What Hi*fi? and their reviews of JM Lab 816s and 806s

Posted by: Steve Toy on 01 August 2001

What a pile of drivel they have written this time.
"..the Cobalts struggle when it comes to the thumping transients of on Missy Elliot's set, where a lack of attack makes the music sound lifeless and dynamically flat-footed..."
What were they partnering them with I wonder?
MF, Krell?
"But it's not the refined treble that grabs your attention - its the superb integration between the drive units and the impressively even midrange."
Yes to the integration bit, that alone should warrant a minimum of four stars.
As for the "refined treble," I actually consider the treble to be their minor weakness, as it's just a little too insistent, and slightly metallic.
Only three stars!
I don't own JM Lab speakers , I don't own shares in the company, and I don't sell them.
But this review is bang out of order, and is at complete odds with how they really perform in both their positive and negative attributes.
Yes, this is only my opinion, but I know one or two folks who've heard them who will certainly agree with me.
No doubt, I'll continue to buy this "comic," but there are still a lot of people out there who audition equipment on the strength of its reviews, and I question its integrity.
Rant over.

It's always a nice day for it, have a good one
Steve

[This message was edited by Steven Toy on THURSDAY 02 August 2001 at 03:40.]

Posted on: 02 August 2001 by Steve Toy

I've emailed a copy of the above three posts to Andy Clough, editor of What Hi*fi?
I hope you guys don't mind!

It's always a nice day for it, have a good one
Steve

Posted on: 03 August 2001 by Steve Toy

Yes, I've had a bit of a twinge about the suing bit as well. If they were silly enough to "protesteth too loud" and go for the libel thing - it would be another case of opportunistic money making - except I haven't got any money, and they're not having my hi-fi as its too good for them - and they wouldn't like it anyway!
Also, none of us has actually said anything libellous - we disagree with their views, and don't take seriously the way they reach their conclusions, that's all!
No accusations have actually been made!
If someone admits to something on TV then that's their prerogative!

It's always a nice day for it, have a good one
Steve

Posted on: 03 August 2001 by Mick P

Young men

If you want to protect yourself against being sued, state an opinion rather than a fact. Say for instance.......In my opinion Fred is horrible. Do not say Fred is horrible or he may be able to sue you........dead easy really.

Regards

Mick

Posted on: 03 August 2001 by Sproggle

Mick:

quote:
If you want to protect yourself against being sued, state an opinion rather than a fact. Say for instance.......In my opinion Fred is horrible. Do not say Fred is horrible or he may be able to sue you........dead easy really.

Are you absolutely sure? If I were to say, "In my opinion Fred is a thief." then surely I'd be guilty of either slander or libel [depending on how I said it - i.e. aloud or in print]?

Or is there a legal distinction between calling someone horrible and calling them a criminal?

--Jeremy

Posted on: 03 August 2001 by Mick P

Jeremy

If you say Fred is a thief.......you are making a statement and would be able to back it up with facts.

Its not the same as saying you think he is a thief. Generally speaking an opinion is not considered admissable in the courts. Thats why Michael Winner never gets sued when he gives his opinion on crappy service in posh restaurants etc.

He may say he thinks the soup tastes like p***
He will never say the chef served up P***

Regards

Mick

Posted on: 03 August 2001 by Justin

This is not the first time I have read about libel and slander issues on this forum. I wonder if the causes of action are easier to bring in England than they are over here.

For what its worth, I simply cannot imagine being sued for making comments about a product or about what somebody has said about the product. It's called "fair comment" and its particularly applicable here. What Hi-Fi makes its living on making "fair comments". One surely is not subject to liability by taking issue with them.

More to the point, defamation law is based not on what one says "Fred is a moron" vs "I think Fred is a moron". Both are opinions, not to be taken literally--neither is actionable. The reason is because the average person would not think that you are actually saying that Fred is a moron (that is, in the technical sense, one with an IQ lower than 60). Rather, both merely suggest that the speaker does not hold Fred in very high regard. And making that opinion known is not actionable. Never has been. (same with "fred is a bastard").

On the other hand, in the eyes of the law, there is no distinction between "in my opinion, Fred has herpes" and "Fred has herpes."
It is a matter of black letter law that one cannot protect truly slanderous remarks merely by inserting "in my opinion" in front of them. (nor, by the way can repeat a slanderous remark by inserting the words "Bob said that. . ."--this does not work either.

It is the content of the message that counts, not they way it is said. Judd

Posted on: 03 August 2001 by Mick P

Justin

I cannot comment on American law but my work does involve dealing with lawyers, so over the years, I have picked up quite a lot.

In the UK, if you said "Fred is a thief".....that implies that you know for certain he is a thief and as such it is an accusation which at the least will damage his reputation.

However, if you say "I think Fred is a thief or in my opinion Fred is a thief"...you are expressing a view which may be right or wrong. In the UK courts, such comments are considered much less severe than the more definate ones and would not result in any action.

To make life complicated.....you could say Fred is a moron. Now that is stating a fact but the defence would argue what is a moron. Is it someone who is plain stupid, slightly stupid, not bright, slightly bright or whatever. In this case the word moron is not an allegation which would destroy or harm Freds reputation and as such you would get away with it.

In practice, very few cases get to court because it is one of the few areas where the winning party are often made to pay their own legal costs because their past behaviour has often invited such comments to be made in the first place. The only winners being the lawyers.

This proves the validity of a very old joke....please state the odd man out......a rich lawyer...a poor lawyer or Father Christmas.

The answer of course is the rich lawyer.....the other two are figments of the imagination.

Regards

Mick

Posted on: 03 August 2001 by Steve Toy

Yes, I genuinely hoped to point out to the editor that I could not possibly understand how his team had reached a conclusion on a particular component, which was so inconsistent with my own findings and all those who have also auditioned it, to my knowledge.
I made no accusations of any foul play, but I did wish to raise suspicions which may cross many a mind...
A valid explanation was, and is, something I hoped for from the editor of What Hi*fi? Sound and Vision, which I would then willingly post on this Forum.
Such explanations could include the somewhat random results you may get from partnering, for example a 900 GBP CD player with a 14000 GBP amp combination, or their use of cables/interconnects which can throw in all kinds of gremlins.
The "First Test" of the 816s was more unfair IMHO than the group test which included the 806s, because there was no indication at all of any partnering equipment.

It's always a nice day for it, have a good one
Steve

Posted on: 04 August 2001 by Mick P

Paul

You are in the clear on this occassion.

I often find that we are more restrained on this forum.

Regards

mick

Posted on: 04 August 2001 by Alex S.

I think you are an alcoholic

regards

Alex

Posted on: 04 August 2001 by Steve Toy

Having read Mick's profile, it would be easy to take what he has said therein, and label him an alcoholic.
However, given that he merely states a liking of the effects of alcohol under certain circumstances, including listening to music, and that he likes also to frequent places that just happen to sell alcohol does not mean that he is an alcoholic.
The definition of an alcoholic is a very grey area indeed.
My own definition is that someone is dependent on being in a state of alcoholic inebriation just to cope with the idea of being conscious at all times; and to level this accusation would seem to be libellous if it were seriously intended.
I seriously doubt that Mick falls into this category.
Many of us, myself included, consume more alcohol than is recommended for optimising our health, but that does not mean we are alcoholics.
Mick, I'd love a drop of whisky at your place and hear your system if Mr Pig does, or doesn't take up your kind offer!

Regards,
Steve.

[This message was edited by Steven Toy on SUNDAY 05 August 2001 at 06:31.]

Posted on: 05 August 2001 by Alex S.

quote:
Dylan Thomas once described an alcaholic as a man who drinks as much as you do who you don't like.

In this case an alcoholic is a man who probably drinks less than me and who I do like, even though we have not yet met.

Posted on: 05 August 2001 by Alex S.

whom I've read intermittently for a number of years in a number of journals, is that I can't take him seriously. He displays a certain passion for a slick turn of phrase but I doubt his passion for music.

I think he's an alcoholic.

Posted on: 05 August 2001 by Mick P

Chaps

I come from a family with a history of heart problem (in other words bloody heartless)and hence on medical advice I do tipple.

Mrs Mick and I get through 3 bottles of wine each week, at home, between the two of us.

I usually consume a tumbler of whiskey about 4 evenings per week. I pour about 1" into the glass, add a dash of water and that will do me for the night.

I usually attend "business functions" about once a week and that typically will consist of say two glasses of wine with a 4 course meal plus say 4 whiskey's late in the evening. Before you ask, I get chauferred home.

Saturday evenings are the one night when I take Sue out for a meal, usually a curry or an Italian and at most its one pint of shandy with the curry or a bottle of red, between us, with the Italian.

Businesses lunches often result in a G and T and water with the meal.

I must admit I do lead a good existance. I did get irratated with my tailor, when upon measuring my waist, remarked " Sir is becoming of a portly disposition." I felt like kicking him in the nuts. Still thats the penalty for food and drink.

To Steve, you have only to ask for an invite. It would be a pleasure to meet with you. Same applies to anyone else passing through Swindon. Its always good to meet a forum member.

Regards

Mick

Posted on: 05 August 2001 by Alex S.

ps I hope never to pass through Swindon.

Posted on: 05 August 2001 by Mick P

Mr PD

Water should always be added to a malt. In fact I know of no distillery which recommends drinking it neat. The only debate is not whether you add water but how much. I tend to opt for about 25%.

I look forward to the crate of Jura despite the fact that my life ban has now been reduced to a week.

Regards

Mick

[This message was edited by Mick Parry on SUNDAY 05 August 2001 at 17:16.]

Posted on: 05 August 2001 by Alex S.

Can I have it instead? - I won't add water, only coke.

Mick, I think you're half right - malt with water as an aperitif, neat after dinner.

And does Swindon have any nice bits?

Posted on: 05 August 2001 by Mick P

Alex

" does Swindon have any nice bits"

Yes, two of them on Melinda Messenger. Other than that.......no

Regards

Mick

Posted on: 05 August 2001 by Jez Quigley

I am Fred and you will all be hearing from my lawyer first thing in the morning. That is unless you wish to settle out court by handing over your Naim kit.

Posted on: 05 August 2001 by Mick P

Fred

I was only expressing an opinion. Besides, she knows me and she also knows I like her bits because I have told her.

Yours

Mick

Posted on: 06 August 2001 by Steve Toy

It is all getting a bit "padded cell"-like, this discussion, but that's how good threads can go, and so I don't contest it.
Beer:
Lots of music/hi-fi people are into this stuff, and why not?
The What Hi*fi? people manage to make this association, presumably to give us the impression that they are discerning consumers, just like us!

(I am not saying that they aren't, BTW)
Paul d,
What's your favourite tipple on the beer front then?
German or Czech lager/ English ale/Belgian loopy juice/other?
Draught/bottled beer?
Beer temperature: chilled/cellar temperature - 55F/room temperature (yuck!)
Is Reinheitsgebot the equivalent of not having tone controls?

It's always a nice day for it, have a good one
Steve

Posted on: 06 August 2001 by MarkEJ

...owing to having raided the parents' drinks cupboard when (much) younger, resulting in Teachers'-inspired near-unconsciousness, much vomiting, etc. Haven't been able to cope with the taste since.

However, within the last couple of years have occasionally tried various low output, minority whiskies with, on the whole positive results, so perhaps the aversion therapy's wearing off. I must admit that, to the unitiated (ie: me) the whole idea of adding water to a spirit is pretty wierd, but I have seen it mentioned that the only water one should add is spring water from the same location as the distillery. This makes perfect sense, IMHO. On reflection, I'm keen to learn more about whisky...

Beers? Well, horses for courses. Our local is currently guesting Smiles "Golden Summer", which is perfect fo the time of year, though it'sd be a bit lightweight in November. I'm a big supporter of seasonal brews, and I don't think you should be able to buy draft beer "off territory". We have a few pubs in Bristol that sell Pedigree, and it's never as good as on its home turf.
All-time favourite: Hicks Special Draught (St. Austell Brewery); widely available in the deep West, but only at the correct temerature (IME) at the Red Barn, Woolacombe, N. Devon.

Also recently discovered a stunning French (keg) beer called "Leffe". It's dark and monastic, but somehow doesn't put you to sleep.

Ho hum -- yes you're right, Steven -- we should really be in the Padded Cell for this, but there you go.

Best;

Mark

(an imperfect
forum environment is
better than none)

Posted on: 06 August 2001 by Steve Toy

Leffe is in fact a Belgian Beer, but no doubt, you've tried it in France, like many of us.
Try their "Radieuse."
In comparison with the ordinary "blonde" or "brune,"
it's like going from a 102/140 - thrilling initially, bit you get tired of it after a while, [here's where I run for cover!

] to a 52/135s, very satisfying to the point of oblivion!
In any case, Leffe is not a genuine Monastic beer, only a "biere d'abbeye."
Try Chimay - rouge, blanche or bleue, Orval, Westmalle, and I can't remember the other two (there are only five.)

It's always a nice day for it, have a good one
Steve

Posted on: 06 August 2001 by Steve Toy

There are only five breweries designated be termed "Monastic," or "Trappist," i.e: brewed by Trappist Monks.
I've forgotten the names of the two others, and I think one is just over the border in Holland, if my memory serves me correctly.
"Bieres d'abbeye," are other beers jumping onto the same bandwagon, and their only connection with holy orders and habits, is that there may be an ecclesiastical building of note somewhere in town...

It's always a nice day for it, have a good one
Steve

Posted on: 06 August 2001 by Rockingdoc

Unbelievable drivel about alcoholism in this strand.
Alcoholism has nothing to do with the amount drunk, only the problems in a person's life related to alcohol.