While this thread is quite old, I think it deserves a current day perspective. The Talon Khorus came out 10 years ago with high praise from many reviewers who claimed it to have superlative performance and extolled its capabilities as one of the best speakers ever made.
In particular, I reference Stuart A. McCreary, Positive Feedback Magazine from Feb. of 2001.
It turns out that the speaker he reviewed was flawed in design, as was ultimately addressed by the manufacturer of the speaker and the subsequent upgrade to the X-version which was designed to overcome major problems with the speaker.
As time progressed and Talon was bought out by Rives, it was further addressed and publicly stated within the pages of Stereophile magazine that there were basic design flaws. Hence the statement in Stereophile by Rives: The company (Talon, my add) sometimes released speakers before perfecting their designs (eg, the Khorus and Khorus X).
In my opinion, what should be taken from all of this are several things.
The first and most important being that "professional" reviewers are, for whatever reason (you fill in the blank) are either incapable of writing an honest review or incapable of recognizing a good product from a flawed product. I am never sure of the truth.
I do know in the Positive Feedback review, the amplifiers used with the Talon Khorus was the Bel Canto digital amps (also claimed by Positive Feedback to be exemplary). Of course, this all goes back to 2001 and an amp design and amp company that certainly seems to report that the digital/switching amps of that genre were not really ready for prime time (my words). And that audiophiles on this site who do proclaim that the digital amps of current (2011) generation are much, much better than those of 10 years ago. Even these fans of the digital amps clearly agree that the digital amps of 10 years ago were lacking in many, many regards. Yet somehow, Positive Feedback found it compelling to state that they were fantastic.
I don't mean to pick on Positive Feedback exclusively, but come on. In one article they have proclaimed two products to be absolutely outstanding products, capable of world class performance (my summary of their statements).
Yet, just a few years later, the manufacturers of both products had come out and stated that both products were flawed in many regards.
I have come to the conclussion that there are "non-professional" audiophiles on this site that are far and away superior at recognizing sound and performance issues that puts the "professional" reviewers to shame.
Are there those on this site that also use the forums to bash product they don't own or the falsely promote product that they do own? Sure, but these are usually identifiable in the forums, and some members have much better reputations than others do.
Unfortunately, the "professional" reviewers should not be extended this same luxury of making false claims, or worse, being tin-eared. I think few of us still have any respect for the "professional" reviewers and take what they say as much for amusement as anything else. buying something based on a review in Positive Feedback or any other publication is no way to assure the best performance for your dollar spent.
In particular, I reference Stuart A. McCreary, Positive Feedback Magazine from Feb. of 2001.
It turns out that the speaker he reviewed was flawed in design, as was ultimately addressed by the manufacturer of the speaker and the subsequent upgrade to the X-version which was designed to overcome major problems with the speaker.
As time progressed and Talon was bought out by Rives, it was further addressed and publicly stated within the pages of Stereophile magazine that there were basic design flaws. Hence the statement in Stereophile by Rives: The company (Talon, my add) sometimes released speakers before perfecting their designs (eg, the Khorus and Khorus X).
In my opinion, what should be taken from all of this are several things.
The first and most important being that "professional" reviewers are, for whatever reason (you fill in the blank) are either incapable of writing an honest review or incapable of recognizing a good product from a flawed product. I am never sure of the truth.
I do know in the Positive Feedback review, the amplifiers used with the Talon Khorus was the Bel Canto digital amps (also claimed by Positive Feedback to be exemplary). Of course, this all goes back to 2001 and an amp design and amp company that certainly seems to report that the digital/switching amps of that genre were not really ready for prime time (my words). And that audiophiles on this site who do proclaim that the digital amps of current (2011) generation are much, much better than those of 10 years ago. Even these fans of the digital amps clearly agree that the digital amps of 10 years ago were lacking in many, many regards. Yet somehow, Positive Feedback found it compelling to state that they were fantastic.
I don't mean to pick on Positive Feedback exclusively, but come on. In one article they have proclaimed two products to be absolutely outstanding products, capable of world class performance (my summary of their statements).
Yet, just a few years later, the manufacturers of both products had come out and stated that both products were flawed in many regards.
I have come to the conclussion that there are "non-professional" audiophiles on this site that are far and away superior at recognizing sound and performance issues that puts the "professional" reviewers to shame.
Are there those on this site that also use the forums to bash product they don't own or the falsely promote product that they do own? Sure, but these are usually identifiable in the forums, and some members have much better reputations than others do.
Unfortunately, the "professional" reviewers should not be extended this same luxury of making false claims, or worse, being tin-eared. I think few of us still have any respect for the "professional" reviewers and take what they say as much for amusement as anything else. buying something based on a review in Positive Feedback or any other publication is no way to assure the best performance for your dollar spent.