New TAS issue "KILLER"
default -- Thu, 05/14/2009 - 12:10
Hi RH, JV, HP, etc,
this morning i did my usual B&N routine in Manhattan and purchased the latest TAS. I loved the issue and was looking forward to read what you guys had to say on the new GRAND UTOPIA, however i was very disappointed to read the same review that i'd just purchased from HIFI just a week earlier. Guys that's a joke. A speaker of this complexity and cost and yopu guys give us the same review that a sister publication just published and not even some intimate experience of a senior staff member........come on.....show us some more respect. TAS you guys owe us a little more than that. I am looking forward to a follow-up from someone across the pond.
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
We probably won't see a stateside review of the Grands unless the other rag gets ahold of them. That's a damn shame.
Fellas,
Given the size of the Utopias, the expense of shipping and installing them, and the generally miserable state of the world economy, Focal proposed that Roy Gregory (who already had a pair of Grande Utopias in house for review in our sister magazine Hi-Fi+, is a highly qualified reviewer, and has had considerable experience with the entire Focal line) should do the review in both magazines. Seeing that we definitely wanted a review of Focal's statement product we agreed to the proposal.
Jonathan Valin
These speakers should be in Sea Cliff! To have the same review in both rags is a rip-off, as many of us on this side of the pond read both.
And why is that Niagrara? As far as I know Pearson has never reviewed a Focal speaker. Gregory's reviewed several, and so have I.
"As far as I know Pearson has never reviewed a Focal speaker."
What does that have to do with it? Don't you think Harry would give them a fair review?
Don't you think Roy Gregory did? And if previous experience with products and product lines has nothing to do with reviewing, then we'vre certainly been barking up the wrong trees for the last twenty or thirty years. I always thought putting products in context counted for something. But what do I know?
I am usually happy with RG's reviewing and wouldn't have any issues with him reviewing for TAS. However, tt is a bit off that the same review appears in both magazines as I subscribe to both, as I suspect quite a few might.
Zeb,
In principle I agree with you and Sunday on this point. In practice I have explained the circumstances that led to us reprinting Gregory's review from our sister magazine. (We own Hi-Fi+, in case you didn't know, so Gregory works for us, not Hi-Fi+.) I have also said, on a different post, that I myself volunteered to review the Grande Utopia EMs at last year's RMAF (Robert had his hands full at the time with Wilson Alexandrias and Pearson had just gotten the latest version of those giant Scaenas). I have had (positive) experience with Focals, and though I expressed reservations about the GUs in my RMAF show report (due to the miserable room they were in), past experience has shown that speakers of high quality (as these certainly are) do very well in my digs. Of course, my room is smaller and up three fights of stairs (the Elam Bros. would definitely have been called in), but a lot of very large speakers (some, like the MBL 101 X-Tremes, much larger and heavier than the GUs) have sounded great there. As noted, economics and pragmatics led to a different decision.
However, no compromise was made in the experience, acumen, and authority of the reviewer. Roy Gregory was ideally suited to review these beasts, having just reviewed other speakers in the new Focal line. While I can and do understand a mild frustration among those of you who subscribe to both of our publications, we were glad to have the review and the product in TAS.
Jon
I would think that having no experience with and therefore, no pre-conceived ideas about Focal speakers would make HP the perfect candidate to review the Grands. Come to think of it, how about giving AHC the ARC, and you, the Krell gear to review?
Yeah, you said that.
Now how 'bout saying something new? Something that makes sense? Something that acknowledges what other folks on this thread have been saying?
I think the biggest issue here is the one first intimated by JV - economics. This cuts both ways. Focal's factory is a continent closer to RG's home than HP's. There's also the issue that RG will likely end up with a pair anyway (he mumbled something about buying the review samples - of course, RG's 'mumbling' can still be heard from about five miles away).
Dangling those two carrots in front of Focal meant Hi-Fi Plus got the first review, natch. It would be extremely partisan on the part of Focal to then give the second review to TAS, both magazines being in the same publishing house. As such, you would have ended up seeing a review of the Focal Grande Utopia EM in TAS only after a number of other magazines who expressed an interest in them had finished with the review sample (I doubt Focal will knock out multiple review samples of that speaker worldwide, especially in the current worldwide economic climate).
So, we faced a dichotomy; do we - as a publishing house - wait for a year or more to run a review or a product that we have already reviewed, especially as that review will appear on the AVGuide website long before it appears in print in TAS, or potentially upset those relatively few readers who subscribe to both TAS and Hi-Fi Plus? It was decided that the best course of action was to run the review in both magazines, because - to quote Mr Spock – "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" (It's great to know that after spending years studying the greatest philosophical texts from the some of the finest minds that ever lived, I end up quoting bits of The Wrath of Khan).
Going forward, this is something we need to resolve. Both magazines have geographical advantages that dove-tail together well. We could potentially have a review of a European-built product in TAS before the US review samples arrive. The same holds in reverse, and I could be waiting for months for review samples of something like a Magico or a Wilson to make it to the UK, but have a review from a US reviewer before the UK distributor gets its first samples. This has great benefit for readers, but not if there's a lot of repeated reviews in the two magazines. Neither editor wants to dilute their own magazine's technological distinctiveness (damn, more Star Trek references), but it seems crazy for all concerned to have two entirely separate reviews of products if few people read both magazines side by side.
So, what's a guy to do?
Alan Sircom
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus Magazine
London, England
editor [at] hifiplus [dot] com
Thanks for the explanation Alan.
However, if this is is going to be a trend, the few that seem to subscribe to both will drop one or the other, and you might as well as fold Hifi + into TAS-UK, in a similar way that many magazines have a US and a UK version in which the content is the same but the advertising is local (eg Vanity Fair). Who knows by merging the two mags, we might get a bigger thicker read every month.
On the other hand, if the idea is to have two distinct mags, each with its own "personality", then the repeated reviews should be avoided as much as possible.
@Zeb:
I wouldn't call this a 'trend' as such. Merely an observation about the singular advantages we have of having both a US and a European magazine and how little we exploit those advantages.
I think a complete merging of the two magazines would be unwise, as they have their own distinct personalities (as you suggest). Hi-Fi Plus has its own following, identity and inertia, independent of TAS.
Alan Sircom
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus Magazine
London, England
editor [at] hifiplus [dot] com
"Something that makes sense?"
And what have I said that didn't? Further, as far as what other folks are saying, I agree with the fact that the speakers should be reviewed stateside.
<< I would think that having no experience with and therefore, no pre-conceived ideas about Focal speakers would make HP the perfect candidate to review the Grands.>>
I have no experience with the Gullwing jet, so I guess I'm the ideal reviewer for it.
So what you are saying is that because of no experience with Focal, HP wouldn't be able to write a fair review? That doesn't make sense to me.
PS: In order to review the aircraft, you'd obviously need to be familiar with it. Not the same for hi fi.
No, I'm sure Harry would write a fair review; so would I; so would Robert. Fair isn't the question. What I'm saying is that it is generally preferable to assign a product to a reviewer who has had previous experience with other models from that company. Why do you think Pearson reviewed the Scaenas? Just a wild shot in the dark? No, he had long experience with designer Mark Porzilli's electronics (wish they were still around, BTW) and with his speakers (including the ones that preceded the Scaenas and which were, in a fashion, the prototypes for them, the Pipedreams). Knowing the history of a company or designer or a product line and having past experience with his/her designs allows you to put the new product in historical context--to tell the reader how much (or how little) and what kind of an advance it represents over previous products from the same marque. This is always useful to readers, IMO, and Pearson is very good at it.
I vote for HP to write the review, for reasons already stated! Now Jon, how about the new ARC phono stage?
Going to get it next month!
Can't wait!
Off the subject of Focal but on the subject of TAS - why is the electronic version of TAS released so long after the print version? Both are being sold, it would not detract from sales to TAS and some people prefer electronic and some prefer print (or like me, some travel a lot and don't get to see the print for a long time before coming home). This one has confused me, especially when the TAS writers are so great at using this website as a tool for communications.
Hi bh,
The electronic version of TAS should already be available two to three weeks earlier than the print edition. Our Tech Team tells me that's the case. There were some delays getting the digital store up, running, and populated, but we should be "in the groove" now. Thanks for your kind words about the TAS writers---they have been terrific.
Jim,
i will look - i may also be looking in the wrong place...
thanks for following up.
BH