Wiardgroup

> Although I don't agree with Robert on all of his points (especially rating
> "value" a 3.5 out of 5 - I would certainly rate it higher...

One of the problems with magazine reviews is that they don't properly state the
context of te review.  When compared to other modular synths, Wiard definitely
rates a 5.  However, to a beginning musician Wiard is probably worth a 1.  A
semi-pro after sounds out of the norm for ambient/industrial recordings (like
me!) would rate them a 5.  A professional engineer recording the latest boy
bands might rate it a 1.

I have a huge amount of respect for Robert Rich, and I'm sure that someone with
his intellgence and integrity stated the criteria for his review and rating.  I
think that most reviewers fail to do this, though.

With that being said, for the "average musician" that EM targets, I would agree
with the overall 3.5 rating.  This indicates to me a specialized product that
is beyond simply good, but you need to be aware of what it is before
purchasing. 

I'm very interested in this now, and will probably pick up a copy to read this
review.

> I've never come into personal contact with any of the Wiard stuff and only
> downloaded some MP3's and read the comments on this forum but I wouldn't
> have been surprised to see a 4 out of 5 rating.

I'm curious - why would you give it a 4?  As mentioned above, in what context
are you giving your rating?

> My biased and obviously warped opinion is that most reviewers never use
> musical equipment in anger and if they do, never at the highest level and
> are often looking for 'ear candy' or 'bells and whistles' over practical
> features. 
> Having said that (rather harshly) I do find that the US magazines are more
> in touch with the real world than the UK ones.

Although I feel that is a true statement when considering Future Music or the
more amateur publications, I would like to suggest you pick up a copy of Sound
On Sound:
www.sospubs.co.uk

I'm sure you'll find that the journalistic integrity (i.e. not influenced by
advertising monies), the depth of the reviews in realistic scenarios, and the
subjective opinions they offer on each piece of gear put their magazine a level
well above the US publications.  The interviews with successful musicians and
recording engineers are also a step above in terms of substance - they rarely
focus on the "so what gear do you use?" questions that are typically thrown at
interviewees by the US mags.

I'll e-mail their editor suggesting one or more articles about modern modular
synthesis, as the Wiard word should be spread further.

Graham

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/

> I'm sure that someone with
> his intellgence and integrity stated the criteria for his review and rating.
> I think that most reviewers fail to do this, though.
Good point. I hadn't really thought about ratings criteria other than my
own. I  guess it's all down to personal opinion anyway, I wouldn't presume
to question the reviewers integrity. I guess I'm questioning the validity of
reviews although I think I probably put too much store by them myself. Crazy
as it sounds, it's not always possible to try a product before buying it.
>I would agree
> with the overall 3.5 rating.  This indicates to me a specialized product that
> is beyond simply good
It indicates .5 of a mark above average (or adequate) in my book.
This gets to the heart of the matter. Do you knock off 1.5 points because
something is complicated or takes a bit of patience to get started on.
Maybe you do which is fair enough.
> I'm curious - why would you give it a 4?  As mentioned above, in what context
> are you giving your rating?>
My primary criteria would be quality of build and quality of sound. Then it
would be up to the individual to decide whether the Wiard would be a useful
addition to their studio based on the text of the review. Using your
criteria things like JV5080's and Akai S6000's would always get higher
marks.
In my experience Sound On Sound (which you go on to mention) rate virtually
everything as very good. When they are truly impressed with something they
give it full marks, if they have serious misgivings they rate 3 or below.
Apart from sample CD's they have usually reserved these marks for things
like the Waldorf Q which was released before it was 'finished' (in their
opinion).
>When compared to other modular synths, Wiard definitely
> rates a 5.  However, to a beginning musician Wiard is probably worth a 1.
Would a beginner spend $400 - 500 on individual modules?
Does the 3.5 rating have to take into account 'beginners' or "boy band
producers"?
> I would like to suggest you pick up a copy of Sound
> On Sound:
> www.sospubs.co.uk
I get it every month.
> I'm sure you'll find that the journalistic integrity (i.e. not influenced by
> advertising monies), the depth of the reviews in realistic scenarios,
Well I disagree completely. Particularly  reviews of sample CD's often
suggest that they are not testing samples in a musical context. I shouldn't
drag on about SOS as it isn't really relevant. My question is:
Would the Wiard system have rated a 3.5 if it had been a new line by Roland
or Big Briar even? I don't know the answer but I could see a scenario where
those companies would have been praised for innovation and for pushing the
boundaries of synthesis.
 I'd be very interested to read the EM review as I'm currently contemplating
a Wiard purchase. Not sure if I can get it in London though.

Initially, I strenuosly objected to the 3.5 rating. MOTM got 4.5 and 
the Sorcerer got a 4.0.

Gino Robair was kind enough explain the whole thing over my 
childish whining. The rating is based on a subjective value 
judgement FOR THE DEMOGRAPHIC OF THE MAGAZINE!

Since most of the readers have little or no contact with analog 
modulars, sophistication and complexity DO account against you 
(in the rating). The lack of good user documentation was also a 
significant problem.

Wiard is greatly indebted to both Gino Robair and Robert Rich for 
a mature and gracious handling of the subject matter. In lesser 
hands, it could have been a debacle and spelled the end of 
Wiard altogether.

Mr. Rich had not touched either a Serge or Buchla before the 
review. By his own admission, the only modular he had used 
previously was a MOTM system. It is a testament to his talent as 
a musician and writer that he was able to grasp the value of the 
"West Coast school" ideas so rapidly.

Once again, I salute both Mr. Robair and Mr. Rich for their 
balanced and thoughtful treatment of very difficult material. 
Electronic Musician is the only magazine subscription I have. 
This dates to before the reviews, because I have admired Mr. 
Robairs selection of "non-mainstream" subject material.

> >I would agree
> > with the overall 3.5 rating.  This indicates to me a specialized 
product that

> Since most of the readers have little or no contact with analog
> modulars, sophistication and complexity DO account against you
> (in the rating). 
Well I think that is wrong. Surely that kind of thing can be covered in the
text. 
>The lack of good user documentation was also a
> significant problem.
That could (and maybe should) count against you.
The documentation couldn't be worse than Serge where many inputs and outputs
have no explanation and even friends of mine with years of modular
experience have been convinced a module has been faulty until they've had a
sudden mental breakthrough.
> Wiard is greatly indebted to both Gino Robair and Robert Rich for
> a mature and gracious handling of the subject matter. In lesser
> hands, it could have been a debacle and spelled the end of
> Wiard altogether.
I hope not. I don't know much about Robert Rich but Gino Robair has been
doing some great modular articles of late. Maybe he should have been given
the Wiard to review as he has extensive knowledge of Serge.
Reviews are very subjective, unfortunately they often carry so much weight
that they can seriously effect your sales.
>