Ron's T.H.E. Show Newport 2016 Report

[WLVCA]

Surprised there is controversy on this subject. Well, maybe not.

I am a digital guy but read Ron's article and found it to be very thorough and quite interesting. He obviously spent a lot of time with the various systems, his article was well written and his comments were thoughtful and well considered.

What's not to like?

 

[rbbert]

Although I personally don't care about LP playback I see no problem with Ron reviewing only analog playback. The computeraudiophile.com reviewers usually don't bother with analog, but most readers don't seem to think that disqualifies them as reviewers.

Fremer as a show reviewer is unusual in many respects. For one, his opinions are based primarily on digital playback (of his LP rips) even though he is an "analog guy".

 

[Steve williams]

Here's what you guys need to know. I have no problem with Ron's analog reports. He and I walked the floors for 2 days and entered almost 90% of the rooms. I took pictures everywhere and made comments in both analog and digital in my picture blog . Ron had no interest whatsoever and when we were in many of these rooms which highlighted digital he sat back while I took pictures. He really has no interest in digital so why should this preclude Ron as a reviewer. Having walked the floors and listened together I know exactly where he is coming from and as he says why should he report digital if he has no interest in it whatsoever.

Great job Ron.

 

[rockitman]

If that’s the case, why did you waste money upgrading from the PS Audio PWD to the new DirectStream DAC?

I have a need for digital. Many years of recording bands live on DAT tape. I have lots of stuff from live concerts...boots. You have to use a digital recorder SD 702 nowadays for live recording unless you have permission to do so which is rarely the case for touring bands. Bringing in a RTR and plugging it in isn't an a option....hence my need for digital. I love the direct stream for what I need to play. That's where digital ends for me. I don't really follow current developments in the format. I found your comment somewhat rude...hence my response.

 

[Bruce B]

Great report Ron. I fully concur.....

 

[DaveyF]

I seem to remember a few years back that there was some discussion as to what actual qualifications a reviewer needed to have.
I don't remember the conclusion, but I suspect it had to do with a good pair of ears, a good system and the ability to write lucidly!
I also suspect that in our hobby, there are a number of "reviewer's" who like to carry the moniker, but who perhaps shouldn't be considered as qualified for the job! OTOH, I suspect that most reviewer's meet someone's criteria, and taste.....therefore what's the harm?
Plus, the accommodation pricing and other "benefits" are quite enticing, LOL!

 

[rbbert]

I seem to remember a few years back that there was some discussion as to what actual qualifications a reviewer needed to have.
I don't remember the conclusion, but I suspect it had to do with a good pair of ears, a good system and the ability to write lucidly!
I also suspect that in our hobby, there are a number of "reviewer's" who like to carry the moniker, but who perhaps shouldn't be considered as qualified for the job! OTOH, I suspect that most reviewer's meet someone's criteria, and taste.....therefore what's the harm?
Plus, the accommodation pricing and other "benefits" are quite enticing, LOL!

Unfortunately, I don't think it was a few years back, but whenever it was it was one of the discussions which drove off many members (forever,it appears) and led to any number of ad hominem attacks and very personal arguments. Not in the archives of WBF finest moments...

 

[asiufy]

Great report, Ron, very comprehensive too! And thanks for the very kind words about our three rooms! Loved seeing 2 of our rooms in your top 7! I guess we're doing something right!

And to all: why can't people's choices be respected, for a change? I mean, he's made his, and if at this point in the game he's not convinced by digital (or doesn't want to be convinced even), that's his prerrogative. I fail to see how that makes him any less relevant as a reviewer of high-end audio as a whole. At least he says it upfront, and doesn't even talk about digital products, unlike some of the digital zealots who take potshots at analog in every opportunity.

Sorry about the rant Keep up the good work!



cheers,
alex

 

[BruceD]

Thank you Ron for taking the time to Post your excellent report--Kudos on job well done!

may I ask if this was some optical illusion re the angle of the Opus cartridge in this Photo?

is it intentional placement at that angle

or do my eyes deceive Moi?

BruceD

 

[c1ferrari]

A lot of fun reading your piece, Ron!
Thelma Houston's and Pressure Cooker's, "I've Got the Music in Me" is one of the first audiophile records I purchased when embarking upon esoteric/boutique audio in the mid-70's.
Of course, I adore analog reel-to-reel tape.

 

[asiufy]

BruceD,

Your eyes are just fine The weird angle is a result of one of those situations all too common in shows... The cantiveler of the cartridge got damaged in transit, and was forming that angle. Since there was no time to obtain a new cartridge, Bill Parish decided to put his set up skills to test (with the help of Joe Kubala and other folks), and compensate for the cantilever angle in the tonearm setup. As the show went on, a new cartridge became available, but this one was sounding so good, that we just didn't want to risk installing a brand new cartridge, that hasn't been broken in...

100% of the folks who entered the room and sat down to listen didn't notice anything, until visually inspecting the turntable, and then noticing the weird angle. It was not audible, at all!

Sam,

I didn't see you around, man! Did you attend the show at all?

cheers,
alex

 

[DaveyF]

Damn,Alex! If that cartridge sounded that great playing the Stravinsky Living Presence LP I brought in and it was broken.... I hate to think how good it must sound when it is perfect!!!!

 

[asiufy]

Yes, that thing is spooky good... We're working on getting one for the Kronos in the store, so if anybody wants one too, let me know

 

[mauidan]

Here's what you guys need to know. I have no problem with Ron's analog reports. He and I walked the floors for 2 days and entered almost 90% of the rooms. I took pictures everywhere and made comments in both analog and digital in my picture blog . Ron had no interest whatsoever and when we were in many of these rooms which highlighted digital he sat back while I took pictures. He really has no interest in digital so why should this preclude Ron as a reviewer. Having walked the floors and listened together I know exactly where he is coming from and as he says why should he report digital if he has no interest in it whatsoever.

Great job Ron.

If you call yourself an “audio reviewer,” and you go into an exhibitor’s room that isn’t using an analog source without commenting on the sound quality of that room, IMO, your other comments are meaningless.

 

[NorthStar]

I call myself nothing, but I watch 100% digital films; not because they are better than analog films (analog films are sexier and much more fun, and they make better love makers), but because digital films took pretty much over. Only the true cineastes and cinephiles are watching analog films...true 35mm and 70mm plus. It's the true high end of film enthusiasts with real videophilia taste.

In audio it's different; analog is widely available (vinyl) to all. ...And it sounds more...organic and natural. Ron made his choice, his only one...analog...including tapes...and that is his prerogative. He is an exclusive analog audio writer/reviewer.

If I was a strictly an analog film enthusiast; it doesn't make me less than what I am. It makes me more me towards analog fims, strictly more me love for what direction I choose in my life. I think it deserves no lesser respect than more more.

Besides, Ron is a cool guy...they don't make them like him anymore in remote countries of our audio forums.
Ron is no Michael Fremer and nobody else than himself. Plus, digital truly sucks when you start digging deeper beyond the nasty type of distortion it creates in your mental health, subconsciously.

 

[BruceD]

BruceD,

Your eyes are just fine The weird angle is a result of one of those situations all too common in shows... The cantiveler of the cartridge got damaged in transit, and was forming that angle. Since there was no time to obtain a new cartridge, Bill Parish decided to put his set up skills to test (with the help of Joe Kubala and other folks), and compensate for the cantilever angle in the tonearm setup. As the show went on, a new cartridge became available, but this one was sounding so good, that we just didn't want to risk installing a brand new cartridge, that hasn't been broken in...

100% of the folks who entered the room and sat down to listen didn't notice anything, until visually inspecting the turntable, and then noticing the weird angle. It was not audible, at all!

Sam,

I didn't see you around, man! Did you attend the show at all?

cheers,
alex

Ah Thank you As' for the prompt reply!

Yes Murphy has a lot to answer for--especially in this game

If I ever catch up with him--Im gonna kick him in the N*ts!

BruceD

 

[Ron Resnick]

Thank you Ron for taking the time to Post your excellent report--Kudos on job well done!

may I ask if this was some optical illusion re the angle of the Opus cartridge in this Photo?

is it intentional placement at that angle

or do my eyes deceive Moi?

BruceD

Thank you, Bruce!

It must be some optical illusion related to the angle at which I was holding the camera. I was struggling to keep the camera lens even vaguely in focus at such a close distance.

Oh, I now see Alex's answer! Ok, it was not an optical illusion!

I agree that if the Opus sounded that good and free of excess sibilance off-kilter like that . . . wow!

 

[Ron Resnick]

Thank you Steve, Jack, Bruce, Christian, Joe, microstrip, Bob, JGlacken, WLVCA, rbbert and Alex for the support! I truly appreciate it!

 

[microstrip]

I seem to remember a few years back that there was some discussion as to what actual qualifications a reviewer needed to have.
(...)

I think this thread is not about reviewers at all - Ron did an excellent and enjoyable REPORT about his visit to Newport 2016, nothing else. His introduction is very clear about his objectives and the limitations of his visit to the show.

 

[bonzo75]

I think this thread is not about reviewers at all - Ron did an excellent and enjoyable REPORT about his visit to Newport 2016, nothing else. His introduction is very clear about his objectives and the limitations of his visit to the show.

I think Davey was sarcastically pointing to one self-acclaimed "wheat" of a reviewer.