Should prototypes be given awards? and reviews?

It feels more like an ego thing to me. JV wants to have what nobody else have. What a better way to do so then picking a product that does not exist? JV is new HP… :wink:

• Login or register to post comments

Interesting. I'd like to define what the issue is.

1. It certainly isn't the existence of the product; the speakers exist and JV has them.

2. If reviewing a not-yet commercial product is wrong, it could involve:

a. not revealing that the product is a prototype (not the case here)

b. slowing sales of other worthy products while consumers wait for a product that may never come to market

c. implying that the reviewed product will match the final production product, when the production product may be different

b, in principle can be covered by due diligence, though always imperfectly (anything in the future has an element of uncertainty). c can be addressed by follow-up, and if this is done, releasing a product that differs from the prototype is done at great risk by the manufacturer (but it could happen)

• Login or register to post comments

Mr. Goldman,

I gave the Symposium Acoustics Panoramas a Golden Ear because they deserved a Golden Ear, which is an award that an individual reviewer gives to components that he finds to be unusually distinctive, regardless of provenance. It is not an "ego thing."The Pans are quite simply the finest ribbon-based loudspeakers I've heard--and through the midrange the lowest coloration speakers I've heard, period. (RH had the same reaction when he heard them at last year's RMAF, which is how this whole process got started.)

I've written, repeatedly, that the Pans are prototypes. If they aren't offered for sale in the last quarter of this year or the first quarter of next (as I've been repeatedly assured that they will be, along with a smaller version of the same speaker), then they won't get a formal review in the magazine and will remain a curious and promising footnote. That said, the prototypes I've listened to since December are superb--and future availability doesn't change that.

(I should note that Peter Bizlewicz, the designer of the Pans, has been showing versions of this loudspeaker at CES since 1998! The Pan is scarcely a flash in the, uh, pan.)

Mr. Stone,

You need to get your analogies straight. I have not "reviewed" the prototype of the Pans in the pages of TAS, as you say Pearson did with the BRB amp. And I will not formally review the Pan until and unless it is a real-world product.

That said, who are you (or HP's water-bearer Goldman or Magico acolyte Roy Pan, for that matter) to tell me or any other TAS reviewer what product (or kind of product) to give a Golden Ear Award to? If we were talking about a TAS Product of the Year Award or the TAS Editors' Choice List, then the kind of reservations you and Goldman raise would be valid. We are not. We are talking about the one section of the magazine that is reserved--and has been traditionally reserved--for gear that individual reviewers think is deserving of "special mention" (whether it is, has been, or will be reviewed in the magazine or not).

When I first joined TAS, I gave Golden Ears to ARC SP10 and the ARC D79B--both of which had been out of production for better than a decade! In subsequent years, I have given a Golden Ear to the Avantgarde Trios (which, though available in Europe and the Far East, weren't even being imported to the U.S. when I reviewed them), to the Messenger preamp, which was (alas) never widely made or distributed, to the Nearfield Pipedreams, which went through so many variations (I heard at least three different versions in my own home) that they scarcely qualified as "real world" (indeed, the ribbon-tweetered version that Pearson rave-reviewed before I reviewed the "production model" was a one-of), and to the Magico Mini, which, at the time, also had little distribution in the U.S. (for which, see John Atkinson's review of the Magico V-3)--not to mention assorted other products (including software) that, regardless of vintage or current availability, I thought were extraordinary.

Part of my job in the Cutting Edge is to let people know about what is new and unusually promising. As I see it, even the Pans didn't come to pass (and I'm sure they will), they are intellectually interesting, and I know they are sonically exceptional. That is also why I took on the Avantgardes, the Pipes, the MBLs, the Magicos. And why all of them got Golden Ears, whether they were available, barely available, widely available, or unavailable. Don't expect me to stop being curious--or reporting, by my own lights, on what I find special.

Jonathan Valin

• Login or register to post comments

Mr. Goldman,

Wouldn't it have been more forthright of you to point out that you run an audio/video store and are a Scaena dealer, among other lines?

I have given a Golden Ear Award to a component that is worthy, IMO, of a Golden Ear Award. I'm sorry if you feel that that amounts to a betrayal of the audio industry, although I would also point out that I also gave Golden Ear Awards to products from Magnepan, MartinLogan, Parasound, Clearaudio, TW Acustic, and the Audio Research Corporation in the same issue for products that ranged in price from $550 to $100k.

Jonathan Valin

• Login or register to post comments

Quote:Frankly I don't give a damn what you review, but obviously Mr. Martin should and obviously does.

Your solicitude for Tom is touching, Steve. But if he has a problem with what I review--and he hasn't thus far--I'm sure he'll let me know. Nor did I call you anyone's "acolyte."

And on the subject of what I review, let me repeat: I haven't reviewed the Symposium Acoustic Panoramas in TAS and will not until and unless they are demonstrably real-world products that folks can not only read about but buy!

Further, what you think about magazine awards in general or what I review in the magazine is beside the point here. Golden Ears have always been, are, and will remain (I hope) reviewer discretionary (rather than decided on by rule or committee). In the Symposium Acoustics Panoramas I gave an award to a component that is as worthy as any I've ever given a GE to.

• Login or register to post comments

Quote:and it says that I am a dealer

Elliot,

It may be that I'm not clear about our own protocol on the Web site, but I honestly didn't see anything on your AVguide posts that indicated you were a "dealer." I just happened to know that you are and that you are old friends with Harry.

But enough of this "I said/you said" silliness. You may disagree with my opinions (particularly regarding Scaena loudspeakers), but you know perfectly well that I am as supportive of the high-end audio industry as any reviewer is. Moreover, my taste is catholic; I like a lot of different products for different reasons--many of which, as you correctly note, you carry. You say that I'm being "defensive"--well, yeah! But don't you think you're being a mite "aggressive" yourself? You're attacking me for giving a Golden Ear Award to a component that--by TAS's own past practice, my own track record with GEs, and by anyone's honest estimate--is a perfectly legitimate candidate for a Golden Ear. I can't keep repeating this over and over: Golden Ears are traditionally discretionary.

Let me ask you something (and let us try to remain civil from here on): When HP reviewed the "prototype" Scaenas in TAS, no one had heard of them and the company had virtually no dealers. Why was that OK in your estimate, where what I have done--talking about a promising prototype on line (while carefully and repeatedly labeling it a prototype) and giving it a Golden Ear (but still carefully labeling the Pan a prototype)--was not? (Understand: I have no problem with HP reviewing anything HP wants to review.)

Jon

• Login or register to post comments

Sorry to chime in but the issue is an interesting one that I've engaged others with on Audio Asylum.

I think there is an assumption, justified or not, that Golden Ear awards are given to things that are somehow available to the consumer. The award generates interest in and possibly desire for that which has received the award, and so it seems to some as if there is an unspoken compact between reviewer and reader that satisfies some small minimum of availability - even if one has to go searching on eBay or Audiogon for out-of-production products.

I think this assumption is based on the general feeling that media and magazines such as TAS are in the service of audiophile enthusiasts who are interested not only in what is possible, but largely in what is possible with what is available. From Playboy to Car and Driver, at some level of the enthusiast's mind is the tiny notion that - if circumstances were right - the seemingly unobtainable would be within reach.

In the case of the Symposium speaker it seems as if this has been a work in progress for a decade and also seems to have no chance at production. As a piece of stunning, outstanding gear it certainly is worth some level of mention - and it also seems to have wowed no small number of people at shows. But when it comes time to award a Golden Ear, I believe readers want to know that it isn't unobtainium.

I'm not sure that TAS has made public the prerequisites for awarding a Golden Ear, if there are any such conditions. However - I suspect that a situation like this might be better illuminated and less contested if TAS were very clear about what can and what can't qualify for a Golden Ear.

For instance: I represent Continuum Audio Labs, and their Caliburn turntable has been the subject of no small debate, no few conspiracy theories, and not many reviews. It was also awarded a Golden Ear by TAS' very own Jacob Heilbrunn, who heard it's performance at several shows and decided that he wanted to purchase it. It was not through the review process that Jacob came to award the Caliburn, but rather through his experience as a bona fide owner that he awarded the Caliburn its Golden Ear. Now the Caliburn is a production product, so this may be an apples-and-oranges comparison - BUT - I'm certain that there would remain readers who would say that such awards should only be given to components that have been through the official rigors of review.

I'm hoping that TM, RH, and JV will provide readers with a Golden Ear Award guide or manifesto ... something that explains eligibility for the award, so - at the very least - readers will be able to have reasonable expectations and develop more clearly a value system as it relates to Golden Ear Awards. Here is where the issue begins and ends - eligibility - and so I suspect there is a simple fix in here somewhere.

Chris

• Login or register to post comments

Ok I am done with this. I have no issue with the mention its the award that I do. You have your opinion and I have a different one. I would never discourage people from making new and great products but the magazine is not a marketing arm and therefore we tread in deep water whe we approach this. I would think you would agree.
I am not questioning your ears or passion just your award.
Please allof the TAS staff you should clarify these awards and have rules concerning them.
Maybe we can do it like idol and call in ????

• Login or register to post comments

I gave Jonathan the green light to take delivery of the Panorama based on what I heard at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest. We are very careful about making sure that products are available for sale before we review them, and I was told at the time that the Panorama was about to enter production.

Had the Panorama sounded very good, I would not have authorized the delivery to Jonathan. But the Panorama was more than very good; it was stunningly great, and a potentially a breakthrough in loudspeaker performance. On that basis, I thought it important that we have exposure to the product under non-show conditions to better judge its merits and potential. If The Absolute Sound doesn't explore the fringes of the art, who will?

Nonetheless, we would not publish a review of the Panorama unless the product is manufactured in some sort of quantity and is available for purchase.

It's worth noting that three years ago I reported on the Magico Ultimate, a $250,000 loudspeaker (now $369k) of which only three examples existed. I thought it worthwhile to bring to readers' attention the radically different approach taken by the designer, and the extraordinary sonic performance of the loudspeaker. The Ultimate never went into production, but Magico went on to produce some "real-world" products that embody the aesthetic first shown in the Ultimate.

Robert Harley

• Login or register to post comments

Quote:Chris,

I am assuming, perhaps foolishly (we shall see), that the Symposium Acoustics Panormas will be available for purchase in the last quarter of this year. That's what I was told (repeatedly). But...even if they aren't and, God forbid, I've wasted my own and a lot of readers' time by talking them up...well, sometimes things are just worth talking about because they're so damn good. Surely, there is room for that in TAS--for talking about products that set new standards in certain areas even if they aren't commercially available (or widely available). I hope so, anyway. It would be a pity to close our ears and our minds to new companies simply because they don't currently have, oh, a well-established dealer network. How in the world would anyone have heard about Magico or Scaena or your own Continuum products, if some reviewer at some point didn't say: "This is extraordinary enough to write about." When Robert reviewed the Magico Ultimates...how many of those do you think were sitting on the shelf? He reviewed them not because people could run out and buy them, but because they were so friggin' cool!

While praising the Pans, I've also and always been careful to tell the world that they are prototypes. If commercial availability is implied in a Golden Ear Award, then obviously they shouldn't have gotten one. But I didn't think that way. As I've said, I always felt that GEs were not just meant for well-established marques, but for little companies that are just starting out and that would otherwise pass underneath the radar. By that reckoning, the Pans are entirely worthy of a GE.

Jon

Hi Jon,

I agree with you that you've gone through the pains of making sure that everyone knew this was a prototype. I suppose that we tend to have unreasonable expectations when it comes to prerequisites for Golden Ear awards. But it has become clearer through this discourse that a product needn't be in production to qualify for a GE. I do hope to see this clarified in the print magazine, if only for setting the criteria in print.

Thanks for your insight.

Chris

• Login or register to post comments

Quote:But it has become clearer through this discourse that a product needn't be in production to qualify for a GE.

Chris,

I think it's fairer to say that most GEs go to products that are in current production. But on rare occasions reviewers award them to products that aren't in current production (I can't tell you how many times Quad 57s have gotten GEs) or products that will be forthcoming in the near future (as, I trust, the Pans will be and as the Magico Model 6 was two years ago), or products that haven't yet found distribution in the U.S.

Jon

• Login or register to post comments

Quote:I wasn't clear (nor, it seems, are many others) about what sorts of products can qualify for a Golden Ear.

I have to say that i think some of this "lack of clarity" about what Golden Ears are awarded to is a bit exaggerated by you and others. For as long as I remember (and that's going back aways), TAS GEs have been the same: the place where writers get to pick their own favorites, without magazine editors looking over their shoulders or making a consensual pick.

As we said in the intro to this year's GEs:

Quote:"This is the place where our writers and editors choose those components that stand out from the competition. This year's group of honorees is as diverse as the tastes, experiences, and sensibilities of our distinguished team of writers."

I'm not sure that anything i've written today has added much to this.

• Login or register to post comments

Oh, Lord.

Symposium Acoustics is a legitimate company that has been around for a lot longer time than, oh, Continuum. It makes Isis and Quantum stands, Rollerblocks, and many other vibration-control products that are distributed world-wide. And much of its vibration-control technology has been incorporated in its Panorama loudspeaker. Obviously, you're not aware of this (or you wouldn't have said what you said above), but Symposium Acoustics stands were being used in the Continuum/Kharma/Tenor room at the Munich High End Show!

Take a close look at the sign to the right. If Symposium is my "neighbor's basement-workshop," then one of the companies you represent is showing with its products--and showing well!

As I have explained in my Symposium thread, Bizlewicz's speakers preceded his stands and vibration-control products. Indeed, Peter started out as a loudspeaker designer and has been bringing various iterations of the Panoramas to CES for twelve years. (The speakers have been being developed for nearly twenty.) This is not some fly-by-night, out-of-the-blue hot-shot, looking to make an instant splash with his first product. The version of the Pans that impressed me and Robert in Denver was just the latest of many, many iterations, and it was--and is--something special.

It remains to be seen, of course, how the Pans will show in Denver at RMAF (God knows, everyone and his sister will be sniping at them--now) and how soon thereafter they will be offered for sale to the public. All I can say is that if they show as well this year as they do every night in my room (as so many other knowledgeable listeners can attest), they will be something special.

I'll stand by my Golden Ear Award.

• Login or register to post comments

Dear Jon- While I won't enter the fray over your GE award to a prototype, I must correct your characterization of the Scaena loudspeaker reviewed by HP as a "prototype". The Symposium is an acknowledged "prototype" that has been shown in varying " versions of this loudspeaker at CES since at least 1998"- perhaps longer. Therefore, I assume it has never been offered for sale through any dealer in the world for at least 8 years. The Scaena Model 1.4 was introduced at CES 2007 and debuted as a PRODUCTION model. Dick Olsher writing in TAS gave us co-Best Sound at the show in the subsequent TAS issue covering CES 2007. Several dealers were enlisted at that show - well before HP agreed to review or received our speaker in late May 2007. We also debuted our second PRODUCTION model 3.2 at the HE 2007 show in NY in early May 2007. Several more dealers were enlisted at the HE 2007 show, all again before HP received our production model 1.4. Customers of our dealers were enjoying Scaena loudspeakers in their homes well before HP's review. We have continually advertised our product in magazines for sale since 2007, including advertising in TAS as a real world product available for sale since our first two page ad appeared in TAS Issue 175 - an ad that was submitted for print in August 2007. Scaena Loudspeakers can be bought and heard through at least 5 dealers in the US at present and we are negotiating with several other dealers in the US and several foreign distributors. To equate our loudspeaker with an undeniable prototype seems unfair in a discussion of the relative merits of any GE award you bestowed upon that prototype- don't you agree ?

Alan Eichenbaum
Scaena Loudspeakers

• Login or register to post comments

Alan,

It is undeniably true that the Scaena is now real-world in a way that the Panoramas are not (yet). Unless I'm mistaken (and please correct me if I am), it is also true that you made a few small but significant changes to the speaker after HP reviewed one of the "earliest versions." I quote from your own manufacturer's comment in Issue 180:

Quote:We were honored to have HP as the first reviewer of any Scaena product. He confirmed what we had accepted as an inevitable tradeoff in the earliest versions, a very slight roll-off of the ultrasonic frequencies, a natural property (inductance) of the finest, heavy metal-foil capacitors. A minor change was made since the earliest versions were released. We have since used this same capacitor in a non-inductive configuration that has extended the extreme high frequencies into ultrasonic realms and has slightly enhanced articulation in the topmost octaves. All production units contain that improvement or were retrofitted to what we believe to be the best loudspeaker in the world. [Italics added for emphasis]

This said, a customer can go out and buy (more or less) the same speaker HP raved about in TAS at a number of legitimate high-end stores. The fact that you can't do this with Panoramas--or even buy them direct from Symposium--is indisputable and is the reason why I haven't reviewed them in The Absolute Sound.

The point of my original comment about HP and Scaena was not to equate you with Symposium--or me, with Harry. It was to underline the fact that with most "new" products (i.e., from new companies or established companies new to a particular kind of product) someone has to decide that they are worthy of a review, even if they aren't--at that point--widely known or distributed. No blame whatsoever attached to HP's review of the Scaena 1.4 (or to you for "improving" what HP felt was already a standard-setting product in the midrange). On the contrary, reviewing the Scaena 1.4 was the right thing to do. If and when Symposium manages to bring the Pans to market, reviewing them will also be the right thing to do. This was my point.

Jon

• Login or register to post comments

Jon - Thank you for your reply. You are incorrect to the extent that the Symposium is now and has always been NFS. Since introduction in January 2007 at CES , Scaena was always for sale, was and is available through dealers for purchase, was purchased by customers prior to the time HP reviewed them, was advertised in TAS and other magazines as " for sale" prior to HP's review, hence your characterization of them as a "prototype " or otherwise as being similar to the Symposium for purposes of your defense of awarding the Symposium a GE is inaccurate. I have no dog in the quarrel over your GE to Symposium - but we are not a "prototype" since pre- January 2007 and we certainly were not a "prototype" at the time of the HP's review in March 2008 or when we received our GE award.

You are correct that we made a minor change in capacitor wiring from the earliest PRODUCTION models and retrofitted those units already sold to customers - we made the type of change we and other loudspeaker and electronics manufacturers will make from time to time as better parts and implimentations are discovered. Our product which uses no wood or MDF , is CNC milled from aluminum on multi- million dollar machines and uses individual seamless ceramic composite enclosures- all of which are unchanged in production since January 2007, is just not appropriately analogous to the Symposium situation. Like Symposium I suspect, we continuosly look to improve Scaena Loudspeakers. However, the Symposiums ARE a prototype - we are not - nor were we "prototype Scaenas" as you stated, when reviewed - it is just that simple.

Alan Eichenbaum
Scaena Loudspeakers

• Login or register to post comments

Jon- I have no wish to argue either and I am sorry that you feel that is what our endeavor has become. But I trust you appreciate facts are important. I appreciate that you have now telephoned Symposium and added some new information about Symposium. I also appreciate your correcting the mis-statement that HP reviewed a " prototype" Scaena. So that the record is clear - HP 's production speaker was updated, all customers speakers are upgraded and identical, and that updated and reviewed speaker received the 2008 GE award. Thank you for allowing me to provide accurate information.

Alan Eichenbaum
Scaena Loudspeakers

• Login or register to post comments

Jon - Thank you. Please visit us at RMAF 2008. We will have a larger suite at the Hyatt spill over venue. We have been unable to figure out with any certainty ( but have a suspect) or to duplicate the gremlin that plagued us at RMAF 2007- THANKFULLY !! As you noted in your CES 2008 coverage we had substantially improved show sound over RMAF 2007 at CES 2008 and if you recall we were your first room on the first morning of the opening day. We were able to further improve and refine the sound as the CES show progressed. I trust we will be able to provide even better show sound at RMAF 2008. I look forward to seeing you in Denver with Mario in hand.

Alan Eichenbaum
Scaena Loudspeakers

• Login or register to post comments

Heh-heh!

Mario'll be there and so will I (along with some other "friends")! Your sound really was improved at CES (and I'm sorry I didn't get back to hear it later in the show, but we were kind of shorthanded at CES and I was responsible for all the speakers above $20k!).

• Login or register to post comments

Wolfi,

My friend, thank you!

I'm not quite sure why so many folks seem to be upset by the Symposium Panoramas winning a Golden Ear from me. Probably a little bit of genuine (if misplaced) indignation and a little bit of politics. Since the Pans are now available--factory-direct on a built-to-order basis--I guess the question is moot.

You're right about the MMGs, BTW. And the MLs are damn good for the money, too.

Jon

• Login or register to post comments

My $.02:
As a reader of both these forums and the mag, I believe it was pretty clear JV was discussing vaporware. Hopefully a production model will follow, but even if delayed or changed, I was hardly confused or drawn to send Symposium $100k and hope for the best.

This IS a small, finicky, and fringe industry. Other than a few big companies, one always takes chances with resale and company health. Am I the only one who notes that your biggest criticism is coming from a distributor that has stopped importing its expensive speaker brand and a manufacturer who is really the remains of HP' last fave rave, now out of business?

• Login or register to post comments

jvalin wrote:Uh...no comment, Rupert, save to say thanks for saying out loud what some of us have been saying to ourselves and to note that, unlike Peak Consult and Nearfield, Symposium Acoustics is still doing business in the U.S., is still the same company, and has been serving the audio public without "interruption" for more than a decade.

Hi Jon,

I'm not sure what Peak Consult has to do with any of this ... seems like a non-sequitur. Like Symposium Acoustics, they remain doing business in their home country (Denmark), and remain distributed in other parts of the world, having been in business for more than 12 years. I elected to drop the line for business reasons, but they remain an ongoing concern - just like Symposium.

I guess the point that you don't seem to be appreciating is that, regardless of whether or not the prototype is newsworthy (and it certainly seems so), most of us working in the industry have considered the Golden Ear awards as something awarded to products, not prototypes. Regardless of whether or not the product in question is now (magically) available for purchase - the fact remains that you awarded a professional-level DIY loudspeaker with a GE.

NOW: I am not pointing a finger and saying, "Bad Jon! Bad Jon!" - my point is simply that, if a DIY or prototype loudspeaker can earn a GE award - then the award won't carry as much panache as it might have otherwise. Production products are much greater accomplishments than prototypes and DIY (don't bother to argue with me about prototype vs. DIY and how long Symposium has been in business, etc - a prototype IS a DIY speaker) because someone has been able to translate their one-off or two-off design into a production model. That alone is an accomplishment beyond the initial accomplishment of the DIY prototype.

It may seem somewhat insulting to those who have not only labored to make excellent prototypes - but who then overcame the considerable additional difficulties of turning those prototypes into production, and in turn received GE awards for their efforts, that you would award a prototype product a GE. It seems as if you equate the simpler accomplishment (prototype) with the more difficult one (turning it into production, supporting the product, etc).

By awarding an unavailable DIY prototype loudspeaker a GE, you diminished the GE's overall value. And you may go to the matt for this product, indignant as hell, spitting and fuming about how you think it is worthy and you're sticking to your guns, etc ... but at the end of the day it is not nearly the accomplishment of any other GE-worthy design that is also a production product.

You wouldn't necessarily understand this because you view these things from the receiver-side of the equation. Yours is merely an intellectual examination of objects made for the purpose of reproducing music in the home. You wouldn't have an idea what it actually takes to move something from prototype to production - that isn't your skill set nor your charge. And that's why you are taking so much grief from those of us more intimately connected with the production side of the equation.

Regardless of whether or not Symposium stepped up and all of a sudden said "availability now, made to order only, factory direct" (which is fine, although it seems like they stepped in to take the heat off of you), the fact remains that when you awarded the GE you understood it to be a non-product, unavailable, and possibly never available.

If you don't understand why that has ticked some people off, you should try to be more sensitive and understanding to the position of manufacturers to whom TAS has also given awards, and why they might take issue with a non-product being exalted with the magazine's highest honor alongside their actual accomplishments in production. AT WHICH POINT we now understand that the GE award is not as exalted an honor as we once thought it to be.

You might think otherwise, that the award remains a very high honor, but for those of us who have had to take the harder steps of turning DIY prototypes into reliable and available production pieces - having an accomplishment equated to a prototype diminishes the glamour of the GE award just a bit. Maybe a big bit.

Sorry you don't understand or sympathize, but I don't really expect you to. Like I said - you haven't had the experience of having to turn a prototype into production to really grok what the difficulty and difference is. Yours is just to listen and opine. But to some of us the DIY prototype Symposium loudspeaker, while extremely newsworthy and interesting, is not nearly the equivalent of a real production product.

Give GE awards to whom you will - after all, like you explained, it's YOUR prerogative and you'll do what you want. But just realize that, by doing so, you've opened the floodgates and tainted the waters simultaneously.

I'll be very eager to see Symposium at RMAF, and I mean them no harm by this argument - nor do I mean to diminish their accomplishment, and I'm hoping that the speaker is at least half of what you've expressed it to be. But you must believe me when I say that, by giving it a GE award - you wave your nose at those other honorees who have labored to turn their prototypes into reliable production.

Chris

• Login or register to post comments

Jon;
Writing about the Pans in TAS before they are officially launched as a product that everybody can buy is in fact acting as a consultant as they develope the speaker. Their luck is that you write about them in almost every issue so that everybody can take part in the process of how the "Worlds best speaker" gets even better.

This is something a manufacturer should do by themselves without the "help" from proffesional reviewers. And then launch the finished product.

An award like GE (as I see it one of the more prestigious awards there is) looses some of its importance IMO.

As I have written before I think very highly of TAS, but in this case I do not understand the editorial policy. This is as a reader not a big issue for me at all, but maybe for other manufacturers of high end speakers.

• Login or register to post comments

For the record, the only things I've written in TAS were my blurb from the RMAF (where, I guess, by the same logic being argued here, Robert and I should not have named the Pans "Best Sound of Show") and the disputed Golden Ears paragraph. That is is.

• Login or register to post comments