ago and found it full of ridiculous word salads. It's just not very interesting.

 

[solderdude]

Most of their reviews are 5 stars, a few are four. This is not at all like rolling dice. This is really high end stuff so it probably is pretty great and multi-star worthy. They did test the Amazon Link Amp which got 2 stars

Cheap device so must get a low rating otherwise they could not justify the audiophool devices.