Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

I just ran across this quote from Mr. Fremer, circa 1999, and I doubt much has changed on this front:

"Sitting in my listening room auditioning this $3995 Premier 15 phono section from Conrad-Johnson—a process that I made sure went on for months!—I couldn't help but think of all of the phono sections I've heard and reviewed over the years, and how convenient it would be to have them all here to compare to the C-J. But I feel reviewing is not and has never been about making those kinds of impossible comparisons. While some readers would like to have a lineup and a hierarchy, that's an impossible task—and in any case, what might work best in my system might not in yours."

I said before that I believe some reviewers do not so much fail to constantly question and/or sharpen their methodology as they "honestly" hold to the notion that audio is pretty much various combinations of trade-offs so complex and unnerving that NO ONE could ever sort it out.  While this in no way alters your sharp observations on method, it does point, I think, to a not-so-disingenuous approach by at least some of the apparently deaf and lazy reviewers out there.  These "reviewers" OPENLY offer what amounts to nothing more than free association passed off as audio reviewing.

I actually still wonder if Fremer and his ilk really do experience "excitement" over a given piece of equipment, and then I wonder some more whether there are any well-founded bases for their enthusiasm.  I have not written off alll the reviewers so much as I have lost track of them.  I used to read some of them enough that when they said, "Zig", I knew to zag, etc., because there was at least some continuity expressed in their likes, dislikes and observations that enabled me to put them into my own context.  However, this has not been the case for some time now, and Fremer's main boss, John Atkinson, openly dismissed even the idea of an audio lexicon, along with any need for regulating or any means or method whatsoever of ensuring the mutual intelligibility and/or general significance of his reviewers' reviews.  And of course he knew and knows his "readership".

So who would not get lost when there is so little in the way of direction on the one hand or significant response on the other?

Clearly, you know something about Mr. "Framer" and his intentions, since you clearly got under his skin, which I would have supposed rather thicker than it turned out to be.

I thought your Fremer/Continuum pairing was genius because it was quite specific and at the same time generic, like the bullfighter's red cape.  When I segued it was my intent to more rigorously examine the putative manufactured object of your attention, but I went with the Continuum-like when I knew it was the Framer-like.

BTW, I still glance at Fremer's reviews in Stereophile, and once in a while I read one.

Best regards,
Paul S

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site