[KShaft]

"Just for the record and you may quote me on this. The reviewer lived a couple of
miles from Moth. He called after receiving the si2A3 and said there was a buzz
in
the amp. I drove over and found a deffective power strip and bad grounding
technique. I fixed his system and went on my way. The reviewer called after a
few
days and said the amp sounded thin, he had to keep turning it up after listening
to the Holmes. I went over with a battery of test equipment and checked the amp.
It was flat as a pancake from 20 to 20kHz and dead quiet. Perfect square wave
response. I asked if I could check the Holmes, he agreed. The Holmes had a bump
in the bas around 50Hz and a nasty overshoot and ring slightly above 15kHz. I
said this amp (the Holmes) is going to color the sound. The reviewer said he
liked what it did to his bass guitar. (He was a professional bass player and was
using recordings he played on to audition the amps.) I said well it will
exaggerate the bass and add a bunch of harmonics up were your guitar doesnt't
have any. And I said if you listen to the Holmes first you will naturally turn
up
the si2A3 to try and get that bass but it will never sound like that. He said he
liked the Holmes better and pretty much kicked me out of his house. I contacted
the Editor, I told her as far as I was concerned Her reviewer was a complete and
utter moron and I wanted the si2A3 removed from the article. She refused and
would not give me the customary manufacturers response. And that is why I don't
know who TAS is, I know who TAC is (The Absolute Clowns.)
Craig"

Its a good thing we have guys on this forum who actually know what they are talking about.

k.s.

 

[sacd lover]

It makes you wonder how many people have been burned by the findings from reviews like this. I try to be very careful to provide identical or nearly identical setups for gear I am describing. I want to hear the piece in question not the differing ancilliaries. I also want the reviewers standards to be based on neutral and minimally flawed referance components. However, I have no idea what you do when the reviewer has a flawed referance that he uses to penalize comparison gear that doesnt have the referances colorations; especially when he doesnt realize this, nor do his readers.

 

[mbratrud]

Funny... I remember when B&W put out that humongous and really expensive 800 reference (what were they, like 7 feet tall?) and Lewis Lipkin reviewed them for Stereophile.

In the next issue they showed a picture of the speakers in the reviewer's "bear den" and low and behold the guy reviewed gigantic speakers in a 10 X 11 room with 8 foot ceilings.

I used to like the fact that they benched things at Stereophile though and at least they told you all the features and something about the design in each review. Things like how many outputs a DAC has or if the amplifier is fully differentially balanced in its design is useful and non-subjective info.

I am waiting to hear what Kentamcolin (I hope I got that right) has to say about his Si2A3

 

[Music Fanatic]

This article unfortnately confirms many of our worst suspicions about the extreme "audiophile" crowd. From green pens to freezing CDs, there is plenty of reason to doubt the accuracy of a number of audiophile statements. Let's hope that this particular remark has some traction with the editors at TAS.

 

[ServinginEcuador]

Hopefully this doesn't ruin my chances of getting ahold of some of the Moth amps do write some reviews on. Man, that guy is pretty much clueless and shouldn't be doing reviews. Once we see who publishes a review on the Moth amp over at TAS we'll know to never, ever trust their ears again!

 

[markl]

Very interesting, confirms the general impression one gets of that writer just from reading his article/review. Quote:

This article unfortnately confirms many of our worst suspicions about the extreme "audiophile" crowd. From green pens to freezing CDs, there is plenty of reason to doubt the accuracy of a number of audiophile statements. Let's hope that this particular remark has some traction with the editors at TAS.

I don't think it says much about "extreme audiophiles" (he sounds like more of a musician than an audiophile, he doesn't seem to know much about his equipment) but it does call into question just what are the qualifications one needs in order to write for audio magazines.

I haven't heard the Moth, but after reading that review ages ago, it made me not so curious about it. I know it discouraged many on this board from taking the plunge with it for the longest time, since that was really the only info on that amp anywhere at the time. Just goes to show how crucial that first review of any product can be it can make or break a product.

 

[navman]

I remember a TAS review on 3 preamps, The Marsh 2000/Rogue 99 and a Plinus (I believe).

Anyway the Marsh won out and was made out more sweet by virtue of being half the price of the others and could (I paraphrase) compete with amps costing twice the price of the more expensive ones in teh review. They had an interesting comment about mild sibilence in this wonderous preamp.

I went out and bought one. For months I was trying to tame the harsh treble. The sibilence was awful. It wasnt slight by any means. SO i sold it.

I relized that the reason they liked the Marsh was that Marsh himself used to be a reviewer for their magazine.

Needless to say I let my subscription lapse.

 

[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally posted by navman I went out and bought one. For months I was trying to tame the harsh treble. The sibilence was awful. It wasnt slight by any means. SO i sold it.

Many of the TAS reviewers' tastes seem to lean towards bright, harsher gear. They gave the NAD C320BEE their "amp of the year" award two years ago, and it's definitely got a harsh treble.

 

[aerius]

I can't say I'm surprised. Remember, it all comes back to advertising and dollars. There's a nice correlation between the ads you see in TAS and how the products in those ads are reviewed.

TAS Critique

TAS's Questionable ethics in reviewing the Wilson Watt/Puppy system

 

[TrevorNetwork]

Aerius:

Thanks for those links. Quite interesting!

Trevor

 

[ServinginEcuador]

Quote:

Originally posted by aerius I can't say I'm surprised. Remember, it all comes back to advertising and dollars. There's a nice correlation between the ads you see in TAS and how the products in those ads are reviewed.

Thanks for the links aerius. This is a grim reminder for me to ensure that I am objective in my reviews. It's easier as I'm just a nobody reviewer writing for the site, not someone receiving income from them for advertising.

 

[KR...]

That is just disgraceful!

I hope that no one here will never buy that magazine.

 

[Demolition]

Quote:

Originally posted by KR... That is just disgraceful! I hope that no one here will never buy that magazine.

In my dealings and correspondence with Craig, he has acted with the utmost honesty and integrity. Basically, he treats his customers like gold. Then, to hear of his treatment at the hands of the TAS staff -- as KR... said, it is absolutely disgraceful. To be treated with such disrespect is sickening.

I hope that word of our disgust filters back to TAS. They need to know that this sort of abuse can't be tolerated. They also need to either pull the Si2A3 review or allow Craig to append a manufacturer's response. Otherwise, this put a big black mark on their reputation (which is already in tatters).

D.

 

[kentamcolin]

My impression of professional audio reviewers, right or wrong, is that they are basically "audio politicians." I don't trust them for their word one bit.

My Moth Si2A3 is stunning. It makes beautiful music and dollar for dollar I think the $2K price is the best value in terms of sound enjoyment I've ever heard.

 

[HiGHFLYiN9]

I think it would be a great idea for us Head-Fiers to take a step further and send some email expressing our displeasure with the way TAS conducts their business. Especially since this for Craig. If someone could post TASs email it would be greatly appreciated.