Most Hyperbolic Review Phrases

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Fortunately, JA from time to time really does help to overcome the excesses of his own selected staff of reviewers. It is not the first time that he has thrown cold water on an opinion by MF, "one of the most skilled listeners I know of" says JA. Skilled listener? No, I think MF is just a skilled writer, narrow-minded polemicist and high priest for the icon of vinyl he has helped to create. Like it or not, MF helps sell magazines.

However, two things really help Stereophile maintain some shred of credibility. One is JA's excellent measurements and technical analysis accompanying the uncontrolled subjective reviews, even if there is substantial disagreement. The other is Kal Rubinson in his bimonthly Music in the Round column and his occasional featured equipment reviews. You will never find hyperbole or the usual audio cliches in Kal's writings, just refreshing intellectual honesty - subjectivism as subjectivism should be.

As for the rest of the mag, dominated by the wallowings of the herd of vinyl-centric guys like MF, AD and HR as it is, I would only too eagerly have canceled my subscription long ago were it not for JA and KR. Even more than MF, Art Dudley makes me want to throw up all over his restored Garrard 301 turntable with its mono cartridge.

Stereophile's leading competitor, TAS, has even fewer redeeming qualities, including a mind-bogglingly anti-measurement party line. The ties that bind are even more tenuous for me.

 

[amirm]

Possibly not what the OP had in mind, but:

http://www.stereophile.com/cables/805harm/index.html#uS2PTIVBQkWojuFc.97

Wow, I had not seen this before. Love JA's conclusions after the horrible measurements:

"If this review were of a conventional product, I would dismiss it as being broken. Ultimately, no matter what someone might think of its sound—and Michael Fremer is one the most skilled listeners I know of—I really don't see how the CyberLight P2A and Wave cables can be recommended. I am puzzled that Harmonic Technology, which makes good-sounding, reasonably priced conventional cables, would risk their reputation with something as technically flawed as the CyberLight.—John Atkinson"

Read more at http://www.stereophile.com/content/...nterconnects-measurements#JPCC4gqbEU1RCzQP.99

Edit: Oops. Frantz beat me to it!

 

[NorthSky]

To be fair, Michael Fremer listen with his ears, write with his heart. He is an accomplished audiophile, not an audio scientist.

 

[amirm]

To be fair, Michael Fremer listen with his ears, write with his heart. He is an accomplished audiophile, not an audio scientist.

Which makes it even more important that he checks the validity of his ear once in awhile. The guy doing the final tasting of ice cream line at the factory gets his verification all the time whether he is right or not. MF does not.

 

[Thomas savage]

To be fair, Michael Fremer listen with his ears, write with his heart. He is an accomplished audiophile, not an audio scientist.

Umm, seems to indulge in fantasy but presents it as some kind of relevant truth... Consumed so much kool aid he's shitting fairies

 

[Thomas savage]

Though his house looks nice...,

 

[NorthSky]

Which makes it even more important that he checks the validity of his ear once in awhile. The guy doing the final tasting of ice cream line at the factory gets his verification all the time whether he is right or not. MF does not.

Like anyone else here @ ASR, I read Michael's reviews for many years; he his honest...he said it multiple times in his reviews...he doesn't look @ measurements before giving his sincere listening analysis. He is who he is, a great guy with a good sense of humor and he tells it like it is. He doesn't work for audio companies, he is an experienced audio writer. Nobody is perfect, that's life. We like some people more than others, that's our free choice, and we judge no one.
If Michael likes his music this way and that way, who are we to tell him otherwise? Audio scientists who don't make mistakes and know the absolute best?

Anyway it's just an audio science review forum where we're having fun among respectful members for the diversification of ideas exchange.

 

[Cosmik]

Like anyone else here @ ASR, I read Michael's reviews for many years; he his honest...he said it multiple times in his reviews...he doesn't look @ measurements before giving his sincere listening analysis. He is who he is, a great guy with a good sense of humor and he tells it like it is. He doesn't work for audio companies, he is an experienced audio writer. Nobody is perfect, that's life. We like some people more than others, that's our free choice, and we judge no one.
If Michael likes his music this way and that way, who are we to tell him otherwise? Audio scientists who don't make mistakes and know the absolute best?

I would agree with all that if, in his writings, he hadn't said that I and all other digital listeners are deaf idiots who can't hear the "silver sheen" that sits on top of all our music.

 

[Thomas savage]

I would agree with all that if, in his writings, he hadn't said that I and all other digital listeners are deaf idiots who can't hear the "silver sheen" that sits on top of all our music.

I reckon he's got some nasty reflections in that 'special' house of his... Dragon glass mirrors?

Well the bottom of a cd is shinny that's where the 'silver sheen' comes from! Everyone knows that

 

[Blumlein 88]

I think that MF review has it all in a nutshell about why the subjective movement is broken.

It starts with the assumption that subjectively you will prefer or recognize higher fidelity as better. Without side by side reference.

So if it sounds better it is better. If it measures worse, but sounds better then it must be higher fidelity despite the measurements.

In fact the right kind of infidelity is often/usually preferred. It isn't better despite the measurements, but because of them.

So better measuring gear sounds worse, and bad enough measuring gear sounds worse still. Subjectively you end up trapped in a special circle of hell. And it is circular. You prefer the slightly audible infidelity, but assume it isn't. Look for the reason while ignoring the reason. You can never get out of that circle.

A reference, a real reference is just that. If you had side by side fidelity you would easily hear the slightly lower infidelity as a coloration. You can still say you prefer it, but don't get caught in the circular hell about why that is. Those optical cables had just audible lower order distortion that varies with the signal. The description isn't too far different from tube amps. Nor was the subjective impression of them. If the most skilled listener gets fooled by that well that should tell you something about the methodological shortcomings of his approach.

 

[amirm]

I wonder how much MF was thrown off by the nonsense marking claim that every electron was one to one converted back and forth to laser photons. Once there, he would had no "choice" but to swallow the perfection of this interconnect. Kudos to JA for realizing such is impossible and measuring it.

 

[Thomas savage]

I wonder how much MF was thrown off by the nonsense marking claim that every electron was one to one converted back and forth to laser photons. Once there, he would had no "choice" but to swallow the perfection of this interconnect. Kudos to JA for realizing such is impossible and measuring it.

Your just jealous of MF's crib

 

[NorthSky]

I would agree with all that if, in his writings, he hadn't said that I and all other digital listeners are deaf idiots who can't hear the "silver sheen" that sits on top of all our music.

Oh he said that! Then forget what I just said.

Just kidding. He reviewed digital gear too, and with high praise. So he must have been stoned or some' like that when he said it.

 

[Thomas savage]

Oh he said that! Then forget what I just said.

Just kidding. He reviewed digital gear too, and with high praise. So he must have been stoned or some' like that when he said it.

I think you might be onto something there Bob

 

[NorthSky]

I don't smoke, I don't drink Thomas. I'm all transparently natural.

EDIT: Oh, Mickey, I see.

 

[TBone]

If it measures worse, but sounds better then it must be higher fidelity despite the measurements.

This especially true in the vinyl world.

When I compare any rip now, even Fremer's, my 1st process is measuring it against the similar CD/digital version. This alone generally tells me more about its tonality and tracking accuracy than any subjective practice. As far as I'm concerned, every vinyl lover should measure his system accordingly, including Fremer, they might be quite surprised at what they actually prefer as better.

example of v.good (r.channel, not my rip) FR accuracy, LP(dark blue) vs CD (light blue) ...

 

[Sal1950]

Somewhat off topic but it sort of follows Cosmik's post on the MF/JA cable review, only here it was an amp. Forgive my cross post but I wrote this up on CA a few days back and thought it worth repeating here.

Spec RPA-W7EX Real-Sound power amplifier, starting with JA's measurements cut.

"Both inputs preserved absolute polarity (ie, were non-inverting). The unbalanced input impedance was on the low side, at approximately 7500 ohms at audio frequencies. The balanced input impedance with pin 1 floating was 7650 ohms. Capacitor-coupled source components that have an output impedance that rises at low frequencies will sound a little lean with the RPA-W7EX."

"The output impedance at low and middle frequencies was usefully low, at <0.1 ohm (including 10' of speaker cable), though it rose to greater than 1 ohm at 20kHz. As a result, the modulation of the amplifier's frequency response with our standard simulated test load was ±0.3dB below 10kHz (fig.1, gray trace), but with the top octave boosted by up to 1.5dB."

"KM very much liked the sound of the Spec RPA-W7EX. I, however, was disappointed by its measured performance—modern class-D amplifiers, especially those using one of the Hypex modules, measure very much better than this. And with its low input impedance, its dislike of load impedances below 4 ohms, and its high levels of radiated noise, this not an amplifier that can be universally recommended, I feel.—John Atkinson"
Read more at Spec RPA-W7EX Real-Sound power amplifier Measurements | Stereophile.com

So here you have a amp of dubious design that complete measurements show can make audible differences that will vary greatly with the complexity of the loads it sees. There are also some other possible audible problems if your care to read closely. JA very delicately warns of possible issues but then feels compeled to get PC and has to remind readers that KM liked the sound. LOL

Then IMHO, as a further nod/wink to the manufacturer and the subjective audiophile community at large, Stereophlie did a follow-up in April. Art Dudley gave this poorly designed tone control of a amp a rave subjective follow-up review. Can't have JA's poor published measurements rocking any bodie$ boat.

Finally in the same April issue Stererophile hands this $6,000 poor representation of modern amplifier design a Class B recommendation, and in such vaguely alludes that it's only Class B cause JA gave it a "not recommended" test bench report.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The only MF reviews I've read were the few that have been linked here or on WBF. They were enough. The guy is totally incapable of separating his personal impressions, which are fat with bias, from reality, which makes him useless as a reference for anything more than "Mikey likes it." I even take exception to the idea that he is a "great writer." He writes fiction, and in that arena, he doesn't even rank among the good, much less great.

Tim

 

[NorthSky]

• http://www.analogplanet.com/content/tron-soundtrack-released-double-180g-vinyl#cppSYdo1Q3PRxYr5.97

Bonus (just watch the first twenty-five seconds)

I just luv the guy! We should invite him here. I need a new direction in my life, I need to go back to my roots.

 

[FrantzM]

Like anyone else here @ ASR, I read Michael's reviews for many years; he his honest...he said it multiple times in his reviews...he doesn't look @ measurements before giving his sincere listening analysis. He is who he is, a great guy with a good sense of humor and he tells it like it is. He doesn't work for audio companies, he is an experienced audio writer. Nobody is perfect, that's life. We like some people more than others, that's our free choice, and we judge no one.
If Michael likes his music this way and that way, who are we to tell him otherwise? Audio scientists who don't make mistakes and know the absolute best?

Anyway it's just an audio science review forum where we're having fun among respectful members for the diversification of ideas exchange.

North
Trying not to be mean but: How in the world can you infer from his writings that he's honest or sincere? It is one thing to have a positive outlook on things , it is another to accept gladly to walk in a dark alley in an ill reputed place because a person you have decided to be honest and sincere says so ... How you define an "experienced" audio writer? Reality is much worse that you would like it to be or you purposefully close your eyes to find positive in things that obviously have none. Since you don't seem to be spending your money on any of these overpriced stuff, you are safe but entirely avoiding to criticize is not very useful to those who have no experience and would like to learn.

I think I am at an apex of being very sour to High End Audio right now. I recently listened to a 2-ch system based on 3 DIY subs (Geddes config) and a pair of JBL LSR 308.... The DAC was an iFi micro DSD or such and that was it... The system may not have cost total $2000. This system did challenge many misconceptions... Perfect? No... Better than many expensive audiophile systems I have heard? Yes! Thus I have come to the conclusion that there is a lack of honesty in Audio Journalism, I am not accusing MF of anything ... just saying that some audio reviewers and some High End Audio manufacturers are much more cynical than even the most jaded audiophiles would be willing to accept.