#1929011 - 04/18/08 11:28 AM
CABLE TESTS- Who's Testing The Testers?!
|
Neil Slade
Member
Registered: 04/18/08
Posts: 8
Loc: Denver
|
Offline
|
|
Um--- somebody needs to proofread the editor's submissions to both the Magazine and Online articles....
I just looked at your cable article ONLINE and then in the printed MAGAZINE.
I noted all the tests you did, and the individual cable quality ratings- shimmer, girth, punch, noise, vibe.
I THEN looked at your WINNER'S CIRCLE ONLINE, which is the only thing presented online in regards to test results. I also see that these are the recommended cables in the magazine, with accompanied big colorful photos.
I THEN compared your recommended winners with the actual specific test results.
Is this a test to see if I am really paying attention?
Or is it a demonstration that your test results are at least partially erroneous and irrelevant?
One would assume that you would universally recommend the cables that fare the best in your test results.
Instead, your "Winner's Circle" recommends cables that do relatively poorly in the tests, or in two cases, cables that you do not even test at all, i.e.:
1) George L's .225------ not tested, yet recommended (You tested the inexpensive ..155, that tested extremely well at $36, but it's not recommended)-- I called George L's, and they told me there is NO DIFFERENCE in sound between the .115 and .225, and Guitar Player is guilty of a typo here.
2) Reverend Armour Gold-------- nowhere on the test whatsoever.
3) Spectraflex Fatso Flex------ a mediocre test result that doesn't even test as well as their cheaper Original Series-- and yet you recommend it
over their Original which is $15 cheaper.
4) Pete Cornish Silver Signature--- a number of cheaper cables did equivalent or better overall than this noisy cable, yet you recommend over others.
Is this because you get a thumbs up when you give a Guitar Player interview? (Pedal Boards).
I sure would like to see an explanation of these inconsistencies---- were you unable to proofread before your publishing, or is something else at work-- or not at work here?
With all due respect, and a good amount of necessary skepticism,
Thanks
Neil Slade
The AMAZING Brain Music Adventure
Easy Paint Your Car
InkJet Helper - Printer and Ink Tests
My Own Publishing- Publish Yourself
Paint Guitars and More
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1929200 - 04/18/08 06:38 PM
Re: CABLE TESTS- Who's Testing The Testers?!
[Re: Neil Slade]
|
jkorchok
Member
Registered: 04/18/08
Posts: 1
|
|
Offline
|
|
I too, was baffled by this article. It just didn't add up.
What I am grateful for, though, is one central spot where the capacitance of all these cables was published in one spot. To my ears, this is the one measurement that hys the greatest effect on high frequencies. Thanks!
But your recommended choices left me scratching my head. I don't depend on your mags for objective information, because you just don't deliver in that department.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1929249 - 04/18/08 10:36 PM
Re: CABLE TESTS- Who's Testing The Testers?!
[Re: jkorchok]
|
Editor Boy
Senior Member
Registered: 05/14/01
Posts: 261
Loc: San Mateo,CA,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
Hi all...
I've asked GP editors/authors Art Thompson and Matt Blackett to check Neil's original post in the GP Editors' Office Forum, and answer all queries pertaining to the cable roundup. Please check in there the week of April 21 to review their comments.
Thanks tons,
Mike
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1929344 - 04/19/08 08:41 AM
Re: CABLE TESTS- Who's Testing The Testers?!
[Re: Editor Boy]
|
Neil Slade
Member
Registered: 04/18/08
Posts: 8
Loc: Denver
|
|
Offline
|
|
I appreciate the attention this is getting- and honestly, as a writer and publisher myself, I know how easy it is to miss things and to contradict ones self. I do think, however, that when testing equipment for evaluation and/or recommendation that in order to run comparative tests that are accurate and have integrity, especially when comparing a LOT of things together, it is important to follow relatively simple rules of actual scientific procedure-- such as the blind, or double blind rule-- label the tested materials with numeric or letter labels so that the results are really honest, and subjectivity is kept to a minimum wherever possible.
Otherwise, prejudice and memory cannot help but color the results, especially when aural information is involved, because it is so ephemeral.
I can understand the dilemma of Guitar Player in the case of testing products of advertisers, but if review and testing is done in a loose and careless manner, nobody is going to believe anything the magazine says, and whoops--- there goes your credibility and there go your sales. You can't win with sloppy information, no matter how you slice it.
Thanks-- I do enjoy the effort- and the nice pictures-- but I would enjoy a more rigorous and solid testing procedure standard a lot more.
:-)
Been reading your magazine forever- love the interviews, gear, and I look forward to even better content (and scientific testing :-) )to come.
Neil
http://www.BrainRadar.com
http://www.EasyPaintYourCar.com
http://www.InkJetHelper.com
http://www.MyOwnPublishing.com
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1930971 - 04/22/08 11:57 PM
Re: CABLE TESTS- Who's Testing The Testers?!
[Re: Neil Slade]
|
Editor Boy
Senior Member
Registered: 05/14/01
Posts: 261
Loc: San Mateo,CA,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
Neil --
Please see Art's and Matt's responses in the GP Editors' Office.
For my part...
A double-blind test would be difficult, as part of the test was documenting how the cables reproduced dynamics and attack, which meant we could not use a third party performer behind a curtain playing riffs while the staff listened. We felt it was important that the testers "feel" the responsiveness, as well as evaluate the tone, and that meant the jacks had to be plugged into the guitar. Unless we covered a good length of the cable and jack in tape for all 49 cables, some testers would be able to identify many of the cables by their jack design and/or cable labeling or materials. As this was never meant to be a scientific test, but rather a real-world assessment (hey, if you plugged this cable into your amp at a gig or recording session how would you feel about it?), we opted not to slaughter the cables with tape windings.
In fact, NONE of our reviews are scientific, and neither are 99.9 percent of all guitar gear reviews in 99.9 percent of the world's guitar magazines. We are simply a "panel of experts" that you can choose to trust (or not) based on whether you feel the editors have provided fair and accurate evaluations in the past. I've always advocated the "tell it like it is, as you would to a peer musician at a gig who asked you how product X performs for you." That subjective approach is really all we can promise. We don't have the rigorous means, tools, or the time to be extremely scientific, but I believe our readers know this, as we have never represented our product reviews as anything more than "our" opinion. If readers trust us at all, it's because they want to hear what Art, Matt, Barry, Jude, and our other staffers have to say about a particular piece of gear.
I do appreciate your criticism, however, as comments from the readers are taken seriously, and they always help us evolve and improve the content in GP. I just don't see us taking on scientific, double-blind testing in the near future unless the reader community demands that we go that route. We do, after all, serve YOU.
Cheers,
Mike
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Anderton, Matt Harper
|
|
|
