I find this for me at least to be a most interesting thread. Mike has joined the forum and I am hoping he will post his thoughts and that any and all responses be carried out in a kind and civil manner. I would like to learn from this thread.
^
I find this for me at least to be a most interesting thread. Mike has joined the forum and I am hoping he will post his thoughts and that any and all responses be carried out in a kind and civil manner. I would like to learn from this thread.
+1!
And also many other reviewers I enjoy reading. Unfortunately the original post of this thread indirectly posted the opinion of another person (Michael Fremer) , without properly quoting him or posting an accessible link to his opinion. As could be foreseen, this thread evolved ignoring the facts corroborating the opinion with posts such as ( I haven't read the article (...) , I don't know the article OP is referring to (...) and now includes a unacceptable attack on Michael Fremer.
I have complained several times on the aggressive anti-reviewer attitude and posts about reviewers in this forum, as IMHO this unfriendly attitude only drives away reviewers and members from WBF. Perhaps we can re-think this subject.
I am glad you brought that up. In that respect, I am definitely biased. I am the very happy owner of DeVore O/93's. When a reviewer writes that the enclosure is full of resonant nodes that must adversely effect the SQ to a greater or lesser degree, I bristle a bit. Mea culpa, I happen to believe that very well respected reviewers spew a lot of utter BS based on measurements. "Massive negative influence of resonances"! Let me ask; why do you use that phrase? Why "MASSIVE"? Do you possess your own independent basis for that view of the audio-world, or is it one you absorbed from reading reviews? Your loudspeaker drivers resonate, your room resonates, your ear drums resonate, your cartridge and cantilever resonate, but you believe that resonance is evil. I am telling you that based upon my own experience, I don't feel things are so simple. Good audio systems "play" to the reality of resonance. A completely dead speaker enclosure could be fabricated of concrete and a completely dead listening room could be fabricated like an anechoic chamber and every resonance in the system could be systematically eliminated and if you got any sound at all, it would sound like shite. I happen to believe that eliminating resonance from vibrating transformers in an amp and using dampers around a sensitive input tubes and isolating a turntable from resonance are most often beneficial and have their place, but the idea that all resonance is bad is simply incorrect. That has been my primary point in each of my posts in this thread.
Ron,
And I feel we should also respect reviews that do not include comparisons, as I prefer descriptive reviews with opinions on equipment with specif recordings ... Yes, we friendly disagree on that one...
I prefer my vinyl to be as accurate as possible.
First of all who wants to be psychoanalyzed by a stranger/amateur? Not I. So if you want to discuss tone arms please refrain from characterizing me as you did. It’s lame.In the latest issue of S'Phile Mikey, in the course of reviewing the 9" version of the Kuzma 4Point arm, declares the inherent superiority of 9" arms on the basis of less moment of inertia and higher rigidity. He has made such references in the past. I have no doubt he believes this but I am surprised that he cites to theoretical aspects only, and that his beliefs defy the historical collective consciousness of thousands of vinyl enthusiasts. I fully understand and accept that errors in cartridge alignment become magnified with a 12" arm but the difference that 1.5 or 3 inches of tonearm can make in relative moment of inertia would seem minuscule and Mikey's citation to stereo grooves and horizontal and vertical compliance causing minimum moment of inertia to be critical regardless of how flat the record is seems far-fetched. In my. case, I just ordered a 12" Reed 3P in cocobo from the importer and while talking to him, I was informed that he can't recall the last time he sold the 9" version of that arm and he frankly has no idea why Mr. Triukas even offers the 9" since the 10.5 and 12 far outperform it. I have no regrets going with the 12". For starters, a 9" will not accept an outer ring and I use one. But my question is; is Mikey as wrong as I think he is?
what does that mean to you exactly ?
First of all who wants to be psychoanalyzed by a stranger/amateur? Not I. So if you want to discuss tone arms please refrain from characterizing me as you did. It’s lame.
I’m glad you retracted your misinformation about The Ypsilon phono preamp and the Ortofon PSU two of which I positively reviewed though neither is to my tastes. Doing so kind of shot to hell your psycho- thesis that I’m a conflicted enigma. I’m not.
My job is to describe what I hear not to tell people what to like.
Regarding 9” arms. I stated my OPINION based upon both theory and listening. Most tone arm manufacturers with whom I’ve spoken admit that they believe that considering all of the trade-offs, 9” arms are preferable for the reasons I cited in that review and that they manufacture longer arms because of customer demand not because they think they perform better dynamically in the groove.
That’s the position of Marc Gomez who has degrees in both materials sciences and mechanical engineering (one is a graduate degree). He now makes 12” arms to meet customer demand.
I am not an engineer but I listen well to those who are and I listen for myself of course. And in my opinion based on theory and listening I believe that 9” arms are preferable.
I go to audio shows around the world with 96/24 files of the same record recorded using a 9” SAT (or previously 9”
COBRA on the Continuum Caliburn that you ABSURDLY declared obsolete or outdated or whatever ridiculous and gratuitous assertion you made without any backup) and using a well designed tangential tracker. I use a symphonic recording that ends with a heavily modulated finale right where distortion maxes out ( Lofgren not Stevenson) and I ask people to say which is which. NO ONE has ever heard a distinctive difference in terms of distortion.
Tracking error ( with proper set-up and BTW set up errors are greatly magnified on longer arms) is an overstated issue IMO. The rest of your system will produce more distortion. Marc Gomez’s 9” arm proved that to me. BTW: I have owned a few tangential trackers (ET 1 and 2 and Rockport) so I’ve been there and again the trade offs were not worth it IMO. Most so called “tangential trackers” are anything but.
I never force my opinions on others. I offer them. Perhaps that’s why I’ve been successful at this for 30 years and have appreciative fans around the world.
And I’ve never been concerned about what others prefer. Or how many of what have sold. That’s hardly an argument.
Finally your gratuitous comment about me getting accommodation pricing, for me explains the tone and substance of much of your original post: resentment and perhaps jealousy. I can’t help you with that.
Finally to the guy who claimed I was wrong stating the Kuzma 9” is “compatible” with the LP 12: I suggest he look up the definition of compatible. Liking or not liking the combo is not the definition. That it fits the ‘table and is weight compatible makes it compatible not whether or not someone likes how the combination sounds.
That’s it from me for now.
Tracking error ( with proper set-up and BTW set up errors are greatly magnified on longer arms) is an overstated issue IMO. The rest of your system will produce more distortion. Marc Gomez’s 9” arm proved that to me. BTW: I have owned a few tangential trackers (ET 1 and 2 and Rockport) so I’ve been there and again the trade offs were not worth it IMO. Most so called “tangential trackers” are anything but.
. . .
As to the aggressive anti-reviewer attitude, oh please!! When we have reviewers who think they are above everyone else...can we say All hail King Peter; then what the heck!
High End reviewing is a game, and taking the occasional potshot and broadside is part of the game.
If somebody wants to engage in “reviewer worship” and abdicate their own sensibilities and intellect, that is their privilege.
However, remember that in order to be valid, all information needs to be “falsifiable”, and all of the major critics at one time or another wind up being frivolous, whimsical, silly or even manipulative because they are humans, not oracles. They should be ready to accept the observations as such.
I have minimal respect for the hobby of audio reviewing, and it is a hobby as there are no professional reviewers. Only in audio reviewing, do reviewers refuse to review products in a double blind fashion. Can you imagine if there was no blind testing at the Paris or New York wine tasting events in the 1970's? There's no way Californian wines would have come out on top.
We would be extremely honored to have Michael Fremer participate here!
+1!
And also many other reviewers I enjoy reading. Unfortunately the original post of this thread indirectly posted the opinion of another person (Michael Fremer) , without properly quoting him or posting an accessible link to his opinion. As could be foreseen, this thread evolved ignoring the facts corroborating the opinion with posts such as ( I haven't read the article (...) , I don't know the article OP is referring to (...) and now includes a unacceptable attack on Michael Fremer.
I have complained several times on the aggressive anti-reviewer attitude and posts about reviewers in this forum, as IMHO this unfriendly attitude only drives away reviewers and members from WBF. Perhaps we can re-think this subject.
I have minimal respect for the hobby of audio reviewing, and it is a hobby as there are no professional reviewers. Only in audio reviewing, do reviewers refuse to review products in a double blind fashion. Can you imagine if there was no blind testing at the Paris or New York wine tasting events in the 1970's? There's no way Californian wines would have come out on top.
. . .
Sure, but it is loosey-goosey expertise imbedded in heavy marketing forces. Do you really think that if the marketing forces weren't there, the nature of the discourse would not change almost entirely?
argh, it means the music retains its "soul" without undue influence.
I do not think the expertise is loosey-goosey; the expertise is still there. But I believe that the reviewing/writing philosophy of The Absolute Sound has evolved since the early days of Harry Pearson to a reviewing/writing philosophy today which is imbued with more commercial sensitivities.
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |