TAS 2010 Editors' Choice Awards vs. TAS HP's 2010 Editors' Choice Awards
lenwfl -- Sat, 02/06/2010 - 13:49
I'm confounded with the two sets of 2010 editors' choice awards in the March 2010 issue of TAS. HP awards the Bryston 28B SST2 monoblock amplifiers his 2010 editors' choice award, but the same amps aren't anywhere to be found in the TAS 2010 editors' choice awards.
Does anyone else find this odd and confusing?
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.
It wouldn't make sense for us to duplicate HP's Editors' Choice Awards in the main Editors' Choice Awards section. HP chooses the products for his Editors' Choice Awards in HP's Workshop. Just think of the main Editors' Choice and HP's Workshop as a single feature.
Thanks for your reply Robert. But it's hard to understand why you consolidate the best products from all TAS reviewers and leave HP as a separate section. Doesn't the TAS Editors' Choice Awards section acknowledge a consensus of the best reviewed products at various price points? The implication to me is the TAS consensus is the Bryston is not equal to the other products in the Editors' Choice awards list at that price point.
Len
Len -- it is simple: Harry asks that his selections be in HP's Workshop, and we honor that request.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
Robert - just how many awards and best-of issues do you need anyway? The audioasylum is replete with complaints about this stuff and the downward spiraling quality of the magazine... Why can't you stick with one yearly issue on awards and be done with it? I personally also feel the magazine's quality is deteriorating.
As long as you (TAS) do not duplicate Stereopile's awards. :)
We publish one Editors' Choice Awards per year, which is a compendium of every product we recommend. From all the products reviewed in the previous year, we select a few for a Product of the Year Award.
Our final awards issue is the Golden Ear Awards, Unlike the previous awards which are reached by consensus of the senior editorial staff, Golden Ear Awards reflect the individual tastes and biases of the particular reviewer. The Golden Ear Awards feature is typically 12 pages.
Incidentally, we publish fewer pages of awards features per year than competing magazines.
Finally, perhaps you can describe how the quality of TAS is "deteriorating."
Thanks,
Hmmm ...before we get into that dialog, just where do we start the critique in earnest; I may need the services of the back issues department.
Regards,
Jobsdone
It is a confusing welter. I never have a sense of what you guys think is the best of the best after I read the magazine. And I never get a sense for how and why these products sound different from each other, and why that diference makes them per se "better".
For example, is anyone on the reviewing staff prepared to say that the amplifiers and preamps offered today are dramatically better than those offered 20 years ago. And if so, why and how.
I think the magazine has degenerated into a kind of Robb Report of audio, filled with reviews of hyper expensive products which I'm not at all certain outperform far more reasonably priced by better engineered products. And I think there is really nothing to support the assertion that the products TAS reviews are worth the money, than the assertions of the reviewers to that effect.
Just a few comments, in no way intending to suggest that you change your feelings.
First, we really don't think there is such a thing as a "best" product, at least not one that can be articulated based on a set of fairly universal standards. We could arbitrarily name such a thing, but we won't because there are good reasons, which we have articulated at length, why this would be pandering.
Sure, we're prepared to say that amplifiers and preamplifiers are better than they were 20 years ago, and we can say how. 'Dramatically' is a subjective judgment which we leave to you. It is a question we haven't thought of as very relevant because most readers don't have 20 year old systems.
We've addressed the mix of equipment we review, in a quantified way. We can't really do the math on "filled", so Iet's assume your impression is valid for you. But you just have to willfully misread what we're saying to suggest that we assert things are worth the money. That is a decision only you can make. We do assert that some higher priced products outperform lower priced products in certain ways. But I repeat, whether those performance differences are 'dramatic' or 'worth it' or even 'on balance superior' is a subjective matter that we have to leave to the reader.
We also say that some lower priced products perform phenomenally well. Two recent examples:
http://www.avguide.com/review/monitor-audio-silver-rx1-loudspeaker-playb...
http://www.avguide.com/blog/magneplanar-17-first-listen
What we have repeatedly suggested is that you go to a dealer and listen to a variety of products we've reviewed. Form your own judgment about what is worth the money. Learn as much as you can about your own realism triggers and realism inhibitors. Use that to choose what is "best". Set the equipment up carefully. Buy some new music. Enjoy.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
"It is a confusing welter. I never have a sense of what you guys think is the best of the best after I read the magazine. And I never get a sense for how and why these products sound different from each other, and why that diference makes them per se "better".
For example, is anyone on the reviewing staff prepared to say that the amplifiers and preamps offered today are dramatically better than those offered 20 years ago. And if so, why and how."
It is a major fallacy on the part of the writers and readers to assume that one can get a clear idea of wha the equipment sounds like from reading a few words. Maybe if you are an expert that listens to a lot of different stuff in the home and go to all of the shows, or have a lot of experience with a family of products, it could hold true. However, this is probably a very tiny group of people.
How is a new Mercedes sedan different than an Audio sedan? You have to drive them both to figure it out even if you are very familar with cars. Likewise, an Arizona desert is very different than the Sahara desert. If one has spent a lot of time in one desert and not the other, he would have a hard time surviving in that environment. Coming back to audio, Martin Logan is transparent. Atma-sphere is also transparent. So is Soulution, according to Mr. Valin. How would each of the amps mate with the speakers and which would make the most transparent combo? Without getting them in the same room in the same system, it would be very hard to know.
So get a new system in your room and compare it to your 20 year old equipment. Listen for a while. Then read the review once you experience the product for yourself. If it is worth the extra money to you, buy it. If it's not worth the extra money to you or to others, the company will be forced to make a better product or go out of business.
I think that there is a tendency by many to take reviews in a way they may not be intended, along with the recommendations that often follow. A positive review is but one piece of information wherein the reviewer suggests the product in question is worth my consideration in his/her view, not a command to go buy it. If I go buy something only because a review says it's great, I'm abdicating my responsibility. TAS's Editors' Choice awards are interesting to read and give me a sense of what's out there and at what cost, but if I'm in the market for a product, my own research and financial capabilities will be the deciding factors in what I buy. Nothing takes the place of research, comparisons and auditions (when one can get them), especially if with familiar equipment. One problem I have is that I am one of those readers with a 20 year-old system (well, my tuner is; much of the rest is 16–17 years old), so auditioning on familiar equipment is difficult or impossible.
Perspective and context are always important, in my estimation, and I believe this is as important in choosing audio gear as in any other area. Reviewer experiences and recommendations are part of this. Ultimately, though, what I think is best for my system and circumstances is what counts.
Question for Mr. Harley/Mr. Martin:
How often do your reviewers audition the equipment listed in your Editor's Choice Awards?
Looking at the 2010 issue, some of the original reviews date back 6 - 8 years.
While some products have doubtless stood the test of time, I am suggesting you may want to thin the crop a little. This would also keep it from looking like a re-hash -- which I know it isn't, but still....
DS