Who is Michael Fremers'

Don't laugh,the "poindexter gig" paid good money.I paid for my system with that "dough".The pocket protector sold on E-Bay,for serious dollars.

I find that the reader must be intelligent enough to understand the listening bias of the reviewer and learn to read between the lines at times. I find most reviewers consistent to their biases. Certainly, some are gifted writers helping our hobby grow. They often inspire new interest and often entertain us within the hobby.

There is no mistaking that a reviewer is human. They can be wrong or off base at times. Instead of being upset with the reviewer, I would suggest the reader needs to be intelligent enough to know that a review is only a guide. The consumer must decide for themselves.

I have learned through vast experience that all changes are room and system dependant. I can go to a friends house and he can claim that he has a remarkable improvement in sound. I can leave without being impressed.

I remain even more confused on absolutes due to the fact that I have listened to extremely similar systems in different rooms (both rooms designed for sound) and had completely different experiences.

Both rooms used the EMM Stack, w. Wilson Maxx IIs and Halcro amplification. Both used the same cables. One used the EMM preamp, the other a VTL preamp. Without indicating which room I preferred, I left one in shock of how lifelike the presentation was. The other room sounded just like a great stereo system. It just didn't have the magic of the other system.

What does this tell me? That if the same system can sound different, how can we expect a reviewer to echo everyone’s opinion.

The Dynavector XV-1s is a perfect example. Loved by most, but hated by a few. Is it the tonearm? Does the person have the right system? Can we trust the person's ears or listening bias? Maybe it was just bad luck.

While reviewers can be biased and advocate something they like or prefer, we must be reviewers ourselves. That is the great thing about this forum and others.

This past year Time Magazine's Man of the Year is a mirror. This truly echoes the importance of each of us. Nothing has contributed more to this than the internet. We are the reviewer, we are the consumer and we can make or break a company. I often purchase electronic equipment based on user reviews. I read the reviewers article, but qualify it with the user comments posted afterwards. I am not the first to purchase but benefit from the experience of others. Most reviewers know that they are subject to public scrutiny in today’s age. What a wonderful time we live in.

Dear Thom: +++++ " To the point of all of this, let's not construe anything dirty about trying to get a certain full function preamp into Mikey's hands for commentary. At the same time, Raul, please don't let anyone mistake that either you or I are wearing a crown of thorns.

As much as we love music and hi-fi, making a product "real" by manufacturing it is a lot of hard work and deserves a proper reward. There is nothing impure or shameful about this, and you needn't hide behind a shroud of benevolence. " +++++

No, I don't. We have at least three magazine offers ( no Stereophile and I never ask MF to do it.) to make the Essential review and we have to refuse because we are not ready for a lucky " rave magazines reviews ". Let me explain it: we build unit by unit by hand ( no mass production system. ) testing/ measuring every single stage ( and I don't mean with " single stage " for example the line stage or the MC stage, no I'm reffering to several " single stages " inside that big line/MC stage. ) before we are satisfied, very time consuming ( but we like it that way and we don't want to change our very high build quality execution. ), for example our RIAA calibration is a " weeks " time consuming not only because we must to achieve ( at least ) an accuracy of 0.015db but because that accuracy must stay in that way over long run conditions, complex!!!! We are trying to reduce our build/test system production and when we think that it is time then you can be sure that I could ask for those magazine reviews that IMHO every serious audio manufacturer needs.

Thom, this is excatly what move me to ask MF about the MC2 review: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1177643811&openflup&27&4#27

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Dear Dgad: +++++ " I would suggest the reader needs to be intelligent enough to know that a review is only a guide. The consumer must decide for themselves. " +++++

Absolutely true.

+++++ " I often purchase electronic equipment based on user reviews .. " +++++

This is a good practice. My advise with this method is that every one of us that use it first take a look to the quality of the audio system where was made the review and ask for the music sound reproduction priorities of the reviewer and his audio/music experience. Of course that we could take advantage of the magazynes professional reviews along with this method or other ones.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Dan_ed wrote:
"While Mike may have much more experience writing down his opinions, that doesn't make his opinion any more valid than anyone else's. Some people need to see their opinions and theories in print to somehow validate to themselves (and maybe others, in this case) that they are correct. I don't and I quit looking for validation in magazines year's ago."

I happen not to read audio publications, either, but I do think you are missing a few things here.

The act of writing down one's thoughts often indicates a level of attention that most of us do not put into our own comparisons. (I'm not saying you -- I don't know what you do.) Writing down ideas and observations does a few things:
(a) it preserves a record of one's thoughts for the future;
(b) it forces you to be more clear in defining observations;
(c) it highlights areas that might go missing in less formal reviews.

I think that 2 people who are rigorous and thorough in their approach can have equally valid opinions. While the *potential* is there in all of us, the reality is that many audiophiles do not do such formal comparisons (beyond A-B tests) -- and quite frankly, it's a chore. I think reviewers (good ones) have a tough job. I'd rather get emotionally involved in a performance, which is something reviewers must constantly stay away from as it would cloud a review.

Dan_ed also wrote:
"Sure, I don't have a train load of components in and out of my system year after year. Who of us does? But really, what good does it do read about what someone else says that they hear? Does that really supercede the necessity to hear for one's self?"

Well, I think that having a train-load of components to review does give one a more broad base of knowledge to really separate the wheat from the chaff. While the above rigorous/formal approach is a good thing, in the extreme case what if one is "formal" in their review of only one or two components? Is their opinion less meaningful than someone who took the same rigorous approach but has reviewed 10 components? 1000?

I would rather hear the opinion of someone who has heard as much as possible and is consistent. Everyone is biased to some degree and has their own priorities -- that's human nature. Over time, if I can understand those preferences of a reviewer, I can adjust for them as I read their reviews. It doesn't make their reviews less meaningful.

Yes, we need to hear things for ourselves, but the fact that you point out that you've not had a trainload of gear in your own home illustrates why reviews have a place in the world -- they make you aware of things you might not have the opportunity to try on your own. They can help narrow a field so you can focus on your personal opinions of a limited number of items, rather than conducting a new search of everything the world has to offer.

PS I live in a small rural town, don't subscribe to stereophile, and am actually curious about this review. Is there anywhere to see a copy? I'm intrigued by it.