2. Inconsistency in quality of writers. Besides HP, Harley, Jonathan Valin, and maybe Neil Gader, the other writers have only opinions to express, but no facts. Does TAS think I subscribe because I'm really interested in how the gear sounds to each reviewer, so I can hope to buy such gear month after month? Hell no, it's a hobby for me, and what makes the publication will principally be the quality of the writers, not simply the gear they review (caveat is Sound & Vision, which has poor writers and reviews mass market gear. Yawn.)

I used to think HP was arrogant; in hindsight, I think he's concise and confident and way more interesting. He lets his bias blast through, his personality come out. SPhile writers do way better in letting me get to know them and their quirks. Love or hate Dudley or "Gillette" or Atkinson or even ole CG, but I know them through their writing and look forward to reading their prose. Using car magazines as an analogy, TAS is becoming the Motor Trend or Road & Track to Sphile's Automobile (which has the best damn writers in their industry)

3. Lack of any real technical data. I would never buy based on stats alone, but most readers read not to buy but to be entertained. I am interested in how it works and measures simply because it is interesting. They have a technical guru in Harley (I just reread his 1993 article on digital jitter, fantastic!) but you'd never know they had the chops from reading their magazine. Turn Harley loose with a tech summary of the gear reviewed.

Reread the last three issues; except for the writers mentioned above, you could guess that they were all written by the same person with little technical knowledge of how things tick. Tell me about the design inspiration, about the company philosophy or history, about how the product is built and assembled, about the personalities. Don't simply repeat again about how the passage of Frickin Diana Krall peeled back layers or removed veils or the such.

4. Similarity to stuff reviewed elsewhere. TAS and Sphile are beginning to resemble competing car magazines, which review the same stuff as the other. Ever take a peek at Enjoy the Music or Six Moons? I see stuff reviewed there I would never even hear of (though TAS seems way better than Sphile about reviewing gear from newer speciality manufacturers.

At $25 bucks a year vs $11 for Sphile, where's the great bargain? HP writes such little copy that unlike old TAS, it hardly seems worth the increased price. Perhaps I'll continue to subscribe, but only because you can't easily read an online mag while your sitting on the pot.

 Re: HP had the art to let us salivating... - patrickU 11:26:31 06/13/04 (0)
 You make many valid points ... - Mike K 18:41:59 06/06/04 (0)
 Re: Why TAS is starting to drive me away - Ceres 08:29:08 05/28/04 (0)

...

Show full thread outline!

 Re: HP had the art to let us salivating... - patrickU 11:26:31 06/13/04 (0)
 You make many valid points ... - Mike K 18:41:59 06/06/04 (0)
 Re: Why TAS is starting to drive me away - Ceres 08:29:08 05/28/04 (0)
 Re: Why TAS is starting to drive me away - middleground 08:24:48 05/28/04 (2)
 You might reconsider the brother analogy - Ceres 12:46:43 05/31/04 (1)
 I meant "brothel" not "brother" analogy (nt) - Ceres 09:27:33 06/01/04 (0)
 Re: Why TAS is starting to drive me away - Gee LP 15:15:07 05/27/04 (0)

IMHO,I suspect that the editing of the writers contributes to your note that TAS' writers are all alike. Compare the reviews that REG, Aaron Shatzmann, Tamara Baker, and Anthony Cordesmann wrote BEFORE Robert Harley took over as editer and particularly before Mike Fisher took over as publisher (pre #112). Where's the Zoid?! Where's Dan Davis' "Quarter Notes"? Even following David Morrell's journey into audiophilia was interesting and fun. Where is that sense of adventure and discovery now?

A magazine changes over the years...and TAS has definitely changed over the last 10 years. But Harley is still learning and hopefully, TAS will continue to be "The High End Journal" (even if it no longer says it on the cover or contents page!).

1) The intercommentary system, one of the very best features -- gone, gone, gone. The description of the sonics is observational, but the intercommentary system allows the second reviewer to add notes, and give his (subjective) responses as well. This is what separates scientific approaches from personal biases.
2) The lack of insight: TAS used to teach you how to listen to (through) equipment. They no longer do that.
3) The lack of a common vocabulary. Some of the language is confusing. Who among the current staff understands the true meaning of the term "continuous" for example?? (I mean, besides JV and the senior reviewers?) Clearly, some of the writers don't have a clue what HP's famous "continuousness" means. I do, because I owned the Defy 7, and that is the first component to listen to if you want to get an idea of the meaning of continuousness . Whoever reviewed the Hovland in TAS thought he understood the concept, but it was clear that later on, when HP commented on the reviewer's perceptions of what continuous is, he realizes that they are not discussing the same thing.

The lack of commonality of vocabulary is disturbing. And that is part of what makes TAS less a "leader" in the field than once it was.
4) The "it's-as-good-as-I've-ever-heard" approach with out a long term reviewing, again, doing an intercommentary, is useless as an absolute statement. What was it HP once said? "Rudderless in a sea of relativity?" Who knows how much top equipment the reviewers have heard? If all the equipment they receive is in, say, the $3,000 range for say, digital, then their sense of what can be achieved with state-of-the-art components has no pespective. And if they've never heard HP's "super system," the chances of a clear perspective is zero. Precious little of the equipment discussions revlolve around a comparison to live music, save the reviews of Greene, Valin, HP, and Kaplan. (if others have been omitted, please excuse). It's just not a Golden Age at TAS anymore; it's just another "good" magazine, whereas it was once a genuine pioneer in the field. As one subscriber wrote, it's all review "lite," without the depth.

Imagine if a component had no depth: it would be downgraded. I wonder how one would rate TAS, which displays little -- if any - depth itself. These days, that is. And the change is quite datable:directly after the arrival of the new publisher. It seems clear that TAS is being re-designed to return a profit, not to (simply) satisfy the serious music lover, as well as the audiophile.

I mourn this loss. They were once golden; now merely gold plated.

Mike