firedog Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 8 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said: A textbook example of "failing upwards". A bit unfair, he might be very good professionally, when he isn't writing about MQA. tmtomh 1 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three BXT Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Popular Post firedog Posted December 3, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 3, 2019 12 minutes ago, Confused said: 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? The simple truth is that in his MQA discussions he was a complete obfuscator, and changed his criteria pretty much every time he was shown to be wrong. He also clearly didn't understand all the technical issues involved and refused to acknowledge that, and instead just regurgitated "Bob speak". I don't think he had a whole lot to contribute. He does have a lot of experience with audio, so I guess if you just want subjective evaluations he might have something to add. That said, none of us know much about how he behaves in his professional life, or his level of competence. He's clearly an intelligent individual, so I just thought we should give him a break in that area instead of having a whole thread of smug comments about him. Especially when he is banned here and can't respond. I agree, what is the point of a Lee Scoggins insult thread.... christopher3393 and tmtomh 2 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three BXT Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Popular Post firedog Posted April 2, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted April 2, 2023 10 hours ago, ARQuint said: This thread has had some insightful observations and some that are more poorly informed, inconsistent, and naive. Lee Scoggins is leaving TAS because he fulfilled the task that Tom Martin hired him to do: facilitating the modernization and diversification of the magazine. The press release summarizes what was accomplished during Lee's tenure, which includes the burgeoning You Tube channel and an increasing differentiation between the focus of the two audio magazines that Nextscreen owns, TAS and HiFi+. Harry Pearson made life-sustaining changes in his time, when he started accepting advertising and, years later, when he sold the magazine to TM. Now we are witnessing the latest steps to keep TAS relevant but still true to its founding ideals. The platform(s) are now in place. As Tom Martin says in his statement, the charge for the next stage is continuing to present quality content in a way that will assure the magazine's viability for another 50 years. Yes, the 50th Anniversary issue comes out this summer. 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. Some have expressed the belief that TAS's reviews are so universally positive as to qualify as puff pieces, as ad copy. First of all, read our reviews more carefully and you'll find plenty of mentions of a product's limitations. That said, the whole idea is to choose products that deserve positive reviews. Robert Harley's editorial in the new issue about how equipment is selected for review says exactly that: "The selection criteria start with whether we have reason to believe the product will be outstanding." We are certainly not alone in this approach. Have a look at @The Computer Audiophile's last ten reviews. I'd say the enthusiasm level ranges from very positive to flat-out raves. Is this "grade inflation?" I don't think so—there are just a lot of superb products to write about, and those are the ones that consumers need to hear about. Andy Quint The LS thing doesn't interest me. I don't care where he works or why he is somewhere. I do know that I don't trust a thing he says, and that he has proven himself to be intellectually dishonest, including via posts at this site. He's also basically admitted in print that his goal is to further "the industry". That means (as he's described it) furthering his high level of acceptance among his insider hi-fi cronies who he considers to be "the industry": in other words, being one of the "in guys" who can pal around with a small group of manufacturers making expensive equipment, some of whom make outrageous claims not backed by any measurements or science. And backing MQA. With no pushback from him, b/c they are his buddies. And sorry Andrew, the rest of your post is way off the mark. AS isn't like TAS. I don't see Chris comparing the importance of a somewhat new hifi technology to the Copernican revolution in science. I see him giving an industry person like Bob Stuart space to present his claims, asking pertinent questions, letting READERS ask questions, and when evidence of false claims by MQA arise, publishing them. TAS has done little other than to promote MQA endlessly, and knee jerk defend it, accepting anything BS says as truth. Chris has reviewed plenty of relatively inexpensive gear over the years (I personally wish he'd review more). And encouraged DIY. There are numerous reader written articles here about more modest hi-fi gear. And yes, when you review very good gear you are going to get positive reviews, b/c, let's face it, almost all hifi gear these days from any reputable manufacturer (even Chinese ones) is very good, and some not uber expensive stuff approaches state of the art. Stereophile has done a better job than TAS of acknowledging that, IMO. We all know Chris' prejudices about certain brands. He's very upfront about it. Unlike TAS, Chris allows dissenting voices and there are plenty of reviews and comments here that criticize equipment or manufacturers. Even Chris' buddies. Not to mention, that AS has actual journalism going on, and criticizes "the industry" when it needs to be criticized. TAS has sold out to the industry and is about the good of the industry, even when it is at the expense of the consumer/reader. As is Stereophile. JA2 writes editorial/opinion pieces that are totally in the tank for "the industry" and explicitly says that "the industry" needs to be supported, even when it is anti-consumer. You don't find that here. bambadoo, MikeyFresh, kumakuma and 6 others 9 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three BXT Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Popular Post firedog Posted April 2, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted April 2, 2023 10 hours ago, PeterG said: It feels like you've just revealed the underlying unspoken issue on half of this thread. This is a sad aspect of AS--when a person writes favorably of MQA they are flamed by a large number of people, even when that flaming is completely off topic. The last one of these was on Michael Fremer. That one was especially ironic since MF has virtually nothing to do with digital music. Just to be clear, I do not write because I like MQA. It's just that the incessant repetitive bashing that bugs me Fremmer wrote stuff that was factually incorrect and showed a fundamental lack of knowledge of the subject of his article. This was pointed out to him as a factual error, including sources showing him what to read so he could understand his mistake. He wasn't "flamed" nor was he "bashed" in the comments section of his article. HE dug in and refused to read the material involved and defended his ignorance based mistake. The criticism wasn't because he wrote about MQA, but because he based his comments on a fundamental lack of understanding of what he was listening to. That unfortunately is true of much of the supposedly "expert" audiophile press. When a basic lack of knowledge, and no desire to become better informed, is displayed on such a topic, it reveals that we are in a "emporer has no clothes" situation. Why have faith in anything such people write? And he writes regularly about digital - and has for decades - so saying he "has virtually nothing to do with it" is simply incorrect. And even if it was true - it's no excuse. Don't pontificate on a topic if you are not well enough informed to understand the basics. Nikhil, Currawong, maxijazz and 3 others 5 1 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three BXT Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Popular Post firedog Posted April 3, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted April 3, 2023 14 hours ago, ARQuint said: This is the very definition of "The Big Lie" - a relentless gross distortion of the truth. I have never advocated for MQA as a technology - not for its technical rationale and certainly not for its sonic merits. (In fact, within the last few months, I wrote on this website about my listening experiences with Patricia Barber's Clique!, concluding that the MQA version came up short.) What I have advocated for consistently, beginning with a 2017 editorial in TAS, is a civil and evidence-based dialogue about MQA. Thanks to the efforts of Archimago and others, that sort of dialogue has been possible and people have been able to draw their own informed conclusions. I know I have. Have to back Andrew up here. He hasn't been an MQA advocate. Just an advocate of the establishment publications in general. DuckToller, cam08529 and maxijazz 2 1 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three BXT Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now