@ 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.