The review wehave been promising is up

Andrew

  I accept everything you say except the part about their being an “Absolute Sound”, and that issue is tangential here, imo, and could be the subject of a different thread.  
  Shortly before Art Dudley died, he reviewed some French CDP that cost around $25K.  His comparator was a Sony SACD player that he had since 2003.  Now, surely someone at Sterephile could have loaned him something for a weekend that was a more relevant comparator?  I appreciate the difficulties that may be involved, but as a reader, such a comparison is meaningless.

  I also disagree that there is some type of Universal Audio Language, an Audiophile Esperanto, that can be used successfully to describe products.  We all read these terms but overtime they come to mean different things to different listeners, and It doesn’t allow for the possibility that biologically, we tend to hear things in different subtle ways.  Trying to describe in words what one is hearing in sounds is undoubtedly a challenge, but I don’t think that having a codification of terms, and expecting the average Audiophile, not to mention the casually interested person who might pick up an issue of TAS at a bookstore, to master them is the solution.

  Happy Listening 

With the 432 EVO Aeon review, as Lalin pointed out, I do have a Baetis server that’s active in my system and I use a lot and, of course, compared to the Belgium product. But how many readers have had experience with that one? I’ve reviewed a couple of other Baetis models, an Aurender, and a T+A but that’s still such a minuscule part of the server universe.

Strange — can you point out the part of the review where you compared it to the Baetis because I don’t see it. And I would’ve found it very helpful to hear your impressions of how the Aurender and T+A pieces compare to the 432 as I suspect most others would too as it adds a significant level of perspective as to how the 432 sounds. And here we go yet again with the ridiculous contention that comparisons aren’t useful unless someone has the component themselves or that you’re not using every product in that segment. Bogus!!! There are other reviews of the comparison products out there where they’re compared to other products, and by hearing these multiple accounts and comparisons it lends a much greater ability to hone in on a product’s true and relative sonic properties with this additional context. If you can’t see this you’re either drinking too much of the TAS kool-aid or engaging in willful ignorance.

Perhaps even stranger still, if the Baetis was in your system and as you say you used it for comparison purposes in the review, why does it not appear in your stated list of associated equipment as you apparently saw fit to list every other piece except the Baetis? Hmmm. How in the world were we supposed to know you were comparing the 432 to the Baetis? ESP? Hidden somewhere in your unique and mythical TAS prose? Face it — the only explanation is you were hiding the Baetis so you couldn’t actually be pinned down on any of your observations or assertions — there is no other defensible explanation here. For reference, here’s the list of associated system equipment with the one curious omission…

For the review period, I used two DACs, a Bricasti Design M1 and the Ideon Absolute Epsilon [see RH’s full review in this issue]. A Transparent USB Premium cable connected server and DAC. Analog electronics included a Pass Labs XP-22 linestage and Pass XA 60.8 monoblock amplifiers; loudspeakers were either Magico M1s or the TAD E1-TX system [review pending]. Local files were stored on a Synology NAS and reached the Aeon via a Fidelizer Etherstream switch connected to my router.

And I particularly like this little bit…

I do listen to a lot of the same music with each review component, using the vocabulary of high-performance audio to describe the sound to myself and to the magazine’s end user—and that allows me to have an impression of what’s really good and what’s merely OK.

Ah the mystical language that apparently tells all if you have earned the secret decoder ring. It’s great that you can judge for yourself what is great or merely OK, but what about the poor reader? Perhaps you can point to one of your reviews where we can clearly see where a product was “merely OK.” I won’t hold my breath. The point of an audio review magazine is not so YOU can identify areas where or which components are “really good and what’s merely OK” but that the READERS get a sense of that, and this extremely important aspect is where TAS reviews fail miserably and why I (and several other people here) no longer read TAS reviews.

@aquint What your last post once again showed in plain relief was the TAS standard and frankly silly defense of why you don’t do product comparisons along with a stark example of how you actively hide comparable review system components so the reader has no knowledge of your basis for your review assertions and conclusions. As a reviewer and as I’ve said before, the only reasons to conduct reviews in this manner are laziness, the ability to crank out more reviews faster, and/or to avoid any semblance of possible accountability for both yourself or the magazine. I only continue to point out these significant shortcomings because you and TAS at large continue to defend your less-than-rigorous review policies with absurd and thin arguments that most seasoned audiophiles will see right through for the desperate garbage they are. But, and to end on a more positive and hopeful note, the fact that you’re considering doing more comparisons in the future is a huge potential step in the right direction for both the effectiveness and usefulness of your reviews as well as TAS’ overall reputation as a more credible source of truly valuable information.

@soix - agree with your points; and yes not a word about the Baetis in any way shape or form. Hifi-Advice on the otherhand does a pretty good job of providing comparison context in reviews

I want to say, I am good with @audiotroy ’s comments. Across each one of their posts it says they are a vendor. This is honesty, up front. They have exposure to different brands… they choose to carry some brands and not others… it is hard not to think they carry brands they think sound good. 
 

But for me, the bottom line is they are up front that they are a vendor. So you can decide what that means to you. I get very angry when a vendor does not show that up front… that is disingenuous.

So thank you Audio Troy.

my take, just one person’s opinion, a person who likes this place...

@audiotroy is an aggressive, vocal seller here in this forum, jumps in and sells on numerous user threads... and though they disclose who/what they are when they post, in my opinion, what they do here is NOT OK -- let’s take it to an extreme... someone posts a question here on how to make a set of vandy 2ce’s work in their room... then seven retailers jump in, say ’hey man, ditch those lame-ass speakers, i sell these great xxx-yyy-zzz, greatest thing since quad esl’s, they will embarrass your crappy old vandy’s’ -- see the problem that arises? .... there is good reason why in the good ol’ days (not that long ago actually), when industry folks did this ho-ing here on the users forum they were quickly told to stop it... in my view, we shouldn’t lower our standards to where this behavior is accepted ... just cuz they say they are sellers doesn’t make it ok that they pollute the discussion threads repeatedly

as for TAS and how/what they write in reviews ... we should still read these, as any published info, even if colored by commercial incentives, can be indeed useful info -- but we should just understand how this industry works, it has been this way for decades since stereophile and tas and many others have gotten popular and become ’brands’ of their own as industry publications aimed at the consumer ... they are advertising driven, that is their bread and butter, we the end users are the targets of the advertising... it is a mutually beneficial eco system where reviews are used to support advertising, in turn to sell gear to end users, usually through retailers online or physical... published reviews, even relatively weak, low-accountability ones without comparisons like those in TAS, are real work to do, and these people gotta eat, be paid for their work, so it is just how the game is played... tas needs to survive financially like any other publication and its not easy ... we as subscribers pay almost nothing to read it... in my view, there is no fault in this, we as consumer just need to clearly understand the ’wiring diagram’ and see these reviews for what they are, and not be naive.... once understood, we can understand better why there are so few negative reviews, negativity on any product is stated extremely subtlely, few comparisons are made - it makes the money machinery work ....

this is no different for youtube reviews, asr reviews, part time audiophile reviews -- each has their economic/financial wiring diagram... all try at some level to be honest, have integrity... but there are always degrees of this, life is shades of grey, no clear cut black and white, nobody is pure... we as users just need to be aware of this...

sorry for this long one...