Fremer's review of a 90k turntable system!!

Why does MF review the cheap stuff then? And I'm not sure the Epos will sound at their best in his system.

If AD can, why can't MF?

There are affordable audio products. For whatever reason they are not as appealing to some reviewers and editors. I don't know how to make much of your automobile analogy. Transportation is a necessity. Audio is not.

If you agree with JA, then do you prefer them not telling the readers about expensive bad sounding products? Coupled with the current state of the high end as you describe above, do you think this serves the readers well?

 

Souther tonearms are difficult to set up. Some people don't like the hassle. I have never tried it. If it sounds great after you hit the sweet spot, it may worth the trouble. A hi-fi/record dealer-turned-audio magazine editor/publisher in Taiwan put a Souther (SLA-3?) arm on a Linn Sondek LP12. He has been happy with it for more than 20 years.

 

This has been my complaint for sometime. Both Stereophile and Absolute Sound do not have enough pictures of the equipment being reviewed. Heck, what's wrong with a shot of the back of a component?

 

They are saving the space for advertisements.

MF does show the pictures that he has taken in Analog Corner. But some of them are not very good, e.g. the one on P. 37 of the January, 2006 Stereophile showing "Same record after careful cleaning and vacuuming." What are those spots on the records? The "moldy oldie" on the previous page doesn't really show how dirty it is.

 

Hey guys. I was a little harsh too. I don't actually think Fremer has "zero" credibility, but I do think he goes ga-ga over the outrageous, over-the-top audio equipment. It all just seems a bit silly to me, and even sillier that I can predict his review of such equipment before I even read it!

Fremer himself recognized this lunacy when he wrote: "see you next month with some new phono preamps, as well as some affordable turntables that may have some of you forgiving me for reviewing one that costs $90,000."

I do enjoy Fremer's writing style. If nothing else, he is entertaining, unlike Sam Tellig, who is simply irritating. But that's a gripe for another day . . .

 

Or how about lifting the hood so we can see what's actually inside the sucker? Stereophile USED TO do that regularly.

 

My buddy tried seemingly everything. He even applied something (forget what) to the wire for the arm to dampen it. Nothing got it to sound right...

 

Yes, that was me. I had a Clearaudio Tangent.

Four reasons why I got rid of it:
1. The wire the carriage would ride on would resonate. Putting blue tack and other materials at each end of the wire and on the carriage helped, but did not cure it.

2. There was not enough effective mass of the head shell cartridge combination to keep it from reproducing inner groove distortion on some LPs. Granted, some LPs just can't be played back perfectly, it is part of the process. But this one could be much worse than a pivoted arm.

3. You had to raise and lower the arm like opening a door, it was hinged and moved in a 90 degree arc. Problem was it would not always come back down to its original position. Some times I had to push on it. Needless to say that would ruin any attempt at perfectly leveling it. Returning it to level was not very repeatable.

4. Because of its design and dimensions, I could not get the arm low enough to properly set the VTA on some of my cartridges. Adjusting the set screws, raising and lowering the arm, and getting it level in two planes repeatedly was next to impossible.

I now have a Graham Phantom and two spare armwands (on a VPI Aries 2). Making adjustments, switching out armwands/cartridges is a snap. And it has none of the four problems I mentioned above. Plus the sound is much more detailed, refined and engaging.

I had the Tangent for a year and half I think, and never really was satisfied with it. Thankfully the dealer I bought it from took it back in trade for the Phantom, I got almost full credit back.

 

No need to apologize at all! However, apology accepted and I hope you accept mine as well.

 

The "cheap stuff" Fremer reviews is usually related to analog, which is his designated specialty.

Why should he? Usually, an editor for an audio magazine hires certain writers to specialize in certain things. If you read Listener magazine, you'll know what AD's audio interests are. In fact, I'll bet that Stereophile's policy for assignments is something along the line of whatever the writer feels enthusiastic about. That makes for better writing.

I've written for three audio/music publications, and each time I had a specific beat to write about. That's journalism.

I think there's a lot of pressure in audio magazines to find the latest giant killer, so I'd say you're wrong. And your point about the difference between cars and audio is utterly irrelevant. We're talking about the marketplace, and the general quality of consumer goods. Their relative importance to the consumer makes no difference. Besides, transportation may be a necessity, but cars certainly are not...ask people who use public transportation how important cars are to them.

Excuse me, but anyone who buys a bad sounding AND expensive audio product gets what they deserve. No one should buy an expensive audio component without auditioning it first. Tell me, if there was an expensive audio component, and there were absolutely no reviews of that product, would you buy it sight unseen (or sound unheard)? C'mon, now.

 

And partly because he felt that three motors introduced three different potential vibrations.

 

He has reviewed AV receivers and integrated amps, which are not strictly related to LP play-back. You are probably referring to his Analog Corner column.

My point was directed at your "Epos in MF's system" scenario. You said Epos will sound best in his system, of which I questioned the validity and you never respond. A different school of thought is that they may sound better in a lesser system where some flaws may be hidden.

If he is serious about reviewing affordable equipment, do it in a way that makes sense for you, him and people into audio.

Listener? Like MF's The Tracking Angle, it's history. The former's demise was handled better but I always got in trouble when I talked about those defunct magazines so I shall say no more.

The J word doesn't mean much to me. I just want good honest reporting.

You can talk about any product not selling well in the U.S. and conclude that the market has decided. Saying the market is crowded with good products so some of them have to go is saying nothing. Some of them are just not good enough for the consumers for whatever reason, objectively or subjectively, but you say they are gone despite they are good. And by the same token you say about taking the bus, you can tell people to listen to the radio.

Are you saying that the "audio journalists" have no resposibility reporting bad sounding products? People don't like negative reviews, so you just don't write them? So what do the readers need you for, just telling them the good news? I'm not saying people should not audition for audio components. But you can't say they deserve it because they are ignorant and loaded. Not everyone in this hobby is rich. Many have to scratch and save to come up with the money for their purchases. And people who don't have a lot of experience may not know what to audition for. Your comment is not very sympathetic and how should the readers trust you and your "journalism" if they know this is your attitude toward them?

 

If I was one of the 3 or 4 people in the world that could actually afford a $90,000 turntable system if would have to blow me away to the point that the quality is so good that I nearly die of being overwhelmed by the superior sound quality. I would expect no less then being hospitalised with an un named condition due to being absolutly blown away.

If none of that happens I would expect no less then a full refund on the product along with a written apology from the company that makes it.

 

There has to be more than 3 or 4 people that could afford the Continuum. I can name at least 4 who work or used to work in the same building as I do. But I doubt that any of them can tell the difference.

 

I can't speak for the Vinyl Anachronist, but I can describe what happens with my magazine.

I try and find products that would suit the system of the writer, the personality of the writer and the interests of the writer, while also serving the interests of my readership. As (an extreme) example, I don't assign AV receivers to writers who have no interest in home theatre.

Some people seem to suscribe to the theory that there should be some sort of quota of negative reviews in a hi-fi magazines. It's not an idea that I've ever warmed to. I've never gone out to find a product to slag and I beleive that it would be unethical of me to do so.

But if we have a product in for review and it's a poor performer, then it will receive a less than flattering review. This has cost me dearly in the past - at one time my magazine lost almost one quarter of our revenue after a large distributor took a dislike to one of our reviews!

From my sporadic reading of Stereophile, I understand that John Atkinson's methodology is similar. One area where it differs is that his writers tend to travel more on Stereophile business and see interestig hi-fi products in their travels. My understanding is that this leads to requests for product reviews. (Apologies to JA if I've misrepresented his views).

Then what you are after is good honest journaliism - whether that word means anything to yoou or not.

Vinyl Anachronist is correct about writers/reporters/journalists often been given a particular beat or subject to cover. Mr Anachronist has recenty begun writing a column for my magazine on - believe it or not - things vinyl. I have to give him a gentle prod on ocassion when the subject he's currently enthused about falls outside his beat.

 

My understanding is Stereophile reviews are often undertaken based on how much positive buzz a product is generating in the audiophile community. Seems reasonable to me.

I'm not saying that's the only criterion, nor would I know...or care for that matter.

 

Michael,

Thanks for explaining your editorial work. I appreciate your honesty in publishing negative reviews. Hope you get compensated justly. I shall recommend your magazine to my relatives in Kiwi Land if they haven't subscribed already. (I don't know if they are interested in high end audio.)

I don't believe in setting a quota, either.

Just a hypothetical question:
If you suspect some expensive component is not going to impress you, will you avoid it or take it on?

I don't know how it's like in New Zealand. Nowadays in the U.S., some in the reporting business seem to think that by calling themselves journalists can increase their credibility and prestige. The J word may sound better for them. The H word is more important to me.

Staying with the beat a writer is assigned to is a job description. It does not imply good and honest reporting/journalism. Venturing outside the subject is quite common in several U.S. based audio magazines.

 

If I hit the lottery jackpot, I'm buying one. Too bad I never play . . .

 

I often wonder about the validity of reviews, especially from a magazine that accepts advertising. I've often read about expensive audio components such as super-expensive turntables, that get rave reviews, yet major shortcomings are overlooked. There's a "dental floss driven" or "thread drive" turntable where the speed varies every time it's turned on, yet it got rave reviews. To me, such speed problems would render it unacceptable. The other thing is when a product with a known issue or shortcoming gets a great review, but when an improved version is offered, then the older version then becomes criticized for it's faults (again, this is because advertising dollars likely have an influence on the reviews). I could go on, but I think I've already said enough.

 

Me too, if I hit mega bucks that would be my turntable.

 

I rather save my $$$ for upgrading my customized bike, before I will upgrade my turntable

 

Which inexpensive A/V receiver has Michael Fremer reviewed for Stereophile?

I didn't respond, because it's not worth it discuss it unless we can hear for ourselves. The school of thought you mention may be true in certain circumstances. Of course, I actually recently purchased the Epos ELS-3 for a second system, so I've heard it in my reference system. So I actually know for sure.

And what does that have to do with what I said?

Of course your statement doesn't take marketing into consideration, does it.

I'm not saying anything of the kind. I'm saying that as an editor of an audio magazine, it makes sense to pursue products that have a considerable amount of buzz already...it serves the readers to report on products they're already interested in. Those products usually receive good reviews because they are good, or else they probably wouldn't have the buzz in the first place, right? Usually bad reviews are the result of a defective unit.

And what do you mean that ignorant and loaded people get what they deserve? What's that old adage about a fool and his money?

As far as the rest of your comments, they seem to be grounded in ideals, rather than what's really going on out there. Are there really expensive high-end products which perform poorly being sold to people who have little or no knowledge of audio? Give me examples.

Personally, I have spent the last eight years writing a column trying to help people get back into vinyl, presumably people who have more knowledge of music than audio. You're really barking up the wrong tree here.

 

I didn't say he has for Stereophile. I said he has reviewed inexpensive A/V receivers (O.K., for SGHT, not Stereophile ) and integrated amplifiers (for Stereophile definitely ). What's the point you are trying to make?

It's worth discussing for me because you started by saying it doesn't make sense for MF to review affordable audio components, but in fact he did review them from time to time. It would be a pity if his time and Stereophile's pages are wasted on some reviews that make no sense to print. And he doesn't have to review cheap stuff just for the sake of showing that he doesn't do expensive gear exclusively.

It's good to know that you know for sure. This may be of interest to people who upgrade incrementally.

It doesn't. Does it have to?

I didn't say anything about customer service, and many other factors, either. Obviously, all aspects of the business count.

But isn't one of the functions of the audio magazines to introduce lesser known equipment? Sometimes the buzz is started by reviews. You and several other forum members seem to suggest that the buzz causes the equipment to be reviewed.

It's unfortunate to have a bad review sample, especially when it is damaged during shipping. But it's inexcusable to ship defective units right out of factory for review.

It is a "variation" of "anyone who buys a bad sounding AND expensive audio product gets what they deserve", assuming he can more than afford it (my assumption here, based on the unsympathetic "they get what they deserve" comment.)

It could be your interpretation of what I said but it's not what I said. So how could I give you any example?

It started with your mentioning of JA's "people don't want to read about what NOT to buy" comment. I think people are more upset about reading a bad review of something they have already bought. His words can be taken the wrong way as in the question that I posted.

I don't know how to make of your assumption on people getting back into vinyl and your characterization of my verbal output. So let me conclude with the same words I would say to MF: Thank you for promoting vinyl! And stay with your beat.

 

I agree. I'm baffled. I know Steve uses the WAVAC amps and Tetra loudspeakers, and both items have been panned by Stereophile for not being even close to accurate.

Maybe flatness is not what what is important, because I do know Steve's discs sound superb. Who is wrong here, then?

 

Reviewing a $100K piece of equipment when 20 people might actually buy the thing over a couple of years is just silly. $100K pieces of equipment should be footnotes. It's silly elitism and materialism. Total waste of space. Btw, Robin Leach's show 'Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous' was another silly, waste of time.