The Fremer lays an ostrich egg thread

[MylesBAstor]

Is anyone surprised that JA didn't like them either??

And actually Harley had some issues with the amp's sound. His complaints would have been deal breakers foe me.

 

[amirm]

Is anyone surprised that JA didn't like them either??

Perhaps more so than MF. Here is how JA finishes his measurement section:

"I took a listen to the Mark Levinsons driving Wilson Alexandria XLF speakers in his listening room. (Not only did I want to hear for myself if Michale was correct in his description of the NO. 53's character; as a long time owner of the older Mark Levinson NOo 53'H monoblocks, I was interested in hearing how the new amplifiers sounded.) The sound was initially very impressive. It had tremendous dynamic sweep, with superb control of the Wilson's woofers, tremendous clarity, and nothing identifyingly wrong. However, the more I listened, the more the oerall sonic picture seemed flat and uninvolving. An Enigma.

In other words, he found nothing wrong when he first listened to the amps. What he did hear was superb sound and presumably better than what the amp replaced. What went on after that, could have other explanations or could be the reality. One thing is certain though: his reaction at least in my read is more positive than MF's.

 

[mep]

Amir-Calling an amplifier flat and uninvolving is fairly damning IMO. Many of us have fallen victim to gear that at first sounds impressive because something(s) sticks out and captures our attention until we figure out we don’t like what stuck out.

Those 10kHz square waves were pretty funky looking. Nothing like the Anthem, but funky nonetheless.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Perhaps more so than MF. Here is how JA finishes his measurement section:

"I took a listen to the Mark Levinsons driving Wilson Alexandria XLF speakers in his listening room. (Not only did I want to hear for myself if Michale was correct in his description of the NO. 53's character; as a long time owner of the older Mark Levinson NOo 53'H monoblocks, I was interested in hearing how the new amplifiers sounded.) The sound was initially very impressive. It had tremendous dynamic sweep, with superb control of the Wilson's woofers, tremendous clarity, and nothing identifyingly wrong. However, the more I listened, the more the oerall sonic picture seemed flat and uninvolving. An Enigma.

In other words, he found nothing wrong when he first listened to the amps. What he did hear was superb sound and presumably better than what the amp replaced. What went on after that, could have other explanations or could be the reality. One thing is certain though: his reaction at least in my read is more positive than MF's.

You find JA's rxn strange. How many times have people listened to a product and their initial reaction was Wow what resolution. An hour later they're complaining about their splitting headaches. One experiment is no experiment and one listen is no listen.

 

[dallasjustice]

Does Fremer have any photos of his listening room or any measurements from his room? I find subjective reviews totally useless, unless the reviewer can at least demonstrate a suitable listening environment. Unfortunately, most reviewers can't or won't do so.

 

[amirm]

Amir-Calling an amplifier flat and uninvolving is fairly damning IMO.

He didn't call it that initially. He said after a while he felt that. Here is a parallel. I went to Steve's house and heard his Lam amplifiers with Wilson speakers. Thought they sounded great. Then I go to CES a few months later and listen to the same amp and speakers. I found them completely flat and uninvolving. Now what? Which is the truth? Is there a truth? What is behind the truth?

Many of us have fallen victim to gear that at first sounds impressive because something(s) sticks out and captures our attention until we figure out we don’t like what stuck out.

The worse thing to fall victim to is believing a subjective review which may have no foundation in reality. That may not be the case here but the possibility is there especially given the design here.

Here is the assessment from Robert Harley who reviewed the same amp:

"...But it is a move that has paid off [going to switching design] in my view. The NO 53 has some remarkable -- even stunning -- sonic characteristics. These include dymanics, bass grip, midbass articulation and expression, and the ability to present music as separate instruments rather than as slightly homogonized. In these areas, the No 53 was world-class.

The No 53s somewhat forward spatial perspective, slight emphasis on the supper-midrange and treble, and vivid soundstage wil suit some listeners more than others. If you lean toward warm, forgiving, and rounded presentation of single-ended tirode amplifier, the No 53 will likely not be your cupt of tea. For those listeners who want to hear, with great precision and vivid clarity, every last detail on a recording, the Mark Levinson No 53 will likely be a revelation."

There is no mention of fatigue over time. While RH did like his BAlabo better at times, he liked the ML better at other times.

So now what? Do we take all of this as entertainment or do we elevate MH above that level as an authority to be believed when it comes to subjective evaluation over his peers?

Those 10kHz square waves were pretty funky looking. Nothing like the Anthem, but funky nonetheless.

They *have to* look funky Mark. A 10 Khz square wave has its next harmonic at 30 Khz and the one after that at 50 Khz and so on. A switching amplifier must have an ultrasonic filter due to the way it works. That ultrasonic filter will chop off all of those ultrasonics because that is what it must do. In addition, the Audio Precision analyzer cannot measure these amps without an ultrasonic filter of its own. So once again we filter more of the harmonics. If you take out all the harmonics, the square wave becomes a sinewave! And rightly so. We cannot represent a square wave at 10 Khz in audio band. It is a concept that only lives in ether.

So while it is fun to look at it if you are an engineer as you can start to guess how the engine works, as a performance metric is not something to get worried about. Same is true of square wave performance of CD players.

 

[audioarcher]

Perhaps more so than MF. Here is how JA finishes his measurement section:

"I took a listen to the Mark Levinsons driving Wilson Alexandria XLF speakers in his listening room. (Not only did I want to hear for myself if Michale was correct in his description of the NO. 53's character; as a long time owner of the older Mark Levinson NOo 53'H monoblocks, I was interested in hearing how the new amplifiers sounded.) The sound was initially very impressive. It had tremendous dynamic sweep, with superb control of the Wilson's woofers, tremendous clarity, and nothing identifyingly wrong. However, the more I listened, the more the oerall sonic picture seemed flat and uninvolving. An Enigma.

In other words, he found nothing wrong when he first listened to the amps. What he did hear was superb sound and presumably better than what the amp replaced. What went on after that, could have other explanations or could be the reality. One thing is certain though: his reaction at least in my read is more positive than MF's.

About a year ago I tried a phono stage in my system. Initially the sound was very impressive but soon became fatiquing. There was nothing about the design that would lead me to believe that would be a problem. I really wanted to like this phono stage and hoped that the problem would go away. I had it for a month and ended up returning it. I also got another sample as I thought there might be something wrong with the first one. Exact same issue as the first one. All I can say is it did not work out in my system. Other people have that model and love it. They do seem to be using the same brand for the rest of their electronics though. I was not. It was also well reviewed.

In this case DBT would have failed miserably.

 

[MylesBAstor]

About a year ago I tried a phono stage in my system. Initially the sound was very impressive but soon became fatiquing. There was nothing about the design that would lead me to believe that would be a problem. I really wanted to like this phono stage and hoped that the problem would go away. I had it for a month and ended up returning it. I also got another sample as I thought there might be something wrong with the first one. Exact same issue as the first one. All I can say is it did not work out in my system. Other people have that model and love it. They do seem to be using the same brand for the rest of their electronics though. I was not. It was also well reviewed.

In this case DBT would have failed miserably.

And 99+% of the time!

What factors that the ear first hears has little or no bearing on long term enjoyment (more of a primal brain response?). In fact, gear that initially sounds impressive very often doesn't pan out in the long run. OTOH, pieces that don't initially knock your socks off do in the long run sound more like the real thing.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Perhaps this is a failure of language, not listening, but "tremendous dynamic sweep, superb bass control, tremendous clarity"...these are all meaningful terms easily attributable to real performance attributes. "Flat and uninvolving, an enigma?" Not so much.

If I had to judge based on this one guy's subjective impressions, I think I'd go with his first impressions. They're simply more substantive, less suspect. But at $25k each, I think I'd listen instead.

Fremer? If I had to make purchases based on his writings, my best bet would probably be buying the best stuff he doesn't like.

Tim

 

[MylesBAstor]

He didn't call it that initially. He said after a while he felt that. Here is a parallel. I went to Steve's house and heard his Lam amplifiers with Wilson speakers. Thought they sounded great. Then I go to CES a few months later and listen to the same amp and speakers. I found them completely flat and uninvolving. Now what? Which is the truth? Is there a truth? What is behind the truth?


The worse thing to fall victim to is believing a subjective review which may have no foundation in reality. That may not be the case here but the possibility is there especially given the design here.

Here is the assessment from Robert Harley who reviewed the same amp:

"...But it is a move that has paid off [going to switching design] in my view. The NO 53 has some remarkable -- even stunning -- sonic characteristics. These include dymanics, bass grip, midbass articulation and expression, and the ability to present music as separate instruments rather than as slightly homogonized. In these areas, the No 53 was world-class.

The No 53s somewhat forward spatial perspective, slight emphasis on the supper-midrange and treble, and vivid soundstage wil suit some listeners more than others. If you lean toward warm, forgiving, and rounded presentation of single-ended tirode amplifier, the No 53 will likely not be your cupt of tea. For those listeners who want to hear, with great precision and vivid clarity, every last detail on a recording, the Mark Levinson No 53 will likely be a revelation."

There is no mention of fatigue over time. While RH did like his BAlabo better at times, he liked the ML better at other times.

So now what? Do we take all of this as entertainment or do we elevate MH above that level as an authority to be believed when it comes to subjective evaluation over his peers?


They *have to* look funky Mark. A 10 Khz square wave has its next harmonic at 30 Khz and the one after that at 50 Khz and so on. A switching amplifier must have an ultrasonic filter due to the way it works. That ultrasonic filter will chop off all of those ultrasonics because that is what it must do. In addition, the Audio Precision analyzer cannot measure these amps without an ultrasonic filter of its own. So once again we filter more of the harmonics. If you take out all the harmonics, the square wave becomes a sinewave! And rightly so. We cannot represent a square wave at 10 Khz in audio band. It is a concept that only lives in ether.

So while it is fun to look at it if you are an engineer as you can start to guess how the engine works, as a performance metric is not something to get worried about. Same is true of square wave performance of CD players.

Well it's clear you were suffering from expectation bias when you visited Steve.

Slight emphasis on the upper midrange is like being slightly pregnant. Either you are or you aren't. As I said, that's a deal breaker for me. That's what gives gear a mechanical quality. YMMV.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Perhaps this is a failure of language, not listening, but "tremendous dynamic sweep, superb bass control, tremendous clarity"...these are all meaningful terms easily attributable to real performance attributes. "Flat and uninvolving, an enigma?" Not so much.

If I had to judge based on this one guy's subjective impressions, I think I'd go with his first impressions. They're simply more substantive, less suspect. But at $25k each, I think I'd listen instead.

Fremer? If I had to make purchases based on his writings, my best bet would probably be buying the best stuff he doesn't like.

Tim

Tim why don't you become a reviewer so everyone can buy everything you don't like?

 

[amirm]

Well it's clear you were suffering from expectation bias when you visited Steve.

Slight emphasis on the upper midrange is like being slightly pregnant. Either you are or you aren't. As I said, that's a deal breaker for me. That's what gives gear a mechanical quality. YMMV.

Why doesn't your "YMMV" Myles? Why are you trusting this view vs others?

I have lived with this amp for more than two years. I have compared to a number of other amps, switching and not. When we got the JBL Everest K2 speaker, we fired it up with this amp. We wanted to listen for just a couple of minutes. Next thing we know, we are playing clip after clip. Digital and analog (tape). Everyone was amazed that this was the best sound they had heard. We must have listened to music non-stop for hours this way. We had such large grins you couldn't wipe it off our faces for a few days. No fatigue was ever talked about or thought about. Or anything sounding mechanical.

What I just told you could be all caused by bias. We owned and carry the gear and hence we liked it. Is that a factor in your mind as your read the above? If not, then why value the short time MF had with the amp over what I just said? If you are worried about my bias, why are you not worried about his bias?

To be transparent, I was bothered by the speaker dependent measurement of this amp. That was data. That was new information. It would actually explain what RH heard in that with some speakers, you may have a slight exaggeration of certain frequencies and slight dip of others. Whether that makes the speaker sound better or worse is impossible to determine as the speaker may have the inverse dip. This is not anything magical, imagined distortion but simple change of the frequency response of the system.

On the positive side, both my assessment, RH, MH and the Statement M1 reviewer agree on one thing: these switching amps kick the pants off of any linear amp when it comes to bass. They all talk about tighter bass. This tells me that their favorite amps lack in this department. As it did in my testing. How good is their current gear when it can be bested this way?

 

[MylesBAstor]

Why doesn't your "YMMV" Myles? Why are you trusting this view vs others?

I have lived with this amp for more than two years. I have compared to a number of other amps, switching and not. When we got the JBL Everest K2 speaker, we fired it up with this amp. We wanted to listen for just a couple of minutes. Next thing we know, we are playing clip after clip. Digital and analog (tape). Everyone was amazed that this was the best sound they had heard. We must have listened to music non-stop for hours this way. We had such large grins you couldn't wipe it off our faces for a few days. No fatigue was ever talked about or thought about. Or anything sounding mechanical.

What I just told you could be all caused by bias. We owned and carry the gear and hence we liked it. Is that a factor in your mind as your read the above? If not, then why value the short time MF had with the amp over what I just said? If you are worried about my bias, why are you not worried about his bias?

To be transparent, I was bothered by the speaker dependent measurement of this amp. That was data. That was new information. It would actually explain what RH heard in that with some speakers, you may have a slight exaggeration of certain frequencies and slight dip of others. Whether that makes the speaker sound better or worse is impossible to determine as the speaker may have the inverse dip. This is not anything magical, imagined distortion but simple change of the frequency response of the system.

On the positive side, both my assessment, RH, MH and the Statement M1 reviewer agree on one thing: these switching amps kick the pants off of any linear amp when it comes to bass. They all talk about tighter bass. This tells me that their favorite amps lack in this department. As it did in my testing. How good is their current gear when it can be bested this way?

First of all Amir, I was giving you the same crap us subs have to endlessly endure on here from a few people if I had a dollar for every time the term expectation bias has been tossed around, I'd be running EA MM7s like Mike

Second, what is a short time? Usually any reviewer worth their salt listens to a piece of gear for at least 3-4 months. Usually the better companies always want to visit me and make sure their gear is sounding good. Not to mention that just like you, Michael has a listening panel that he also invites over to hear gear being reviewed.

Third, I think Ralph Karsten has described on WBF why and how SS may just like tubes, not be compatible with every speaker.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

On the positive side, both my assessment, RH, MH and the Statement M1 reviewer agree on one thing: these switching amps kick the pants off of any linear amp when it comes to bass. They all talk about tighter bass. This tells me that their favorite amps lack in this department. As it did in my testing. How good is their current gear when it can be bested this way?

i'm staying away from MF's review......but your point about how switching amps kick the pants off convention topography amps in bass performance is a huge issue for me with Evolution Acoustics speakers, my previous MM3's and particularly the MM7's. i think that it is so obvious to use switching amps on the bass. they are small, so efficient and so linear. they don't sag under those loads. and they don't stress the power grid on peaks like a conventional amp would.

OTOH higher frequencies are not what switching amps are best at. not to say they can't sound good, but good enough for 'cost no object' amps? it's at least a question.

 

[Gregadd]

As you may have noted, my evaluation of amps is rather objective . So I can't convey anything about other qualities. I look to them to do what I ask them which is keep getting louder as I turn the volume .

Amir on the ML 53

 

[amirm]

i'm staying away from MF's review......but your point about how switching amps kick the pants off convention topography amps in bass performance is a huge issue for me with Evolution Acoustics speakers, my previous MM3's and particularly the MM7's. i think that it is so obvious to use switching amps on the bass. they are small, so efficient and so linear. they don't sag under those loads. and they don't stress the power grid on peaks like a conventional amp would.

OTOH higher frequencies are not what switching amps are best at. not to say they can't sound good, but good enough for 'cost no object' amps? it's at least a question.

No disagreement .

 

[MylesBAstor]

 

[Andre Marc]

Since I am obviously not an LP guy, I have only read a few of MF's columns. Then much to my surprise we ran into each other in 4 different rooms on Sunday morning at RAMF, and I found that he is a very likable guy and not at all dogmatic about listening to LP's. In fact the only music he was listening to was on USB stick and CD-R, although it was all LP rips Unlike Jonathan Valin, for example, with whom I've had some brief discussions at the last two RAMFs (and can't imagine wanting to spend any more time with), I could easily imagine spending an afternoon or evening with Fremer and enjoying it immensely. He's enthusiastic about music and doesn't take himself seriously.

To say Mikey is enthusiastic is the understatement of the year....

Never met Valin....curious as to why he was unbearable....inquiring minds want to know!

 

[Andre Marc]

And actually Harley had some issues with the amp's sound. His complaints would have been deal breakers foe me.

You are right. Harley never writes an outright pan...but he left subtle clues as to issues with the sound.

 

[Andre Marc]

Does Fremer have any photos of his listening room or any measurements from his room? I find subjective reviews totally useless, unless the reviewer can at least demonstrate a suitable listening environment. Unfortunately, most reviewers can't or won't do so.

There are tons of pics of Fremer's room on the internet.

BTW I believe this hobby is 100% subjective...any other type of review is a lab report.