The Fremer lays an ostrich egg thread

[Bill Hart]

While Sonny Rollins, Al DiMeola, Eva Cassidy, or Placido Domingo are obviously never standing in my room, my system does enough things right that I can form the illusion that they are there. Yes, there are currently insurmountable hurdles to an exact reproduction of the live event. However, I (and many of us here) derive great pleasure from the imperfect illusion created by our playback systems.

I'm saddened to read the posts from members (a few who are quite prolific) that basically purport a Scrooge-like dislike for high-end audio AND attempt to ruin it for those who deeply enjoy the hobby. Yes, there should always be inquisitively-directed discussions about the value-performance ratio of various components, etc. To simply spread darkness over an enthusiast's forum makes no sense, except to feel superior to those who you deem uneducated suckers.

I propose that such individuals:

1. Go to a car forum and tell folks that a Yugo is sufficient, and that Ferraris are a waste of money.

2. Go to a fishing forum and tell that guy that his heirloom fly rod performs worse in tests than the new K-Mart model, so how could he possibly enjoy using it?

3. Go to a cooking forum and state that all foie gras tastes the same.

You get the point. The negativity displayed here discounts the all-important human element of experience.

Do any audio systems sound like the real thing? NO.

Do more expensive/complex audio systems do a better job of creating a pleasing, often convincing illusion of "real" music than Philips Home Theater in a Box (inside joke) systems? YES.

Should I care if Mr. X spends ten times the money on a system that Mr. Y does? NO, AS LONG AS IT'S NOT MY MONEY. But some will tirelessly ride Mr. X regardless. Do you lean out your car window and chastise the Mercedes and BMW drivers? It wasn't your money. Let people enjoy. The world is filled with things to not enjoy ( go to the death & taxes forum ). It's fine to ask collegial questions among a group of friends... it's another to call them all idiots repeatedly before one's welcome wears out.

My opinion, not in green.

Lee

Lee, pretty much spot on, with a couple of qualifications. I do get the criticisms, sometimes fairly placed, that such and such kilobuck amplifier is hyped, and may not really deliver the goods, compared to a less expensive component. But having said that, I do think it is unfair to say expensive or exotic equipment, across the board, is a rip-off. The car analogy holds to a degree. You can buy a tricked out Subaru that will kick the ass of an older Ferrari in terms of speed, cornering ability and running costs. Of course, there is something about that Ferrari that makes the driving experience special, and it's more than just the badge, the Pininfarina design aesthetic or the 'rich guy' image. It's a little more difficult to extend the analogy to 'live vs recorded' but there's a parallel there too- a lot of cars, including Ferraris, are hyped as 'racing cars for the street.' The fact is, virtually none of them are, not even close. But, that doesn't take away the pleasure of driving a really good street iteration. (Thinking of a Porsche GT 3 RS or whatever they call it these days).

 

[DaveyF]

I'm saddened to read the posts from members (a few who are quite prolific) that basically purport a Scrooge-like dislike for high-end audio AND attempt to ruin it for those who deeply enjoy the hobby. Yes, there should always be inquisitively-directed discussions about the value-performance ratio of various components, etc. To simply spread darkness over an enthusiast's forum makes no sense, except to feel superior to those who you deem uneducated suckers.


Lee

Great point, Lee. As I brought up in my Thread on cables, I think that part of the problem with a lot of the public and the nay sayers in particular is that they have no direct experience with what a great audio system can do. So, in order to justify that they have no experience, they post to a forum such as this, with various arguments that basically say that what we hear is impossible due to a) lack of science and b) our gullibility. Instead of having an open mind about these things, Mr nay sayer prefers to deny and decry.
OTOH, part of the problem in our hobby is the unscrupulous vendor or reviewer who is pushing the pineapple or the Tice clock as a serious enhancement, which frankly I can see why the nay sayer could point to.
The voodoo science is a little worrying; for example...I'm mister joe public and i have just picked up my first issue of S'phile, and I'm reading the glowing review of the brass kitchen bowl by the esteemed reviewer rolleyes Sam Tellig. Now we have a problem in the credibility of the hobby, IMO.
I think the question then becomes as to where do we ( the a'phile) draw the line.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike: the biggest difficulty I have is kick drum. it's just so explosive in a real venue. Maybe it's the limits of the vinyl playback system. The other difficulty is big complex stuff and the ability of the system to 'scale' in the same way. I'm not sure this is a 'dynamic' issue like the kick drum, but more about congestion in the source material and electronics, though I can't be sure.

i'm an auto racing fan, as i assume you are too. i have been to Indy Car and F1 races where i've been in the pits during qualifying so i'm familiar with those sounds. i have a CD which i've shared with a few (back on AVS) in the past, Open Pipe Symphony, which has 16 tracks of racing noises. my favorite is an 'ultimate race' between an F1car and a NASCAR car. these speakers and amps can get that right. it's an overwhelming experience. racing sounds demand headroom that music does not.

kick drums. no problem.....i'm not saying that any system can get 100% of a live kick drum, but pretty close to it.....as close as one would want in a 29' x 21' x 11' room.

 

[Gregadd]

Amir we have argued this before. One of the reasons I have been quoting members (without comment) is to remind them of what they said previously. I am not willing to have another 50-100 post thread argument with no resolution.

Live music is my reference. Whether or not you believe or think it is impossible is not critical to me. It would be nice if you were on board. Recording techniques vary, but are not as msyterious as you suggest. For example I know Mike and Bruce used the same speakers. Many of the better recordings give detailed descriptions of evrythng from the recording venue, mikes, cutting lathe etc. Gary and PNWAS did the live vs recording demo and posted it here. I think Genesis also did it a show
Let me give you an example. I purchased the excellent Eva Cassidy CD Live at Blues Alley by Steves' suggestion. After I listened to it for awhile i noticed a certain PA quality to her voice. I had never heard Eva live or recorded. I as however familiar with Blues Alley. Further investigation revealed that it was impromptu recording released after her death. It was recorded in 1996 after Blues alley has upgraded their sound reinforcement system. It is possible to compare to live even if you were not there.
To put it blunty. I can identify you even with a bad photograph. With an excellent photograph I'dd get it eight ten out of ten times.

 

[TBone]

I think that part of the problem with a lot of the public and the nay sayers in particular is that they have no direct experience with what a great audio system can do. So, in order to justify that they have no experience, they post to a forum such as this, with various arguments that basically say that what we hear is impossible due to a) lack of science and b) our gullibility. Instead of having an open mind about these things, Mr nay sayer prefers to deny and decry.

So very well said ... I've long come to the conclusion that you can't convince a pretender who's convinced himself.

tb1

 

[Gregadd]

Mike I was privy to recording of F1 race . Microphones were plac ed at a hairpin curve where the cars decelerated from about 130 mph to 30 mph. They then accelerated onto 200 mph straight away. That was scary.

 

[amirm]

Amir we have argued this before. One of the reasons I have been quoting members (without comment) is to remind them of what they said previously. I am not willing to have another 50-100 post thread argument with no resolution.

It shouldn't be too much to ask for that you do more than quote member's past posts. This is a discussion forum. If it is too much to type up a few words saying what you mean by the quotes, then perhaps the purpose of why we are here is not understood. You can always opt out of the argument. But to not even say what you mean by quoting someone just comes across as rude. At least it does to me as you quoted me and left it out there to guess as to why. It takes far less work to position the quotes than going and finding them as you did.

Live music is my reference. Whether or not you believe or think it is impossible is not critical to me. It would be nice if you were on board. Recording techniques vary, but are not as msyterious as you suggest. For example I know Mike and Bruce used the same speakers. Many of the better recordings give detailed descriptions of evrythng from the recording venue, mikes, cutting lathe etc. Gary and PNWAS did the live vs recording demo and posted it here. I think Genesis also did it a show.

Let me give you an example. I purchased the excellent Eva Cassidy CD Live at Blues Alley by Steves' suggestion. After I listened to it for awhile i noticed a certain PA quality to her voice. I had never heard Eva live or recorded. I as however familiar with Blues Alley. Further investigation revealed that it was impromptu recording released after her death. It was recorded in 1996 after Blues alley has upgraded their sound reinforcement system. It is possible to compare to live even if you were not there.
To put it blunty. I can identify you even with a bad photograph. With an excellent photograph I'dd get it eight ten out of ten times.

You just proved the opposite what you set out to prove! Copying you, that is all I will say and let you guess the rest.

 

[Gregadd]

Clearly I've angered you Amir. That's not easy to do. In order to be motivated to guess I would have to have some doubt about my position. I do not.

 

[A.wayne]

i'm an auto racing fan, as i assume you are too. i have been to Indy Car and F1 races where i've been in the pits during qualifying so i'm familiar with those sounds. i have a CD which i've shared with a few (back on AVS) in the past, Open Pipe Symphony, which has 16 tracks of racing noises. my favorite is an 'ultimate race' between an F1car and a NASCAR car. these speakers and amps can get that right. it's an overwhelming experience. racing sounds demand headroom that music does not.

kick drums. no problem.....i'm not saying that any system can get 100% of a live kick drum, but pretty close to it.....as close as one would want in a 29' x 21' x 11' room.

Agree and look at the size of your setup, you need speaker size and room to recreate life like dynamics ( plenty power too) and I'm no racing fan , I just wear the Helmet for protection ..

 

[A.wayne]

Mike I was privy to recording of F1 race . Microphones were plac ed at a hairpin curve where the cars decelerated from about 130 mph to 30 mph. They then accelerated onto 200 mph straight away. That was scary.

Was that the recording done at the Canada GP ....?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Was that the recording done at the Canada GP ....?

yes, i have that demo track on a demo disc, can't remember which demo disc it's on....and i'm at work so cannot look it up.

my 'Open Pipe Symphony' is 16 tracks like that including different cars and tracks including the back strait at Le Mans, the Mulsanne Strait. one track where they fire up a stock car engine inside the paddock is scary when the room pressurizes with impossibly deep bass and pressure. the articulation and tonal accuracy mimics reality to a high degree. the system was not stressed at all.

on Thanksgiving Day my son and i listened to 5 or 6 of the tracks of this in my room testing out the capabilities of the system. pretty damn impressive.

 

[Gregadd]

http://www.biasstudios.com/index.html

A fully described local recorfing studio

 

[TBone]

And pretty much the rest of the world.

The rest of the world calls them conspiracists.

Well, think what you like, you've probably never met AS, so you're reading & associating, coming to your conclusions within the limited confines of your own living room ... which trust me ... is not "the rest of the world".

tb1

 

[TBone]

they were foolish to send that to Fremer in the first place. what did they expect?

... an honest appraisal.

I agree, however, sending any such component to MF could be viewed as "foolish", unless one establishes intent.

tb1

 

[A.wayne]

You want the truth .. Son , you cant handle the truth ........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo

 

[TBone]

You want the truth .. Son , you cant handle the truth ........

Well, I "want" Jack on the Wall.

I "need" Jack on the Wall.

I don't feel safe unless Jack ...

tb1

 

[Mike Lavigne]

... an honest appraisal.

I agree, however, sending any such component to MF could be viewed as "foolish", unless one establishes intent.

tb1

i kind of agree.

if Fremer had heard the No.53 at a show or somewhere and expressed interest due to his initial positive take, then it might make sense to offer it to him for review. i very much doubt it went that way. it was likely more that he is the heavy hitter for Sterophile at this time, and has had the recent context of other expensive amps. so it went to him.

Harmon should have found a Stereophile reviewer who had listened and had at least somewhat of a positive perspective to begin with, and maybe someone a bit more likely to be intimidated by the name plate than MF. whoever has done other ML reviews should have done it.

either they are out of touch with where the amp actually fits in terms of uber-amp performance, or they simply did not do due diligence (in fairness there is a third possibility; Fremer got it wrong).

 

[FrantzM]

Great point, Lee. As I brought up in my Thread on cables, I think that part of the problem with a lot of the public and the nay sayers in particular is that they have no direct experience with what a great audio system can do. So, in order to justify that they have no experience, they post to a forum such as this, with various arguments that basically say that what we hear is impossible due to a) lack of science and b) our gullibility. Instead of having an open mind about these things, Mr nay sayer prefers to deny and decry.
OTOH, part of the problem in our hobby is the unscrupulous vendor or reviewer who is pushing the pineapple or the Tice clock as a serious enhancement, which frankly I can see why the nay sayer could point to.
The voodoo science is a little worrying; for example...I'm mister joe public and i have just picked up my first issue of S'phile, and I'm reading the glowing review of the brass kitchen bowl by the esteemed reviewer rolleyes Sam Tellig. Now we have a problem in the credibility of the hobby, IMO.
I think the question then becomes as to where do we ( the a'phile) draw the line.

Davey

I agree with Lee.. to a point, we should not goo too far ahead of ourselves. The way forward in any endeavor is to discover and understand the limitations. This is not accomplished in any echo chamber situation where people around patting each other on the back where clearly constructive criticism would have advanced and further the results. We will use one ore truism and then dispense of them. Reproducing things heard live in our listening rooms is impossible. That would suggest perfection. So there! No more truisms

2-ch stereo is flawed and the more we accept the better we can work toward ameliorating the simulacra.. Better music reproduction in our homes. We seem to be bent on the idea that the best way is though 2-channel stereo. We are clear on the fact that real music is all around us yet we refuse to pursue that clinging to the opinion that 2-channel is superior .. It can't be. It is however supremely difficult to pull off a great MC system but it has been done, it can be done, some here on this forum are enjoying it .. I am close to certain that the Jack's brother's system pulls it off modestly well (Right!?! likely the most extreme VSA-based system on this planet and others. yeah! The one with VSA VR 11 for mains and VR-9 for .. surrounds (!!!!) with VAC top of the line amp and preamps, etc ) and I am sure that of Audioguy does a good job of it ... the examples are multiple here of people with extremely good 2-ch who have moved toward MC and will not go back .. Yet the systems we, audiophiles, gush about are usually not MC and that is OK .. Preferences etc ... Yet MC promises are greater than 2-ch and the best recordings of all time , the very famous Mercury Living Presence and RCA Living Stereo acknowledged the fact that 2-ch wasn't enough thus their use during recording in many instance of 3-ch , not 2.. I would even go pedantic for the purpose of the discussion and say that stereo doesn't equate 2-ch .. Back then in the late 50's that is what technology was capable of. Today we can do more .. Shouldn't we? Should we continue to cling to the past? When the past itself wanted more than 2-ch? The Golden years of Audio and all that??? And today we can do MC and well?

Now regarding the point of those who are naysayers because they haven't been exposed to great systems .. That is a condescending point of view .. I can tell you that I know one member here with a superlative system, let me repeat a very superlative (I know this is not correct use of the language of Shakespeare but I wanted to make a point) with speakers people dream about ..yet with a lukewarm attitude toward cables . Oh Yes ! that person has superlative cables but will likely never change them he is looking toward other ways to better his already very (there I go again :b) ) superlative system and doesn't think it is through cable .. Not a naysayer .. I am one of those naysayers about cables .. I will tell you that I have heard my share of great systems and I continue to audition great systems I have been listenig to great systems for all my life as a matter of fact my father was an early day audiophile who went the whole gamut of superlative systems of the time from Quad to Bozark to Infintiy to Mac and Harman Kardon, to Ar speakers and at one point a Yamaha NS-1000 ( I kind of liked this speaker) etc , even to an hybrid ESL (Dayton-Wright??) ... On my own, I have had my share of very good to excellent systems, in my humble opinion .. (How's that for humility?) .. I have had my share of expensive cables having spent serious I mean s-e-r-i-o-u-s oh yes the usual suspects amount of dollars on cables in my audiophile life. Enough to buy some serious level systems sans the cables .. .. Yet I could not, distinguish them when knowledge was removed IOW not knowing which is which ... YMMV on being able to distinguish your cables from mere mundane piece of electrically adequate say 10 AWG copper wire or an IC such as the Belden or Mogami or Canare, with knowledge removed .. I am doubting you would be able to know which is which and strongly .. Does it mean that cables makes no differences? Does it mean You wouldn't be able to recognize your own cable? No!! I do however have doubts.. that's all.. The facts can prove me wrong. For me this experience placed me in the other camp those who don't believe in expensive cables to make a difference. I think about speakers and rooms and electronics but never again about cables ...Liberating ? Absolutely? Saving me some bucks? .. You bet .. I have been on music buying spree since I know that I don;t have to put money aside for cables ... Joking ... but the point is that I don't go around thinking that a cable will break a system when there are peaks and dip of more than 30 dB to address and those peaks and dip are more commonplace than one would think .. Dos it mean that You think or should agree with me? No! You may have to allow me to voice my position and my disagreement as long as I posit it correctly politely. You can refute my postings but you may have to come up with facts. if it is your opinion that I am wrong, that is fine but don't condescend others and I because we post a point of view that is different from the orthodoxy to which you abide and one you and others hold dear. WBF from my understanding is a discussion forum in which people opine and discuss (hopefully) ...
So I would suggest we welcome the disagreements .. They are after all their authors opinions.. WE have the right and maybe the duty to debate them but let's not just reject them because they don't fit our own...
Long post I am out for now ...

 

[DaveyF]

Davey

I agree with Lee.. to a point, we should not goo too far ahead of ourselves. The way forward in any endeavor is to discover and understand the limitations. This is not accomplished in any echo chamber situation where people around patting each other on the back where clearly constructive criticism would have advanced and further the results. We will use one ore truism and then dispense of them. Reproducing things heard live in our listening rooms is impossible. That would suggest perfection. So there! No more truisms

2-ch stereo is flawed and the more we accept the better we can work toward ameliorating the simulacra.. Better music reproduction in our homes. We seem to be bent on the idea that the best way is though 2-channel stereo. We are clear on the fact that real music is all around us yet we refuse to pursue that clinging to the opinion that 2-channel is superior .. It can't be. It is however supremely difficult to pull off a great MC system but it has been done, it can be done, some here on this forum are enjoying it .. I am close to certain that the Jack's brother's system pulls it off modestly well (Right!?! likely the most extreme VSA-based system on this planet and others. yeah! The one with VSA VR 11 for mains and VR-9 for .. surrounds (!!!!) with VAC top of the line amp and preamps, etc ) and I am sure that of Audioguy does a good job of it ... the examples are multiple here of people with extremely good 2-ch who have moved toward MC and will not go back .. Yet the systems we, audiophiles, gush about are usually not MC and that is OK .. Preferences etc ... Yet MC promises are greater than 2-ch and the best recordings of all time , the very famous Mercury Living Presence and RCA Living Stereo acknowledged the fact that 2-ch wasn't enough thus their use during recording in many instance of 3-ch , not 2.. I would even go pedantic for the purpose of the discussion and say that stereo doesn't equate 2-ch .. Back then in the late 50's that is what technology was capable of. Today we can do more .. Shouldn't we? Should we continue to cling to the past? When the past itself wanted more than 2-ch? The Golden years of Audio and all that??? And today we can do MC and well?

Now regarding the point of those who are naysayers because they haven't been exposed to great systems .. That is a condescending point of view .. I can tell you that I know one member here with a superlative system, let me repeat a very superlative (I know this is not correct use of the language of Shakespeare but I wanted to make a point) with speakers people dream about ..yet with a lukewarm attitude toward cables . Oh Yes ! that person has superlative cables but will likely never change them he is looking toward other ways to better his already very (there I go again :b) ) superlative system and doesn't think it is through cable .. Not a naysayer .. I am one of those naysayers about cables .. I will tell you that I have heard my share of great systems and I continue to audition great systems I have been listenig to great systems for all my life as a matter of fact my father was an early day audiophile who went the whole gamut of superlative systems of the time from Quad to Bozark to Infintiy to Mac and Harman Kardon, to Ar speakers and at one point a Yamaha NS-1000 ( I kind of liked this speaker) etc , even to an hybrid ESL (Dayton-Wright??) ... On my own, I have had my share of very good to excellent systems, in my humble opinion .. (How's that for humility?) .. I have had my share of expensive cables having spent serious I mean s-e-r-i-o-u-s oh yes the usual suspects amount of dollars on cables in my audiophile life. Enough to buy some serious level systems sans the cables .. .. Yet I could not, distinguish them when knowledge was removed IOW not knowing which is which ... YMMV on being able to distinguish your cables from mere mundane piece of electrically adequate say 10 AWG copper wire or an IC such as the Belden or Mogami or Canare, with knowledge removed .. I am doubting you would be able to know which is which and strongly .. Does it mean that cables makes no differences? Does it mean You wouldn't be able to recognize your own cable? No!! I do however have doubts.. that's all.. The facts can prove me wrong. For me this experience placed me in the other camp those who don't believe in expensive cables to make a difference. I think about speakers and rooms and electronics but never again about cables ...Liberating ? Absolutely? Saving me some bucks? .. You bet .. I have been on music buying spree since I know that I don;t have to put money aside for cables ... Joking ... but the point is that I don't go around thinking that a cable will break a system when there are peaks and dip of more than 30 dB to address and those peaks and dip are more commonplace than one would think .. Dos it mean that You think or should agree with me? No! You may have to allow me to voice my position and my disagreement as long as I posit it correctly politely. You can refute my postings but you may have to come up with facts. if it is your opinion that I am wrong, that is fine but don't condescend others and I because we post a point of view that is different from the orthodoxy to which you abide and one you and others hold dear. WBF from my understanding is a discussion forum in which people opine and discuss (hopefully) ...
So I would suggest we welcome the disagreements .. They are after all their authors opinions.. WE have the right and maybe the duty to debate them but let's not just reject them because they don't fit our own...
Long post I am out for now ...

Frantz, you need to step back and take a deep breath.

IF you read my posts carefully, you will see that I have NEVER equated cost to performance...NEVER. In fact, I am of the opinion ( perhaps on of the few that is) that cost is irrelevant to performance. However, if you have never heard the significant differences that cables can bring to the presentation of your system, I can only say that either a) your system is not resolving enough or b) you are a little deaf.
That's not trying to be condescending in any way, you may take it that way, BUT that's not the intent.
OTOH, I am a little quizzical as to why your post seems to be so defensive
Lee brought up some great posts to a member, who on the face of it seemed to be simply decrying everything about high-end audio. I happened to agree with what Lee said, because that is the way this member's posts appeared to me as well.
BTW, I have NEVER heard a superb MC system...at least one that I would want to live with. If you really think about how music is presented live, IMHO it has a lot more to do with the 2ch presentation than MC. Right channel, Left channel and everything in between...including some perception of depth. Last time I looked, when I went to the symphony, I didn't hear the main clarinet player behind me, while the main flute player was in front....YMMV.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Who needs reviewers , just take the zanden aproach , switch out live instruments for recorded ones , live for an audience ,real time .

http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/zanden/zanden.html

Hate to see ML getting negative press , but what can you do