2. digital
  3. 148054-3787

The Six Moons.com review on the Mhdt Labs Orchid DAC just went up

This morning the review on the superlative Mhdt Labs Orchid DAC was just posted on Six Moons.com.  It gives all the details why I have made it my reference DAC.  I also share my position, with flexibility, that all all the hype regarding high resolution formats as being superior sounding to 16/44.1 kHz or 16/48 kHz R-2R ladder DACs is just that "hype".  

Hope you enjoy the review.
teajay
ghasley
2,507 posts
 
@janehamble What is it you are saying exactly? Its no news at all that 6moons charges a fee to review a piece of gear. Is it your position that by doing so it should invalidate their findings? The fee is charged up front along with other rules governing shipping, returns etc. Most reviewers get extended “loans” of the gear they review. Does that bother you as well? Do you believe that the Orchid is not good, that the review is somehow misleading? What about the 6moons Pass reviews? Their reviews of the Lumin equipment? Is that equipment now bad because they were reviewed by 6moons?

Is your problem with 6moons in general or @teajay in particular? Or are you a Lab12 owner? You really should come out with what it is that truly bothers you...the review methodology, the review site or the reviewer. Full disclosure, I am not in the audio biz, I don’t own a Lab 12 nor an Orchid nor have I heard either.
janehamble
123 posts
 

@ ghasley I'll find to hard to be clearer than the simple statements I've already made about this subject - but just for you, I'll try.

My goal was originally to flag up a significant error when Terry London wrote a review about the Lab 12 DAC for HomeTheatre Magazine https://hometheaterreview.com/lab-12-dac1-special-edition-reviewed It's obviously a euphoric review.  TJ is highly impressed...which is fine.  But it's more than a little shocking he apparently has no clue that this same product has been available for 5 years. He's chosen to present the Lab 12 as an incredible new model. 

Having completed the product test, he then turns full-on brand disciple, spreading the word with his popular Audiogon post "A DAC that crushes price vs performance ratio". On and on he goes, post after post, about the fabulous Lab 12, using his @teajay name, of course.

A few 'Goners call him out for his apparent conflict of interest, but he bats them back quite confidently.  When I asked him about the Lab 12's history, he replied " The Lab12 DAC that we are discussing on this thread is the newer version called the SE. I do believe that the DAC chips and basic overall design is the same, with better/different internal parts in the circuit in critical places that improve the sound."  

This is complete bullshit, of course.  The original SE is exactly the same as the model he tested, and he knows it - preferring to maintain the misrepresentation.

So now, here we are 6 months later.  And TJ's got a new favorite DAC.  Even better than the last one, except it's half the cost.  What's not to love?

I have no problem with Six Moons, Home Theatre or any other magazine hiring 'influencers' to write reports. That's the name of the game these days - and as I've been in marketing 35 years, I know quite well how it works.

In this particular case, I'm noting that TJ's affections can be somewhat transitory.





ghasley
2,507 posts
 
@janehamble Fair enough then. Your problem is with @teajay and I gather had he never done the Lab12 review, you would have no problem?

I appreciate you taking the time to reply and if I somehow triggered the snarkiness at the end of your first sentence above, it wasn't my intent. Peace.
janehamble
123 posts
 
Yes you did, but your apology is accepted
teajay OP
1,702 posts
 
Hey janehamble,

You have made some comments and sharp criticisms about me and my integrity based on false representations of what was actually written in my review on the Lab12 DAC.

1) In the review I never stated what year Lab12 started the original production for the DAC1. I did state, "last six months, the internet has been a buzz" regarding how many listeners really loved the performance of the DAC1.  So, when you state I have "no clue/a little shocking" about this or I'm an idiot for not knowing when the DAC1 was originally manufactured that's based on your false assumption.  It was not part of my review, and I knew that it had been in production for some time.

2) I was informed by the company that they had made some internal part changes during this production run and the DAC sent to me was the upgraded SE version. Again, I never stated when they had made this change. Unless, they lied to me, I stated what they had shared with me about the different generation change.  Therefore, for your personal attack on my honesty is your "BS" towards me.

3) Never called the Lab12 DAC1SE the best in the world, claimed that it competed with DACS that cost over 14K more, it replaced my reference that cost 10K and was a great bargain. Wrote the review for HTR and started one thread to share this GON members. True, if I was asked a question on thread I would respond to it.  So what, yet your words," full-on brand disciple" implies that I'm some type of lacky for this company.
Hum, six months later I discover and review the Orchid which performs at a higher level and costs half the price, and honestly share this information.  That sounds like I'm beholden to LAB12, does it not?

Lastly, your term "influencers" would imply I'm told what to write or payed off to give positive reviews.  Of course you have a right to your opinion. However, I have a day job, write for fun, and nobody ever tried to make write anything other then what I heard regarding a piece of gear in my auditioning process. 

The most amusing comment that you made about me is, " TJ's affections can be somewhat transitory".  If you mean that if I find a great piece of gear that out performs my reference and that I tell the truth and share the information, I guess you are right!   
More to discover