Who is actually editing TAS?
Puma Cat -- Sat, 10/08/2011 - 13:56
Just received TAS' issue 217, the Buyers Guide.
Once again, this issue is replete with editorial errors.
On page 119. you have an entry for the Conrad-Johnson ET3SE. but the entirety of the body copy is for an ET2 preamp, a model that has been discontinued for well over a year now, almost two years. Yet, there is virtually nothing at all about the ET3SE at all in this entry.
On page 149, you have an entry for the Rega P1 turntable, a table that has been out of production for the better of a year now, and has completely replaced in the distribution network with the newer and signifiicantly improved, RP1. P1s are out of production, why are you reporitng on them? Addtionally, no mention of the RP1, a table that has already been reviewed extensively elsewhere and has been on the market for the better part of 2011.
On page 155, you refer to the Rega RB301 arm, yet the body copy says:
"For decades, turntable manufacturers who didn’t build their own ’arms frequently packaged their models with Rega’s terrific sounding and affordable RB300 tonearm. Musically compelling, with excellent balance and good detail, if not the final word in any one category, it is still around and still a superb buy.”
Are you talking about the RB300 or the RB301? I can't tell, and neither can your readers. Did you ever actually review an RB301?
WTF?
Lastly, why virtually no mention of the Oppo BDP-95 Blu-Ray/CD/SACD/DVD player. This is one of the most significant products on the market, everybody knows it, and there is no mention of it. I thought this was a buyers' guide.
Does someone at TAS actually EDIT the issue?
Disappointedly yours,
Stephen Scharf
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.
I always thought their buyer's guides were for products manufactured by their advertisers. Another omission from their buyer's guides is Ayre Acoustics, which manufactures quality products, at least based on other reviewers...not sure if Oppo advertises in TAS, can't seem to recall.
I've always viewed the buyer's guides as a way to see reviews for a subset of products in the marketplace, but I've never thought it was written really for the buyer's benefit...
Its a bit hard to recommend a product that is not reviewed for one reason or another. In the case of Ayre; I dont think they will give anything to TAS. There are other manufacturers who dont like their products reviewed as well.
Just goes to show that not only is it inaccurate, biased only towards advertisers (and therefore not a true buyer's guide), but does not reflect in any meaningful way the needs of actual customers.
Disappointing at best.
Robert Harley has published contrary data on this subject. So, what data do you have that demonstrates this? None, I suspect, which makes you seem more like a troll than a member of the community. C'mon, man, get a life!
Puma Cat, possibly if you worded your observations more courteously, you would get a thank you from tas editors for the correction. jax4736, note that tas is unable to review Ayre products as Ayre will not supply tas with products for review, as confirmd by Ayre founder Charles Hanson on audioasylum.com, you can search that site for reasons if interested, also I believe that Oppo does have an ad in the Buyers Guide.
It's impossible for any Buyers Guide to be comprehensive, as it's impossible for any magazine to review all the equipment out there, or for the reviewers to adequately remember sound quality of equipment reviwed years ago. I doubt if preparing such a Guide is much fun, I suspect that tas does it for much the same reason as John Atkinson gave for Stereophile's annual ratings issue, that these issues tend to sell well. I don't think there's any reason to suppose that the products highlighted in the Guide are there for any reason other than that they were well thought of by the reviewers. Presumably that should be interesting to actual customers, as one data point among many.
Daniel
"I doubt if preparing such a Guide is much fun, I suspect that tas does it for much the same reason as John Atkinson gave for Stereophile's annual ratings issue, that these issues tend to sell well."
Daniel...if you are implying that TAS editorial's staff is absolved of their duties to ensure factually accurate reporting on the products they highlight in their buyers guide because it is tedious work or it is not "much fun" then I am at a loss for words. What Stephen points out is clearly poor editorial oversight. I can excuse a spelling error here and a grammatical mis-step there, but to have factual errors on the products in a buyer's guide is simply inexcusable and unprofessional. To point this out in the hopes that some corrective action is taken for future issues is reasonable and appropriate.
First of all, our apologies for the three mistaken entries. The entire editorial team (and there are four of us working on each issue, not counting the art department) does its level best to get everything right, factually and grammatically, but on a large complex list such as this one, with changes of price and model designation coming in right through the very last minute and hundreds upon hundred of entries, mistakes invariably slip through. We will print corrections in an upcoming issue.
Second, the Buyer's Guide is our "best of the best" list. The products we would recommend to friends or family, and that we would buy ourselves. Advertising dollars have nothing to do with it. If they did, why would companies like Rockport or Basis or Berkeley or Spectral or Magnepan or ARC or VTL or Plinius or Parasound, etc. (who either don't advertise at all in TAS or only rarely advertise) be on it?
Third, in my admittedly biased opinion, the Buyer's Guide is a helluva good list and anything but "disappointing at best," unless, of course, you happen to own something that isn't on it.
Jonathan Valin
Yes, it's not perfect but it's the best resource of its kind. I've used it many times to guide purchasing decisions for I live in a market where auditioning equipment is usually not an option. I don't find Stereophile's Recommended Components as useful: their section on cables and accessories are woefully outdated and they are not very discerning when it comes to judging how good one component is compared with another. For example, placing the Oppo BDP-95 in the A+ category is just wrong. In revealing systems, the Esoteric X-05 and especially the Mark Levinson No.512 are leagues better. I know because I own all three.
Second that, it's a good list. Stereophile's Recommended Components doesn't consider products that haven't been reviewed in the last three years, and it seems there are so many speaker reviews that they simply reflect the individual reviewer's opinion now, rather than an editorial consensus. So there are products missing from it that everyone would expect to see, and products that are on it that while decent aren't, as Jon put it, the ones you'd recommend to a friend.
Of course, no list can be perfect or comprehensive, as witness the absence of Ayre. They're just starting points. But with so many products available, I think they're an important resource, particularly for those who don't have the time or inclination to follow every review.
Nice to know we can agree on something! ;-)
LOL, I had the same thought. :-)
Johnathan,
Thanks for replying. But I think the comment below is exaggerated :-)
"the Buyer's Guide is a helluva good list and anything but "disappointing at best," unless, of course, you happen to own something that isn't on it."
In that case, among the disappointed would be many people who bought equipment based on last year's list, in the floorstanding speaker section alone there are 14 models that don't appear on this year's list. It's hard not to believe that you're trying to be representative, not too many selections from any one manufacturer, and in the cable section particularly spreading the recommendations around.
Also, regarding "products we would recommend to friends or family': reading an audio buyer's guide would be analogous to reading a car buyer's guide that recommended components - tires, engines, suspensions, etc. - rather than assembled vehicles. I don't believe you would recommend audio products to family or friends that way, without reference to the system as a whole or to what they already own.
If you're seriously claiming this is a "best of the best" list, I think tas needs to introduce some consistency year to year, explaining why some products have been dropped off and others added, and being a little more transparent as to how products are selected. Do Gader or Taffel etc. get a vote on their favourite products? How exactly does that work? Some of the capsule reviews name the original reviewer, but many don't.
Actually, I think an annual "Recommended for Family and Friends" issue would be an excellent idea, and would probably sell well. Your "annual recommended" systems issue probably comes closest.
Daniel
Of course, the list has changed: The 14 products that are "missing" have either been discontinued, updated, or replaced by superior products of the same type (sometimes from the same manufacturers)! This certainly does NOT mean that if you bought one of these 14 products you made a mistake (or we did in recommending them). The "Buyer's Guide" reflects our best judgments about those products that are currently on the market. Obviously, a list like this is constantly being refreshed, because we're constantly reviewing new and often, though not always, improved gear.
As for who does the selection, the answer is EVERYONE on the TAS editorial team. We ask our writers, senior and contributing, to choose those products they think were the best they reviewed throughout the year, and then we ask them whether, in their heart of hearts, they think these products are superior to other products at similar price points that are already on our previous Buyer's Guide list.
Steven: if you're going to be so abrasive about details, you should at least know that the Oppo is covered by TPV here:
http://www.avguide.com/review/oppo-bdp-95-blu-rayuniversal-player-tpv-103
Do all reviewers really hear all equipment? I thought reviewers reviewed specific pieces of equipment. How would they know that component X is better than component Y if they haven't heard component Y?
I thought the reviewers live all over the country and gear being reviewed is shipped to the reviewing location. If that's the case, it seems rather challenging to pick out one piece of gear over the other.
I do enjoy reading the buyer's guide, it provides an interesting way to see gear at different price levels. But I never view it as a 'best of' list. I view it more as a list of gear to consider, and I'm sure there's nothing "bad" on the list. I'd be curious to know what makes component X better than component Y. It's not a fair assessment unless all reviewers who vote have truly heard all the different pieces.
But I still enjoy the issue.
You raise a good point. No, all reviewers don't hear all equipment. Most of us have "specialties," although there is overlap among those specialties. When we replace a product with something new, we always consult the original reviewer, who, ofttimes, because of his area of specialization, is the same man who reviewed the "new, improved" product, whether he thinks the newer product is worthy of inclusion on this highly select list and whether it should replace or go along side of his previously recommended prodcuct (assuming that product is still in production).
Case in point: I just ordered the Aerial Acoustics 7Ts largely based on the current Buyer's Guide. I know it's a bit of a risk buying speakers without auditioning them but a) my options are limited and b) I do believe TAS Buyer's Guide undergoes editorial scrutiny. Of course, I also referenced Kirk Midtskog's rave CES Show Report on the 7Ts a few months back. I've come to respect Mr. Midtskog's judgement having read many of his reviews, including his superb review of the B&W 805 Diamonds as well as his frequent comparisons to his current references, the Dynaudio Confidence C1s, which recently were also in my system. And, of course, Aerial's reputation was taken into account.
Used judiciously, I think you can take the Buyer's Guide list to the bank. I did!
I think it's safe to say that this buying guide, like any of the others in print or online, can only consider the products that have actually been reviewed. So if you are interested in products that have not been reviewed, you will have to utilize other resources as well (which you should probably do anyway.)