Unusual TAS bomb

The TAS review is the opinion of just ONE person, and is no more credible than anyone ONE else who also listens to the DAC8. Not everyone likes the same thing. That's why when you go to the ice cream shop, they offer more than just vanilla. The thing to understand is if anyone auditions any piece of audio gear and likes it, it is good regardless of the opnion of a reviewer.

As an example, perhaps a dozen years ago, maybe more, I had the chance to listen to a very costly tubed Pre-amp that had gotten glowing reviews- TAS, Stereophile, et al. I listened to the Pre amp and for the life of me didn't understand why, despite it's 5 figure price, it was considered awesome. I found it noisy, somewhat phasey, and ridiculously expensive. But mine was my opinion and I am sure many found the Pre amp to be extraordinary. I strongly preferred a Pre amp made by the same company that was far less expensive

At first I was skeptical, too, of the reviewer's conclusions. However, as an owner of a DAC7, I can attest that the reviewer's description of the DAC7's sonic qualities is spot-on. Therefore if he can get the DAC7 right, then the reviewer is at least capable of getting the DAC8 right. Not saying he is right, because I haven't heard the DAC8, but I believe there is enough evidence not to discredit his opinion altogether.

I heard he is now unemployed.

If he got fired for writing an unfavorable review then I have even less respect for that magazine than before. I guess they should fire the editor too since he had it printed. Then they can hire some marketing people from ARC to write reviews and it will all be better.

It makes no sense that he was fired for writing that unfavorable review. A negative review such as that would never have been published without crossing the desk of the editor-in-chief, Robert Harley, or at the very least, the desk of the executive editor, Jonathan Valin. One of those guys had to have read, discussed and approved that review before it went to print. Even Audio Research had an opportunity to see the review before it went to print, as evidenced by their response on page 152. Unless there was someone higher than Harley (such as ownership) who saw the review for the very first time only after it was published, and and decided he'd have the reviewer's head. But then again, as Sarcher said, Harley should have been fired too.