Hi Andrew,
Glad you re still alive, your blog seems to be moribund?
M
As I think I said when I started, the busier I was, the less time Iād have to maintain the blog.
But we digressā¦ 
Sorry. A mistake of memory.
I feel spurned
Glad things are going well.
Thanks ā mind you, a few weeks of self-isolation might see a sudden flourishing of the blog
Not to contradict the independence point, as Iām OK with hifi mags making money, but just think that if you make not having ads as part of your proof of independence, that should cover taking money from manufacturers in any way? Maybe they donāt state it in that way and this is just implied by readers?
The next point might come across as my trying to prove a lack of independence, but thatās not the intention at all, but rather a question thatās come up in my mind every now and then. Has Colloms ever written a less than glowing review of a Naim product? I just havenāt come across one yet. He seems to enjoy their products quite a bit (as many of us do), but I wonder if even he has an item from Salisbury that he thinks is no more than āmehā.
P.S.: to make it even clearer that Iām not criticizing them, I do enjoy their reviews and they come across as stating what they believe in
I seriously doubt it sways them one way or other. It wouldnāt be worth their while or their credibility. Itās likely more just a way to apply some kind of license to allow the review to be reprinted, while preventing a total breach of their copyright, and of course the revenue they get from actually selling the magazine.
No one wants to read a review of kit that is not good, so reviewers often just review something else.
1 Like
I doubt it too, but Iām not making that claim based on the lack of advertising. I also donāt see that logic on their website, so maybe this is just something that part of the readership infers.
Yup, just ask some reviewers and theyāll tell you that anything thatās utter rubbish rarely makes a review - after all, why waste space and copy?
1 Like
OK, let me rephrase the question. Are we aware of anything between āutter rubbishā and āexceptionalā made by Naim that got a review on that magazine?
You know the kind of review Iām talking about, where we get some caveats instead of a total panning of the item: ābass was present, but could lack slam in certain passagesā (meaning it is a lightweight, bright amp).
Well, Naim power amp, CD player, streamers, cables figure in the rating section but not a single Naim pre. Is it a sign?
Well he did say he thought an Allegri was better than a 552.
Perhaps this is why lots of things reviewed by Critic get an award, I was beginning to feel a bit jaded by it all.
Going back in time he has written several less-than-glowing reviews. This is before he learnt about the importance of run-in and warm up of Naim components.
In his original review of the NAP 500 he rated it only marginally better than the NAP 250 (approx 31 or 32 points vs 29 on his sound quality scale) and only because it went louder. Likewise, he rated the CD555 at 89 points vs 300 points for the NDS although I think most people who know both products think the CD555 has the edge.
Best regards
Hans
1 Like
Or alternatively, it might, (I say might) just be that Naim are right at the top of their gameā¦?
Surely itās a possibility?
2 Likes
The ND555 is happy to be connected to the home network via ethernet cabling, not wifi.
Martin never did nor has Jon published it. Jon has been explicit about it only on fora including this one.
Now it can be argued that the review of the Core was not as enthusiastic as it may have been expected. It hasnāt been posted on the Salisbury website.
Try Martinās review of the HDX
Hifi magazine publishes bad reviews of products = no more products for magazine to review.
Hifi mags are just another business and so are not going to put themselves at risk.
I donāt see that as being cynical, itās just how the world works.