You are here

Log in or register to post comments
dastardly
dastardly's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 4 2006 - 2:26pm
Continuum Review - Invalid

Gentlemen, I would like to know how Mikey Fremer can make a comparison between two turntables 6 years apart. Most people cannot remember what they heard 6 hours ago, some can't remember six minutes ago.

Not only is the period of time staggering but his equipment has totally changed. A review of the Continuum with the Rockport present, both armed with the same cartridge and fed into the same phono stage, through the same system, now that would be a review.

Editor
Editor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 8:56am
Re: Continuum Review - Invalid


Quote:
Gentlemen, I would like to know how Mikey Fremer can make a comparison between two turntables 6 years apart. Most people cannot remember what they heard 6 hours ago, some can't remember six minutes ago.

A good point. Mikey makes reference CD-Rs of each of his turntable set-ups, using an Alesis Masterlink. He can thus compare the CD-Rs.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Continuum Review - Invalid

Maybe he takes notes.

Also, he may suffer the same curse I do...I seem to recall flaws quite well and can still remember what certain systems or pieces of gear I've heard have done wrong. If a system has poor pitch control or an over emphasized or under reproduced thing it does, that can stick in the mind quite nicely and I think I can validly claim certain comparative observations even over a long period of time.

Challenge yourself for a moment and think back to a system flaw that you have heard. Now sit with your current system and think about whether or not that flaw is noticeable to you. You are now making a valid comparison and if you wrote about it I'd have no problem believing you.

Less often, but still often, I can recall examples of what a certain system did right, or with superior aplomb, too. Honest!

As critical listeners, we are breaking things down all the time and filing away mostly useless details about what we have heard with regard to auditioning gear. Reviewers have probably honed this recall not so much that they can mentally recreate sounds, but they can linguistically recall their impressions and then compare those to new listening experiences.

With regard to tired recordings, I cut them much slack. If I am very very familiar with a recording, it helps me make mental comparisons between systems, even over long periods of time. A familiar recording can help someone more quickly suss out what a system can or can't do, and gives another comparison point for how different pieces of gear affect the sound. If a reviewer has a certain recording the he feels is an exemplar of a certain treble quality, then more power to him to use that and make comparisons for me. Again, those "tired" recordings may just be another example of a skilled reviewer breaking things down to more efficiently and accurate convey what a system is or isn't doing.

I agree that variety is nice. Many reviewers also act as surrogate talent scouts for me, but I can definitely see the usefulness of using some familiar material again and again.

*Purely my opinion. You are not required to agree and may consider me to be F.O.S. and I won't mind. We're all friends here, no?*

This topic would be fun to hear from some reviewers about how they think this all works.

How about this example of accurate subjective recall: My current woman is better than ones I've had even 25 years ago and I am positive my comparison is valid. I can tell you many differences, both obvious and subtle. My current spousal system produces less stridency, does not distort the original information to the degree of previous systems, is easier to drive, has a better bottom end, a more articulate, smooth midrange, possesses a well proportioned top end, has lower input impedance, is capable of utilizing an outside power supply, images well independent of position, on and on!

There are lots of subjective impressions that have lasting utility!

Cheers!

Jeff Wong
Jeff Wong's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 6 months ago
Joined: Sep 6 2005 - 3:28am
Re: Continuum Review - Invalid


Quote:
How about this example of accurate subjective recall: My current woman is better than ones I've had even 25 years ago and I am positive my comparison is valid. I can tell you many differences, both obvious and subtle. My current spousal system produces less stridency, does not distort the original information to the degree of previous systems, is easier to drive, has a better bottom end, a more articulate, smooth midrange, possesses a well proportioned top end, has lower input impedance, is capable of utilizing an outside power supply, images well independent of position, on and on!

LOL

Jim Tavegia
Jim Tavegia's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 4:27pm
Re: Continuum Review - Invalid

And now that Mr. Fremer has a highly "modded" Master Link he will be able to archive even more info from the turntable setups he is reviewing. Subtle details should be more evident now.

I can't wait for MF to get his hands on the new SME 20/12 that Ken Kessler just mentioned in his E-Newsletter. I can't wait to hear his impressions of the performance of the longer tonearm.

Jim Tavegia
Jim Tavegia's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 4:27pm
Re: Continuum Review - Invalid

Pay atention to the man behind the curtain...He is the Great and Powerful OZ!!!!

ohfourohnine
ohfourohnine's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 7:41pm
Re: Continuum Review - Invalid

and he has a wonderful new toy.

dcrowe
dcrowe's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:39am
Re: Continuum Review - Invalid


Quote:

I agree that variety is nice. Many reviewers also act as surrogate talent scouts for me, but I can definitely see the usefulness of using some familiar material again and again.

How about this example of accurate subjective recall: My current woman is better than ones I've had even 25 years ago and I am positive my comparison is valid. I can tell you many differences, both obvious and subtle. My current spousal system produces less stridency, does not distort the original information to the degree of previous systems, is easier to drive, has a better bottom end, a more articulate, smooth midrange, possesses a well proportioned top end, has lower input impedance, is capable of utilizing an outside power supply, images well independent of position, on and on!

You have outdone yourself again, Buddha!

Variety is nice? Again and again? Surrogate talent scouts? Are you talking about a double blind test of the "spousal system"?

.

dastardly
dastardly's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 4 2006 - 2:26pm
Re: Continuum Review - Invalid

Really?.. Comparable? world

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading