VAC 452 iQ review in Stereophile

[Ron Resnick]

I am a huge fan of Michael Fremer (and of Don Saltzman). I think Michael is intellectually honest, acts and writes with integrity, and is consistent. (Don is also.)

Michael is one of the very last reviewers who continues to conduct careful and difficult comparative reviews. One does not have to have Michael's exact same sonic preferences to be able to calibrate where his preference points are located on the sonic spectrum, and to interpret usefully his reviews accordingly for one's own helpful purposes. After you read Michael for a while, his consistency enables you to triangulate on how far away is his personal preference from your personal preference.

For example, Michael likes a frequency balance which is more neutral than the slightly warm-tilting balance that I prefer. Michael loves the Lyra Atlas, but I have found Lyras (except the Etna SL) to be consistently too neutral and analytical for me.

If Michael finds a cartridge to be slightly on the warm side, with not quite enough leading edge and dynamic pop for him, then I know that that cartridge would be a serious candidate for me personally.

 

[bonzo75]

When people on this forum knock down Fremer's reviews, it shows the lack of experience of the reader. It implies he hasn't investigated other components that Fremer has reviewed, thus making it very easy to dismiss his prose as nonsensical gobbledygook. The reason Fremer is so good, is as Ron mentioned, he is intellectually extremely honest, and describes what he hears, and what you will hear were you to try that product. As you read through his stuff, you actually go omg that is just what I was hearing couldn't have described it better myself. And Ron, Allaerts is anything but analytical. It could be that he set Lyra up better than others, but his description of Allaerts attributes in comparison to atlas is spot on.

Quite different from Roy Gregory, who writes for the sake of making an article interesting. Even on components I agree with Roy on (neodio, Martin Logans, Berning quadratures, Allnic)...i can't relate to what he is describing. I bought many of the LPs he used for his compares of phono EQ, my experiments didn't work after trying them on EMT, Allnic, and the external lower priced esoteric phono EQ corrector. Bill, G and I ran the same compare he did of Johanna Martzy on ERC vs on Coup Darchet, toAnyone can run this compare on their systems whatever the ears or systems you can see the ERC is quite superior to the Coup Darchet. He probably wrote that because he did not get a copy like Fremer and Art Dudley did.

The original can be better than the ERC but that's a different point.

In the 90s Roy had run an article on Blue Pearl Jem saying it trashed the Rockport. Bull! I haven't heard Rockport but have heard the blue pearl, and Mik owns both, and Bill heard both at Mik's. Same with the TAS guys, I don't care for what they write.

I think people switch off as soon as they see praise, review after review, and suspect It is all made up. It is very important to read carefully as negatives are mentioned very subtly, and in follow up articles. No reviewer writes as blatantly as some forum posters write

 

[JackD201]

Actually Jack. Halcro is back with their Eclipse monoblocks - very expensive

https://www.whathifi.com/au/reviews/halcro-eclipse-mono

Nice find!

You know, I had only two extended sessions with Halcro, one unimpressive and one very good. The good one had the 58s fronted by a Walker and FM Acoustics preamplification. Not enough data to really make my mind up on its merits. In hindsight I think it was simply a victim of unrealistic expectations.

Times were a lot different back then, the days when 2 mags ruled.

 

[bonzo75]

Nice find!

You know, I had only two extended sessions with Halcro, one unimpressive and one very good. The good one had the 58s fronted by a Walker and FM Acoustics preamplification. Not enough data to really make my mind up on its merits. In hindsight I think it was simply a victim of unrealistic expectations.

Times were a lot different back then, the days when 2 mags ruled.

This makes sense. If Halcro is very neutral, it will oscillate between sterile and good depending on upstream components. The guy with Walker and FM originally probably had a good matching cart and that was flowing through the Halcro nicely.

 

[XV-1]

When people on this forum knock down Fremer's reviews, it shows the lack of experience of the reader. It implies he hasn't investigated other components that Fremer has reviewed, thus making it very easy to dismiss his prose as nonsensical gobbledygook. The reason Fremer is so good, is as Ron mentioned, he is intellectually extremely honest, and describes what he hears, and what you will hear were you to try that product. As you read through his stuff, you actually go omg that is just what I was hearing couldn't have described it better myself. And Ron, Allaerts is anything but analytical. It could be that he set Lyra up better than others, but his description of Allaerts attributes in comparison to atlas is spot on.

Quite different from Roy Gregory, who writes for the sake of making an article interesting. Even on components I agree with Roy on (neodio, Martin Logans, Berning quadratures, Allnic)...i can't relate to what he is describing. I bought many of the LPs he used for his compares of phono EQ, my experiments didn't work after trying them on EMT, Allnic, and the external lower priced esoteric phono EQ corrector. Bill, G and I ran the same compare he did of Johanna Martzy on ERC vs on Coup Darchet, toAnyone can run this compare on their systems whatever the ears or systems you can see the ERC is quite superior to the Coup Darchet. He probably wrote that because he did not get a copy like Fremer and Art Dudley did.

The original can be better than the ERC but that's a different point.

In the 90s Roy had run an article on Blue Pearl Jem saying it trashed the Rockport. Bull! I haven't heard Rockport but have heard the blue pearl, and Mik owns both, and Bill heard both at Mik's. Same with the TAS guys, I don't care for what they write.

I think people switch off as soon as they see praise, review after review, and suspect It is all made up. It is very important to read carefully as negatives are mentioned very subtly, and in follow up articles. No reviewer writes as blatantly as some forum posters write

Spot on

Roy Gregory likes to think he has golden ears, but more importantly the ability to pick out sometimes not well known equipment and make them kings. He fails time after time in meaningful comparisons that have consistency.
Besides, how many times can one read on how Janis Ian sounds.

As Ron said, Fremer is totally consistent in the way he listens and more importantly how he puts that down in print as a review.

 

[XV-1]

Of course Gregory's credibility was shot when he went to work for Nordost after wanking on about Nordost in his HiFi review mag, even up to him about to leave for Nordost .
I own and love Nordost, but had to cringe when that happened.

Remember when he declared the Berning OTL amp as the best amp ever.

 

[bonzo75]

Of course Gregory's credibility was shot when he went to work for Nordost after wanking on about Nordost in his HiFi review mag, even up to him about to leave for Nordost .
I own and love Nordost, but had to cringe when that happened.

Remember when he declared the Berning OTL amp as the best amp ever.

Berning is very good on some speakers

But yes, I see no relation to sonics of a component and what he writes. He writes because he enjoys his position and imo does not use it to share accurately investigations into the sonics of a component . With great power comes great responsibility.

 

[spiritofmusic]

He's got a lovely place in France. Looks like a great listening room.

 

[pjwd]

I have been interested in listening to the Halcro phono

I think Halcro Dm10 has a pretty good phono stage and have had a few mid level phono stages in house that it bettered but I have no idea how it compares to todays SOA. A friend has the latest Doshi phono and when the "distancing" time has passed it would be great to do a comparison. Its quite a few years old now - will be vintage soon !

Phil

 

[tima]

Everyone is free to have their opinion of any reviewer - are they not?

Any published review from anyone is open to criticism - is it not?

Disagreement with a reviewer's writing is not an automatic ad hominem. Disagreement with a reviewer's opinion is not nonsensical gobbledygook because it's a particular reviewer.

Ron, I trust those are true at WBF.

Imo, there are no sacred cows in audio.

When people on this forum knock down Fremer's reviews, it shows the lack of experience of the reader.

You're insulting - might as well insult Fremer's readers too.

Isn't it bedtime for bonzo?

 

[bonzo75]

Everyone is free to have their opinion of any reviewer - are they not?

Any published review from anyone is open to criticism - is it not?

Disagreement with a reviewer's writing is not an automatic ad hominem. Disagreement with a reviewer's opinion is not nonsensical gobbledygook because it's a particular reviewer.

Ron, I trust those are true at WBF.

Imo, there are no sacred cows in audio.



You're insulting - might as well insult Fremer's readers too.

Isn't it bedtime for bonzo?

Hi Tima, I am aware you were coached in your writing by Roy when you worked for his publication.

 

[tima]

Hi Tima, I am aware you were coached in your writing by Roy when you worked for his publication.

Actually, that's more bonzo bullshit. Didn't happen. Write to Roy or Marc Mikelson (who, as my editor at two publications, did coach me.) You make up stuff like that and lose credibility. Roy and I exchanged e-mails once when he gave me Franc Kuzma's contact - that was the sum of our interaction.

 

[bonzo75]

Actually, that's more bonzo bullshit. Didn't happen. Write to Roy or Marc Mikelson (who, as my editor at two publications, did coach me.) You make up stuff like that and lose credibility. Roy and I exchanged e-mails once when he gave me Franc Kuzma's contact - that was the sum of our interaction.

Then why have you been quoting and misinterpreting since yesterday, and making silly statements such as I know what you think about Fremer and going on to criticize instead of actually reading and chatting to the point?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

In the 90s Roy had run an article on Blue Pearl Jem saying it trashed the Rockport. Bull! I haven't heard Rockport but have heard the blue pearl, and Mik owns both, and Bill heard both at Mik's. Same with the TAS guys, I don't care for what they write.

there was prior bad blood between Roy and Andy Payor. let's say possibly agenda's involved. but as a Sirius III owner, i only heard one side of that story at the time.

 

[bonzo75]

there was prior bad blood between Roy and Andy Payor. let's say possibly agenda's involved. but as a Sirius III owner, i only heard one side of that story at the time.

This totally fits the pattern, and I have heard the details

 

[tima]

Hi Tima, I am aware you were coached in your writing by Roy when you worked for his publication.

Actually, that's more bonzo bullshit. Didn't happen. Write to Roy or Marc Mikelson (who, as my editor at two publications, did coach me.) You make up stuff like that and lose credibility. Roy and I exchanged e-mails once when he gave me Franc Kuzma's contact - that was the sum of our interaction.

Then why have you been quoting and misinterpreting since yesterday, and making silly statements such as I know what you think about Fremer and going on to criticize instead of actually reading and chatting to the point?

You do realize your last response is a total non-sequitar, don't you?

I read your posts. I respond. You say "why are you misinterpreting me?" I suggest here that might be the wrong question, or there's another question you might ask: "what did I write that led someone to take the interpretation that he did?"

I'm repeating myself here... Just like you blame Fremer's readers for not agreeing with him, you blame your readers for not interpreting you correctly. Maybe you are not aware but that can come across as arrogant or condescending. Be that as it may. You ask: "Why do you misinterpret me?" As if there is some intent to misinterpret you. Then you say your reader is biased as if the reader is consciously trying to misinterpret you. I suggest not going there if you believe you are misinterpreted. Instead of asking yourself "why am I being misinterpreted" an alternative is to write a post explaining further what you are trying to say.

My response has been pretty consistent.

If you want to be understood, you should spend more time writing with clarity so your intent is clear. Don't blame your reader.

Forum messages and dialog go by pretty quick. Don't expect your reader to sit there wondering "what could he really mean by that?" Don't make your reader work to understand you. If it takes time to write clearly, that's the price of being well understood.

As far as knowing how you feel about Fremer - okay maybe I don't know how you feel - that's probably too much of a shorthand, the wrong way of putting it. I know your opinion of Fremer because you have expressed it on WBF more than once - as has Ron. It's not a secret. In your post #159 it certainly read like you wanted to explain what Fremer wrote in the VAC review - as if someone misinterpreted him and you want to correct his reader. Imo, Fremer doesn't need explanation, but regardless, in the post you responded to I was talking about alternative sonic references that might lead to different views on equipment and speculating, based on his words, what Fremer's reference was. It could have been any author; Fremer just happened to write the article under discussion.

I've spent too much time on this. I'm trying to give you a polite reply.

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . It is very important to read carefully as negatives are mentioned very subtly, and in follow up articles.

. . .

This is very true with Michael. Sometimes his critical review comments are directly and unabashedly negative. Other times and, sometimes, over time, they are subtle and have to be teased out. Only a regular and careful reader would discern these subtle criticisms.

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . Same with the TAS guys, I don't care for what they write.

. . .

I think Don Saltzman, of TAS, exhibits the same great and valuable reviewer attributes of Michael.

 

[Jeffy]

The Halcro amps I heard years ago were terrible. Very sterile and they used lots of negative feedback. The new ones with even lower distortion probably uses even more negative feedback.

 

[microstrip]

When people on this forum knock down Fremer's reviews, it shows the lack of experience of the reader. It implies he hasn't investigated other components that Fremer has reviewed, thus making it very easy to dismiss his prose as nonsensical gobbledygook. The reason Fremer is so good, is as Ron mentioned, he is intellectually extremely honest, and describes what he hears, and what you will hear were you to try that product.

I fully disagree on this aspect. This hobby is broad, diverse and vague enough to support contradictory views without any of the parts showing any ignorance. I have met Fremer and talked with him, and we although we share some views and preferences, many times I disagree a lot with what he writes and his methods.

IMHO it is reader responsibility to understand reviewer preferences and from there interpolate what we can learn from his writings. No reviewer or high-end guru can guess what we hear when we try an equipment in our particular system and room.

BTW, IMHO reading a review implies listening to the recordings that are referred in the review. Otherwise it is mostly a literature contest - that I sometimes appreciate.