Woodworking Magazine is it worth looking at?

Jay Knepper writes:

>
>Reading the preceding thread has shown a stunning level of naiveté, and a
>crassness which is usually found only in electrical threads.
>
>Now really, does anyone think that Laguna tools is going to come in last in
>a battle of bandsaws if Laguna has been buying cover 4 for the last 3 years?
>If so, well, there's little more to be said. Tool reviews in commercial
>magazines are of limited value.

Do you really think the Laguna is apt to come in last in a test of bandsaws?

Of course tool reviews are of limited use, and for a variety of reasons that
have zip to do with advertising. First, possibly foremost, my shop is not your
shop. My electrical set-up may be totally different, shop arrangements HAVE to
be different (when was the last time you had nine table saws in your shop?),
time spent in set-up has to be different (when you test six saws to a deadline,
you cannot spend a week of evenings on each saw setting it up and getting all
the quirks out of it). Second, when I'm testing, again, I'm working to a
deadline. I'm also arranging and shooting photos of the tools. I cannot run
1000 board feet of wood through each function of each tool. I often don't have
time to run 10 board feet through. Tools such as planers and table saws are
actually pretty easy in this arena, since I generally use a fair amount of oak
and cherry from a local sawmill. And I cannot take the time, and won't have the
budget, to run 10-15 board feet of teak or lyptus through the tools to see how
that kind of treatment works on the particular tool.

The tool is going to get assembled and set up as quickly as is possible for
safe use. If it is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of adjustment from the factory,
then it will get a bit of tune-up time, but otherwise, it is tested OOTB--out
of the box. No tweaks.

That gives a certain equality to the results, anyway, because the need for a
lot of adjustment just to reach parity is going to be mentioned in the article,
while the other tools start from an equal footing.

I was talking this over with an editor yesterday, and we decided that for all
the whines and whimpers, this is probably the best era for hobbyist woodworkers
vis a vis tools that has ever existed. You can get it all, from Lie-Nielsen
reproductions (and LN improvements along with Veritas improvements) on
classical hand tools, but you can also get a wider than ever variety of brands
of power tools to add to that, with a greater than ever variety of power tools.
And most of those tools are of good or better quality, with much the lower end
stuff halfway decent starter tools at almost no investment (though I've got to
admit that a $40 CMS would find me standing WELL to one side on start-up, not
just the first time, but every time).

As time has passed, lower level tools have been improved. There are still
"engineering" glitches that are surprising in some, alignment problems that may
be easy, or impossible, to fix and a host of other possible problems. But the
operative word, I think, is "possible". Most of what you'll find out there is
workable, some of it is quite good, and some of it is excellent (Laguna
bandsaws tend to fall in the latter category, and most often get tested with
other tools in the same category).

I've hammered, and seen hammered, too many large advertisers' products over the
years to believe that many of the writers in the field are going easy because a
company buys five or six or eight pages of ads per month in a particular
magazine. And in the years I've been doing this work, I have never had an
editor to tell me to favor an advertised tool over a non-advertised tool, or to
favor a tool that doesn't deserve. The actual deal is usually, "Tell my readers
what features the tools have and how well those features work."

Tool tests serve their purpose if they give the reader an overview of many
(sometimes not even most) of the brands out there, their prices and where those
prices fit in the general range of the category, their ease of assembly (or
lack of ease) and adjustment, their suitability for doing the jobs considered
normal for the category, and the likelihood they'll keep doing those jobs for a
reasonable length of time. If you expect detailed 10,000 bf use tests of each
tool, or even in each category, then you're wasting your time.

Personally, I consider them a little like vehicle tests, which are done
differently at Road & Track than they are at Consumer Reports. I'm maybe not in
the market for a vehicle from either end of that spectrum, but the tests
themselves may prove of value in finding out which vehicles fit into those
particular areas. Use the tests as another way of gathering information on the
tools you want or need. And realize that they're not, and can't be, complete,
and you'll come away a lot happer. Read multiple tool tests and decide. I've
differed with some magazines as to features that are valuable...Pop.
Woodworking, for example, likes higher speed (ca. 3400 rpm) benchtop mortisers;
I prefer ca. 1700 rpm machines. The difference is fundamental, and based on a
desire, or lack of desire, for speed in producing mortises in a hobbyist's
setting (a pro is not going to be using a benchtop mortiser after about the
second item he builds with it). I like slow and no burn of material or tool
(tool does not turn blue, in other words0. PW likes fast and accepts occasional
burn. With patience, the slow machine does not stall out. With patience and a
penchant for sharpening bits greater than mine, the fast machine won't burn
materials, and will seldom blue a chisel or bit to the point of non-utility.

To get called, among other things, a liar and a whore by some horse's butt
(speaking of the OP here) who has no familiarity with magazine production,
magazine writing, tool production, tool testing and a host of other needed bits
of information, is irritating. When I call a politician names, I usually have
some information other than the fact that he's in elected office. It would be
nice to get the same courtesy, though I do realize people "who don't intend to
hurt anyone" and who make such comments are not bright enough to understand
that.

Charlie Self
"A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers." H. L. Mencken

Charlie, I appreciate your response and understand the deadline
pressures and other pressures you and your fellow reviewers must be
under. I usually find value in reviews although at times I'm very
suspicious of the influence of advertisers and sales reps....but
that's not why I'm responding.

Given the schedule pressure, the magazine should hire more reviewers
or maybe a photographer to help. Then there's less pressure, more
thorough reviews, and readership would (hopefully) increase to cover
the costs.

You also mention some of the variables that make reviews different:
the good scientist tries to eliminate those variable (which I'm sure
you try to do within the time and money constraints you have).
Consumer Reports tends to do a pretty good job on the "science" end of
things.

You other points are well made. Thanks.


[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Jay Knepper writes:
>
> >
> >Reading the preceding thread has shown a stunning level of naiveté, and a
> >crassness which is usually found only in electrical threads.
> >
> >Now really, does anyone think that Laguna tools is going to come in last in
> >a battle of bandsaws if Laguna has been buying cover 4 for the last 3 years?
> >If so, well, there's little more to be said. Tool reviews in commercial
> >magazines are of limited value.
>
> Do you really think the Laguna is apt to come in last in a test of bandsaws?
>
> Of course tool reviews are of limited use, and for a variety of reasons that
> have zip to do with advertising. First, possibly foremost, my shop is not your
> shop. My electrical set-up may be totally different, shop arrangements HAVE to
> be different (when was the last time you had nine table saws in your shop?),
> time spent in set-up has to be different (when you test six saws to a deadline,
> you cannot spend a week of evenings on each saw setting it up and getting all
> the quirks out of it). Second, when I'm testing, again, I'm working to a
> deadline. I'm also arranging and shooting photos of the tools. I cannot run
> 1000 board feet of wood through each function of each tool. I often don't have
> time to run 10 board feet through. Tools such as planers and table saws are
> actually pretty easy in this arena, since I generally use a fair amount of oak
> and cherry from a local sawmill. And I cannot take the time, and won't have the
> budget, to run 10-15 board feet of teak or lyptus through the tools to see how
> that kind of treatment works on the particular tool.
>
> The tool is going to get assembled and set up as quickly as is possible for
> safe use. If it is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of adjustment from the factory,
> then it will get a bit of tune-up time, but otherwise, it is tested OOTB--out
> of the box. No tweaks.
>
> That gives a certain equality to the results, anyway, because the need for a
> lot of adjustment just to reach parity is going to be mentioned in the article,
> while the other tools start from an equal footing.
>
> I was talking this over with an editor yesterday, and we decided that for all
> the whines and whimpers, this is probably the best era for hobbyist woodworkers
> vis a vis tools that has ever existed. You can get it all, from Lie-Nielsen
> reproductions (and LN improvements along with Veritas improvements) on
> classical hand tools, but you can also get a wider than ever variety of brands
> of power tools to add to that, with a greater than ever variety of power tools.
> And most of those tools are of good or better quality, with much the lower end
> stuff halfway decent starter tools at almost no investment (though I've got to
> admit that a $40 CMS would find me standing WELL to one side on start-up, not
> just the first time, but every time).
>
> As time has passed, lower level tools have been improved. There are still
> "engineering" glitches that are surprising in some, alignment problems that may
> be easy, or impossible, to fix and a host of other possible problems. But the
> operative word, I think, is "possible". Most of what you'll find out there is
> workable, some of it is quite good, and some of it is excellent (Laguna
> bandsaws tend to fall in the latter category, and most often get tested with
> other tools in the same category).
>
> I've hammered, and seen hammered, too many large advertisers' products over the
> years to believe that many of the writers in the field are going easy because a
> company buys five or six or eight pages of ads per month in a particular
> magazine. And in the years I've been doing this work, I have never had an
> editor to tell me to favor an advertised tool over a non-advertised tool, or to
> favor a tool that doesn't deserve. The actual deal is usually, "Tell my readers
> what features the tools have and how well those features work."
>
> Tool tests serve their purpose if they give the reader an overview of many
> (sometimes not even most) of the brands out there, their prices and where those
> prices fit in the general range of the category, their ease of assembly (or
> lack of ease) and adjustment, their suitability for doing the jobs considered
> normal for the category, and the likelihood they'll keep doing those jobs for a
> reasonable length of time. If you expect detailed 10,000 bf use tests of each
> tool, or even in each category, then you're wasting your time.
>
> Personally, I consider them a little like vehicle tests, which are done
> differently at Road & Track than they are at Consumer Reports. I'm maybe not in
> the market for a vehicle from either end of that spectrum, but the tests
> themselves may prove of value in finding out which vehicles fit into those
> particular areas. Use the tests as another way of gathering information on the
> tools you want or need. And realize that they're not, and can't be, complete,
> and you'll come away a lot happer. Read multiple tool tests and decide. I've
> differed with some magazines as to features that are valuable...Pop.
> Woodworking, for example, likes higher speed (ca. 3400 rpm) benchtop mortisers;
> I prefer ca. 1700 rpm machines. The difference is fundamental, and based on a
> desire, or lack of desire, for speed in producing mortises in a hobbyist's
> setting (a pro is not going to be using a benchtop mortiser after about the
> second item he builds with it). I like slow and no burn of material or tool
> (tool does not turn blue, in other words0. PW likes fast and accepts occasional
> burn. With patience, the slow machine does not stall out. With patience and a
> penchant for sharpening bits greater than mine, the fast machine won't burn
> materials, and will seldom blue a chisel or bit to the point of non-utility.
>
> To get called, among other things, a liar and a whore by some horse's butt
> (speaking of the OP here) who has no familiarity with magazine production,
> magazine writing, tool production, tool testing and a host of other needed bits
> of information, is irritating. When I call a politician names, I usually have
> some information other than the fact that he's in elected office. It would be
> nice to get the same courtesy, though I do realize people "who don't intend to
> hurt anyone" and who make such comments are not bright enough to understand
> that.
>
> Charlie Self
> "A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers." H. L. Mencken

emptyshell responds:

>Given the schedule pressure, the magazine should hire more reviewers
>or maybe a photographer to help. Then there's less pressure, more
>thorough reviews, and readership would (hopefully) increase to cover
>the costs.

It's the 'hopefully' part that kills that idea. The actual answer would be
something along the lines of, 'hopefully, but probably not'. The concept of
actually using tools long enough to process even 100 bf of wood is a good one,
but to do that means a purchase, for an average review, of 1000bf of wood, say
oak. At what, $3 a bf. Sure, it has value after the test, or at least some of
it does. But how do you arrange to use that value, after you've laid out 3
grand for the wood? Too, who pays for the extra time needed to conduct such
tests, the waste removal needs, etc.? The reader? Sure he does. If there are
enough new readers because of the test's quality, then that's covered. But what
happens if there aren't enough new readers? Whoops. The magazine goes broke at
worst, changes back to the old test methods at best.

Run a major tool test in every other issue, done as above, and you can almost
bet on an increase cost level of 10 times the cost of the wood, possibly 15
times, because of labor and waste costs, storage for wood, etc. Assume the cost
of the current test is $7500. Add 30K to that, multiply it by, say, five times
a year (10 issue magazine...wotinell happened to monthly magazines?). That's a
painful shot in the wallet for most magazines with circulation in the 200,000
to 300,000 range. Toss in a photographer for those magazines which don't have a
special one on staff. Do you know what studio photographers charge per day? You
probably don't want to know. Let's say the small town types get lotsa bucks and
the big city types get lots more. They have to to amortize their costs and pay
for all their new equipment...it is also an evolving business these days.

>You also mention some of the variables that make reviews different:
>the good scientist tries to eliminate those variable (which I'm sure
>you try to do within the time and money constraints you have).
>Consumer Reports tends to do a pretty good job on the "science" end of
>things.

A few variables may be eliminated. Some can't. My shop can't be changed to fit
what the reader has, at least in part because there is no way to know what the
reader has. And there are probably 245,000 different styles among the quarter
million readers. You can't eliminate preferences among tool experts, and those
preferences will not always agree. You cannot eliminate far too many of the
variables, anyway. Deadlines cannot be eliminated without totally restructuring
the way magazines are produced. Some day, maybe...but, I doubt it.

Consumer Reports does a decent job on the science because they set a specific
set of standards among a staff of xx people before starting. You decide what
you're going to measure and what you're going to use to measure it, and you go
ahead. And it works to a great degree. They're working to a deadline, too, I
assume, so those pressures are there. That's a constant in any publication
business and in many others.

Tool set-up is non-existent for their work, and, in most cases, so is assembly.
They go to dealers and buy the cars and test them. Same with refrigerators. And
pick that one for a check: how hard is it to test a refrigerator? Check the
door seals for leaks. Check the thickness of the insulation. Check the
amperage. Check the size stated versus real size. Check how it holds
temperatures. Check the amount of electricity it uses to hold those
temperatures over a specific period of time. Present some staff opinions on the
efficiency of the storage space. There just are not that many variables
possible, in use or construction, of such commodities. And it's in such areas
that CR shines. The test are quick, relatively easy, require no outside
supplies (they don't leave milk in the various refrigerators to see if it sours
faster in one than in the other), need minimal photography.

The tool tests I've seen in CR were almost always close to idiotic. Selection
is for Joe or Jane Homeowner, and I am beginning to think no one really knows
what is useful around a house for a tool, including CR.

All that said, I'd say that many of the tool tests that are done these days
cover more than ever before in a more accurate manner, but because of the time
and cost constraints, it might well be the time to consider calling them tool
"impressions" rather than tests.

Charlie Self
"A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers." H. L. Mencken

You make it sound so hopeless of ever getting anything but tool
"impressions."

Has any magazine. e.g. Fine Woodworking, ever correlated newstand
sales to quality of the tool reviews. Such a tests could add credance
to your "hopefully, but prabably not" assertion.

[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> emptyshell responds:
>
[snip]

Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<eiqZc.3583$_%3.1930@trnddc06>...
> [email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > All that said, I'd say that many of the tool tests that are done these
> > days cover more than ever before in a more accurate manner, but
> > because of the time and cost constraints, it might well be the time to
> > consider calling them tool "impressions" rather than tests.
> >
> >
>
> At one time Shopsmith was doing something like this. They had three testers
> with varying experience test the same group of tools. While they did some
> objective testing, such as how many screws a drill could insert before the
> battery died, the meat of the 'testing' was their impressions and their
> opinion on the best use of each tool (occasional use, production, door
> stop).
>
> I suspect that impressions from a known source are more important to the
> 'hobby' woodworker than most 'objective' testing. Sort of 'if Ebert gives
> the movie a thumbs down, it's probably not worth seeing'.
>
> LD

I assume you either meant Shop Notes or Woodsmith - if Shopsmith did
the testing I can only assume that their tool(s) would always come out
on top ;)
BTW I like my Shopsmith and all my add-ons to it.

Dave Hall

[email protected] (Never Enough Money) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> You make it sound so hopeless of ever getting anything but tool
> "impressions."
>
> Has any magazine. e.g. Fine Woodworking, ever correlated newstand
> sales to quality of the tool reviews. Such a tests could add credance
> to your "hopefully, but prabably not" assertion.
>

So how different are the various tools, really, in a competitive
environment? And how much of a difference does it make to most
contractors, tradesmen, craftspersons, and/or artist/hobbyists?

Take for example the recent wReck thread, certainly not unique, regarding
air-powered framing nailers. At least 4 brands were named as being
certainly functional and reliable, and several others, with pretty good
reputations, generally, were indicated that they were no longer available,
and were not missed. Most of these tools had qualities that revealed
themselves over some years of fairly intensive use. Most of these tools,
as 'reviewed', exist today only in modified, updated form, for various
reasons, regulatory being one of those reasons.

I would contend that no magazine review is likely to have uncovered the
depth of understanding that was produced in those comments in that
certainly common thread. Even with the best of reviewers, testers and
photographers...

Any product is subject to the marketplace, and information about the
product is a substantial portion of the product, especially where users
care deeply about results, no matter the reason. And where reputation and
livelihood are involved...

By the way, advertising plays a role in the communication of information
which is difficult to replicate in other ways.

Magazines have their roles. I enjoy them immensely, and subscribe to 5 or
6 good ones. But tool reviews have their limits, particularly where the
differences between products are modest.

I mean, how big a difference is there really between a new Powermatic 66, a
new General 650, and a Delta Unisaw X5? And how much of those differences
are due to the distribution channel, shipping methods and random chance?

Remember, your mileage WILL vary...

Patriarch,
having said more than he intended, yet again...

Patriarch responds:

>I mean, how big a difference is there really between a new Powermatic 66, a
>new General 650, and a Delta Unisaw X5? And how much of those differences
>are due to the distribution channel, shipping methods and random chance?

All I can say to that is, "Pop the tops." You'll get an idea in a rush.
Powermatic's arbor assembly is the most massive, and there is more meat in
their cabinet sheetmetal. Beyond that, Powermatic always uses Baldor motors.
But you're right in one respect: all three saws are well enough built to last a
young and busy woodworker a lifetime, providing satisfaction with each use.

Charlie Self
"A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers." H. L. Mencken

[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Patriarch responds:
>
>>I mean, how big a difference is there really between a new Powermatic
>>66, a new General 650, and a Delta Unisaw X5? And how much of those
>>differences are due to the distribution channel, shipping methods and
>>random chance?
>
> All I can say to that is, "Pop the tops." You'll get an idea in a
> rush. Powermatic's arbor assembly is the most massive, and there is
> more meat in their cabinet sheetmetal. Beyond that, Powermatic always
> uses Baldor motors. But you're right in one respect: all three saws
> are well enough built to last a young and busy woodworker a lifetime,
> providing satisfaction with each use.
>
> Charlie Self
> "A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers." H. L.
> Mencken
>

And when you pop the top, what you get is an impression, based on
experience. A good writer, and a good photographer, can then share that
impression, with those willing to trust them. That's a proper role for a
magazine, a woodworker's club, a vendor sales representative, or, for that
matter, a bunch of friendly folks on USENET....

Most of us value your contributions, Charlie. I know I do.

Patriarch

Patriarch responds:

>
>And when you pop the top, what you get is an impression, based on
>experience. A good writer, and a good photographer, can then share that
>impression, with those willing to trust them. That's a proper role for a
>magazine, a woodworker's club, a vendor sales representative, or, for that
>matter, a bunch of friendly folks on USENET....
>
>Most of us value your contributions, Charlie. I know I do.

Thank you.

Charlie Self
"A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers." H. L. Mencken

Charlie Self wrote:
>All I can say to that is, "Pop the tops." You'll get an idea in a rush.
>Powermatic's arbor assembly is the most massive, and there is more meat in
>their cabinet sheetmetal.


I found it interesting that the trunnion brackets on the
Powermatic are so small. They look to be less than a foot
across where as on the Unisaw (and all it's clones) they go
from one side of the cabinet to the other. A small
matter/apparently one that doesn't matter but still a
surprise to me.


>Beyond that, Powermatic always uses Baldor motors.
>But you're right in one respect: all three saws are well enough built to last a
>young and busy woodworker a lifetime, providing satisfaction with each use.


Ditto that. In reality a good and well tuned contractors
saw with a good motor and blade would be enough for 90
percent of the hobbyist wooddorkers.

UA100

[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> All that said, I'd say that many of the tool tests that are done these
> days cover more than ever before in a more accurate manner, but
> because of the time and cost constraints, it might well be the time to
> consider calling them tool "impressions" rather than tests.
>
>

At one time Shopsmith was doing something like this. They had three testers
with varying experience test the same group of tools. While they did some
objective testing, such as how many screws a drill could insert before the
battery died, the meat of the 'testing' was their impressions and their
opinion on the best use of each tool (occasional use, production, door
stop).

I suspect that impressions from a known source are more important to the
'hobby' woodworker than most 'objective' testing. Sort of 'if Ebert gives
the movie a thumbs down, it's probably not worth seeing'.

LD

[email protected] (David Hall) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<eiqZc.3583$_%3.1930@trnddc06>...
>> [email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> > All that said, I'd say that many of the tool tests that are done
>> > these days cover more than ever before in a more accurate manner,
>> > but because of the time and cost constraints, it might well be the
>> > time to consider calling them tool "impressions" rather than tests.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> At one time Shopsmith was doing something like this. They had three
>> testers with varying experience test the same group of tools. While
>> they did some objective testing, such as how many screws a drill
>> could insert before the battery died, the meat of the 'testing' was
>> their impressions and their opinion on the best use of each tool
>> (occasional use, production, door stop).
>>
>> I suspect that impressions from a known source are more important to
>> the 'hobby' woodworker than most 'objective' testing. Sort of 'if
>> Ebert gives the movie a thumbs down, it's probably not worth seeing'.
>>
>> LD
>
> I assume you either meant Shop Notes or Woodsmith - if Shopsmith did
> the testing I can only assume that their tool(s) would always come out
> on top ;)
> BTW I like my Shopsmith and all my add-ons to it.
>
> Dave Hall
>

DUH! Shopnotes, of course!

Charlie Self wrote:

> Of course tool reviews are of limited use, and for a variety of reasons that
> have zip to do with advertising. First, possibly foremost, my shop is not your
> shop. [snip]

Essay well done. Thank you Charlie.
j4

jo4hn responds:

>Essay well done. Thank you Charlie.

Thanks. I forgot to add, that my skills and working habits will not often match
those of the reader, which means somewhat differing expectations, regardless of
whether their skills are greater or not as good as mine. Too, the aim of the
article is to serve ALL levels of woodworking skill and interest, which
introduces some unique considerations into the equation.

Charlie Self
"A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers." H. L. Mencken

Patrick Controy responds:

>"lucky1" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:5GSXc.194389$8_6.178469@attbi_s04...
>>
>>
>> It was not my intention to offend anyone. But I have the right to say how
>> I
>
>???
>You pretty much maligned the integrity of any woodwork author. Or am I
>missing something around your use of the word "whore"?
>If you meant to imply that you doubt that the editorial and advertising
>departments of a magazine are separate but equal...
>

If the guy didn't intend to offend anyone, why did he make unsupported
statements calling them names?

He's killfiled. Even if he's not as bad as he sounds, he's too stupid to bother
with.

Charlie Self
"A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers." H. L. Mencken