TLA (TL Audio)

[trancedental]

I visited TL's production facility about 10 years ago. Having worked on and off in manufacturing for well over 20 yrs now, I have to say I was impressed. It was a typical small, 'cellular' type of arrangement. The link cites production as the reason for their demise... Either it's just impossible to manufacture that nature of goods in the UK now, or serious mis-management occurred. Back then TL was divided into 2 sections, with 'Sonic Touch' handling design + assembly, independently from the main brand. Either Mr Kempson retired and the new manager screwed up, or other factors have been at play here... Personally, I would've suspected that manufacturing was *not* the weak link in the chain here...judging on reputation and all that... Nothing more to add.

J

"“Shortage of product to fulfil customer needs, caused by the recent closure of TL Audio’s UK factory and delays in moving to a new manufacturing facility"

I'm betting that this brand new new factory was not based in England or even Europe!!!!! 

 

[sahib]

No. I heard that they moved the manufacturing to China.

 

[gyraf]

..it's like an elephant graveyard over there..

 

[living sounds]

Finally a politics discussion again!  8) On that matter I'll only say that the dreaded individual mandate in "Obamacare" was very probably originally proposed by the very conservative Heritage foundation and had been championed by conservatives throughout the 90s and 00s...

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182


As for TL audio, this quote

"so buy disposable [ unreliable  ] or
get a classic [ solid ] piece one at a time .  better or cheaper ?"


might be what's behind the companies problem. (It's my impression that) they have been aiming at the mid-segment for a long time now (originally they were a high end manufacturer, as far as I know), and economic research has clearly identified this to be the least profitable strategy. Behringer does well as the cost leader, and some boutique manufacturers do well with no-compromise high end products. Inbetween doesn't work well. And from what I know, they've been downmarketing for some time. In terms of brand management they've tried to aim for "high end sound at affordable prices", but the brand name doesn't carry that reputation. I've never owned any TL audio gear, but I've never heard anyone I know who does claim it to sound as good as the known high end manufacturers, to get really exited about it. Also, there's no Rupert Neve like legendary figure or a glorious past to use as a marketing device. And unlike e.g. SPL, who's pricing is more in the middle, but who innovated certain types of gear like the Transient Designer, and clevery marketed their products with unmistakable front panel designs it's hard to identify the unique selling points in TL Audios product line, and the exterior is recognizeable but rather nondescript.

 

[okgb]

It's true  " good for the price " reviews ,  leave you thinking it's not as good as it could be
Good designs but not great ? I don't know that they had any undisputed" Winner "
designs and with the product line seeming to change quite a bit , If there's not a definitive flagship
and not great enough brand identity , then you bring in lessor [ cost  ] lines , who what is TL audio and
how good is it ?
I'd never heard any tl audio around here and  not tempted to take a chance and bring it in
perhaps though , better agents pushing the product through distribution channels may have given more
a chance to try it .
Living sounds post has good points

 

[JohnRoberts]

Finally a politics discussion again!  8) On that matter I'll only say that the dreaded individual mandate in "Obamacare" was very probably originally proposed by the very conservative Heritage foundation and had been championed by conservatives throughout the 90s and 00s...

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182

"Both of us want to provide health care to all Americans. There’s a slight difference, and her plan is a good one. But, she mandates that everybody buy health care. She’d have the government force every individual to buy insurance and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health insurance, it’s that they can’t afford it. So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it’s one that she’s tried to elevate, arguing that because I don’t force people to buy health care that I’m not insuring everybody. Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t."

I don't understand why there isn't more youtube like "then and now" regurgitation of candidates flip flops on issues. That is a remarkable quote, in consideration of his following actions, but it was just him campaigning against Hillary-care during the democratic primary, which was clearly not a conservative initiative.

While this legislation will turn on constitutionality, as I have said before, declaring this unconstitutional doesn't fix anything, and just leaves us a couple years further down this wrong path, away from market based solutions.

I am surprised that young people don't seem to grasp the game in play... The whole calculus of mandatory participation is for healthy individuals to subsidize the more expensive users of health care. As usual when the government applies their broad strokes solutions, efficiency goes out the window and there is little incentive to manage costs or innovate.

I won't repeat my entire arguments, but a few salient points.

This isn't "insurance" in the classic sense. Insurance is the spreading of infrequent catastrophic risk across a larger population who can better manage a small fraction of the actual catastrophic loss.  Health insurance as proposed is a pooling of total costs for all routine to extraordinary medical expenses, and sharing this expense across everybody. Just like socialism this sounds good on paper, but in practice leads to poor results.

I see this more as an economics issue than politics while they are related. 

Economically we should be able to supply a safety net for the truly indigent far more efficiently than forcing government to take over the entire healthcare system.

If anything we need to reverse the oligarchy medical insurance companies already enjoyed, not replace that with an even more consolidated and flawed government monopoly.   

I don't feel very lucky, we are as the old saying goes a little pregnant... government participation in this will surely grow, no matter what the SCOTUS decide.

As for TL audio, this quote

"so buy disposable [ unreliable  ] or
get a classic [ solid ] piece one at a time .  better or cheaper ?"


might be what's behind the companies problem. (It's my impression that) they have been aiming at the mid-segment for a long time now (originally they were a high end manufacturer, as far as I know), and economic research has clearly identified this to be the least profitable strategy. Behringer does well as the cost leader, and some boutique manufacturers do well with no-compromise high end products. Inbetween doesn't work well. And from what I know, they've been downmarketing for some time. In terms of brand management they've tried to aim for "high end sound at affordable prices", but the brand name doesn't carry that reputation. I've never owned any TL audio gear, but I've never heard anyone I know who does claim it to sound as good as the known high end manufacturers, to get really exited about it. Also, there's no Rupert Neve like legendary figure or a glorious past to use as a marketing device. And unlike e.g. SPL, who's pricing is more in the middle, but who innovated certain types of gear like the Transient Designer, and clevery marketed their products with unmistakable front panel designs it's hard to identify the unique selling points in TL Audios product line, and the exterior is recognizeable but rather nondescript.

The middle is always the least secure place, not that either high or low price positions are safe and easy. The middle is lacking a clear selling proposition.

JR

 

[living sounds]

I'm not a fan of the mandate, I favour a single payer system with regulations for cost control (science based medicine only, costly measures need approval from external reviewers guided by efficacy) and limited services. Everyone who wants to and can afford care beyond this (like 30.000 bucks a month experimental cancer treatment not proven to substancially prolong survival) can buy into additional private insurance but is not allowed to opt out of the public model.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I'm not a fan of the mandate, I favour a single payer system with regulations for cost control (science based medicine only, costly measures need approval from external reviewers guided by efficacy) and limited services. Everyone who wants to and can afford care beyond this (like 30.000 bucks a month experimental cancer treatment not proven to substancially prolong survival) can buy into additional private insurance but is not allowed to opt out of the public model.

Our remaining philosophical difference is about the ability of centralized management to deliver better individual spending decisions, than each individual spending their own money for their own self interest.  This is the same old central planning vs free markets debate.

I have been researching health care for years, and it seems every country's health care system is faced with similar rapidly rising health care costs, that can't be wished away by legislation.  I don't believe the smartest people in the room are working for the government, and worse than that they are not as motivated to spend money as cost effectively as we individuals spend our own money. I believe I can better decide how to spend my money, but not if the government doesn't allow competition for those discretionary consumer spending decisions.   

Ironically we see free market forces acting nicely in health care for pets, and some narrow sub sectors of human healthcare (cosmetic surgery. LASIK eye surgery, etc)..

i don't mind a fraction of my taxes applied to a safety net for the truly needy, who are not exactly dying in the streets right now. I would love to buy catastrophic insurance for my personal major medical risks, but the last time I tried to buy anything reasonable it was the general soup to nuts plan, that doesn't match my needs. I see this getting worse, not better. I have only seen such high deductible catastrophic insurance used by businesses that self-insure their pool of employees, but they will get crowded out of the market if the government gets their way.

JR

 

[Kingston]

i don't mind a fraction of my taxes applied to a safety net for the truly needy, who are not exactly dying in the streets right now. I would love to buy catastrophic insurance for my personal major medical risks, but the last time I tried to buy anything reasonable it was the general soup to nuts plan, that doesn't match my needs. I see this getting worse, not better. I have only seen such high deductible catastrophic insurance used by businesses that self-insure their pool of employees, but they will get crowded out of the market if the government gets their way.

You freely admit not even you can get adequate health care and you're still opposing changes. Why? I'm sure just about anything will be better than what you have, short of having no system at all. Note, I also said health care, not insurance. It's strange you guys have to draw a distinction. It's alien to me you guys have this mandatory barrier between life and death that only people from middle class on can afford.

But I also find this obama-care somewhat bizarre. Why would a government force its citizens to actually purchase insurance, and not take steps to tax more themselves and spend it on health care? Is your government held hostage by the insurance companies? That was a rhetorical question.

I find it strange also to see counterarguments against obama-care that it's somehow socialist. If it was a socialist reform there wouldn't be an intermediary as the sole beneficiary, who also has absolute control. In this case big insurance. Is there already a word for such a governing system? A dictatorship, but controlled corporations?

 

[JohnRoberts]

i don't mind a fraction of my taxes applied to a safety net for the truly needy, who are not exactly dying in the streets right now. I would love to buy catastrophic insurance for my personal major medical risks, but the last time I tried to buy anything reasonable it was the general soup to nuts plan, that doesn't match my needs. I see this getting worse, not better. I have only seen such high deductible catastrophic insurance used by businesses that self-insure their pool of employees, but they will get crowded out of the market if the government gets their way.

You freely admit not even you can get adequate health care and you're still opposing changes. Why? I'm sure just about anything will be better than what you have, short of having no system at all. Note, I also said health care, not insurance. It's strange you guys have to draw a distinction. It's alien to me you guys have this mandatory barrier between life and death that only people from middle class on can afford.

Apparently I don't communicate my thoughts very well.

I have been advocating changes for a long time, just not the direction that the current administration favors.

As I have opined before the defacto one-payer system consisting of too few insurance company options, plus price collusion with hospitals and providers that creates a two tier price schedule (due to kick backs to insurance companies), with the drug companies riding their own horse with payments to patients to offset co-payment charges to blunt market forces in name brand drug selections, etc.

So before they started re-engineering, free market forces were all but missing. This legislation is like helping the post office out by putting UPS and FEDEX out of business.
 

But I also find this obama-care somewhat bizarre. Why would a government force its citizens to actually purchase insurance, and not take steps to tax more themselves and spend it on health care? Is your government held hostage by the insurance companies? That was a rhetorical question.

It is a tax, and the IRS is already hiring employees and beefing up their computer systems to manage it.

Even if I give the legislators the benefit of the doubt for being well intentioned, this looks like another example of managing appearances rather than substance. And just like housing blew up, and student loans will, this will not turn out anywhere near like they promised. Some of the funny math in their cost analysis of the original legislation has already unraveled. 

I find it strange also to see counterarguments against obama-care that it's somehow socialist. If it was a socialist reform there wouldn't be an intermediary as the sole beneficiary, who also has absolute control. In this case big insurance. Is there already a word for such a governing system? A dictatorship, but controlled corporations?

I cite socialism as the reason it won't work the way they predict, not an argument against reform, just my argument against taking this direction to reform an already challenged system.

It would be one thing if it was only socialism, but it also a cross between crony capitalism and regulatory over reach.

I thought it amusing that one of the supreme court justices cited the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) for the reason he didn't read the 2,500 page legislation...  But who did read it? besides the hundreds of lobbyists at the feed trough who wrote it.

I feel lucky that I am old and will die relatively soon...This looks like a train wreck, headed for the ravine, and the bridge is out...

Of course maybe I'm wrong...

JR

PS: one of the high profile democratic strategists is already on record saying that if the personal mandate is declared unconstitutional it could help the democrats because the republicans will be saddled with trying to fix the broken bill. I fear he is correct. 

 

[Kingston]

I thought it amusing that one of the supreme court justices cited the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) for the reason he didn't read the 2,500 page legislation...  But who did read it? besides the hundreds of lobbyists at the feed trough who wrote it.

Ouch! Must have been a joke. How else does he still have a job?

 

[JohnRoberts]

I thought it amusing that one of the supreme court justices cited the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) for the reason he didn't read the 2,500 page legislation...  But who did read it? besides the hundreds of lobbyists at the feed trough who wrote it.

Ouch! Must have been a joke. How else does he still have a job?

Yes he was making a joke, and humor has long been used to make a point.

I assure you most of the legislators who passed that 2500 page law did not read it either...  and that isn't funny.

There should be a law against that... 

JR

 

[ruffrecords]

I think many folk in the USA have got the wrong end of the stick. There is no ideal solutions only a whole bunch of compromises and calling the socialism or crony capitalism doesn't really add to the debate.

The NHS in the UK is not perfect but I certainly prefer it to the current situation in the states. I am in my 60s and in the next 20 years there's a good chance something serious will go wrong with me and when it does the last thing I want to have to think about is if I can afford the treatment.

My daughter is in her thirties and recently her husband walked out on her. After the divorce she has a roof over her head, a daughter of her own to care for and little else. No way could she afford medical insurance premiums.

Society is about caring and sharing and I am happy that in Britain we spend a significant proportion of our GDP on free healthcare for all.

Cheers

Ian

 

[living sounds]

The most ironic thing is the people who scream "let him die" in debates on health care and zealously support the death penalty and concealed weapons carrying laws - but call themselves "pro-life". And don't get me started about anti "big government" people and their intrusive legislation of the mandatory ultrasound probe variety...


Or the "get your government hands off my medicare!" sentiment... 8)


None of this has anything to do with TL audio however.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I dislike hypocrites too. They seem to be in season these days. 

I've mentioned constructive programs (like health savings accounts, etc), oner the last few years but at this point the horse is out of the barn, out of the pasture, and long gone, so I guess I'm mostly disappointed, sorry about including you all in my whine. 

But one thing at a time,,, for now I need to shut up and see what SCOTUS decides. I don't expect a very good outcome either way, while I lean toward free will.

JR

 

[Gold]

When will governments understand that all government spending, displaces private economic activity, that is much more productive.

I too would like to see all military functions worldwide privatized. It would be a bonanza.

 

[JohnRoberts]

When will governments understand that all government spending, displaces private economic activity, that is much more productive.

I too would like to see all military functions worldwide privatized. It would be a bonanza.

Unfortunately that is one of the (very few) functions best handled by the federal government. I am afraid to think of how many "private contractors" are already in the employ of the US govt in war zones. 

I was drafted, and sure didn't appreciate it at the time,  :'(  but there was a fairness to everybody having skin in the game, compared to today's "professional army" while I have nothing but respect for today's soldiers, it's the system I am critical of.

However this federally managed military also needs to be a temporary gig, not on a perpetual never ending mission.

As I recall there were mercenaries used by GB in the revolutionary war... and probably have been used in conflicts for thousands of years. 

JR

 

[Gold]

Unfortunately that is one of the (very few) functions best handled by the federal government. I am afraid to think of how many "private contractors" are already in the employ of the US govt in war zones. 

I was being facetious. You'd have to go one better than libertarian over to anarchist to argue for that. The rest however is up for debate.

 

[bigugly]

Is there already a word for such a governing system? A dictatorship, but controlled corporations?

yes there is=Fascism
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

I would also add this list of defining characteristics.
http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm

Although I don't believe that the US is a fascist nation it does share more than a few of these traits than I personally feel comfortable with.

 

[JohnRoberts]

That second link seems a little fuzzy but I kind of liked the "occupy" movement suggesting a separation of "corporation and state", not unlike the constitutional mandated separation of "church and state"...  Big business is way too cozy with legislators et al.

JR