Sometimes its good to let sleepy dogs lie.
|
Enjoying some well earned down time today, so I decided to revisit one of the most vivid threads on audiogon in the last several years.
Still a hoot- and now, 3 years later, wondering one thing- does the OP have the 53's? |
This weekend I reread the review in TAS by Robert Harley. He had reservations regarding the amps as well. The review states the amps sounded markedly different than comparable amplifiers, especially in the upper frequencies that were exceptionaly detailed. His summation was that it would be a polarizing product, love it or hate it. So, here you have it, French Fries likes it and Fremer not so much. |
I stand corrected the impedance mismatch is only for balanced XLR connection between the 2 units...
"The Bryston's voltage gain into 8 ohms was 29dB when the amplifier was set to "1V" sensitivity, 22.9dB when set to "2V," these figures the same for both balanced and unbalanced drive. Both sets of inputs preserved absolute polarity (ie, were non-inverting), the XLR jack being wired with pin 2 hot. The balanced input impedance was 10k ohms across the audioband; the unbalanced stayed close to a moderately low 7.5k ohms at low and middle frequencies, dropping a little, to 7.2k ohms, at 20kHz. This would not have been a problem for the unbalanced outputs of MF's darTZeel preamplifier, which is what he used for the auditioning, but the Bryston's balanced input is incompatible with the darTZeel's balanced output, which has an atypically high source impedance that varies with frequency. "
But if the XLR connection were used at any time, then there would have been problems... |
Hi Michael,
The impedance mismatch is mentioned right in the measurements section of your article on the Bryston amps. Do you not read the magazine you write for?
Take care,
-Dave |
We get accused of writing "only positive reviews" and then when one is mildly negative the shite hits the fan. Make up your minds! That is a VERY good point ! |
|
This has gone on for so long that I've forgotten which came first, the criticism or the egg.
It should make for one tasty omelette provided you use a lot of seasoning.
All the best,
Nonoise |
You hit the nail right on the head! |
****He'll never be able to listen to those amps again without thinking there might actually be something wrong with them. ****
And THAT dear fellow audioholics is the basic problem: We listen to equipment, and not the music. |
I can't believe this thread is still going!
In my mind, the only thing French_fries has accomplished is to make himself look like a cry-baby. He'll never be able to listen to those amps again without thinking there might actually be something wrong with them.
Too avoid any further anxiety, you should probably sell them, then buy the next rediculously priced amp that receives a positive review; make that two positive reviews!. |
I'm sure Grooves will say that the Dag monos are the best solid state he's ever heard. And he won't be exaggerating if he does. They are,in a word, spectacular. |
Mike, you better give an A+ review for Dan's amps or you gonna lay another egg!! :) :) |
Wow, this has gone on for so long, I'm amazed. First of all the claim that there was an impedance mismatch between my darTZeel preamp and the Bryston amp I reviewed is absolutely FALSE. Please show me that.
Secondly, I stand by every word of my Mark Levinson review. If the guy who started this thread likes those amps, well GOOD FOR HIM. What is all this hoopla about?
We get accused of writing "only positive reviews" and then when one is mildly negative the shite hits the fan. Make up your minds!
I have only one bit of advice for the guy who bought the M-Ls, loves them and threw a fit against me. That advice is DO NOT, I mean DO NOT listen to the similarly priced D'Agostino Momentum monoblocks I just reviewed and will soon be published.
Do NOT listen to those amps. Just keep loving your M-Ls. Okay?
-Fremer |
The subject of this thread has come up on Whatbestforum. The principals, namely French Fries and M Fremer (Grooves), seem to have moved on. |
The ML 53 review is up on the facepage of Stereophile.com if anyone is interested. |
Methinks thou dost protest too much! |
You should sell them to Fremer - I bet he would give you a great price:) |
It's Pearl Harbor day, either drop a bomb on this thread, or sell the amps and buy something else. |
You people have lost me. Could we all start over from the beginning? Now, Fremer said what, about what?
Thank you.
Cheers. |
|
|
What the OP seems to be unaware of is the level of sarcasm and offensive mischaracterizations that he has directed at the reviewer in his tirade:
-"MF lays an ostrich egg"
-"MF decided ahead of time was going to screw up the sound"
-"His reviews of $$,$$$ phono stages are hilarious- what a set of ears he possesses!"
-"he's irrelevant and has been for years"
-"or his brain is severely damaged"
-"his often ludicrous opinion"
-"a blowfish like M.Fremer"
-"I am SOOO pleased that His Master's Voice has chipped in with his Very Talented View"
Then the OP tells MF:
"Mr. Fremer, if you are reading this, unless a component represents a threat to the health and safety of the owner, END EVERY REVIEW with: "go audition this product for yourself to see if its performance appeals to
you"
I finally read the review in question today, and not only does the reviewer NOT say that the amps "suck", what the OP suggests is exactly what the reviewer recommends; to listen for oneself as the amp may suit a system with a particular balance.
Frenchfries, I understand how upsetting it may be to make that kind of investment and then to have a major audio magazine give that piece of equipment a less than glowing review, but I think you should reconsider who it is that is acting like a "blowfish". |
French Fries you seem extremely offended by MF's review and act as if he personally attacked you. Would you also be offended if someone said they didn't like French fries,(the potato that is.)
As Charles and Peter just pointed out your analogy is off base
Relax, sit back and enjoy your system |
French Fries, Please define A, B and C. |
It`s precisely about opinion and pure subjectivity.Your equation does`nt apply.There`s nothing absolute or finite when judging audio components(it`s really that simple).Everyone won`t agree that A=B and that B=C.Fremer clearly has gotten into you.Just continue enjoy your amplifiers.
Regards, |
This isn't about opinions. this is about arithmatic. if A=B and B=C, then A=C.
i can't make my point any clearer than this. |
Joc3021,
Most of the respondents on this thread share your sentiments.
Regards, |
I agree. That's the right mindset to have. |
Haven't read this whole thread, but I did read the amp review. Fremer didn't like the sound. Atkinson measured and also didn't like the sound. This is their opinion, which they don't present as anything but. This is, after all, subjective reviewing. We are free to ignore their opinions, like what we like, buy what we want. Or, we can invest great weight in their opinions and when they don't align with ours become furious, outraged and indignant.
Is it any more complicated than that? Why so much heat over this? |
Vicdamone,
Thank you. I was struggling to contact you!
I have had various versions of switching amps both in the studio and my system.
I understand some of the castigation they have reveived. But compared to 90% of amplification they are a cut above across the board IMHO.
I think once you get into some tubes and some SS that are extremely capable, maybe then its worth the effort, but usually at massive cost. For the studio tubes are not applicable for power amps anyway. Much as I am a sucker for low power tubes like the 45 and the AD1 given the correct sensitivity of the speaker.
I will have to get some of these nCores. Too many people I consider rational have rated them as the finest of their genre. Who needs a reviewer? |
Regarding the Bryston thing: Yes, I remember that, however it says right in the measurements section that there was an impedance mismatch. Game over. It shows a lack of tech knowledge on the part of Fremer, imo.
Anyway, to me it's just a review, an opinion. Take it with a grain of salt and enjoy your system as it is. |
Atkinson measured the amp and noted an unusual anomaly otherwise it measured very well. His subjective impressions were the same as Fremer's and he seemed bewildered based on the overall measurements, an "enigma" as he noted. Is there an impedance issue between amp and pre-amp? Good question which it would seem overlooked by two seasoned reviewers if the case but certainly a possibility that can't be ruled out. If French Fries doesn't hear it, it doesn't exist, thats all that matters. If he continually thinks about the review when listening then thats a different story. But then again I'll bet we all do this from time to time when all thing in our brains are not aligned to permit enjoyment over analysis, one of the banes of this hobby. |
Well, then there's the Bryston 7B debacle which turned out that Fremer had an impedance mismatch between his preamp (DartZeel if I remember correctly) and the Bryston amps.
Stereophile has yet to do a follow up even after I heard from a Bryston rep that they were going to.
So, maybe just maybe, another impedance mismatch regarding these Levinson amps?
I appreciate subjective reviewing, but there is in fact a technical side which is not good to avoid. Especially being a reviewer, imo. If one isn't technical, then hire someone who is, or get a friend who is. |
Frenchfries I read the review, I thought it was informative and fair. Whether or not you agree with it or not is fair game but your reaction seems a bit too defensive. The area of tonal texture, nuance and decay, which is a general cavaet I've noticed over the years for many "fast" amps seems to be the issue with Fremer with the MLs and I really get what he is trying to convey without ever having heard the amps. I don't think he has any objections to the use of a switching power supply at all and I don't read into what he said regarding it as negative. The review is IMHO what an informative review should be, conveying the general characteristics in an objective meaningful way that the reader can understand. I think he did that well as he usually does. I can imagine many folks that would probably be interested in hearing it for the positive attributes stated in the review. If you don't agree with the aspects of the presentation Fremer found objectionable thats ok too, don't try to over think it because of what he said. You purchased the amps, you have to live with them and ultimately your taste is the only thing that matters, besides, you have different systems as well. It isn't necessary to shoot the messenger because he doesn't agree with you, it really isn't relevant to what you hear and value so why bother? There is one good thing from this thread, you have opened up a really good discussion with some excellent comments and observations. Cheers and Happy Listening!
|
"For all the negativity audiophiles give for their dissatisfaction with switching amplifiers I find makes them outstanding in the studio. There is no mistake you're hearing it all without embellishment or softening."
Agree totally, my modded NuForce were proof of this to a friend of mine after his big tube monos took a dump for the 4th time, we put my amps on top of his and commenced listening, he began thinking another way.
I don't think it's necessary to spend 20-50K on this technology, no matter what big-brand name graces the faceplates. |
Chadeeffect, oops, my bad no link here. If you like you can go to AA where I do have an email link.
I have a small highly dampened bedroom that my Son and I use to do some surprisingly good computer recording. We use these recordings to produce track samples as well as to hear mixable computer files sent to us.
The playback side is a ten inch DD sub and a pair of small two way Avalon Mixing Monitors driven by the Hypex nCores which are crudely assembled with balanced inputs onto wooden planks. They are tucked away inside a heavy cabinet so its impossible to get a photo of them. The assembly is nothing I'm proud of even though I have to laugh every time I see them.
They replaced a pair of NuForce 9SE v3s which I was very fortunate to sell for over twice the price of the nCore kits. Sonic differences are an across the board improvement that I would subjectively quantify as: if going from sets of included cheap interconnects to Cardas Reference is a 3 on a 1-10 scale and a cheap phono cartridge to my Benz Ruby Z being an 8, then the nCores are about a 6. How that for silly?
If you've been listening to good switching amplifiers for any length of time all those attributes remain. Via my main system the nCores seem less forward because there seems to be more air in the highs and upper mids. Their sound stage is both wider and deeper. In general a more pleasant and richer presentation that I can easily recommend as worth the effort of the assembly. The most foolish place bet on a craps table is snake eyes, only you win.
For all the negativity audiophiles give for their dissatisfaction with switching amplifiers I find makes them outstanding in the studio. There is no mistake you're hearing it all without embellishment or softening. As a Bass player this becomes very important being able to dial in the string to fingerboard growl and the pegbox mic. |
I agree. The best technical performers do not always put out the best sound. I did hear these amps @ CES driving the big Revels. Thought they were ok, but no big deal, really. |
Psag,
The idea that the truly 'accurate' amps may mistakenly be deemed flat,clinical and sterrile makes little sense.That type of presentation is artificial and incorrect, I realize some prefer this sound and call it 'neutral' and true to the source. I`ve never,ever in my life heard any instrument played or any vocalist sound remotely close to this in a live enviroment.
The notion of 'true to the recording' as opposed to what your ears hear in reality is the wrong direction IMO.
The last thing you`d confuse a live sax,trumpet,piano or singer with is dry,thin,flatten and lacking body and the natural color and tone they obviously produce in person.
I believev Fremer called it as he honestly heard this amplifier, if you like this type of sound then great,these amps are for you.How did natural tone,timbre,pitch,harmonics and full expression of an instrument`s body become a coloration?This makees no musical reality sense at all.The warmth,bloom,vivid colors, tone and density of sound I 'always' hear live is what`s accurate,why? because it`s real and you`re in the same room with it to experience it.
Regards, |
Great thread. Its refreshing to read a rare negative review, and MF should get credit for that. But as a reviewer he has a responsibility to try and get at the truth, quite apart from providing entertainment or supplying subjective opinions Amen Let's go back to the real world and the Business. There is no negative review possible. Not from a professional reviewer who get money for his writing. Harman always got top "Product Placements" in History, we should ask, what happened?? A reviewer who woke up and discovered his ears? (Hardly) A reviewer who understood what was going on sonically? (Nahhhh) A reviewer who woke up one day and day and swore, he will tell the truth, because he wants to have a better world (Santa Claus lives) Harman wanted the amps back (Maybe) Harman refused to buy more ads? (Hm) Harman didn't lick the shoes from someone? (Possible) Harman Marketing asked "What is "a Framer""? (Could be) The amp will be replaced anyway (We will see) Stay tuned .... |
Great thread. Its refreshing to read a rare negative review, and MF should get credit for that. But as a reviewer he has a responsibility to try and get at the truth, quite apart from providing entertainment or supplying subjective opinions. I suspect that the Levinson amps are outstanding performers, but simply didn't sound good to MF, in his system, with his musical selections. Is is possible that certain euphonic distortions, previously taken for granted, were lacking? Or maybe it was just an equipment mismatch.
Some of the top high end manufacturers are relentlessly pursuing the goal of musical truthfulness. Some of us applaud them. To some more senior pairs of ears, said equipment may sound cold, sterile, uninvolving, etc. Furthermore, subjecting said equipment to mediocre recordings will often produce mediocre sounding results. To those of us who are first and foremost interested in hearing how the recording really sounds, this is a price we are willing to pay. Its just a matter of recognizing that we can't have it all. The reward comes when we hear our systems fully and faithfully reproduce a superior recording. |
Thought he was a BIG TURKEY!! |
Kzhtoo- I'm completely sympathetic to the concerns you are raising, not because I have succeeded in overcoming them for myself, but because I still struggle with the same issues you do, and have been fooling around with this stuff for more than 40 years. Dealers are in business to make money and none carry all possible brands you'd like to demo, even assuming you are in a locale where most of the equipment is accessible. Some products are virtually impossible to get for home demo, unless you know another enthusiast who already owns it, and is willing to let you try it for a period of time in your system. (A fast afternoon or evening is not really enough).
Then there is the alchemy of system and component matching- sure, there are some tried and true combinations, but unless you are prepared to buy new speakers and amps to replicate a proven combination, you are entering into voodoo land. I wish it were not so. I wish it was easy enough to get the gist of a given component from the published specs, or a review, and have confidence that you will know what you are getting and how well it will work.
Some pretty experienced hi-fi enthusiasts get that experience by trying, buying and discarding an endless array of equipment in their pursuit. It's not just 'flavor of the month,' but a quest to achieve some elusive quality that they can hear in their mind's eye (how's that for a mixed metaphor). Even if they achieve nirvana, it's a pretty costly process.
Reviews are not a very good substitute for many of these reasons. I'm not an apologist for reviewers in general or M. Fremer in particular- I assume most do it because they actually enjoy some part of the reviewing process and like music and gear, but, when you think about what it is they have to do to write a review, it can be a pretty thankless task. Setting the stuff up, getting it burned in, making sure they understand its quirks, its operating features and getting it zoned in for best performance, taking other system variables into account (and sometimes having to make substantial changes to other parts of the system to get there). Do that once a month and its probably 1/2 fun and 1/2 a pain in the ass. Do it as a regular job- has to be a real grind. So, what's the upside? Learning, access to good, musical gear, an inside track to an interesting industry that is still made up of quite a few colorful characters, writing, getting published and doing a lot of legwork. Part journalist, part tech, part music fan, and bringing to bear whatever innate talents they have where the technology, the music and the writing converge, to make it worthwhile. The reader? I don't think too many professional writers disdain their readers- but, it's kind of like asking somebody in any field "why did you say X 4 years ago about such and such a topic?" It may have been their best effort at the time; they know more now, or listen differently. I also suspect that somebody who listens to equipment constantly, on an ongoing basis, as part of their profession has a different view on the whole thing than you do, when you earmark funds for a substantial purchase and want to be 'right' in what you are buying. Sure, they get a price break if they decide to buy the stuff for themselves, but they certainly aren't making much money writing audio reviews. They just have greater access, and perhaps a willingness to roll with various review equipment, making changes to their personal systems only when something really 'pops.' Otherwise, they could maintain a decent reference and 'feed the equipment habit' largely by relying on a continued influx of new gear for review. There are guys I know in the car business, high end cars to be sure, who have little need to personally invest tons of money in their own rides- what they may collect for themselves is oddball, quirky stuff, since they are driving the latest and greatest anyway as part of their jobs.
Sorry for the overlong post. I don't think your problem is unique at all- it is in some ways the very root of uncertainty and the constant striving to improve our systems. Unfortunately, it's not a 'buy the best' and live happily ever after story, even if you have unlimited funds, because there is no 'best' once you get to a certain level of gear and so much depends on basic set-up, component synergies, room and your particular taste. In some ways, it is what makes this an interesting hobby. Hi Whart, great analysis and reasoning. Thanks for posting. |
since a recording is an unknown, it is almost impossible to state that a component is dead neutral. i can understand that a component can be very revealing, but it's neutrality is almost impossible to assess. |
|
experienced hi-fi enthusiasts get that experience by trying, buying and discarding an endless array of equipment in their pursuit. It's not just 'flavor of the month,' but a quest to achieve some elusive quality that they can hear in their mind's eye (how's that for a mixed metaphor). Even if they achieve nirvana, it's a pretty costly process. Sadly, I think what you have described is true for many audiophiles. But they really have nobody else to blame but themselves. Effectively they have taken a fairly simple set of purchasing decisions and turned it into a quest for an audio holy grail. Magazines and reviewers play a important role in this fantasy quest by defining the goals. At one point it was sufficient to have low distortion and good, balanced tone. Later on reviewers started talking about soundstage, soundstage depth, lateral imaging beyond the speakers, low resonance, harmonic density, bloom, continuousness, etc. By consistently introducing new parameters and providing a language to describe them the magazines are making sure that no matter where along the quest an audiophile is the redefined goal is always just beyond the horizon. It's gotten so bad that some audiophiles even talk about the quest as being the hobby as if listening to music is just an added throw-in. I honestly cannot image how someone could think of subjectivist audio reviews as anything but entertainment. Once you get past the physical description of the equipment the review becomes entirely personal opinion. Now some reviewers may have a depth of listening experience that gives weight to their musings. But to make a sports analogy, is an audio reviewer more like Dan Marino/Steve Young commenting on the play of a current quarterback, or is it more like Stephen A. Smith/Skip Bayless commenting on the same? I thinks it's the later. |
Kzhtoo- I'm completely sympathetic to the concerns you are raising, not because I have succeeded in overcoming them for myself, but because I still struggle with the same issues you do, and have been fooling around with this stuff for more than 40 years. Dealers are in business to make money and none carry all possible brands you'd like to demo, even assuming you are in a locale where most of the equipment is accessible. Some products are virtually impossible to get for home demo, unless you know another enthusiast who already owns it, and is willing to let you try it for a period of time in your system. (A fast afternoon or evening is not really enough).
Then there is the alchemy of system and component matching- sure, there are some tried and true combinations, but unless you are prepared to buy new speakers and amps to replicate a proven combination, you are entering into voodoo land. I wish it were not so. I wish it was easy enough to get the gist of a given component from the published specs, or a review, and have confidence that you will know what you are getting and how well it will work.
Some pretty experienced hi-fi enthusiasts get that experience by trying, buying and discarding an endless array of equipment in their pursuit. It's not just 'flavor of the month,' but a quest to achieve some elusive quality that they can hear in their mind's eye (how's that for a mixed metaphor). Even if they achieve nirvana, it's a pretty costly process.
Reviews are not a very good substitute for many of these reasons. I'm not an apologist for reviewers in general or M. Fremer in particular- I assume most do it because they actually enjoy some part of the reviewing process and like music and gear, but, when you think about what it is they have to do to write a review, it can be a pretty thankless task. Setting the stuff up, getting it burned in, making sure they understand its quirks, its operating features and getting it zoned in for best performance, taking other system variables into account (and sometimes having to make substantial changes to other parts of the system to get there). Do that once a month and its probably 1/2 fun and 1/2 a pain in the ass. Do it as a regular job- has to be a real grind. So, what's the upside? Learning, access to good, musical gear, an inside track to an interesting industry that is still made up of quite a few colorful characters, writing, getting published and doing a lot of legwork. Part journalist, part tech, part music fan, and bringing to bear whatever innate talents they have where the technology, the music and the writing converge, to make it worthwhile. The reader? I don't think too many professional writers disdain their readers- but, it's kind of like asking somebody in any field "why did you say X 4 years ago about such and such a topic?" It may have been their best effort at the time; they know more now, or listen differently. I also suspect that somebody who listens to equipment constantly, on an ongoing basis, as part of their profession has a different view on the whole thing than you do, when you earmark funds for a substantial purchase and want to be 'right' in what you are buying. Sure, they get a price break if they decide to buy the stuff for themselves, but they certainly aren't making much money writing audio reviews. They just have greater access, and perhaps a willingness to roll with various review equipment, making changes to their personal systems only when something really 'pops.' Otherwise, they could maintain a decent reference and 'feed the equipment habit' largely by relying on a continued influx of new gear for review. There are guys I know in the car business, high end cars to be sure, who have little need to personally invest tons of money in their own rides- what they may collect for themselves is oddball, quirky stuff, since they are driving the latest and greatest anyway as part of their jobs.
Sorry for the overlong post. I don't think your problem is unique at all- it is in some ways the very root of uncertainty and the constant striving to improve our systems. Unfortunately, it's not a 'buy the best' and live happily ever after story, even if you have unlimited funds, because there is no 'best' once you get to a certain level of gear and so much depends on basic set-up, component synergies, room and your particular taste. In some ways, it is what makes this an interesting hobby. |
Hi Whart,
"Kzhtoo: I think relying too heavily on anyone else's opinion, no matter how experienced, in deciding to buy something expensive is probably a mistake, if only for the reason that results are system dependent and depend on your ears.
The difficulty, obviously, is being able to get a home audition. Not easy if you are buying used from Audiogon or in some cases where the manufacturer sells direct. This is obviously where the premium paid to a dealer has value."
What I meant is for the people with limited knowledge who's trying to build a system or just getting into this hobby. I understand the premium you pay to the dealers for the obvious benefit. But IME, unless you can home audition, listening at the dealers' treated room with completely different components usually do not tell you much. Home auditions is tough these days, at least in my area. And we all know we cannot completely trust what your dealer tells you. Not saying there aren't trustworthy dealers but I have yet to have met one. So, we turn to hifi magazines.
The reason what I wrote below to begin with (see below) is because I felt nauseated when I read the attitude that Mr. Fremer displayed in his couple of posts. Hi-end audio is not the mainstream in the bigger scheme of things, and we, the readers, are the ones that keeping these magazines afloat. But I do not feel easy to have read such things along the lines of "this is entertainment, I wrote what I wrote and I get paid for it. If you don't like it, tough luck" as opposed to taking this incident with OP as a learning experience to better communicate with the readers.
Other than that, yes I do like negative reviews. Just not the attitude in this thread. Maybe Mr. Fremer was in the heat of the moment. But I thought I'd say something.
"11-17-12: Kzhtoo
Do keep in mind not everyone that read hifi magazines are experienced hobbyists like most of you are. When one buys a wrong amp based on a review, it is not entertainment. Believe it or not, some of us don't know better so we turn to hifi magazines for advice, after all it's not too out of the line to assume that that's what they are for. People tend to forget how overwhelming it can be for an inexperienced person to start build a system. For god's sake, majority in our population do not have an idea what a phono stage means.
It's just not as simple as "entertainment". People do pay for the magazines and they are entitled to a little "help" or "review" they seek to make an informed decision.
Kzhtoo (Threads | Answers | This Thread)" |
I agree with most of Larryi's post but..."if I were in the market for a high powered amp" and were looking to spend the kind of "scratch" the ML fetches, I'd definitely be considering resale value, or lack thereof, and would probably look elsewhere.
There are plenty of choices when it comes to rediculously overpriced amps that sound at least as good as the ML, so why shoot yourself in the foot by buying something that you'll never get your money out of. Let's face it, a bad review in Stereophile will not only cause values to plummet, but can also drive a manufacturer out of business; think Timbre Technology or Scientific Fidelity.
I haven't subscribed to Stereophool or TAS in a few years but when I did, I always thought of their reviews as someone elses opinion with a few facts sprinkled in. As others have pointed out, at best, a review is just a starting point and no substitute for your own audition.
On the other hand, after looking at Larryi's system, I'd take his opinion on a piece of audio gear quite seriously. Love the looks of the Epifania and have often wondered how Emotive gear would sound in my room. |
I wish ALL reviews were "negative" in the sense that they emphasize what the reviewer thought were either issues/problems or had the potential to be such. That is the only way that the opinion of the reviewer can be useful--pointing out areas that the potential buyer should be paying particular attention to because it is easy to miss something that may, in the long run, be a problem. After all, most reviewers get to audition the gear over a far longer period than dealers allow a customer.
It also helps to give detailed description of operational aspects--features, ergonomics, etc. and what issues someone may have integrating the component into different system configurations. Reviewers, such as Anthony Cordesman, are particularly good at the physical description.
I like the fact that Michael Fremer frequently does say explicitly about what he thinks about a component instead of trying to shade comments to suggest disapproval in what is, overall, a favorable review. The problem is that other reviewers don't do the same, so his "pans" stand out way more than they should. It may be the case that his negative reaction is merely the case of system/room incompatibility, or any number of other unique circumstances, but, the pan takes on such great importance because of his stature and the rarity of such events.
If I were in the market for a high powered amp, such as the Levinson, I would not scratch it off the list just because one reviewer panned it, but, I would listen for what that review found troubling. |
