-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Legal fund for Reviewers/Erin?
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
teched58
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2020
- Messages
- 310
- Likes
- 737
It has had unanticipated and undiscussed knock-on effects. It's difficult to describe quantitatively what has happened, but I would say that subjectively the following things have changed. I will also note that correlation is not causation; these are things that have occurred since L'affaire Eric, but may or may not be related to the change in the audiophile zeitgeist.
--Gun shyness. The biggest thing I notice is that the tone has shifted. Here and on other forums. People shy away from pointed discussions. A positive is that things are calmer. A negative is that calmness is antithetical to discussions of controversial things.
--Stereophile has finally become completely irrelevant in the sense that no one talks about their articles anymore. SP also recently stopped showing on its home page the number of comments each article has. Engagement seems to have fallen off a cliff; Stereophile's 2024 Products of the Year article, posted Nov. 22, has zero comments as of Dec. 4
Emphasis is mine as I don't know if the things you listed as changed are actually related (caused?) to l'affaire Eric.
Things that have not changed:
- Eric promised he would publish speakers measurements, in particular for any new products released by Tekton. Allegedly, he already had tons of measurements on hand... I am not aware of any measurement published by Tekton, yet they have released new products since l'affaire Eric. Two new speakers I noticed: "Bonneville" (notable for its array of 6+1 horn medium/tweeters) and "Solitude" (open baffle dipole) but no corresponding measurements.
Well, it's one thing to change the zeitgeist, another to change the behavior of a charlatan whose living depends on popular delusions.
Well that's a bit harsh.
I mean, for me... None of his designs pass the WAF test. Which makes it a non starter.
Sound is irrelevant if the speakers don't pass the WAF test.
(Not to mention I am not a fan of the looks either)
I've noticed a bit of a trend going forward.
There are some reviewers who will say that if they get a product in for review and they don't like it... they refuse to publish a review.
And more and more, the reviewers tend to test the speakers w multiple and different amps to see how it changes the sound.
(e.g This speaker sounded great w my favorite reference tube amp, or my class A... but not so much w this class D amp I also had in for review...)
Or the speaker was 'bright' or so on...
tmtomh
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2018
- Messages
- 3,454
- Likes
- 10,370
If those are the trends, both are in my view negative trends. For the first one, I can see how it sort of could be beneficial to a degree - if poor products simply don't get reviewed then in the aggregate the amount of "buzz" a product gets could start to get more in line with its actual quality. On the other hand, publishing a negative review (or as is more often the case a mixed review) sends a much clearer signal and allows prospective buyers to understand what exactly the reviewer had a problem with.
As for testing with different amps, in most cases I'd say that just furthers the myth of "synergy," which most of us here at ASR (though not all of us) would say is really about trying to accommodate flaws in speakers with compensatory flaws in amps.
(Yes, for speakers that present unusually challenging loads, more attention does need to be paid to amp pairing, but that's not what I'm referring to here and from what I can tell not what im_gumby is talking about.)
Oh I agree.
All products (amps, speakers, DACs, etc... ) have their flaws. Their design is always going to be a compromise between technology and cost.
I see a red flag when there's a review saying how great a product is without talking about any negative issues. But to your point... I tend to look for reviews before I pull the trigger. In part because its a part of the hobby. But also because I want to buy something that I can be happy with for years before getting something new.
But there is some truth to synergy.
Just go look at the IEM market and then DAP/DAC dongles. (Oh yeah. Headphones / IEMs a whole 'nother world. )
Every reviewer talks about listener's preferences. I tend to like ToneDeafMonk even though he's Canadian. ;-P He taste in music is similar to mine and we're both older so there's a bit of hearing loss on higher frequencies.
W.R.T amps and reviews...
Everyone was singing praises of the Fossi v3 amp. Cheap Audio Man (Randy) loves the Chi-Fi.
I think Amir has done a review too and they test out fairly well. (Golfing Panther IIRC?)
Ron at New Day Record was doing a review... but blew the amp during a long burn in session. (You can google for his video on this.)
After that... I know Randy made a mention about it. That his are working fine, but he didn't do a long burn in session.
And others have also talked about it... Its great for a desktop small room amp. You can even roll pre-amps. (for a price) and I'm sure that they sound good.
This is a great example of the YT reviewers being open about it. Until Ron blew the amp... no one found the issue. At best they talked about these amps getting warm on longer listening sessions. No one put it thru its paces like that. Of course when you look at the Fossi and then rolling the op amps... you're getting near the price point for better amps. (e.g. Purifi then a bit higher to GaN FETs. )
To your point. Yes I wasn't talking about the amount of power... but how some reviewers talk about how chocolate the sound is when listening via a tube amp, but when listening w a class D it was 'technical but cold'. That sort of thing. I don't own a wall of amps sitting on shelves so I can't verify their claims.
As in distorted vs accurate?
What is your preference, to hear what was put into the source as best as possible.
Or to stick a tone control inside your power amp the will sound different with each speaker its mated to?
Some reviewers just love to have an impressive vocabulary with which to describe the sound of things, whether real or imagined.
Yes, exactly. Some like the 'coloration' that the integrated amp adds to the music.
I don't think anyone is talking about adding tone control to a power amp. But to your point. we need to differentiate between power amp and integrated amps.
And yes the reviewers tend to be better at articulating the sound. As to real or imagined... I don't know. If you're on LSD and you can 'taste' the music... your perception is 'real' just not something anyone else can experience unless they too are on LSD.
And on that note... we're getting off track.
For us... if a vendor is going to threaten to sue over a bad review... then its a product/vendor to stay clear of and move on.
Erin has moved on and so should we.
If you read this thread and are familiar with the circumstances around his baseless legal threats to Erin, I don't think it is harsh in the least.
Not that it's directly relevant, but he doesn't pull any punches either. And his arguments are indefensible.
If your using a tube amp with the normal high output impedance transformers, the frequency response into the varying input impedance of speakers
will create a FR curve in the speakers output no different than a tone control. Call it whatever you will.
There was never a credible legal threat. So much pants-wetting over nothing.
Ok...
Look. You called the guy a Charlatan.
His product is real. Not a con. Erin just pointed out some serious design flaws and the marketing guy got his panties in a twist.
Its what I would call a 'dick' move.
I'm not arguing that you're wrong. But that you're being a tad harsh.
The legal threats are real.
What you have to remember... you have to take the threat of a lawsuit at face value. Even if the lawsuit is baseless. It will cost you to defend yourself against it.
Depending on where you live. The quality of your lawyer... That's not going to be cheap. Easily 5-10K just out of the gate. This isn't some guy shouting at you "I'm going to sue your a$$" but something that was communicated in an email.
I'm not excusing the guy's actions in the least. It was a dick move and one that could have easily been handled differently.
(And this is from a guy who dealt w a frivolous lawsuit that dragged out over a decade.)
Erin going public probably saved him a lot of money defending himself from a frivolous lawsuit. The publicity definitely brought that guy to his senses.
? Sounds like you are just being contrary to have something to say. I agree with them and their use of descriptors. Harsh—geez?
Well that was my point.
His comment was a bit harsh.
Not trying to be contrary.
This is like hitting Goodwin's law.
Peace out.
tmtomh
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2018
- Messages
- 3,454
- Likes
- 10,370
To @im_gumby 's point, it seems like the "harsh/charlatan" question is a version of an issue that crops up here at ASR with some regularity.
If you Google the meaning of "charlatan," the first result is "a person who pretends to have more knowledge or skills than they actually do," with synonyms listed as "imposter, mountebank, fraud, fake, and phony."
When Tekton's Eric Alexander touts his audio knowledge (and scientific knowledge) and claims to have measurements to back up his claims, and then demonstrates an at-times shocking lack of understanding of how to read a measurement graph (remember that naked-driver woofer FR graph he sent Amir?), one can reasonably say that he pretends - or at least claims - to have more knowledge or skills than he actually does. So in that sense it can be argued that he's a charlatan.
But one can also just as reasonably say that something important gets lost in that perspective. Eric Alexander does have a fair bit of engineering and audio knowledge, and has repeatedly acknowledged the performance limitations or tradeoffs of his unconventional design approach. True, he has usually done so with somewhat vague, dismissive language like, "it's a fun speaker." But he has done so nonetheless, and his speakers are performant even if most of us consider them a poor value because their performance weaknesses are either uncorrectable with EQ or are easily avoidable with other speakers at similar prices.
In this understanding, he's not pretending to have more knowledge or skill than he does - he has no intent to commit fraud or deceive his buyers about what they're getting. And his evident lack of understanding or attention to certain important audio science factors can be seen as a lack of interest or as self-delusion. So in this sense he is not a charlatan, and to call him one is to call him a conscious liar and deceiver, which can be argued to be "a bit harsh" when you look at it that way.
The reason I say this is a version of a common issue here is that it's ultimately about a factor we have a limited ability to make truth-claims about: the person's intent and motivation.
Some members here - @im_gumby and myself included - aren't particularly enamored of calling people thieves and frauds unless there's some clear evidence of that.
By contrast, other members here feel that it's letting purveyors of audio pseudo-science or audiophile marketing-speak off the hook to not call them out as frauds. I don't personally agree with that point of view (unless the person clearly is engaging in deceptive claims or activity <cough>MQA</cough>) - but I do understand it and I don't think it's unreasonable to hold that point of view.
If you Google the meaning of "charlatan," the first result is "a person who pretends to have more knowledge or skills than they actually do," with synonyms listed as "imposter, mountebank, fraud, fake, and phony."
When Tekton's Eric Alexander touts his audio knowledge (and scientific knowledge) and claims to have measurements to back up his claims, and then demonstrates an at-times shocking lack of understanding of how to read a measurement graph (remember that naked-driver woofer FR graph he sent Amir?), one can reasonably say that he pretends - or at least claims - to have more knowledge or skills than he actually does. So in that sense it can be argued that he's a charlatan.
But one can also just as reasonably say that something important gets lost in that perspective. Eric Alexander does have a fair bit of engineering and audio knowledge, and has repeatedly acknowledged the performance limitations or tradeoffs of his unconventional design approach. True, he has usually done so with somewhat vague, dismissive language like, "it's a fun speaker." But he has done so nonetheless, and his speakers are performant even if most of us consider them a poor value because their performance weaknesses are either uncorrectable with EQ or are easily avoidable with other speakers at similar prices.
In this understanding, he's not pretending to have more knowledge or skill than he does - he has no intent to commit fraud or deceive his buyers about what they're getting. And his evident lack of understanding or attention to certain important audio science factors can be seen as a lack of interest or as self-delusion. So in this sense he is not a charlatan, and to call him one is to call him a conscious liar and deceiver, which can be argued to be "a bit harsh" when you look at it that way.
The reason I say this is a version of a common issue here is that it's ultimately about a factor we have a limited ability to make truth-claims about: the person's intent and motivation.
Some members here - @im_gumby and myself included - aren't particularly enamored of calling people thieves and frauds unless there's some clear evidence of that.
By contrast, other members here feel that it's letting purveyors of audio pseudo-science or audiophile marketing-speak off the hook to not call them out as frauds. I don't personally agree with that point of view (unless the person clearly is engaging in deceptive claims or activity <cough>MQA</cough>) - but I do understand it and I don't think it's unreasonable to hold that point of view.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #1,740
FYI, recently a member offered a Tekton speaker for review (one with multiple tweeters from what I recall). I agreed to test it but then something happened and the offer went away. I remain open and ready to test more Tekton products.
As far as effect on my reviews, there has been none. Nor have I seen membership being more cautious. I can't speak for other reviewers as I don't follow them closely.
As far as effect on my reviews, there has been none. Nor have I seen membership being more cautious. I can't speak for other reviewers as I don't follow them closely.
Similar threads
