Lee Scoggins Now President and EVP at NextScreen

[Rt66indierock]

2 hours ago, davide256 said:

It wasn’t cheap in the 80’s and came out quarterly, thick as a paperback and worth reading cover to cover with minimal advertisements. Believe the shift came when HP sold controlling interest in the mid 90’s

 

TAS briefly went out of business until Tom Martin rescued it in the nineties.

As I’ve said many times America would be a better place if Harry Pearson had stayed an environmental journalist.

[ARQuint]

This thread has had some insightful observations

 

On 3/31/2023 at 10:56 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

I enjoy good speculation as much as the next guy, but we must keep in mind that we may be right, wrong, or somewhere in between. 

 

On 3/31/2023 at 11:10 AM, Samuel T Cogley said:

People speculating about topics they know nothing about is the backbone of internet forums.  Why should it be any different here?  🙂

 

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 50^th 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

 

 

[botrytis]

2 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 50^th 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

 

 

Pot, meet kettle.......

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 hours ago, ARQuint said:

This thread has had some insightful observations[...]

 

...and all those keystrokes comparing your employer to Audiophile Style (wow!) but not one about the MQA debacle and yours and Scoggins' role in it?  You've got some huevos, dude.

 

 

[ARQuint]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

...and all those keystrokes comparing your employer to Audiophile Style (wow!) but not one about the MQA debacle and yours and Scoggins' role in it?  You've got some huevos, dude.

 

This thread has nothing to do with MQA! Unless, in your mind, anything involving TAS, Lee Scoggins, or me automatically connects to MQA. Just a bit reductionist, hombre.

[PeterG]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

...and all those keystrokes comparing your employer to Audiophile Style (wow!) but not one about the MQA debacle and yours and Scoggins' role in it?  You've got some huevos, dude.

 

 

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

[MikeyFresh]

1 hour 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

 

While I understand the point you are trying to make in a broad sense, using that MF/Tracking Angle Clique! debacle as an example of flaming is simply inaccurate.

 

MF is responsible for the accuracy of the statements he puts in writing, and in that case the entire premise of his piece including it's title were an example of providing completely groundless false assertions about MQA and it's supposed superiority to all other versions, equating it to being the equivalent of DXD.

 

When members such @Firedog politely corrected him in the comments (yes I do mean politely), MF dug in his heels and stuck to his guns, digging himself a deeper and deeper hole in the process. Replies in the comments section to address gross inaccuracies and falsehoods do not equate to "flaming" at all.

 

The irony of MF having virtually nothing to do with digital as you aptly put it is that he chose to go out on a limb on a topic he obviously didn't understand at all, simply to continue to both defend and aggressively promote the supposed superiority of MQA.

[MikeyFresh]

2 hours ago, ARQuint said:

This thread has nothing to do with MQA! Unless, in your mind, anything involving TAS, Lee Scoggins, or me automatically connects to MQA.

 

True to an extent, however it isn't entirely off base to note Lee's unending support of MQA, here and elsewhere. If the recent news of MQA failing to secure additional funding ends up being accurate, it will be another derogatory mark on LS's record as a supposed futurist possessing superior vision and strategy making skills.

 

LS stated for the record on various occasions that it was normal for startups like MQA to lose money at first, and that an ecosystem was being formed, and that there was more to MQA than meets the eye, various other blah blah blah forward looking statements suggesting he had inside information about what the record labels would be doing etc... so it will be poetic justice for the likes of LS if in fact MQA's ultimate demise is now at hand.

 

Couple that with LS's now infamous piece predicting that crowdfunding and crowd design was the future of hi-fi manufacturing, with manufacturer direct internet sales constituting the "death of a sales model" (now conveniently scrubbed from the internet with the demise of The High Fidelity Report) as a knee-jerk press reaction to what ended up being a total fraud campaign committed by LH Labs on the Indiegogo platform, and Lee Scoggins not being around for this "implementation" stage of TAS' digital transformation is hardly a shocker. I'm surprised he lasted as long as he did at Nextscreen given the track record involved, I think his three previous gigs at Accenture, McKinsey, and KPMG were even shorter if memory serves.

[firedog]

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 50^th 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. 

[firedog]

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.

[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.

[bambadoo]

AS (and other forums) are there primarly for the consumers.

Stereophile, TAS etc. are there primarly for the "industry".

Major difference. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

16 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

This thread has nothing to do with MQA! Unless, in your mind, anything involving TAS, Lee Scoggins, or me automatically connects to MQA. Just a bit reductionist, hombre.

Your and Scoggins' relentless MQA sycophancy is the point.  Maybe you and Scoggins do other things, I wouldn't know.  But your (and Scoggins') MQA cheer-leading is well documented in this forum.  You know, the forum that you compare to your employer in a lame attempt to exonerate your MQA advocacy?

 

[ARQuint]

56 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Your and Scoggins' relentless MQA sycophancy is the point.  Maybe you and Scoggins do other things, I wouldn't know.  But your (and Scoggins') MQA cheer-leading is well documented in this forum.  You know, the forum that you compare to your employer in a lame attempt to exonerate your MQA advocacy?

 

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.

 

Samuel Cogley insists that advocacy for MQA has been continuous in The Absolute Sound. He also implies that he doesn't read the magazine or my reviews, so I'm mystified as to how he knows this. He doesn't. TAS has had very little to say about MQA for years and most issues go by without any mention at all. I review mostly loudspeakers but, with electronic components I have commented once, maybe twice, whether or not a manufacturer had licensed MQA for a new product. But "relentless MQA sycophancy? That's ridiculous.

 

It comes across pretty clearly that Samuel is an individual consumed with contempt for TAS, Lee Scoggins, and probably me. I really don't understand why—there probably is no "why," other than a  dark, bitter, and profoundly ungenerous worldview. But anytime TAS, Scoggins, or yours truly comes up in the context of MQA (sometimes even without an MQA context, as with this thread) he lets fly with the bile. I assume he gets quite a rush from the act—but, I'm happy to say, this is not the kind of satisfaction most contributors to the AS forums are looking for.

 

Andy Quint

 

 

[Iving]

13 minutes 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

 

 

AQ: it's pretty offensive to a Jewish person who feels strongly that we shouldn't forget that Hitler's strategy of the 1920s paved the way for genocide in the 1940s. If Mr. Cogley wasn't aware of the history of The Big Lie, well, now he is. If he was, and actually believes that the head of my magazine's publishing group was behind my objection to the use of the term to refer to the promotion of a sort of audio technology Cogley doesn't like….he's an awful excuse for a human being.

[KeenObserver]

2 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.

 

Samuel Cogley insists that advocacy for MQA has been continuous in The Absolute Sound. He also implies that he doesn't read the magazine or my reviews, so I'm mystified as to how he knows this. He doesn't. TAS has had very little to say about MQA for years and most issues go by without any mention at all. I review mostly loudspeakers but, with electronic components I have commented once, maybe twice, whether or not a manufacturer had licensed MQA for a new product. But "relentless MQA sycophancy? That's ridiculous.

 

It comes across pretty clearly that Samuel is an individual consumed with contempt for TAS, Lee Scoggins, and probably me. I really don't understand why—there probably is no "why," other than a  dark, bitter, and profoundly ungenerous worldview. But anytime TAS, Scoggins, or yours truly comes up in the context of MQA (sometimes even without an MQA context, as with this thread) he lets fly with the bile. I assume he gets quite a rush from the act—but, I'm happy to say, this is not the kind of satisfaction most contributors to the AS forums are looking for.

 

Andy Quint

 

 

 

Your posts here are showing your true self.

It may not be obvious to you, but it is clearly obvious to every one else.

[botrytis]

4 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

Your posts here are showing your true self.

It may not be obvious to you, but it is clearly obvious to every one else.

 

To people who seek fact, not 'snake-oil'.

[JoeWhip]

Andy doesn’t need me to defend him, but I do know him personally and have discussed MQA with him at a few of our audio group events, always cordially. I have never known him to be a shill for MQA unlike some writers who shall remain nameless. Andy is a good guy. Cut him some slack fellas. This is a bit over the top at this point.

[KeenObserver]

I must say this.

I have always thought that Samuel T Cogley's posts were well conceived and well written. He has always been to the point and honest.

He has not said anything that should not have been said.

[Iving]

19 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

Andy doesn’t need me to defend him, but I do know him personally and have discussed MQA with him at a few of our audio group events, always cordially. I have never known him to be a shill for MQA unlike some writers who shall remain nameless. Andy is a good guy. Cut him some slack fellas. This is a bit over the top at this point.

 

I find Andy a gentleman. I have explained that to him personally. Also I explained why I found his MQA-hinged reference today to the very definition of "The Big Lie" to be anomalous against what he was at pains to express in 2021. I also explained that, whilst I don't have a strong opinion about the industry press nor people in it, I loathe MQA with all my heart, and can't wait to see it fail.

 

Not that I am any kind of AS host, but I welcome Andy's intelligent, brave and sincere participation here.

 

Are we getting anywhere near a civilized discourse?

[MikeyFresh]

3 hours ago, ARQuint said:

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.

 

You were rightfully commended for that, and it's probably as close as we're likely ever to come to an actual admission or retraction by TAS on the matter of MQA. I for one truly appreciated your time, effort, and honesty/candid assessment there.

[Jud]

On 4/1/2023 at 1:57 PM, ARQuint said:

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.

 

Hi Andy -

 

As one of the folks who has mentioned the very positive tone of the vast majority of TAS reviews and how I feel this characteristic of both TAS and Stereophile makes them less helpful and therefore of less interest to me, I'd like to give you a little more detail about what I mean in the context of your comment above.

 

Quote

First of all, read our reviews more carefully and you'll find plenty of mentions of a product's limitations.

 

I used to try to do that - read for subtle variations of tone in the review of one product versus another, "read between the lines" to try to think about things that were not mentioned that one might have expected, etc. - but eventually I came to feel that, dang, this is just too much effort to be putting out to read something that isn't a tech guide, it's just another person's impression I'm reading presumably for the purposes of enjoyment and pertinent information. When I read a music review, I don't want to have to work really hard to decide whether the critic liked one recording better than another, and non-technical reviews of audio equipment ought IMO to be open to similar ease of understanding. I didn't feel the reviews in TAS and Stereophile quite met that criterion, so I stopped reading; your opinion of course may vary. 🙂

 

Quote

there are just a lot of superb products to write about, and those are the ones that consumers need to hear about.

 

My wife's thinking about getting a new car, and we picked up the Consumer Reports auto issue. It's got frequency of repair records showing the major systems on cars and, by make, model and year, how often those systems needed to be repaired. There are many cars that have repair records that aren't very good, while others are very reliable. The auto issue also has a couple of sections for people in the market for used cars - used cars to look for, and used cars to avoid. Should Consumer Reports not have included the information about unreliable cars, or used cars to avoid, because superb cars are "the ones that consumers need to hear about"? It just seems dubious to me as a general proposition that consumers shouldn't need to hear about bad products, particularly those that cost a lot, have a lot of "buzz" surrounding them, or both. It seems to me that along with performing a valuable service for consumers in and of themselves, negative reviews of bad products also increase the credibility and usefulness of positive reviews. Perhaps it's unrealistic to expect that the hobbyist magazines could survive if manufacturers might become reluctant to send in products, fearing the prospect of a negative review. But that's a different issue than saying consumers don't need to know about bad products.

 

Quote

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.

 

I didn't check whether Chris's reviews of his immersive system were among his last ten reviews, but hang with me here. 🙂 Yep, he praised the components. He also gave valuable practical tips on networking for those who, like me, run their systems via networks (thus allowing, in my case, use of a powerful remote desktop computer to run associated software without worrying about noise or appearance issues in the listening room), and described, with associated measurement graphs, the changes he was able to make in the sound of the system through room equalization software. Many forum members are using such software or considering it. I don't know whether it's for me (my speakers' imaging qualities depend in part on linear phase, and I don't know if it is possible to use linear phase filters with room equalization software), but even if not, some of those ideas are valuable - for example, using a measurement microphone to help determine room response for purposes of speaker placement. I don't recall similar practical advice on these issues from TAS or Stereophile, but as noted I haven't read them closely in a while, so if indeed that type of information is available, I'd be interested in knowing about it.

 

As others have pointed out, Chris's reviews are far from the only information available on this site. When I was having my current home built, a forum member here pointed me to the proper (electrical code compliant) information about installing an isolation transformer to feed a separate circuit for my audio system, from which the electrical subcontractor was able to install the isolation transformer and separate circuit and have them pass electrical inspection. (This information had "good," "better," and "best" techniques for how such a system should be installed, so it provided options and was quite detailed.) Also for purposes of electrical isolation as well as future-proofing, another member helped me select a vendor and equipment for relatively low-cost runs of optical Ethernet fiber to install throughout the house as it was being built. And finally, when I was considering a new DAC, I was able to present to forum members my specific criteria (budget; that it would take the high rate DSD files my player software puts out and not alter them before the DSD noise filter and the DAC's final analog reconstruction filter) and receive several good pertinent suggestions, one of which resulted in my purchase of a new DAC I'm very happy with. I'm not aware of TAS or Stereophile having a great deal to offer along these lines - the ability to ask very specific practical questions and get fast, technically correct answers. Again, though, if my impression is out of date, I'd be very pleased to learn about the ability to get such information from TAS or Stereophile.

 

Hope this is helpful in giving (too much?) more detail regarding why I've said what I've said regarding the magazines. Certainly none of it is meant personally, so I hope you take it simply as my impression and not a critique of particular reviews or reviewers.

 

[PeterG]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

I used to try to do that - read for subtle variations of tone in the review of one product versus another, "read between the lines" to try to think about things that were not mentioned that one might have expected, etc. - but eventually I came to feel that, dang, this is just too much effort to be putting out to read something that isn't a tech guide, it's just another person's impression I'm reading presumably for the purposes of enjoyment and pertinent information. When I read a music review, I don't want to have to work really hard to decide whether the critic liked one recording better than another, and non-technical reviews of audio equipment ought IMO to be open to similar ease of understanding. I didn't feel the reviews in TAS and Stereophile quite met that criterion, so I stopped reading; your opinion of course may vary. 🙂

 

Although I still read many TAS and Stereophile reviews--this is a great point about having to work too hard.  Even if a huge number of products are great, virtually all of these great products have weaknesses compared to other great products, and the typical reader is only buying one of each every few years.  So we really need to know what we're losing as well as gaining when we choose a certain product. TAS and Stereophile sometime seem to work hard to avoid unfavorable comparisons.  A much better model is @austinpop's treatment of apex headphones on AS where he gives plenty of well-deserved respect to each but also makes clear the weaknesses of each

[Currawong]

21 hours ago, MikeyFresh said:

Couple that with LS's now infamous piece predicting that crowdfunding and crowd design was the future of hi-fi manufacturing, with manufacturer direct internet sales constituting the "death of a sales model" (now conveniently scrubbed from the internet with the demise of The High Fidelity Report) as a knee-jerk press reaction to what ended up being a total fraud campaign committed by LH Labs on the Indiegogo platform, and Lee Scoggins not being around for this "implementation" stage of TAS' digital transformation is hardly a shocker.

 

Somewhat OT, but I don't believe that LH Labs started off with the intent to defraud. The problem was that they realised that the more expensive perks they added (at the suggestion of supporters, no less) the more money people would shell out. I guess they figured they'd sort out 20, or however many variations of a new product they needed to make after the fact, and it all went downhill from there. The irony was that they were promoted and supported by people who were usually known to be extremely critical of product hype, to the point when I suggested to one of them that they stop promoting LH Labs' products as what they were doing raised major red flags, I got, effectively, threatened with legal action in person.

 

13 hours ago, bambadoo said:

AS (and other forums) are there primarly for the consumers.

Stereophile, TAS etc. are there primarly for the "industry".

Major difference. 

With manufacturers directly interacting on forums, it is possible to have a venue which benefits both. 

[ARQuint]

4 hours ago, Iving said:

 

I find Andy a gentleman. I have explained that to him personally. Also I explained why I found his MQA-hinged reference today to the very definition of "The Big Lie" to be anomalous against what he was at pains to express in 2021. I also explained that, whilst I don't have a strong opinion about the industry press nor people in it, I loathe MQA with all my heart, and can't wait to see it fail.

 

Not that I am any kind of AS host, but I welcome Andy's intelligent, brave and sincere participation here.

 

Are we getting anywhere near a civilized discourse?

 

Thanks.

 

Irving is right. The original "Big Lie," as developed by Josef Goebbels et al, should be conflated with other egregious falsehoods only if a moral horror of a certain magnitude is involved— say Alex Jones's fictions regarding the Sandy Hook shootings. Misinformation relating to MQA itself or about those insufficiently hostile to the technology are not in the same ballpark, to put it mildly. I'm Jewish myself and came of age when the Holocaust wasn't that distant an event.

 

But the playbook is disturbingly similar, for so many polarizing matters, political and otherwise. Come up with misinformation that resonates with your audience and keep repeating it, even when you know it isn't true. It worked in the 1920s and 30s and, too often, it still works today.