Who is Michael Fremers'

Darren / all - agree in spades

"The Dynavector XV-1s is a perfect example. Loved by most, but hated by a few. Is it the tonearm? Does the person have the right system? Can we trust the person's ears or listening bias? Maybe it was just bad luck "

I am a classic example of listening bias. I have owned the dyna XV1 for 6 years or so now, so call me an early adopter I guess. I went up the dyna line from XX-2, te kaitora to finally the XV-1 in 2001.

late 2005 it was well and truely time to trade in my worn XV-1. I upgraded to the "superior" XV-1s. kept it for 6mnths and never liked it as much as the XV-1. Ended up sideways swapping it with a friend who paid for the lower price XV-1. Luckily dynavector had enough parts to make another XV-1. back to being very happy and the XV-1 just looks cooler with its RED :)

To my ears and bias the XV-1 is the musically superior cartridge to the XV-1s. To me the XV-1s has more dtail and slightly better transparency at the extremnes and sounds closer to a Lyra for my liking. I value organic musicality and drive v transparency. There is no right or wrong, only personal preference.

Hows the denon 103r going. Killer cartridge!!

Shane,

I stopped listening to Vinyl these days. What??? Yes yes yes. Been busy w. a distraction where I don't want to pick up a stylus at the end of a record. How I love CD/SACD in those rare times.

Truth be told, I just love the SQ, ZYX combo. The Denon is just sitting. I don't want to recalibrate my arm for the Denon & take off the Jade. The Jade gets 40% playtime compared to 50% for the ZYX & 10% CD.

Once the new arm comes the Jade or ZYX will move around and then the Denon will get some playtime & maybe break in.

A funny note. As some of you know, I live abroad and don't get my Stereophile in hand until I travel to the US. I did not get to read the review of the Raven AC, but instead had a friend read it to me. As he was reading it he skipped over parts. He then mentioned that the Raven A/C was closed in on the treble. I started laughing. I was like, he must be using the Millenium Mat which gives a darker/warmer balance. Then I read the review myself a few weeks later. Basically, the review echoes my experience exactly. I have noticed this on a few occasions. That basically says it all. Is it an absolute? No. But it shows that the reader must question the review and read it carefully to understand what is often between the lines. For a reviewer to truly knock on a product it really must be bad. They can put someone out of business. They need to be even handed and diplomatic.

What's keeps me reading Analog Corner is that you do participate in the "community" of Audiophiliacs! As for the Stereophile "over-exposure" of Musical Fidelity, FINE by me! When I came to the States Anthony Michaelson personally put a US transformer into my The Preamp - 23 years ago mind you - F.O.C with the request I write to The Rags highlighting the importance of a pre-amp. Happy to oblige. Another person with a mission. Why should not such people make money?
On the other hand the air is somewhat rareified in your neck of the woods, so I guess things like the Bellari VP129 hum problems got ignored. so one was required to experiment to solve the problem: I did eventually. Is that not the stuff of Audiophilia?!It could of course be that with super-hi-end equipment such didn't even occur: in which case my apologies; chance of a follow-up review?

Ebalog - I found particularly cogent your comments about reviews and reviewing. Permit me to add to them based on my own experience.

1. The best reviews are those whose authors approach them as an expository rather than an editorial activity.

2. You don't need jewel encrusted cochlea to be a reviewer, but you do need the ability to reflect on your own awareness of sonic phenomena and put those reflexions into words in a way that communicates them to others.

3. A reviewer needs a reasonably descriptive vocabulary for assessing sound - one that he is willing to be accountable to over time. This can take some real work and sometimes separates the casual forum commentator from the rigors of formal reviewing. (Whatever else you may think of him, Harry Pearson has done seminal work here, both in developing a vocabulary and educating readers in its meaning.) Describing a component as, for example, 'musical' doesn't impart much information to a reader.

A shared vocabulary gives us a start on validating our experience in a common world. I'm unwilling to presume I communicate effectively all the time. Therefore, seeking validation from others about my "opinions" (my words describing what I hear) is not (for me anyway) a shortcoming but a means for improving my descriptions both to them and to myself about what it is I perceive.

4. Any review worth its salt will explicitly reference the music on which its sonic comments are based. "In the opening bars of 'The Storm', the fourth movement of Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony, as performed by The Berlin Philharmonic with Andre Cluytens (EMI ALP XXX), I heard .......". This at least provides the reader an opportunity to use the same source material and gauge the extent to which their percepts match the reviewer's, regardless of system or room differences.

5. Fwiw, I've never known a reviewer who has not urged his reader to listen for himself.

If "valid" means cogent or efficacious or based on sound reasoning, the fact that everyone can have an opinion does not rank each equally valid. When someone regularly describes components that I've heard in terms that I understand and can agree with, I'm more likely to accept what they say about a component I have not heard.

Across the years, the marketplace of audiophile opinion has conferred a certain authority to Mr. Fremer's reviews. This does not mean everyone always concurs with his written descriptions of what he hears, but in general many do and many have found his views helpful. Personally I think the analog community would be lesser in his absence.

Tim

>>I feel alot better about my past "dumb" posts!Maybe they weren't so bad afterall.<<

Yes they were dweeby. Don't underestimate yourself.