Lee Scoggins Now President and EVP at NextScreen

[Confused]

Some news:

 

https://www.hifiplus.com/articles/ai-pioneer-appointed-president-of-nextscreen-publishing-group/

[Confused]

So here is a thought.  Mr Scoggins now holds a very interesting position within the audio industry.  Some might be aware that he is currently banned from this forum.  OK - He broke the rules, he got banned.  That said, even arch criminals and murderers sometimes get parole after time served.

 

Personally, I think it might be interesting if he was back and contributing on the forum.  Not my decision of course, and he would need to obey the rules.  Otherwise this thread will just be an insult Lee thread.  Some might think he deserves it, but maybe he deserves a voice, and maybe his voice might be of interest now that he holds an influential position within the audio press?

[Confused]

15 hours ago, ARQuint said:

What I find puzzling—maybe even a bit amusing—is that some Audiophile Style forum participants—who are presumably fond of AS—fail to see that it operates on pretty much the same principles as TAS and Stereophile. With both TAS and AS, a manufacturer loans a product for a variable length of time after which the reviewer returns it.  TAS reviews a lot of expensive gear; Chris's rig is not exactly a budget system. TAS maintains close relationships with manufacturers as does @The Computer Audiophile. (Chris and I have both had Peter McGrath visit our listening rooms and count him as a friend.) TAS reviewers get accommodation pricing for products they wish to keep; so does Chris. TAS accepts advertising; AS accepts advertising.

Audiophile Style, TAS, Stereophile etc. do indeed share some similarities, which is perhaps not surprising considering that they cover the same area of interest and exist in the same world of products, manufacturers, and media.

 

What is more enlightening are the differences. For example, AS has provided a lot of technical information regarding MQA, most of which debunks the technical claims for the product made by MQA themselves. This technical information is shared openly and is available to anyone to accept, criticise, peer review, and so on.

 

TAS and Stereophile (and Mr Scoggins, to keep this on topic), tend to provide subjective comment on MQA and repeat the claims of MQA. I actually have no issue with subjective comment, or the repeating the claims of a company. What I do not like is blind acceptance of the claims of a company, especially when there is a lot of information readily available that indicates that the said company is being less than honest. A bit of due diligence is needed, dare I say it but a bit of old fashioned journalistic rigor, some objective investigation, some independently verified facts. The latter is completely absent from TAS and Stereophile, as it is with the UK based What Hi-Fi. (Although Stereophile redeems itself here by providing excellent measurements of products, just a shame the same is not true of MQA) So it does not matter to me how anyone tries to dress this one up, the differences are clear, and personally I take as I find. I'll go with whomever seems to be providing an objective assessment of the truth.

[Confused]

11 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

In Julian Hirsch's case, rather than 'not mincing words", I would call it either poor hearing or expectation bias. I don't recall the latter term being used in those days.

I cannot ever recall the term "expectation bias" being used in a mainstream hifi publication. Maybe someone somewhere has written it, but for sure it is not commonly used outside of audio forums.

[Confused]

4 hours ago, Jud said:

Have a friend conduct this test for you and tell us whether you’re the exception to many test subjects over decades of research: http://deutsch.ucsd.edu/psychology/pages.php?i=209

 

After all, if you can discern subtle differences between audio systems over hours or days, then remembering what note was played after a few seconds have passed is child’s play, right?

I think the key word here is "subtle". With subtle differences, yes, it is very difficult, or impossible, to accurately remember and discern differences.

 

With large, non subtle, differences, different factors are in play. For example, if you hear a system with massively overblown bass, maybe clearly resonating with the room at certain frequencies, this is something that you can easily remember, and recognise if you hear again. The same with say a massively overbright system, and many other things. I am sure that blind and with a time interlude I could reliably tell the difference between a track played on my iPhone speakers and my main system.

 

The above is probably stating the obvious, but I guess the problem with audiophilia is that much of it does indeed focus on the subtle.

[Confused]

30 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If you don’t expect to see it, I can confirm you won’t. 
 

 

Only joking. 🙂

I wasn't expecting that!