[
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]
72.82.29.123
In Reply to: RE: The prototypes that won a Golden Ear. posted by Sommovigo on May 22, 2008 at 04:36:02
Not to defend the Golden Ear Award's going to a prototype, but, those with long-ish memories may recall the evolution of the original Pipedreams under HP's gaze. I thought that that situation crossed a line, but if anyone thinks it didn't I am not going to argue with them--glass of water half-empty, half full.
In just the same way, I surmise that there are going to be readers who will be surprised and upset if the product they buy gets supplanted months later with a new and improved version in the ongoing evolution, and there will be readers who won't mind that much.
I think that most writers and most readers would say that there is a line, and on one side of it are prototypes and works-in-progress. However, I think we also should consider that there is a continuum or a spectrum, and that it includes "real production products" that undergo non-trivial revisions or even come out with new model names or Mark numbers with indecent haste. And I think that writers and editors should protect their readers against both. The question is, "How?"
I love the fact that Sugden has been making essentially the same amp for 30 years. I also think that the fact that Wilson Audio Specialties has had eight WATTs over the same period, a renewal rate of once every four years, is not excessive. Personally, I draw the line at a product life span of less than 18 months, which suggests to me semi-competence or cynicism.
I have no problem with a writer mentioning a prototype. I don't even have a problem with a reviewer (for a magazine other than Stereophile) having a prototype in his home. However, if the writer gives feedback to the manufacturer on how the prototype sounds, and the manufacturer makes changes to accommodate the reviewer's taste, then, IMHO, a line has been crossed, and the reviewer now has an emotional stake in the success of his godchild, and in such a case, objectivity demands that a different writer assess the product.
I chuckle my rueful chuckle about Golden Ears: when I wrote for TAS, my recording Golden Ears (all of which went to people I had never met or dealt with) were refused publication on the grounds that I was an industry professional and therefore it was a conflict, while REG was allowed to give a project he co-produced a Golden Ear. I guess ya had to be there to see the humor in it. Or perhaps not. Welcome to Animal Farm.
To quote a great man, the matter has been dealt with, so I guess we have all been told to move on.
Cheers,
JM
Follow Ups:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]