Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
hypersoar
mrkwse
It will be interesting if LMG can pull off what Linus is aiming for with the massive investment in a laboratory environment. There are huge parts of the tech market where the most critical reviewing you can find is anecdotal accounts of if the reviewer liked a product or not (or the more clinical reviews are drowned out by the anecdotal noise).
unwind
Just in case not everyone are in the loop, LMG is Linus Media Group [1] which is the publishing agency behind the popular YouTube channel "Linus Tech Tips" [2]. It is a different Linus, not Torvalds. :)
Tagbert
Thank you. I had wondered about that.
kitsunesoba
I'm hopeful for LMG's lab too. It's still a bit of a gamble, but from the sound of it the company is set up such that they can review products in an objective, data-backed way and tank any blowback from manufacturers that occurs as a result.
It's much more focused on enthusiast computer hardware, but Gamers Nexus[0] is doing good things in this space too. Their style is much more dry and data-dense than LMG's though, which isn't everybody's cup of tea.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChIs72whgZI9w6d6FhwGGHA
Brakenshire
https://www.notebookcheck.net/ also seems to do a lot of their own testing.
hansword
I want to second the gamers nexus recommendation here.
(To be frank, I think LMG labs is very much inspired by what GN has been doing over the last year or two.)
biggc
I appreciate the depth of gamer’s nexus, but their videos are like watching someone read an Anandtech breakdown.
branko_d
I think rtings.com are doing a good job on monitors.
girvo
While they don’t focus on the same equipment, Hardware Unboxed scratches that data-dense itch for monitors, processors and other components.
hirvi74
There is no denying that "Linus (Torvalds) Tech Tips" would not be extremely entertaining though. I would love to see him just go off on everything. :)
ajolly
For detailed tech reviews with lots of data of really been enjoying Igor'slab from Germany lately
humaniania
Gamers Nexus is better than Linus in every way that matters.
fartcannon
Do you trust Linus, though? He often promotes himself as without bias, but he very clearly hates Apple (except the watch). He also loves things he already understands (anything Microsoft). He's got heavy duty fanboyitis. And he's clearly someone you can buy demonstrated by his flip flopping AMD/Intel/NVidia praise.
I don't think he outwardly lies (at least not in a way that matters), or anything, but he's got pretty good soft selling skills which he definitely uses for evil/to make money.
All LMG channels are great. But to me anyways, they're great because they're basically comedies.
danudey
As an Apple fanboy, I can easily say that Linus does not hate Apple.
Linus DOES hate a lot of what Apple does; cases where they make things more unrepairable for no real reason, or various socio-political causes (like opposing Right to Repair or unions or whatever).
Regardless of that though, I would trust a Linus review of a new iPhone or iPad a lot more than I would trust a lot of other sites, because I know he's not going in with Apple fanboyism (the way I would, for example), and he gives reasons for all his opinions.
Fundamentally, he always comes across as principled. If he has an opinion he'll tell you, and he'll give you a reason. He'll admit that he was wrong when he (believes he) was wrong. He'll contextualize his thoughts so you can decide if this or that opinion is really relevant to your situation.
As far as I've seen, his AMD/Intel/nvidia opinion changes follow along with the facts. He's pretty PO'ed at Intel for basically just sitting around with their fingers up their asses for however many years, and only actually trying to make good products at good prices (and largely failing) when AMD suddenly stepped everything up.
nvidia makes great video cards, the best on the market, but he's not going to avoid calling them out for shady or anti-consumer business practices. AMD makes great CPUs and good video cards, but if they have a disingenuous benchmark or claim he's going to say something about it.
I dunno, no one is entirely unbiased, but from what I've seen over the years, I can trust Linus more than most other people.
teh_klev
> And he's clearly someone you can buy demonstrated by his flip flopping AMD/Intel/NVidia praise.
He gives praise where praise is due, that isn't bias. Many times on the WAN show he's reminded viewers and especially Red/Green/Blue fanboys that none of these companies are your friend. And big deal if he's more productive using Windows than Linux.
I'm in no way defending Linus, there's a bunch of stuff him and another staffer get up to that's utterly cringeworthy. But as to the rest of your comment I think it's your own biases that are playing in your head.
fnimick
He's also vocally anti-union and actively tried to stop his employees from marketing themselves on personal social media (to stop them from building a following and then leaving, I'm guessing), so I refuse to watch any of his content or support his business in any way now.
p1necone
> flip flopping AMD/Intel/NVidia praise
This is a silly take. Tech evolves and companies release more than one product at a time. It would be weird if LTT /didn't/ have "flip-flopping" takes on various companies.
p1necone
Not having bias doesn't mean not having an opinion on things. It's a review channel, it doesn't work unless he "likes" some things and "hates" others, as long as he elaborates on the /reasons/ for those opinions.
klausjensen
As somebody who has followed Linus for the last couple of years, I have to say I deeply disagree with your conclusion about hating apple and being for sale.
He is not without flaws, but I think he is fair, balanced and very well-intentioned.
cush
Phones and anything Apple are reviewed to oblivion. There are some incredible consumer product review YouTube channels out there too.. The Best one imo is project farm (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vO3UX4oEnZI). If you're into headphones, Crinacle's site/YT are on a completely different level than any other review site
I really hope LMG does videos in these styles with their lab
dymax78
> If you're into headphones, Crinacle's site/YT are on a completely different level than any other review site.
Audio Science Review was posting deep-dive technical reviews of amps, dacs, daps, iems, and headphones, years before crinacle made a post on headfi, and I say that as a member of the latter since ‘02. Many audio engineers and enthusiasts have attempted to remove the “reality distortion field” that permeates the prominent audiophile communities (headfi, audiogon) for years; ASR was one of the first to successfully to so (excluding sites dedicated to specialized equipment).
jterrys
Project Farm is pretty great. Got great advice for water filters, car wax, and drills
There really are brands out there that charge 200% more for a shittier product to just get carried by brand recognition alone.
Smoosh
I would also recommend The Torque Test Channel as very similar in approach to Project Farm.
manchmalscott
I believe their intention with the lab is to focus more on written articles instead of video content? He’s complained on his podcast (in the context of talking about the lab) about the decrease in quality print journalism in the tech space.
wincy
I’m curious about this too. He did a breakdown of how much money they get from ads and it’s not much considering how many employees they have. They have a lot of sponsorships and selling swag but I’m just not sure what their maximum size is as just another YouTube channel, even one with lots of revenue streams.
AussieWog93
Honestly, I think Linus has reached the point where even if his endeavour fails his family will be OK. Plus, he'd get to spend more time with them.
thr0wawayf00
The big problem with most YouTube review channels is that they're reliant on the vendors to provide them with free test units and other forms of access in order to grow their channels, and Linus is no exception.
I actually came across a "why I'm shutting down my channel" video a while back in which the host showed emails from the company whose product she was reviewing (it was a drawing tablet or something like that) pressuring her to show the product in a more favorable light.
It's so hard to tell who's actually objective in those review videos and who's censoring themselves at the request of a vendor.
hoseja
LTT is certainly NOT dependent on free review units any more.
donmcronald
I think the review industry is so bad that even a mediocre quality endeavor could gain a ton of traction. The problem with the current tech review industry IMO is that it seems like the benchmarking and review part of it are treated like separate business units that need to be self sustaining / profitable.
If you go by what LMG says on their podcast it sounds like the intent is for the lab to give them credibility and to act as an eyeball funnel, even if it needs to be subsidized by the entertainment side of the business. They've already shown that it's possible to make entertaining reviews if you keep the technical details light, so what they really need is hard data to back them up when they trash a product or get accused of being a corporate puppet.
I personally find their videos to be entertaining, so if I'm looking to buy something and I know they evaluate tech products, I'll go to their labs site, look for entertainment videos that are produced from that data, and watch those videos. Then when I find something I think looks like a good fit for me I'll jump back to the labs side to look at the details.
IMO the thing that might make LMG's effort different is that they're going into the space as a new participant. I think they realize the technical aspect of the lab is basically going to be content that needs to exist, but that no one reads (enough to be profitable) and their monetization is set up to accommodate that scenario. Compare that to traditional reviewers (and SEO spammers) that rely on page views for their revenue.
The whole review industry is going to keep shifting towards video and the low cost, low value SEO spam sites are a big part of that. Any existing review businesses that aren't shifting towards a hybrid model like the LMG / Labs plan are going to get crushed IMO. Even if it's not LMG doing it, it's going to happen eventually.
McAtNite
It will be nice if they do come up with an experiment based approach to reviews. Personally I really enjoy Gamer Nexus since they already do this.
Their coverage of the Nvidia cooler design change was really interesting to watch, and they went into depth on their testing methodology with both its strengths and weaknesses.
Their channel really convinced me to take a more critical look at other “reviews” and how they conduct them with either lazily held thermal camera or smoke machines.
tapland
And GN has someine making graphs who knows how to make them readable.
In LMG videos the graphs could be really crazy, though I haven't watched them for a while now.
throw0101a
> The Wirecutter is a highly flawed review site, but at least it's a real one. There are vanishingly few left for general consumer products. There's WC, Consumer Reports, and what else?
I like America's Test Kitchen for kitchen-y stuff.
Project Farm (on YouTube) for tools / DIY stuff perhaps.
zucked
ATK is, as far as I am concerned, the gold standard for kitchen reviews.
yurishimo
And they include best picks that have actually been tested if you might not be able to afford the number 1. So many channels might make a passing comment about a cheaper option, but you never know if the quality is kind of close or just the best option for them to make some affiliate revenue off of. At least ATK has the pedigree to backup their testing claims and anecdotal evidence. Their best pick spatula for example, I've seen in every commercial kitchen I've worked in.
undefined
birdman3131
I like a lot of project farm's videos but his electrical tape video was far off the mark of what actually matters. They were good tests for tape but bad tests for Electrical tape.
fooqux
Fair, and I'd also say that many of the tests he does could really use more data points. For example, testing torque using bolts- I've had a few bad bolts in my life that were weaker than they should have been. I really hope he does that but edits it out.
However, I would say that's the price you pay for an independent reviewer these days. He's (presumably) not simply reading a carefully prepared script by the vendor. That he actually pays for all the things he reviews is astonishing. Likewise, I'll forgive him the occasional bad video.
Speaking of, in the electrical tape video you mention, he tests for things he cares about. Presumably you would have want him to test resistance I presume? I would think so too, but in doing some research while responding to your post, that doesn't seem what anybody actually cares about. Most tapes advertise heat resistance only. I can't actually find a mention of tape in the NFPA, aside from checking it for heat-damage, which makes sense as in house wiring you would be using wirenuts, not tape to actually bridge and insulate connections.
Frankly, I can't think of a single time I've ever cared about it being an insulator since I was a kid hacking together batteries and wires. All that said, on second thought, I guess his video is fine after all; in my book, at least.
Smoosh
I already mentioned it above, but repeating it here.
I would also recommend The Torque Test Channel as very similar in approach to Project Farm, maybe a bit more technical and thorough. Their focus was on impact drivers, but they have branched out into other power tools, LED lights and hand tools.
tehwebguy
Project Farm rules for the types of products he tests, which is pretty narrow.
It seems like the only way to really get a review is to find someone on youtube who shows the product being used in a way you plan to use it, or someone who does a re-review after a period of time like a year etc
Xcelerate
> I like America's Test Kitchen for kitchen-y stuff.
For me, America’s Test Kitchen compromises on quality too much for the sake of convenience. And perhaps that is their target audience, but they dismissed Demeyere’s cookware out of hand for being too heavy and unwieldy, whereas a site like centurylife uses IR cameras and probe thermometers to actually measure heat distribution and retention across different cookware sets.
I don’t understand the “too heavy” complaint anyway; people cook with cast iron (Lodge / Le Creuset) all the time, and it is significantly heavier than Demeyere.
throw0101a
> I don’t understand the “too heavy” complaint anyway; people cook with cast iron (Lodge / Le Creuset) all the time, and it is significantly heavier than Demeyere.
Yes, and they have reviews for cast iron for people that (a) can deal with the weight, and (b) want the thermal 'inertia' of all the extra mass.
But plenty of folks (i) aren't strong enough, or (ii) want something more responsive to heat adjustments.
They have testers of all shapes and sizes: (five-foot-nothing?) Lisa McManus and (six-foot?) Adam Ried would handle things differently:
* https://www.americastestkitchen.com/tour
If something is heavy/unwieldy, and you have hot oil in it, then it can become a safety hazard. There are trade-offs in any engineering decision.
allenu
> I feel lucky if I find any professional reviews written by people who have actually touched the thing they're reviewing
I would say even Wirecutter doesn't always do this. I recall doing research on some products before and encountering a Wirecutter article and the research was essentially just what they themselves pieced together from online sources. They didn't actually try any of the products themselves (they admitted as much in the article). It was very strange and very disappointing.
aiisjustanif
I’m going to dissent here on this thread because I’m not seeing any references. I personally feel the quality of Wirecutter has gone down since NY Times just a bit. However, after almost a decade of reading Wirecutter they have overwhelming provided a decent “why you should trust us” section for staple consumer items. There is a good example from just today. [1] You can always say they should do more, but honestly they do more research that many others in the space.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-air-conditio...
wgjordan
>> They didn't actually try any of the products themselves (they admitted as much in the article).
> I’m going to dissent here on this thread because I’m not seeing any references.
OK, here's one such reference in "The Best Baby Formula" [1]:
> We didn’t do any testing for this guide, because babies have minds of their own, and it would be impossible to control for all of the variables that might make a baby prefer one formula over another.
Now there might be various reasons why actually testing the product is difficult or unnecessary to produce a helpful, well-researched review article, but there are definitely examples of this.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-baby-formula...
charlie0
In general, when a company gets bought out, quality tends to drop. Maybe not immediately, but definitely with time. The new owners have to make back their money and they'll start to cut corners wherever they can. These cuts, even if small, eventually have a negative impact.
I've lost a lot of faith in Wirecutter after NYT bought them out. This is my own very subjective feel on the topic and this article has vindicated my feelings.
criddell
I'd love for Tim Heffernan of Wirecutter to respond to this article. It seems pretty damning and I think it hurts his credibility.
inferiorhuman
"Why you should trust us" or not, I take issue with Wirecutter specifically with their air purifier reviews. They've continued to recommend Blueair and Coway despite being faced with complaints. I don't care why Wirecutter claims you should trust them but I do care when they just stick their head in the ground WRT feedback.
lifeisstillgood
I actually subscribe to Which a UK consumer reports guide. And mostly it's kind of like subscribing to the Guardian newspaper - putting a few quid where my shrivelled liberal conscience used to sit.
Oddly there is a episode on this on BBC podcast - https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-bottom-line/id2643...
This podcast is not the best (it's often too lightweight and too frightened to dig deep, or the format is wrong or something). But anyway this week was particularly terrible - hardly any teeth at all. But in amoung at all the annoying self serving justifications of the guests, it did try to raise the fundamental problem - truth, trust, and a sea of opinions, mendacious or not. How do we deal with it all?
gerdesj
"I actually subscribe to Which a UK consumer reports guide."
I used to too, for quite a few years.
However, their IT related reviews boiled down to "Windows PC: Good, Apple: Pretty, Linux and Open Source: Not on my watch". A Consumer Forum "for good" completely ignores Open Source - why? Personally I think it is down to a lack of imagination rather than anything politically motivated.
I did find many of their reviews useful - you get some great details on their working and they spend a decent amount of time on reviewing non IT stuff. The content articles were also often very decent, well written and often thought provoking. Their consumer campaigning has got as far as making changes to Laws too in the past so I do think Which is a general force for good.
I just got pissed off that as soon as a laptop or desktop or software article came along, the usual turgid crap would come out. Perhaps this has improved since around 2015 when I ditched them after being a subscriber for over 10 years.
bearmode
"Linux and Open Source: Not on my watch". A Consumer Forum "for good" completely ignores Open Source - why?"
Because for general consumers, most of it really isn't suitable compared to their competition.
nathancahill
Surely this will be the year of the Linux desktop.
digianarchist
I used to laugh at my dad for subscribing to Which, but now I genuinely see the value in it.
Today’s modern review sites are skewed in favour of whoever pays the most commission. It warps recommendations which is a problem Which never had.
bayindirh
There is also Rtings (https://www.rtings.com).
ethbr0
On the topic of displays, and specifically monitors, also the excellent TFT Central ( http://tftcentral.co.uk/ ).
saiya-jin
another one - https://pcmonitors.info/
Run by one guy but he tests really well, bought my relatively cheap 32" few years ago and its great for both work and gaming with VRR.
SmellTheGlove
I wish rtings had a Boolean on tvs so we could search explicitly for non smart models. That is basically the only thing else I’d want from that site, it’s really good.
mschild
I think the main problem is probably finding any mainstream consumer TVs that are non-smart. I have looked and beyond some obscure brands or short of incredibly expensive commercial models there are barely any options.
mwt
I'm with you, but I wonder if this is the sort of "only people on this site care and the vast majority of the readership wouldn't use it" thing ... I'm not sure it is, but it could be, and I wonder if somebody with their ear to the ground/access to more analytics knows.
baq
Look for digital signage displays and be prepared to pay double the price.
nopcode
Not sure why you would care so much but this is pretty close:
mrandish
Yes, for the things they cover Rtings is excellent.
OrwellianChild
Just going to throw out https://www.outdoorgearlab.com/ as a solid option for the climbing, hiking, and outdoor sport equipment they review. Most reviews involve real-world subjective testing, which is really what you need when you're trying to figure out whether a jacket is warm or a rain shell keeps you dry, etc.
GloriousKoji
I haven't trusted them for years, their testing is too subjective and the "objective" tests aren't considering the right things.
For example I bought hiking boots based on their recommendation. They were the most comfortable hiking boots I've ever worn but their terrible traction literally nearly got me killed despite their claims of having excellent traction. I angrily returned those boots.
I also bought a backpack based on their recommendation. They have this volume test filling a backpack with pingpong balls. It sounded like a great objective test in theory and my new pack had a higher volume than my old pack but I couldn't fit everything into it as the shape changed too much with a sleeping back and bear can in it reducing usable volume.
Finally I gave up on them when I was looking to buy a new headlamp. They ranked a headlamp lower because it's battery life was less than all the other headlamps being tested. But that headlamp max brightness was 3x the lumens of the other, batter life should have been tested at a comparable brightness level.
s0rce
I like to read their subjective discussions as one point of view but its really hard to get much use from their rankings. One obvious example is at one point in time all their highest ranked ultralight sleeping bags were quilts (ie. open back, no zippers) and then all of a sudden the quilts dropped to the bottom and were replaced with more traditional zip up bags. I assume the reviewer changed and simply doesn't like quilts, which is totally reasonable, they don't work for everyone but it wasn't clear how the rankings are useful when they just shuffled so drastically.
OrwellianChild
Agreed on the challenges with subjectivity and I probably should have clarified - I like their full-length testimonials. Never did figure out how their star rating and badges worked...
onemiketwelve
These guys were the first thing I thought of but to be honest for me, their suggestions have been a bit off. Ofc it's all subjective but I remember distinctly buying two full face helmets they had on their list because their ratings were so different from the concensus from reviews. I could'nt tell who to trust. The gearlab suggestion was very obviously inferior beyond first impressions
charlie0
I like this site as well. I trust them because I feel they are upfront with the level of subjectivity they are introducing. Also, it seems they at least buy and try out the gear.
bombcar
Toolguyd reviews tools and is open about where he gets them and when he's in a sponsorship relationship: https://toolguyd.com/category/tool-reviews/
But it's not all tools and often aren't super detailed.
AvE also reviews tools in slightly unorthodox ways: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztpWsuUItrA&list=PLvgS71fU12...
Terry Love has toilets: https://www.terrylove.com/crtoilet.htm
KennyBlanken
Being open about when you are in a sponsorship "relationship" is not something that earns you an internet cookie, it's required by the FCC https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/sponsorship-identificat...
bombcar
You would be surprisingly sad to learn the number who do not even attempt to do this, and the "marketers" that encourage it.
syedkarim
Those FCC regulations are for broadcasters.
underhill
I feel like the crowd-sourcing / SEOing / optimization of reviews on the internet has, for all its benefits, made everything too noisy and untrustworthy. I know myself and a lot of other people first search reddit now instead of google because it's impossible to get anything written by a real nonbiased human otherwise.
For similar reasons I've used things like Yelp less and less and tried to use professionally editorialized reviews (Eater, The Infatuation, Bon Appetit, etc) for food, well-known travel sites/bloggers for hotels, etc. There's still some paid incentives there too obviously but I can at least calibrate it to how much I align with the publication.
bityard
Heh. The biggest problem I have with Amazon isn't even the fake reviews, it's the people who leave reviews and don't even know what a review is, which is almost all of them.
"My gadget just arrived today and I haven't even used it yet but it looks well-made and I'm sure it will last forever. Five stars!"
wingworks
I see this ALLOT on AliExpress. I mean what can you expect, but somehow I expected more. Like why even bother posting if you havn't even opened the package up yet?!
closewith
A five star preview.
ethbr0
I (about half-honestly) blame Amazon, and more recently Google Maps.
All reviewers are not created equal.
In the early days before mass-SEO, you at least got the benefit of most reviewers being authentic, even if inept.
Now, we have the worst of all possible words: mass fake reviews + a public trained to expect only amateur-level reviews.
Scoundreller
It doesn’t help that google has largely de-prioritized smaller sites.
For better or for worse, my reviews about banks and their products have now been replaced by 10 links in a row to different sub-pages of the bank’s domain.
At least it used to make sure a blog article and a forum would appear on most search term’s top10.
I get it for my “XYZ Bank’s Phone Number - talk to a human now” pages. They probably shouldn’t have out-ranked the bank’s own official site, but the bank’s own website was much less user friendly than my own despite the abuse potential.
addicted
This article actually makes a bunch of claims itself that are false. For example, it claims that the Wirecutter believes air filters work like sieves. Whereas the Wirecutter review page for air purifiers goes into how they do not behave like sieves and also references a NASA study that shows how HEPA filters are good at capturing both particles smaller and larger than the 0.3 micron test standard.
It’s pretty obvious that the Wirecutter has used HEPA standard filters as a filter for whittling down the many air purifiers that exist in the world. They eliminated the IKEA filters because they do not meet HEPA standards (this blog’s focus on he true-HEPA marketing term is misguided, because the authors own referenced wiki link shows that E12 is not considered HEPA). However, they also reached out to IKEA about this, and the IKEA spokesperson told them their focus is on PM2.5.
They don’t recommend the IKEA filter based not on its inability to capturer finer particles, but because it’s not AS efficient as capturing finer particles as HEPA filters, AND because of its lower CADR.
It doesn’t meet the standards they set, so they don’t include it for price comparisons.
Maybe they haven’t set the right standards. Maybe they should have allowed for lower CADRs or for filters that meet lower filtration standards than HEPA.
However, the insinuation this article makes that they don’t seem to understand what they’re talking about is completely wrong.
Maybe this author should try reviewing over 20-30+ different air purifiers at a minimum without setting arbitrary thresholds up front and then get back to the Wirecutter folks.
phnofive
> HEPA filters are good at capturing both particles smaller and larger than the 0.3 micron test standard
That is due to MPPS - the only thing that matters is the actual reference particle size, not larger or smaller particles, as these are ultimately easier to filter. That is, particles between 0.2 and 0.3 microns are the most difficult to effectively filter out.
> their focus is on PM2.5
Which doesn't mean it doesn't trap 0.3 micron particles, as PM2.5 is Particulate Matter up to 2.5 microns in size, not 2.5 microns and up.
There are inconsistencies between their main air filter recommendation article and the specific review; if you haven't, read the article about the IKEA filter here: https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/ikea-fornuftig-air-p...
Lazare
The Wirecutter article is pretty bad though:
> But it isn’t a true-HEPA purifier, or a very powerful purifier, period. It’s designed to capture PM2.5—that is, particles 2.5 microns in diameter and above, in contrast to the 0.3-micron HEPA standard. That means it’s optimized for larger airborne particles such as pollen and mold spores, rather than for very fine particulates like wildfire smoke, as HEPA filters are.
First, "True-HEPA" has no legal or scientific meaning, so that's not a great look.
Second, and a minor point, the 0.3-micron standard related to the US HEPA standard, not the EU one. It is true that acording to IKEA it doesn't meet the EU standard for HEPA (barely), but we don't know whether it meets the US one. Eliding the difference between different standards isn't helpful
Third, and more seriously, PM2.5 means particles 2.5 microns in diameter and smaller, not larger, and PM2.5 filters are designed to capture particles 2.5 microns and smaller. Mold spores are mostly 4 to 20 microns, pollen averages around 25 microns, so while the IKEA unit may or may not be good at filtering wildfire smoke, it is not optimised for mold and pollen and is probably terrible at it, so that entire line of analysis is just backwards.
That's a lot of errors to pack into a short passage, and it really gives the impression that the author doesn't really understand or care about the topic.
As for CADRs, the linked post digs into the tests pretty well, and I agree with the conclusion - they're not credible. Note specifically that they get a variance of over 2.4 times between tests, and in somes cases measure a CADR vastly higher than the manufacturers claimed CADR. If you're reading a benchmark of a new graphics card and someone ran a benchmark twice and got 100 FPS once and 240 FPS the second time, and they just shrug and pick the number most convenient for their conclusion, you'd probably think something was up.
(That being said, the linked post is a bit iffy too. I'd call out specifically that they could have done a better job of acknowledging that US HEPA standards are a thing, that PM2.5 filters are a thing even if they're not a standard, and that technically E12 filters aren't HEPA, even if that's an arbitrary distinction most people ignore. But they're quite right that the Wirecutter - on the review of the IKEA unit - does in fact seem to think air filters work like sieves. Certainly I can't think of any other explanation for that passage about PM2.5 being good for pollen!)
thaumasiotes
> Second, and a minor point, the 0.3-micron standard related to the US HEPA standard, not the EU one. It is true that acording to IKEA it doesn't meet the EU standard for HEPA (barely), but we don't know whether it meets the US one.
Wikipedia cites this statement:
> Common standards require that a HEPA air filter must remove—from the air that passes through—at least 99.95% (ISO, European Standard) [...] of particles whose diameter is equal to 0.3 μm
to "European Standard EN 1822-1:2009, "High efficiency air filters (EPA, HEPA and ULPA)", 2009". Have they made a mistake? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEPA )
The same sentence goes on to note that the American standard is similar, but more strict, requiring filtration of 99.97% of 0.3 μm particles. As such, it is not possible to meet the American standard while failing to meet the European standard, so there's no need to discuss the American standard separately.
Lazare
From the same Wikipedia page:
> The specification used in the European Union: European Standard EN 1822-1:2009, from which ISO 29463 is derived,[4] defines several classes of filters by their retention at the given most penetrating particle size (MPPS): Efficient Particulate Air filters (EPA), HEPA and Ultra Low Particulate Air filters (ULPA).
The Wikipedia citation goes to a specification which is, annoyingly, not freely available, but Google seems to confirm that Wikipedia is correct. Many sources confirm that EU standards measure penetration at the MPPS, I can find nothing suggesting they use 0.3 microns for anything.
I think the introduction paragraph for that Wikipedia page is simply wrong, and it's conflating two different standards. The actual section on HEPA specifications, however, is much clearer.
thaumasiotes
> This article actually makes a bunch of claims itself that are false.
There's this howler:
> This passage implies that a (“true”?) HEPA filter is designed to capture particles that are 0.3 microns or larger. But an H13 filter must, by definition, capture 99.95% of particles of all sizes.
According to this guy, an H13 filter is required to capture 99.95% of neutrinos that pass through it. He's not in a position to accuse anyone of not knowing what they're talking about.
Moving to wikipedia, we see this text:
> Common standards require that a HEPA air filter must remove—from the air that passes through—at least 99.95% (ISO, European Standard) or 99.97% (ASME, U.S. DOE) of particles whose diameter is equal to 0.3 μm
I know which of those claims is more plausible. The standard described by wikipedia is theoretically capable of both being measured and being met. Neither is true of what dynomight.net says.
samatman
You cannot possibly be serious.
If you are, well, you will find that particles are contextually defined as pieces of matter in the solid or liquid phase which are suspended in the air.
I don't know if the standards body took pains to define matter in terms of atoms but if you want to run off and check? I won't stop you.
IshKebab
He's just honing his HN pedantry to a razor edge so he can point out that ackshewally it's not an air filter at all because it isn't restricted to gaseous fluids in the ratio of 0.78 oxygen to 0.21 nitrogen plus trace gases.
It can actually filter many types of gaseous compositions so it's really a gas filter. Have the authors even done a rudimentary PhD on filtration nomenclature? They are clearly unqualified to comment.
Seriously though I've seen enough of these sorts of Poe's that at least some of them must be serious. Must be weird living your life like that.
thaumasiotes
> you will find that particles are contextually defined as pieces of matter in the solid or liquid phase which are suspended in the air.
What is this supposed to mean? The solid or liquid phase is defined by the interaction of related molecules with each other. Suppose I have a cluster of 15 water molecules, suspended in the air, interacting with each other such that I can call them a tiny droplet of liquid water. Suppose I have one oil molecule, also suspended in the air. It is much larger than the 15 water molecules are combined. But it's not in a solid or liquid phase, because there's only one of it. The filter is required to handle the water, but there are no requirements for how it should handle the oil?
screye
Wirecutter is like Leetcode interviews.
The goal is not to find the 'best' option, but minimize false positives under intense time-pressure. Their recommendation is usually the 8/10 solid option that you can blindly buy and be moderately satisfied with. In the process, they drop out or misrepresent other comparable options, but their final recommendation is never shoddy.
This is in stark contrast to other reviewers like IGN who give 10/10 to every new cash-cow game, and The-Verge that tows the 'mainstream' line to play it safe. Additionally, Wirecutter's guides are up-to-date and cover every imaginable category. Are rtings, Anandtech, LTT, Crinacle, notebookcheck, gsmarena, etc. better ? Yes, a 100%. But each of them cover a small niche and particularly leave out appliances of all types.
I agree with Dynomight on Wirecutter being mediocre. But, consistent mediocrity is incredibly hard to execute at at scale.
I would never use wirecutter unless I absolutely had to. But, often, I absolutely have to. Because no one else remotely trustable is going around reviewing humidifiers and vacuum cleaners.
QuinnyPig
I find that the Wirecutter is awesome for things I will never go into stupendous depth for on my own — like spatulas. For anything more serious than that, it has increasingly been on the decline for years.
rat9988
I'm not sure why you would trust them to have a good false positive ratio when the claim is thay their review is influence by their partnerships.
Saint_Genet
Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but the IKEA one which they singled out as not recommended to buy is the only one in the article they don't earn a commission on when someone buys it
rahimnathwani
This is mentioned in the first line of the article:
"you should instead buy a different purifier that totally coincidentally happens to pay affiliate marketing commissions."
clairity
i literally ran into this with wirecutter when searching for an air purifier years ago. they recommended an inferior performing coway when their own tests concluded that blueair (211+) was significantly better. they've long since removed the chart showing this discrepancy, and they still recommend coway, no doubt because that's their affiliate partner. i bought the 211+ and have been mostly satisfied with it for my studio apartment, but beware, filters are relatively expensive.
in any case, if you really care about effective air purification, buy the largest/most powerful fan you can get (CADR tries to proxy this, but is an imperfect measure), because the critical factor is getting as much of the air volume through the filters before the dust settles (literally). filter effectiveness isn't nearly as critical as throughput.
nowadays i'd probably opt for two of the ikeas instead, and put them on opposite sides of the room (but not against a wall). that'd be cheaper and likely just as effective.
arkitaip
You know what the messed up thing about Wirecutter's affiliate marketing is?
Their Amazon links are consistently broken to the point where the links don't point to products but are faulty search queries. Like, if you are going to compromise your reputation doing affiliate marketing, at least get the damn links right so I don't have to perform a Amazon search to find the actual product.
bombcar
Some might say this is intentional, the whole point for the link is to corrupt your Amazon cookie so that they get credit for the (next?) purchase you make.
At least that's how I've always assumed the links work, not that you have to buy the exact product immediately.
hackernewds
This blew my mind. And would be highly unethical that Amazon should know, since the accounting often happens on the publisher's side
elromulous
This is definitely not a conspiracy theory. Incentives affect reviews, which is why truly unbiased review sources exist.
Nextgrid
Especially when they already have a proven track record of nastiness: https://www.xdesk.com/wirecutter-standing-desk-review-pay-to...
GavinMcG
I've used the Wirecutter, so I'm not going to claim to be totally unbiased. But I'm just not seeing any nastiness there: the reason they gave for switching their recommendation (while retaining their original recommendation as an upgrade pick) seems entirely legitimate. And as much as the company wants to emphasize the use of the word "kickback" it's not really apt: Wirecutter's model has always been affiliate linking, and that's exactly what they reached out about in their first and second emails. And when turned down, they still published the recommendation and (later) still identified it as the best option if cost isn't an issue.
elromulous
Oh wow! I hadn't seen this. Thanks for sharing.
hammock
Sometimes conspiracy theories are true. They are still conspiracy theories
CharlesW
“A conspiracy theory is not the same as a conspiracy; instead, it refers to a hypothesized conspiracy…”
oldgradstudent
Every prosecutor is a conspiracy theorist. The courts decide whether the conspiracy theory corresponds to a real conspiracy.
sumeno
There are other categories where they do recommend IKEA as the top option despite not getting a commission
stjohnswarts
Do you have proof of that? Otherwise it kind of is conspiracy theorist. I assume Hanlon's razor here rather than malice on the part of NYT/WC.
dchest
I thought the same, but IKEA does have an affiliate program.
asojfdowgh
They recommend against a bunch of things even if they get commission
jefftk
Agreed: the Wirecutter's emphasis on HEPA is not right for a purifier that sits in a room. Once you get to reasonably high removal efficacy (even 90%, let alone 99.5% vs 99.97%) flow rate matters far more than filter spec.
I also wish the Wirecutter would publish more detailed logs. They just check the particle density after half an hour, which is generally super low. Instead they could show the particle density curves, or the minute-over-minute decreases (ex: https://www.jefftk.com/p/testing-air-purifiers)
99_00
>HEPA is not right for a purifier that sits in a room
Why not? I don't know anything about HEPA, or quality, air flow, etc.
jefftk
The article explains it well:
Here’s a thought experiment: Take a 1000 cubic feet room and a purifier that processes 100 cubic feet of air per minute. (I follow Wirecutter in using vulgar imperial units.) Assume pessimistically that all particles are the worst-case size. If you run that purifier with an E12 filter, the fraction of particles that will remain after one minute is
.1 × (1-.995) + .9 = 0.9005.
Meanwhile, if you run that purifier with an H13 filter instead then the fraction of particles that remain will be
.1 × (1-.9995) + .9 = 0.90005.
rootlocus
Another application of Amdahl's law.
asojfdowgh
I really don't like this math, no one actually stops at that point, you take the output, la, "0.9005" and re-run it
(0.9005 × .1) × (1-.995) + (0.9005 × .9)
etchalon
The idea that the difference between 0.9005 and 0.90005 is "small" is … weird.
The moment I read that I checked out on the rest of the authors opinions.
highwaylights
Almost all of these review sites, not understanding the physics involved, believe a HEPA filter sieves particles down to a size of 0.3 microns, which implies that anything smaller passes on through.
This is utterly false. HEPA filters are measured at the efficiency of what’s known as the MPP (the Most Penetrating Particle size). It’s the hardest particle size to capture as it can get by the two methods used to capture large particles (impaction), and smaller particles (diffusion).
Considering almost none of the air in a room is passing through the filter at a given moment, the efficiency of the filter is less important than how much air it moves through the filter media per minute, which IKEA have favoured here.
Essentially this filter performs close to par with more expensive units, while using less energy, and having dramatically lower costs for filter replacements when due.
What they don’t do is give reviewers either kickbacks or basic physics lessons.
weaksauce
> Almost all of these review sites, not understanding the physics involved, believe a HEPA filter sieves particles down to a size of 0.3 microns, which implies that anything smaller passes on through.
To be fair, it took a pandemic for me to go to the literature of mask effectiveness and finally found the "on the filtration efficiency of fiberous filters" paper that showed the u shaped curve. it's not something that they scream from the hills about in their product brochures. That said it should be screamed from the hills.
DantesKite
Thank you for this comment. Really gave me a lot of clarity for how to think about air filters.
s0rce
HEPA makes sense if you filter all the air, ie. the filter is inline like in a laminar flow cabinet/cleanroom or directly inserted in an air stream filtering 100% of the downstream air. In those cases you care a lot about how many particles make it through since they will cause yield loss or contamination in the processes.
seoaeu
Yeah, the difference is whether you can run the same air through the filter multiple times.
Lazare
For EU standards, a filter removes X% of the hardest particle size to remove (called the Most Penetrating Particle Size or MPPS). That size varies between filters, but is often around 0.3 microns. Filters will do better than X% for particles both larger and smaller than the MPPS. So for the EU standard, we're saying "it'll do X% worst case, and better than X% for all other cases, meaning it'll always filter out more than X% of all particles, regardless of size".
If X% is 99.95% or higher and below 99.9995%, it's technically HEPA; 99.9995% and above it's ULPA, and below 99.95% (but 85% or higher) it's EPA.
So let's say you've got an E12 filter that removes 99.6% of particles. Technically not HEPA, but after one pass through the filter and you've got 0.4% of the particles left. Two passes and you've got 0.0016% left, three passes and it's 0.0000064% left.
An H13 filter might remove 99.97% of particles. One pass and you've got 0.04% left, two passes and you've got 0.000016% left.
Or in other words, one pass through a technically HEPA filter might leave you with 25 times more particles than two passes through a technically non-HEPA filter. So if the air is cirulating back through the filter (as it would in a closed room), what matters is both how good the filter is and how much air it can filter. And since at the high end the filters are all so good, the volume of air processed dominates. A filter that processes twice as much air is vastly better than one that filters out an extra fraction of a percent of particles.
(US standards are similar, but the cutoff for HEPA is 99.97% of 0.3 micron particles, not 99.95% of "whatever the filter is worst at". But the difference is generally irrelevant.)
undefined
asojfdowgh
> which is generally super low.
Except when it isn't, which is kinda the point: Its a fan and a filter, if the fan is improperly fitted, path of least resistance starts playing, if the filter is improperly fitted, blah blah
making a fan spin to the point of getting the most volume allowed through a filter, is probably the easiest bit of the entire process
joshstrange
Wirecutter has gone to shit and stopped being useful about 3-4 years ago. Their move to a paid subscription was very odd to me because they had also lost all my trust by that point.
There are countless examples of recommends products doing a bait and switch (changing the materials/product after the wirecutter article recommending them came out) and just cases of Wirecutter giving bad recommendations.
bombcar
> There are countless examples of recommends products doing a bait and switch
This is a larger problem than just Wirecutter, it would be interesting to have an industry trade body or something similar that would document when material changes have happened to the same product name/number. Sure, many would be immaterial, but there are substantial ones that happen all the time (if the product is big enough to have "fans" they notice and track this stuff).
istjohn
The worst is that they've deleted comments calling out bad recommendations.
dfdz
> Their move to a paid subscription was very odd
above several people note that
> the IKEA one … is the only one in the article they don't earn a commission on when someone buys it
How do you want wirecutter to stay economically viable?
joshstrange
I'm saying that I would have paid 3-4 years ago before I lost trust in the site. I have no issue with affiliate links (if the site remains neutral which seems almost impossible) but it's clear to me WC sold their soul a while back and subscription fees are a last-ditch attempt to get some more money out of it.
I almost did pay when they announced they were going the subscription route but after being burned or almost-burned (saved by reading reviews about a bait and switch) I decided I no longer cared about WC recommendations.
notoriousjpg
surely moving away from being ad or affiliate driven would create more trust?
breput
Big Clive made a video and wrote an OpenSCAD script[0] which allows you to 3D print a base and adapter to convert a regular 120mm computer fan into a "true" HEPA air purifier.
You might already have a spare 120mm fan laying around - I am using a $8 ARCTIC P12 fan[1] which is very quiet and is designed to work with high static pressure. The generic filters[2] are two for $17, (supposedly) H13 grade, available from a number of suppliers, and last a very long time. You could use them one at a time but I stack the two filters on top of each other and seal them with electrical tape for more surface area.
The fan isn't super powerful (56 CFM) and the appearance is not as polished as commercial models, but it does have a certain aesthetic to it. The area where I live rarely has any air quality issues but I have noticed it really cuts down on dust.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Vmh2Ip2Vxg (script in the Description)
steamer25
Matthias Wandel recently did some experiments over several options. A decent furnace filter, when duct-taped to a box-fan, did surprisingly well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDZ9yUdM2wA
It turned out that my local hardware store had a similar pre-manufactured offering with a slightly less Jerry-rigged aesthetic. We bought one for my son's allergies but I also noticed an improvement on the whole upper floor of our house. Box fans can move a lot of air. Furnace filters are cheap commodities with a large cross-sectional area that also allow a fair amount of flow.
breput
There seems to be two main use cases for a room-sized air purifier:
If you live in a polluted city or are affected by wildfires, having a box fan-sized model is almost a necessity. It is going to be noisy and unsightly but undeniably more effective. Having a few furnace filters laying around for air quality emergencies is probably not a bad idea.
For day to day use in a low pollution area, where dust or pollen is the major concern, I really like the little 120mm fan purifier. It runs 24/7, unobtrusively, and is really effective for what it does.
vl
Surprisingly, there are ultra-quite full-size fans as well. I bough Vornado fan from Amazon, and this is one of the best devices I ever had. On first two speeds it’s basically silent, I use it 24/7 to ventilate room with bad air flow in my house. It’s also Alexa integrated, but I never can remember the commands.
aftbit
Thanks for sharing this! Can you provide the values of the variables for that exact linked filter and fan? I'd like to print this while I wait for Amazon shipping. I bought ASIN B07GJG285F instead - same fan, but faster shipping for me.
screwhole=5; //fan screw hole diameter (5)
filterhole=92; //HEPA filter hole diameter
thickness=1.5; //Thickness of plastic layer (1.5)
insert=10; //Length of insert into filter (10)breput
You'll definitely want to bump thickness up to 2.0 mm for more rigidity. Otherwise just measure the diameter of your filter and maybe round up slightly.
I put a layer of electric tape around the flange where the filter adapter inserts into the filter and it makes a very nice airtight fit. Finally, just print it with the big end facing down and you shouldn't need any supports.
screwhole=5; // fan screw hole diameter (5)
filterhole=59; // HEPA filter hole diameter
thickness=2; // Thickness of plastic layer (1.5)
insert=10; // Length of insert into filter (10)
KennyBlanken
That air filter will move such a small volume of air, it's basically useless unless you're in a small closet.
breput
Well, my experience refutes that opinion, but yes, it sized for a smaller room or less polluted larger areas.
My office is approximately 12' x 12' x 8' or 1,152 ft³. That means the room's air would (theoretically) completely pass through the filter every 20 1/2 minutes. As the article explains, even the lower quality filter in the Ikea air purifier is so close to 100% efficient that it isn't worth worrying about, so completely filtering the air three times per hour is nothing to sneeze at...
And the cost is negligible - the fan might cost $0 to $10, filters are $20/year, and electricity usage is around 2 watts or probably under $2/year.
Der_Einzige
But little to no dust will get into your computer, meaning less cleaning is necessary.
daenz
Protip: you can turn a box fan into an incredibly effective air purifier[0] (particle measurements in thread). The one they show is pretty elaborate, using 4 filters and some construction, but you can also use a single filter and slap it on the back of the box fan and have similar results. The air purifier industry is more about aesthetics than it is function.
0. https://twitter.com/LazarusLong13/status/1425517352624410627
donohoe
> The air purifier industry is more about aesthetics than it is function
Well, sure, to a point.
I could make my own air purifier (like the one you link) but it looks awful. I would not want that in my home. So yeah, aesthetics do matter. Its not the only thing but it is a factor.
daenz
> it looks awful. I would not want that in my home.
When west coast forest fires put dangerous levels of smoke into peoples homes, box fan air filters are an extremely valuable tool for lower income families. Consider yourself extremely fortunate if you are able to choose form over function on devices like this.
donohoe
Um. Okay. I was just responding to your comment about:
"The air purifier industry is more about aesthetics than it is function"
I didn't mention anything about dangerous levels of smoke, forest fires, low income families...
I take your overall point but I think you need to keep the context of which it was said and not add a different one.
jeromegv
Of course, but nobody is preventing that information to be shared. When I looked for air purifier last year, there was tons of articles I saw on how to build your own. This isn't hidden, there's tons of good resources out there.
I don't understand why you try to shame us for choosing to buy our own. Of course we are fortunate we can afford it. We aren't talking of a sports car here, it's few hundreds dollar, this is a perfectly fine trade off to decide to buy one.
post_break
Your comment is hilarious. Buying an air purifier that looks good makes sense, making an air purifier during times of crisis also makes sense. They are not even remotely the same thing. Oh boy you're so lucky you can get a Dyson, we've got wild fires here in California! You see how ridiculous that sounds?
stjohnswarts
I think the point is that aesthetics matter to you but not a lot of people care if they have a box fan + air filter stashed away in their bedroom for a cheap airfilter. Maybe if it was more prominent in the living or guest bedrooms?
fomine3
Where to put air purifier is also important (but depends on situation). So design is a bit important to put on good place.
goodpoint
First, a nice looking case does not justify the extortion prices of most purifiers. Also many people have serious allergies and don't have 200 $/euro to spare.
Second, you know you can max a box yourself or hide a thin purifier under a desk or above a tall cabinet?
Hamuko
I almost want to replace my old Electrolux EAP300 with an IKEA one because it looks less like shit. The EAP300 is just this big floor beheamoth with no aesthetics. Lower filter costs wouldn't be bad either (if the IKEA filters last as long as the Electrolux ones, they're under half the cost). It's just so hard to justify as long as my old air filter still functions.
Rebelgecko
Compared to a dedicated air purifier, a box fan one is louder, has higher energy consumption, and is uglier (I suppose the last one is subjective).
If it's something you only use a couple days a year when your region is on fire, then absolutely go with the design with lower upfront costs. But if you're running it 24/7, it's worth thinking about the extra 40-80 watts that a box fan uses.
For me, I figure the electricity difference comes out to around $100/yr so getting a dedicated air purifier has paid for itself (although I live in an area with fairly expensive electricity). It also has some nice bonuses compared to a box fan like auto adjusting speeds and a prefilter that hopefully helps the "real" filter last longer.
jeromegv
I mean... I'm an IT professional. I have no time, energy, desire or ability to build. my own fan, maintain it, and trust that it does a good job. That's the reason I bought an air purifier.
The restaurant industry is also there for people that don't want the time to learn to cook certain dishes themselves. And (many) restaurants are still thriving.
postalrat
As an IT professional I find myself with the time, energy, desire, and ability to do many projects like this myself.
Are you sure you are a real IT professional?
lwelyk
Is it really inconceivable that someone might want to pay a modest sum of money to avoid having to build and maintain a custom-made version that is uglier?
prash_ant
We should appreciate the diversity of the 7,903,275,000 people in the world. Everyone single one of us has different opinions, ideas, abilities and interests.
spiderice
Surely this comment is satire
Der_Einzige
I now run a MERV 16 furnace filter (yes, my aprilair system explicitly supports it, no I will not hurt my furnace) for central air filtration alongside two box-fan filters (the easy slap on the back kind - I think I'm using something equivalent to MERV 13 on the back, can't go higher for the size) around the house and a quiet regular air-filter in our room.
All of my wives problems related to allergies or breathing have gone completely away. Guests comment at how good/clean our house smells. Stuff takes longer to mold when its left out. 10/10 would recommend.
turtlebits
The problem is that on low, it’s too loud and pushes/filters too much air to be needed 24x7. It’s also bulky. I rather use a smaller profile one that can be left on all the time (even if it costs more)
I have the box fan and only use it when AQI is high (wildfire season)
makeitdouble
Is that a "pro" tip ?
Otherwise Vacuum Wars channel had an entertaining test on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QT8SQjp-y0
The channel is great in general for everything vacuum. As far as review goes they put a serious effort in them. The brief foray into air cleaners was a great parenthesis.
DantesKite
Thank you. This is amazing. Precisely what I've been searching for. Something cheap, affordable, and most of all, moves a large quantity of air within a short amount of time. Loudness doesn't bother me one bit since I almost always have white noise playing in the background.
99_00
Is that what you use? What is your personal experience with it?
I think this is good if you are in a wild fire scenario and air purifiers are sold out, or for your home work shop.
Otherwise I suspect it is very energy inefficient and noisy.
daenz
I haven't used that specific construction, but I have used this one[0] when I moved to a location without realizing the extent of the wildfire smoke. It worked well, but yes it is noisy on the highest setting. I continue to use it because it's inexpensive and the parts are readily available.
0. https://deohs.washington.edu/edge/blog/how-make-box-fan-filt...
undefined
yurodivuie
Probably more aggro than necessary... Wirecutter takes H13 to be the minimum level that can be considered "HEPA" because that seems to be the "H" in "H13", per the same chart that Dynomight references in Wikipedia (though they cut off that column in their own article).
hooloovoo_zoo
The Wirecutter takes that standard to be minimum as that is the minimum necessary to be considered a HEPA filter, which the author should presumably know as that is stated in 2 articles they cited lol.
batmanthehorse
Yeah this was very bizarre to me. It seems like the author just missed the basic fact that the H13 is the same H that makes it 'true' HEPA.
He can (and did) argue that this distinction doesn't really matter, but the distinction is still part of a well-defined standard that The Wirecutter didn't invent.
stephen_g
That's not the point though - that part is technically true (EPA filters are 'Efficient Particulate Air' filters and HEPA are 'High Efficiency Particulate Air' filters, and the E and H correspond to those respectively).
The point of the article is that the Wirecutter authors don't understand the physics of air filters and gives the difference more emphasis than what actually matters - it doesn't actually make a massive difference in this particular application. For a purifier that intakes and exhausts in the same space, getting more airflow through the filter per hour can mean over time it's basically the same effectiveness, and using a slightly lower spec filter can be a good design trade-off because it doesn't require as much pressure so it can use less power per unit volume of air filtered.
Of course, in other applications, like bringing air into a cleanroom, it makes a massive difference, but that's not what we're talking about.
jldugger
What does the H in H12 stand for then?
yurodivuie
It's actually E12 vs H13 - there is no H12. The "E" in "E12" stands for "EPA", as opposed to "HEPA".
jldugger
aww jeez
adament
According to the table it is not H12 but E12 which corresponds to Efficient Particulate Air filters (EPA), I.e. not high-efficiency.
irishloop
I see a lot of discussion here about Wirecutter and/or Consumer Reports being untrustworthy. But I am not sure "reviews" are a solvable problem, really.
The human element of perception is inherent to reviewing products. I might think something is genuinely better than you because it meets my needs better. Or because you got a bad part in yours through sheer bad luck. Or I had a migraine that day.
I usually just try to google whatever product I am trying to understand and read a few articles and try to at least hone in on what might be the most authentic or at least reviews that are well-written and seem to care about the product.
But there's no perfect system. I went through this whole process trying to figure out the best mattress and at some point you just gotta give up and say hey they're all basically glorified piles of hay let's just do this.
armchairhacker
That’s why you look at reviewers who have similar other opinions to yours, and look at pros / cons instead of the overall rating
pigbearpig
People should use Wirecutter and CR to find a list of products that they'll probably be happy with. The expectation that they can identify the absolute best product for everyone is impossible and this article/discussion is probably a bit unfair.
If I'm an expert in a product area, then I'll find a more specific review site or do the analysis myself, but if I'm not, then Wirecutter and CR do a pretty good job of helping me avoid duds.
addicted
In all it’s bluster, this article forgets to add the fact that the Wirecutter actually tested the IKEA device, and didn’t just go by theoretical specs.
> Tim tested the Förnuftig in his 200-square-foot spare room, using the methods described above. But rather than focusing on its performance on 0.3-micron particles, he noted how well it removed 3-micron particles from the air. (IKEA confirmed that this was the appropriate size to look at; it’s the closest to PM2.5 that our TSI AeroTrak particle counter can measure separately.) The Förnuftig disappointed, even when we considered that the test room was larger than the machine is meant for, as it removed just 85.2% of 3-micron particles in 30 minutes on high and 73.6% in 30 minutes on medium. Its performance on 0.3-micron particles was, as expected, worse: 64.5% removed on high and 53.5% on medium. Compared with our budget/small-space pick, the Levoit Core 300, which removed 97.4% and 92.6%, respectively, of 0.3-micron particles and virtually all 3-micron particles on the same settings, that’s very poor.
buildbot
Errr direct quote from the article: "These tests… are not credible.
Take the 3.0-micron tests on medium, where Wirecutter claims “virtually all” particles were removed. If we take that to mean 99%, that implies a CADR of 236.2. (The math is below.) That is 75% higher than the manufacturer’s claimed performance on high.
It also contradicts the Wirecutter’s own tests. On a different page, they tested the same purifier on medium in a (smaller) 1215 ft³ room and found only 92% of particles were removed. This implies a (plausible) CADR of just 98.1.
So we can either (a) accept that the purifier’s performance randomly varies by a factor of more than 2.4 or (b) conclude that the Wirecutter did an extremely shoddy job of running these tests."
Why did you make three separate top level comments on this?
anamexis
There's a whole section on the Wirecutter's tests, called "On tests."
ipsum2
This is somewhat addressed in paragraph about steady state.
logifail
I'm pretty skeptical (and that's putting it mildly) of any website that uses affiliate marketing links. I can't see how objectivity can survive in that environment.
A concrete example is frequent flyer/travel blogs. I vaguely know the guy who runs the UK's largest one, I've met him in person several times, fairly nice bloke. He's worked very hard to build his site, publishes high-quality content, and is often the first to write about new places and routes of interest. His site has a thriving forum and allows comments on his posts.
He also pushes credit card offers and his site is littered with affiliate links.
Hmm, you say, that's OK, it doesn't necessarily mean he's lost his objectivity.
Except, his articles will say that the best way to book flight or hotel X is via offer Y (coincidentally in affiliate scheme Z, which is where the "book now" link sends you to). Then someone in the comments will pipe up to mention an alternative cashback route that is objectively better. He will delete that comment and any replies to it. So those who aren't aware of what's going on believe his article is the objective truth, and keep feeding the beast by clicking on his affiliate links. They miss out on all the better deals because they involve booking in ways that no-one's allowed to mention on his site.
This has happened over and over again. To me, affiliate marketing is basically a cancer.
harrisonjackson
There are categories where the incentives are equal enough across all the products so you can maybe possibly trust the reviews more.
If all the products are similarly priced and from the same retailer (ie amazon) then there isn't any incentive to recommend anything other than the best.
Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
The Wirecutter is a highly flawed review site, but at least it's a real one. There are vanishingly few left for general consumer products. There's WC, Consumer Reports, and what else? They've seem to have all been killed off. When I'm researching some category of product, I feel lucky if I find any professional reviews written by people who have actually touched the thing they're reviewing. I know we've all had the experience googling "reviews of X" only to get overwhelmed with SEO spam. Forget finding something written by somebody who has experience with it. It's hard enough to find something written by a human.