 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.254.112.196
Imagine you toil as an audio reviewer. Imagine you've devoted an entire 3000 plus word column to the entire Shelter line of cartridges. Imagine you've given the line an excellent and well-deserved review. Imagine you've pointed out that one of the Shelters is similar to the Crown Jewel SE, but priced much lower. And then imagine one of your readers sends you the URL to Arthur Salvatore's website (http://www.high-endaudio.com/RC-Cartridges.html) where you read what's under my "PS".Well that reviewer is me, and this is what I read this morning. How would YOU like it?
-Michael Fremer
PS: My turntable set-up DVD is going to the pressing plant this week. It will be available soon. I think you will enjoy it and find it informative.
The Shelter(s) Cartridges and the "Audio Press"
Anyone who reads the most popular analogue-oriented newsgroups, like Vinyl Asylum and Audiogon, will be very familiar with the Shelter line of cartridges. Yet, it is rarely (if ever) mentioned by the so-called analogue "experts" and "enthusiasts" within the mainstream audio magazines (such as Michael Fremer). As for an actual "review", let alone a "Recommendation"; Forget about it!Why not?
The magazines and their "reviewers" wish the entire Shelter line would just go away and die. The Shelter, in the past, had no North American distributor. That meant no "free samples" for the reviewers. It also meant no advertising revenues for the editors and publishers.
It is also "reasonably priced", which embarrasses almost all the existing (and very 'generous') cartridge distributors. Worst of all, any honest and thorough reviewer would be forced to mention that it is essentially the same cartridge as the (former) Crown Jewel SE. How can they then explain the $ 2,000 price difference ($ 2,650 Vs. $ 800) without exposing the excessive mark-up structure of the Crown Jewel's former distributor (one of Fremer's best 'buddies'*)?
So here we have a classic "conflict of interests".
Their readers' interest (to be made aware of a superior component that is also affordable), which was in direct conflict with their "good buddy's" interests (to earn excessive profits from selling grossly overpriced merchandise).
Follow Ups:
and I have more opportunity as I often look on the Stereophile site.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
> > Their readers' interest (to be made aware of a superior component
> > that is also affordable), which was in direct conflict with
> > their "good buddy's" interests (to earn excessive profits from
> > selling grossly overpriced merchandise).
Surely you disagree?1.) Anyone with even half assed experiences with audio equipment knows that if sound quality is of primary importance much of it IS grossly overpriced "merchandise".
2.)Though you might not really be "good buddy's" of those who sell such grossly overpriced merchandise, it really is to the advantage of the ad sellers to promote components whose costs include high markups over parts and manufacturing. I find it cute when it's often mentioned that these costs are "R&D" cost when everyone and their mothers know that they are really mostly advertising and marketing related.
3.) Waaaa! Dicks pals make millions a day because of our involvment in Iraq. The sellers of overpriced components benefit every month that cost effective alternatives are not reviewed. Years later you come up with a review and NOW you are whining about Salvatores comments. You are an insult to the common sense of every audiophile.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
Quit whining Mikey. You're in the public eye. It comes with the territory and you know it. Defending yourself against every single back-handed comment about you and your precious reputation or going to war with your fellow members of the press over things like the importance of cleaning LPs before recording is a waste of your time and energy. At this late stage do you honestly feel there's anything more you have to prove?I venture to guess that the greater majority of your readers know what advice of yours to take and know what to chuck out the window with the bath water. Many value your opinions on music and its reproduction, many don't. I will guarantee however that the greatest majority couldn't care less about your religion, family background, political leanings, sexual orientation, credit rating, or anything else that is personal to you in nature outside of the audio hobby. That sorry to say includes whatever your motivations are for being an audio reviewer. It's a pity that everytime you insert these "my reputation has been besmirched" rants of yours in your usually excellent reviews I instinctively flip the page.
(1) Some people will pay more for a Lexus, although they can buy the same Toyota for less. Some want the name. Some will want to pay more to stroke their egos. Who am I to say they are wrong? Whatever floats their boat. If they want to buy a Crown Jewel, after being advised it is the same as a significantly cheaper cartridge, well, that is their prerogative. Who cares? So I am not sure why Mr. Fremer is expected to express outrage at the distributor/manufacturer, whatever, of the Crown Jewel. Point out the facts, let the consumer make the judgment. It is their money.(2) Mr. Salvatore processed that information, then made a conclusion which the facts did not support. The allegation that someone is on the take is a serious charge, that otherwise intelligent people seem to make without much thought. Or care. There are a host of possible reasons why Mr. Fremer did not review the Shelter as promptly as some may think he should have. Other cartridges to review? Other turntables? Speakers? Amplifiers? Phono-Preamps? Pre-Amplifiers?
I am curious as to the gap in time between the Shelter's manufacturing and Mr. Salvatore's discovery of the of the Shelter cartridge? If it was a long period of time, was it because of shady reasons? How did Mr. Salvatore become aware of them? Through the manufacturer? Seems a little cozy to me.
I am not a libel attorney, and do not presume to have any special expertise in that area of the law. But it seems to me that Mr. Salvatore's comments are cloaked as expressions of fact, and not opinion. As expressions of fact, he can presumably prove them. Proof is not "A is B, and therefore C", particularly when there are many logical explanations for "C." I would think that Mr. Salvatore should contact competent legal counsel, as it appears that Mr. Fremer is loaded for bear.
(3) Mr. Fremer was right to be offended, but how he handled the matter leaves much to be desired. Profanity, name calling, etc. are not how intelligent, reasoned people communicate their grievances. At the end of the day, he has lost the high road. Maybe Mr. Fremer contacted attorneys over this issue, maybe he did not. But I assume that his attorneys would not have advised him to respond as he did, assuming they had an inkling that he would respond as he did. Which, given history, they should have. I would certainly have strongly suggested that he should not respond until the matter is legally resolved. After seeing some of Mr. Tellig's and Mr. Fremer's comments, I have even more respect for the job Mr. Atkinson does.
(4) Unlike Scott, I have no dog.
x
Your post which is cloaked in reason and responsible language is nonetheless deficient in a few respects. Before explaining, a word of thanks for lowering the temperature.(1) With full information, anyone is free to choose the product they might want. Some will choose the Toyota Highlander, some the Lexus (almost exact) equivalent. That's fine so long as the information is available to the buyer. In auto mag writeups of these two cars, I saw much mention of the other. Information is the key.
What has been expressed is that at the time that MF wrote the glowing review of the Crown Jewel he knew of the availability of the Shelter and held that back from his readers for reasons only he knows. He cannot feign ignorance of the Shelter as he was reading The Absolute Sound at the time and they mentioned the availabity of this cartridge, its quality, and even its equivalence to the Crown Jewel in two issues. How do I know that he was reading TAS at that time? He was then writing letters to its editor.
These days ordering an item from overseas is virtually as easy as ordering one from across the country. Many of us did just that when the information became available. Again, information is the key.
(2) It is rumored, supposed and, in fact, acknowledged that reviwers are "compensated" in part by the availability of sound equipment at "accommodation" prices. Fremer admits it proudly. So it's not a stretch to infer that those accommodations will more likely be extended to friendly, rather than super-critical, reviewers.
If memory serves the Shelter (like many other components) was brought to Salvatore's attention by a manufacturer friend in the business, but not the Shelter manufacturer. No need for you to have speculated here. You might have asked.
Anyone who thinks there is anything actionable in all of this needs to have his legal head examined.
Yes, Atkinson has his work cut out for him managing a bunch of prima donnas. It's remarkable how he keeps his cool and manages to enliven the Asylum by his presence. Kidding and criticism aside, we owe him.
Best,
Mel
"No need for you to have speculated here. You might have asked."I did ask. That is why my sentences ended with question marks. I supplied some rhetorical answers to the questions I posed only to illustrate that innuendo can flow both ways. But I think it would have been responsible for Mr. Salvatore to provide the same information to his readers that he questioned Mr. Fremer for not providing to his. Their letters back and forth were tedious reading through all the blather from both sides, but I did not see that information.
"It is rumored, supposed and, in fact, acknowledged that reviwers are "compensated" in part by the availability of sound equipment at "accommodation" prices."
Well, if it is a fact, acknowleged, then it is not a rumor. Then again, would you pay a suggested retail price for a piece of equipment that was not new, used by at least one person, more likely more than one, and has been transported many miles to many places by common carriers? In many cases they are buying used equipment, so some accomodation seems fair. But if every manufacturer offers such perks, and it appears that most do, then why would that perk alone cause a reviewer to be loyal to that brand? Why not exercise your perk on the product that sound best to you, because, heck, you will still get the perk from whichever manufacturer you purchase from? How do you buy your equipment? If all the manufacturers offered you the same rebate, how would you then purchase your equipment? Probably the same way.
"What has been expressed is that at the time that MF wrote the glowing review of the Crown Jewel he knew of the availability of the Shelter and held that back from his readers for reasons only he knows. He cannot feign ignorance of the Shelter as he was reading The Absolute Sound at the time and they mentioned the availabity of this cartridge, its quality, and even its equivalence to the Crown Jewel in two issues."
I suspect Mr. Fremer fancies himself a reviewer, and not a reporter. I would expect him to offer an opinion on a product only after he has actually listened to the product. Whether it exists or not is not the issue. Whether it is "reported" to either be the same or sound the same as the Crown Jewel is not the issue. I am not sure how Mr. Fremer can comment on a product's sound as being comparable to another without actually having heard both products. Simply writing that he has heard of the existence (in TAS?) of another cartridge that appears to be the same as the Crown Jewel would not impart any meaningful buying information to the reader, unless the reader will purchase the cartridge without actually listening to it, something that Stereophile rationally suggests to their readers they should not do.
We are then left with the question of why didn't Mr. Fremer review the Shelter before he did. And, again, we are left with multiple reasons, none of which infer shady practices. After all, doesn't Shelter provide perks?
Whether it is actionable or not, I cannot say. Though I would have advised Mr. Salvatore to sprinkle in some "I think", or "It is my opinion" lines within his discourse.
"'What has been expressed is that at the time that MF wrote the glowing review of the Crown Jewel he knew of the availability of the Shelter and held that back from his readers for reasons only he knows. He cannot feign ignorance of the Shelter as he was reading The Absolute Sound at the time and they mentioned the availabity of this cartridge, its quality, and even its equivalence to the Crown Jewel in two issues.'"I suspect Mr. Fremer fancies himself a reviewer, and not a reporter. I would expect him to offer an opinion on a product only after he has actually listened to the product. Whether it exists or not is not the issue. Whether it is "reported" to either be the same or sound the same as the Crown Jewel is not the issue. I am not sure how Mr. Fremer can comment on a product's sound as being comparable to another without actually having heard both products. Simply writing that he has heard of the existence (in TAS?) of another cartridge that appears to be the same as the Crown Jewel would not impart any meaningful buying information to the reader, unless the reader will purchase the cartridge without actually listening to it, something that Stereophile rationally suggests to their readers they should not do.
"We are then left with the question of why didn't Mr. Fremer review the Shelter before he did. And, again, we are left with multiple reasons, none of which infer shady practices. After all, doesn't Shelter provide perks?"
To respond to just a bit of what you wrote. A reviewer IS a reporter. During the course of a review it is common for a reviewer to mention related products, including products that he may not yet have auditioned. No one suggested that Fremer report on the SOUND of the Shelter (certainly not without hearing it), just on its existence. Just as the reviewers of the Toyota Highlander reported on the existence of the Lexus version.Beyond that I cannot think of a reason why, but for the stated policy of Stereophile, JA could not have gotten a Shelter and have MF review it INSTEAD of the CJ. (Doesn't Tellig go to Europe and talk about a lot of stuff available there?) It certainly would have been a greater service to his readers who might have done the same. After all, Harry Pearson heard it and wrote about it. It is that sort of formalism that enhances the value of Stereophile's blog and forum competition.
Whether you know it or not MANY products are bought without an audition. I have done that and with, I think, fine results. Show and showroom auditions are often meaningless IMO. The Crown Jewel had a VERY limited distribution--perhaps only one dealer located in a remote New England town. I don't know if an audition was possible at the time. But, in any event I wasn't looking for a $2600 cartridge.
"Shelter" is a Japanese gentleman who provides no perks.
Mel
"During the course of a review it is common for a reviewer to mention related products, including products that he may not yet have auditioned."Well, I would say that it is much more common for them not to. In reading reviews, I do not usually see laundry list of equipment not under review. I reviewer is not a reporter any more than a sports columnist offering opinions is a reporter. They both may relay
information, but a reporter should not be offering an opinion. And why is Mr. Fremer responsible for mentioning it's existence? Until he gets his hand on one, how does he know it is the same cartridge? Certainly it was reported to be the same, but it would not be responsible to say that it is reputed to be the same, but he cannot verify that it is the same. Then let's assume he reports that information, many send in their money for the cartridge, then, it turns out, it is not the same cartridge. Who get's blamed? Perhaps Shelter should have purchased advertising in U.S. magazines making the claim themselves, and advise the buying public. Perhaps they would explain why they did not. At the end of the day, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to place his product in the consumer's consciousness. Now, if he attemped to purchase advertising from Stereophile, and they refused to accept, then he has a legitimate complaint."Beyond that I cannot think of a reason why, but for the stated policy of Stereophile, JA could not have gotten a Shelter and have MF review it INSTEAD of the CJ."
I guess we would agree that Stereophile "could" have obtained Shelter for review when some think they should have. But then, there are many components I would like them to review that do not get ink. I do not chalk it up to ulterior motives. Did Shelter send them a model for review? If Shelter was not distributed in the United States at the time, preventing most readers from actually listening to the cartridge, it seems a valid reason. As long as the policy is applied across the board. And it appears that this is. If Stereophile relaxed the policy for Shelter, then many here would write claiming they made an accomodation for a manufacturer. They can't win either way.
"Whether you know it or not MANY products are bought without an audition."
I do know that. But that does not make the buying products unheard the proper way to purchase a product, and it does not then require Stereophile to recommend doing so.
"'During the course of a review it is common for a reviewer to mention related products, including products that he may not yet have auditioned.'Well, I would say that it is much more common for them not to. In reading reviews, I do not usually see laundry list of equipment not under review. I reviewer is not a reporter any more than a sports columnist offering opinions is a reporter."
I think you're quite wrong here, that is about reviewers not being reporters. When Paul Krugman, a columnist (not a reporter) in the NY Times goes to and writes about the Sudan, is he barred from reporting on AND commenting on things that he learns first hand, or by the reporting of others in the country? Of course not. It's an imaginary barrier. It's a blurry line. Look at what Tellig does.
Then have you never read something like, "I'm here reviewing the "Midbrow" speaker in the "Euphonious" line of speakers. It occupies a position midway between Euphonious' larger "Supercalifragislistic" system and its smaller "Budgetbeater" model. A reviewer could note these others without hearing them, indeed without even seeing them, to what might be the benefit of his readers. I guess you'd call that "reporting".
To say that it is "reputed" to be the same does not require verification. The word tells the listener that you haven't verified. But in fact, Harry Pearson was a very reputable source.
"'Whether you know it or not MANY products are bought without an audition."
"I do know that. But that does not make the buying products unheard the proper way to purchase a product, and it does not then require Stereophile to recommend doing so."
You're deluding yourself. The Stereophile policy permits a review when five stores (and sometimes fewer) around the North America sell the product. It's a BIG continent. How do you audition a tonearm anyway? How can you audition anything except in your own home? Hooray for dealers (and especially mail order dealers) that permit that. But a cartridge? Will they send you a new cartridge for audition? I couldn't even audition a loudspeaker that I wanted to consider, made by a company that usually takes out a color page in Stereophile each issue. I live in the NY metro area with 60-70 million others. The factory said I would have to go to Rochester to hear it. IMO if people did not buy on the basis of reviews Stereophile (and Audiogon) would be out of business.
Yes, the magazine MUST direct readers to advertising dealers. They must tell you how silly it is to buy without audition. That's part of its marketing.
And please, who are you to tell us what is a "proper way" to purchase a product. My system, most of it purchased without audition and some of it purchased used, is listed. Want to tell me how bad it must sound? I auditioned my speaker in two different places, at a show and at a dealer. All I learned from those auditions is that it is a very good looking speaker.
Regards,
Mel
"And please, who are you to tell us what is a "proper way" to purchase a product."Where in my post did I write that there is a "proper" way to purchase a product? I did not, and would not presume to tell you how to purhcase a component. The clear import of my post was that Stereophile has taken the position that auditioning a component is important in the purchase of a component. Whether you or I agree is not the point. The point is that Stereophile would then publish a magazine which is consistent with that point of view.
Sam Tellig may comment upon the existence of a product, as would a columnist discuss about conditions "heard" of in Sudan in expressing an opinion. But the columnist is not discussing something that a reader will purchase. The columnists role is only to inform, whereas the audio reviewer's role is not only to inform, but also to provide some information that you may find helpful in making a purchase.
I have no problem with Tellig mentioning the existence of a product. Mr. Fremer, on the other hand, is apparently not only expected to mention the existence of the Shelter cartridge, but also to apply a judgment to that product, to wit, it is the same as another cartridge, all without having seen the cartridge. You never answered my prior query - what if Mr. Fremer reports that the cartridges are the same, and they turn out not to be the same? Who gets blamed? If Crown Jewel then initiates legal action, I doubt you will be running to contribute to the Fremer legal defense fund. It is always easy to ask someone else to put their you-know-what on the line in print.
And if Mr. Fremer's motive was to prevent sales being taken from Crown Jewel, and if he lacks the ethics which many think he lacks, then why write about Shelter at all? Why not keep the green flowing into CJ's coffers? Part of the ruse, I guess.
So telling a purchaser to audition a product before purchase is silly? I thought that their allegiance was to the manufacturer? Why not just simply tell the reader to purchase the component, why bother listening? Why take the chance that someone will audition the product, then decide not to buy at all? Or another product?
Problem is that you can see the boogeyman in anything they write, which puts them in a no-win situation with some.
To those of us for whom English is our mother tongue, your statement, "But that does not make the buying [of] products unheard the proper way to purchase a product" is the logical equivalent of "But that does make the buying [of] products unheard the improper way to purchase a product"
except for the Toyota/Lexus analogy.I believe the charge to be that the Crown Jewell is in fact the SAME cartridge as the Shelter 501 Mk. II.
There have been quite a few Lexus models over the years that have NO comparable model in the Toyota line. Perhaps I am wrong, but Toyota has not sold a rear-wheel drive car since the Cressida(sp?). While designed and manufactured by Toyota, I know of no Toyota model that compares to the of the Lexus LS, GS, or IS lines.
Perhaps the better auto analogy would be the prior model of Corolla, which was also sold by GM as Geo.
__________________________________________________
Boo!
The Crown Jewel is NOT the 501. I've had both for side-by-side comparisons and although perhaps 95% the same are not THE same cartridge.
Also but even worse read the following from Wikipedia:"The Geo Metro first appeared in Chevrolet-Geo showrooms in 1989. It was a rebadged version of the Suzuki Cultus, sharing many of the drivetrain and interior components. The Metro was a direct replacement for the Chevrolet Sprint, a subcompact hatchback that was several inches shorter than the Metro, and boasted fewer safety and convenience features. The Sprint was also a rebadged Suzuki Forsa. Several body styles were available during the Metro's 13 year run, including a 2-door convertible, 3-door hatchback, 4-door sedan, and a 5-door hatchback. The Metro enjoyed a decent run, first as a Geo from 1989 through 1997, then as a Chevrolet from 1998 to the model's final year in 2001. The Suzuki Swift though, is still being sold in Japan and Europe, albeit in a different form. The Swift is also still being sold in Canada as a rebadged Daewoo Kalos/Chevrolet Aveo.
Originally, all Metro models were produced in Japan. However, in 1990, production commenced at CAMI Automotive, a 50-50 joint venture between General Motors and Suzuki located in Ingersoll, Ontario, Canada. The sedan models only sold in Canada were made in Japan.
The Metro is part of the GM M platform, a designation it shared with the Canadian-only version, the Pontiac Firefly, as well as the Sprint. The Metro (along with twins the Suzuki Swift and Pontiac Firefly) were the only subcompacts made in Canada in the 1990s."
I hope your audio knowledge is better especially when these things can be looked up so easily.
Cheers!
FWIW, Ivan said Geo, but didn't say anything about the Metro. Instead of trying to be a smart ass dickhead, you could have looked up the Geo Prizm, which was the rebadged Corrola.Dave
Imagine that the same model name built by different manufacturers and sold by a third.
Just a few cosmetic differences.The Crown Jewell and the Shelter 501 are the SAME CARTRIDGE, just cosmetic changes. I also own a Shleter 501, I purchased in Japan. It IS the same cartridge, irrespective of what you say.
__________________________________________________
Boo!
They are not THE EXACT same cartridge but 98% the same. The bodies ARE different, not the same part. I first confirmed this in May 2001 on AA.The implication was 501s were sold as Crown Jewels which is not the case.
Cheers!
Here the full relevant section:---
After close microscopic inspection of a new Crown Jewel "SE" and the Shelter, Inc. 501 and 901 cartridges it is quite obvious the Crown Jewel (CJ) is the Shelter 501. I initially thought after a causal glance that the CJ was the 901 but upon closer inspection there is no doubt it is the 501. There is one minor difference between the CJ and 501 that being the mounting ears on the CJ are drilled and tapped for 2.5mm screws whereby the 501 has open slots requiring nuts and bolts for mounting. This is why I initially thought the CJ was the 901 not the 501 but it is quite obvious the manufacturer of both has simply machined off the drilled and tapped holes creating a minor visual difference between the two. All other dimensions of the body are the same and the generator/cantilever/stylus assemblies appear to be identical. Even the packaging is identical.
---Your arguing now that the difference support your case for the cartridges not being EXACT copies, while true, is also manifestly disingenuous given that the same differences did not then prevent you from declaring "there is no doubt it is the 501."
BTW, earlier you asked me what I know of the Shelter line. Well I can tell you that Rob at Applause Audio (Toronto Canada) once told me that he sometimes receive 501s with threaded mounting holes, but most arrive without. I wasn't able to get Rob on the phone so I did a search in the Vinyl Forum and was able to quickly locate a testimonial from a user that had received a 501 with threaded mounting holes (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=vinyl&n=178861&highlight=shelter+501+mounting&r=&session=).
Now as my conversation with Rob was in 2005 it appears that from as early as fall 2002 (in the Jan 2003 post the member mentioned having received his thread 501-II "few months back") some 501s had threaded mounting holes, some not.
You can add that to your Treasure Trove of Shelter knowledge, the business about some (most?) apparently still shipping *without* threaded holes I mean, that piece of information apparently didn't come out in Jan. 03, certainly you didn't mention it when you replied as followed to the Jan. 2003 post mentioned above:
---
I compared the Crown Jewel, 501 and 901 in Spring 2001 and discovered the 501 and CJ are (were) identical expect for the mounting. Now that the crown Jewel is no more perhaps Shelter has elected to use the threaded body for the 501. It would be an improvement.Source: http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=vinyl&n=179191&highlight=shelter+501+threaded+mounting&session=
---Oh lookie ... "identical except", that means a 2% difference? Riiiiiiiiiiight!
LOL
There is no doubt about what I wrote then and I stand by it. No, how do they say in Washington, smoking guns here.The implications were which I tried to dispell, that 501s were being pawned off as CJs. That "may" have happened and as the manufacturer later apparently sold 501s with the threaded CJ bodies (obviously after it was not possible to sell them as CJs) there was even more confusion which you point out.
But at the point of the introduction of the CJ it was in some small way unique and for the most part the Shelter was not available in the USA.
Shelter have only themselves to blame.
Cheers!
z
nt
From your re-post of Garth's original message:
"Listening comparisons reveal no differences and both cartridges track extre- mel -y well on various test records."Your crass efforts at self-promotion in showing us that archived post (with your name highlighted in yellow) diminish any credibility you might possess.
Whaddya tryin' to do? Sub-minimally advertise yourself?
apparently you don't have the right stuff to be a true nasty SOB . Had you, you would have titled your post:"Man seeks Shelter after kicking self in Crown Jewels"
"There is one minor difference between the CJ and 501 that being the mounting ears on the CJ are drilled and tapped for 2.5mm screws whereby the 501 has open slots requiring nuts and bolts for mounting. This is why I initially thought the CJ was the 901 not the 501 but it is quite obvious the manufacturer of both has simply machined off the drilled and tapped holes creating a minor visual difference between the two. All other dimensions of the body are the same and the generator/cantilever/stylus assemblies appear to be identical. Even the packaging is identical."OK, so I should have said 98% not 95%, how much are the two threaded holes of the whole? 2%, 4% or 5% some would consider that worth more yet. (-:
But to say SOS or anyone else was simply taking a 501 and saying it was a Crown Jewel is false. That's the point. Granted the differences were small but there nevertheless.
To say they were functionally the same would be accurate, noting the difference in mounting methods.
Considering Shelter had NO distribution for the Shelter brands expect for EIFL and JAT who sold them retail at wholesale prices it is fair to say during the time of the CJ there were essentially no Shelter products generally available in the USA or elsewhere other than via mailorder from one of those outlets.
One may recall Gordon Rankin at Wavelength Audio attemped to market the Shelter products but the the unfair competition of the two Japanese based "direct sales outlets" forced him to give up in frustration. The current US distributor only agreed to distribute the products upon cancellation of the two Japanese outlets.
Them is the facts and I don't have all of them. I don't know which came first the chicken or the egg.
by about 98%
__________________________________________________
Boo!
Somehow I got in this thread, but only because I've rented too many Prizms in my life and a few Corollas too. I figure the differences in cosmetics and trim amount to about 2%. By the way, it's Prizm. Get it straight :)Seriously though, imported goods are subject to all kinds of price fixing and market manipulation by middle men here in the US. You can make easy money in the import business if you manage to score the right product line.
Dave
.
what do you know about the Shelter story?
I am not a car aficionado. I recall hearing a number of years ago that one of the lower end Lexus models was exactly the same as a Toyota Camry, but was about $5k more. Maybe I'm incorrect.
The Lexus ES300 (now ES330) is a Toyota Camry with some differences in sheet metal and interior appointments.The Lexus RX330 SUV is also sold as the Toyota Highlander, again with some differences in the sheet metal and interior appointments.
Actually, the Lexus/Toyota comparison seems to be a pretty good parallel with the Shelter/Crown Jewel cartridges, at least based on garth's report.
Yes, it is still a high end Toyota.But the differences are more that cosmetic, including suspension, overall length, etc. ES-300's were made only in Japan, Camry was mostly made outside Japan, etc.
OTOH the Geo Prism and the Corolla were EXACTLY the same car(they are no longer), made in the same plant by the same people and the differences were only cosmetic(tail light shape, etc.)
__________________________________________________
Boo!
Grow a brain you freak
This time I asked why the Simon Yorke turntable is no longer a recommended component, given that MF had it in his system barely a few months ago...Erasers...get a LIFE.
"The Audio Asylum is a free,
independent resource"
Erasers...get a LIFE.
Preferably yours, monkey!
Take a pill!The order of posts appears to reverse when a thread is sent to WR. Your 'inocuous' post is still around.
nt
"The Audio Asylum is a free,
independent resource"
I venture onto Mr. Salvatore's web page from time to time. If memory serves me that particlure section about the Shelter cartridges predates your review by a few years. The question is what will he say now that you reviewed them.
Michael is clearly on the payroll of the distributor.Why else would he say anything "nice" about the Shelters.
Next, he'll be telling folks about the Cartridge Man or Dynavector...
What nerve that Fremer guy has.
What an industry.
Tosh
"I think this place is restricted Wang, so don't tell em you're Jewish"
now THAT was funny!
Just another example of people doing weird things on their website(s) trying to attract more attention.Salvatore is the living embodiment of "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck........."
Was this column published in Stereophile? Sorry, I'm not a regular subscriber.How should you feel? I assume you must know Arthur Salvatore? He clearly hasn't a much of a clue.
Met Arthur at CES a few years ago. He's clearly long past his "Best if enjoyed before" date.
How that fancy TT working out? ;-)
__________________________________________________
Boo!
Caliburn is truly amazing...I have no buyer regrets and I can say that I've been using it since August and it has been trouble free. Doesn't require any "tweaking" or adjusting...it's like Ron Popeil's rotisserie...you just set it and forget it! What's fun is when manufacturers come by to install something and they get to hear it....it doesn't take long and they know they're hearing something really amazing...
Ignore him just as you would any other half-crazed lunatic. Salvatore comprises good clown value and little else. The website is always good for a few laughs, though.Looking forward to the setup DVD.
It's almost done...going to the DVD pressing plant at the end of the week. It runs around 3 hours......lots of laughs along with good info including a PDF file filed with good info....
My favorite quote from Arthur Salvatore's site, Mikey: "There is no
question that John Atkinson is a very smart business man and nothing
I know that he did was illegal."
Phew! That's a relief.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Nothing?Ever?
I expected better.
Then again, Ken Starr spent 80 mil to uncover a legal BJ, so maybe you are clean.
Cheers.
Arthur Salvatore wrote: "There is no question that John Atkinson is a
very smart business man and nothing I know that he did was illegal."
Enophile asked
> Nothing? Ever?
I don't grasp your question, Enophile. Are you doubting Mr.
Salvatore's endorsement of my honesty? You appear to have a bit
of a chip on your shoulder :-)
> I expected better.
Better than what? Being honest?John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
No chip!I was just joking about the having never done anything illegal part.
More like razzing somebody in a bar...
Eno: "Nothing? Ever?"
JA: "Well, there was this one time in Deadwood when the contortionist convention passed through town; but she swore she was 18 and that it was just an herbal cigarette!"
It was more a play on "nothing" than an indictment of your professional endeavors.
"He's never done anything illegal, as far as I know," is just about the funniest non-endorsement I can think of. I didn't mean to impune your integrity, so I'll add a similar endorsement: "As far as I can tell, JA has never screwed my dog."
That guy's "endorsement" of your integrity struck me as funny. Apologies if I sounded like I was expressing negative feelings toward you.
_______________________
_______________________"I expected better" was implying that I would have wanted to keep an image of you as having at least some roguish characteristics rather than think you had "never done anything illegal."
Now, if you really want trouble, I'd be happy to fake a fake Texas accent, pat you on the back, and say, "You're doing a great job, Brownie/Johnny," then have Karl Rove stab you in the liver.
> It was more a play on "nothing" than an indictment of your professional
> endeavors.
Ah, forgive my prickles. I get too used to Asylum inmates shooting from
the hip.> Apologies if I sounded like I was expressing negative feelings toward
> you.
No problem. It's alittle early here in NY to be bending my elbow, but
I do have a 6-pack of Bass in the fridge for tonight. I'll take a sip
to you at that time -- although I then run the risk that the loonies
on this forum will accuse me of posting drunk, of course :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
> > although I then run the risk that the loonies
on this forum will accuse me of posting drunk, of course :-) < <Is there any other way? If it weren't for drunk, I don't think I'd ever post. If it weren't for drunk, I don't think AA would even exist (why do you think they call it "AA"?).
Jim
*
> I thought you were a Bass player?
Still legal in most countries, as far as I know. :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
No matter how hard I flex my imagination, I still can't imagine giving a shit about what that guy said.He is the gnat, flying around, trying to buzz, a mile away from the picnic.
Heck, if you hadn't brought it up, I wouldn't know he existed. Don't give him the PR.
Enophile has good taste in music and is obviously correct....I get bent out of shape by this kind of stuff too easily...
If A.Salvatore stopped attacking you, it would mean you have lost your touch. Yes, I enjoy reading the Napoleons of the asylum once in a while, the Romys and the Salvatores, because they offer entertainment value and an occasional tidbit for thought. I don't really notice that they have anointed herds of zombies to do their will yet, although they have a scattering of masochistic acolytes. I wouldn't call that mainstream.
With guys like you around ,I'd imagine Mikey will never need a colonoscopy, he's getting to be that age, so you guys should bring a flashlight look around and then note any Polyps etc.
Michael Fremer has a point. He was slandered (or libelled, I guess) for no good reason in an online publication. Why is it that any psycho nut can call themselves pure and holy while slinging mud at somebody who is well known or famous?
I have never heard MF challenge anybody's right disagree vigorously with any of his stated opinions, and he doesn't hand down his opinions like they are holy writ.
MF would have been better off not responding in kind because he basically tarred himself with the junkyard level of the attack.
It may be kind of fun to watch the bloodletting from the sidelines, but MF was subjected to major provocation.
What is so perfect about A. Salvatore and his secret "Star Chamber" of audio consultants? That is incredibly strange and dishonest all by itself.
Since it sounds like you are an experienced ass spelunker, you should probably pick your asses more carefully.
Salvatore is convinced that the audio rags are in league with manufacturers (the underlying assumption is that its readers --most of us-- are stupid).If his comment was published before you did the reviews then I imagine he will contiunue to consider it further circumstantial evidence that he is right.
I think that the best course of action is to stick to your guns and ignore him.
BTW, I think it's not that hard to come up with similar circumstantial evidence to espouse this sort of opinion on audio magazines in general. The issue is whether the thesis is true or not, or somewhere in between, because this type of evidence in itself proves nothing.
Nevertheless, I personally know a number of reviewers whose opinions I don't respect much (MF is not one of them), where an alternative explanation to incompetence could be a little too cozy relationship with manufacturers, even if it's only to get to hear samples of expensive equipment in their listening rooms for a while.
I have said before, and repeat now, that I wish one could buy an audio magazine with no advertising, much in the same way I pay $99 a year for Robert Parker's Wine Advocate. With good measurements included, of course, not just listening babble (half-joke).
Even if all I were buying was peace of mind.
"The Audio Asylum is a free,
independent resource"
Well, you don't get measurements, but Bound for Sound (no relation) accepts no advertising and charges somewhere around $30-50 a year (it just went up). The original Stereophile was without ads and to me was the best example of audio journalism bar none.
nt
"The Audio Asylum is a free,
independent resource"
I only included the thing about no measurements because it was listed as a 'criteria' in the post I was answering. I find the measurements in Stereophile interesting, especially when they run counter to manufacturers' claims or the reviewer's perceptions.
you know, Consumer Reports accepts no advertising either, and it is dead wrong about everything involving consumer electronics. I pay no attention to who's advertising in Stereophile in terms of what I review or what I say. It doesn't affect me. And you shouldn't make an issue of it because it really doesn't matter....
" Salvatore is convinced that the audio rags are in league with manufacturers (the underlying assumption is that its readers --most of us-- are stupid)."I think Arthur is more than intelligent and perceptive enough to realize that most of the loyal Steroepile readers are far from stupid, the real tragedy is that they aren't stupid ! but a bunch of anal retentive validation addled/challenged Sheeple naive, trusting and or blind assemblage of Conspicuously consuming Lemmings, Chumps of varying flavors and combinations of Weenies, Mullets
and Pigeons.If the aforementioned marks were just stupid, it would be easily understandable.
Regards FredJ
I believe the Fremer/Salvatore lovefest issue has already seem discussion on the AA, e.g. a quick search of the archives indicates the fall 2004 outbreak was fairly windy and explosive.Had you provided a link to the Shelter line review I suppose one could argue the post wasn't complete waste of time.
Oh wait!, I suppose there might be a few souls out there waiting with baited breath for news of your "set-up DVD" who appreciated the plug.
nt
"The Audio Asylum is a free,
independent resource"
Thought I have made that explicit.
more than "a few souls" have already bought it though it's yet to be pressed. It runs 3 hours +, includes a lengthly PDF file on the DVD-ROM section containing a great deal of good information, has an interview with George Marino on mastering plus a "tour" of his lathe, plus turntable set-ups, tips, etc. etc.More than a few souls will find it both informative and entertaining.
Did you include some sketch comedy or some Cirque acts?
...are like the super market tabloids (as I've said before).They have to have sensational headlines attacking someone or nobody will even notice them.
nt
"The Audio Asylum is a free,
independent resource"
(nt)
nt
"The Audio Asylum is a free,
independent resource"
Both soar to new lows in credibility.
incredibility.
...regards...tr
Tabloids are successful because people like to read them. I don't think very many people read Salvatore. It's a bad analogy.
"The Audio Asylum is a free,
independent resource"
Salvatore's counter indicates about 360,000 hits.It is of more interest to vinyl folks, which perhaps you are not.
Mel
nt
"The Audio Asylum is a free,
independent resource"
The funny thing about Salvatore is that his audio philosophy is virtually identical to most of the audio writers he slams, especially Michael Fremer. While Aczel disagrees automatically with anything any subjective audiophile says, because his entire reason for being depends on it, Salvatore embraces all the things MF and company stand for (tubes, vinyl, capacitor modifications, tweaks, the lot). I think he's just a very lonely, very paranoid man (I find his imaginary "inside sources" heartbreaking) with an overwhelming compulsion towards honesty and accountablility ("I, Arthur Salvatore, promise to... "). I think he really believes he's a crusader on the side of the true audiophile, and that Fremer, JA and the others are trying to trick us so they can get great deals on equipment. As a former dealer, of course, he would have had pretty much the same arrangement, so I don't think it's jealousy... he's truly and forgivibly nuts. This hobby can do that to people.
s
nt
of his 'sources' is Doug Deacon, whose opinions I respect very much.
And why is Dan D masquerading as Sal Demicco?Or is it more complicated that that?
cj
a saintly post....however, the hobby should be liberating and make people happy and relaxed because music is magic
It's easy for me to say because he isn't on my back. The guy is definitely not a plus for the hobby. Maybe I've just had a little too much therapy.
" are like the super market tabloids (as I've said before).
They have to have sensational headlines attacking someone or nobody will even notice them. "This what I'd consider an elitist view !
If it weren't for the tabloids, I'd never have known about
many current and timely issues routinely ignored passed on or glossed over by the major media outlets, Vampire Poodles, Pit Bulls on Crack complete coverage of the infant recently born who is the spitting Image of a mid forties Abe Lincoln as well as the Journalistic courage and integrity to reveal the fact that Jimmy Hoffa is in fact alive and well but deep under lots of Mascara and eye liner in his alter ego alternate identity, Tammy Fae Baker !
I just peak at those while I'm in line hoping no one notices that matters.
If the line I'm in is long enough, I may actually read some of them, but generally the covers are are all I need.Regards Fred
Maybe he'll put in a good word for you now that you've reviewed them.....and maybe they'll catch Osama this week:)
maybe so, but they're still up there aren't they?
He has pointed out an arbitrage that took you too years to find out. I would lie low about it if I were you.
"The Audio Asylum is a free,
independent resource"
...everyone already knows that there is little or no objectivity in your work. We don't need Salvatore to tell us. Those who have allowed subscriptions to lapse (the many) can avoid this kind of drivel. Now we have to see it here?
right...so I point out where Salvatore has literally libeled me and the best you can do is come up with some crap about "...everyone knows...." whoever you are, you are giving me a good laugh....
He has a very interesting and extensive list of recomended recordings. It caught my attention because the records he lists that I already had are, indeed, amoung my best sounding records I own. I have been looking for a number of the other records on his list as a result. I also quite enjoy ancient music which is one of his passions so the list was all the more interesting. Hard to find any kind of valuable information on that genre.
I see, and so if he killed your dog and posted interesting stuff about ancient music, it would be okay. Fine.
"I see, and so if he killed your dog and posted interesting stuff about ancient music, it would be okay. Fine."
Of course not. I'd be very upset with him to say the least. I love my dog. But he hasn't killed my dog. He has made some claims about the audio reviewing that strike me as typical of a conspiracy theorist in nature. I realize he has said some pretty nasty things about you but you have said some pretty nasty things about him too. By the way I find your list of L.P.s very valuable as well. Do you think I should ignore his list or your list because you guys are fighting viciously? I chose to ignore both of you in your dispute and pay attention to what each of you have to offer audiophiles. Either one of you come after my dog and I'll bust up your turntables.
from this thread (which you started) you come across as a small child. Grow up man. The more you sqweel, the harder everone smacks you on the ass to hear you cry some more. I suggest you give it a break.From what I have read, you are the one who started getting way overboard with your emails to Salvatore. Now you are saying that he killed your dog? Maybe it was a mercy killing.
I am offended by what Michael Fremer has written.1. As someone has pointed out, Salvatore's list of classical recordings is a very valuable addition to our knowledge base. It is more extensive, extremely well documented, and easily as dependable as anything that has ever been produced commercially, IMO. And it's been freely available to everyone for years. It is updated frequently. For lovers of classical music on vinyl it's a treasure.
2. As for the Shelter cartridges. It is true that his statements are old, but in my opinion were a true and valuable resource when published. I bought my Shelter 501 II at the time, based in part upon his recommendations. As was pointed out YEARS later in the commercial press, it was an excellent purchase and a GREAT value especially when bought from the Japanese dealer that Salvatore recommended. Where was Stereophile and Fremer then? They came to recommend the same cartridge (under a different name) at four times the price. They recommended other mega-buck cartridges that did not perfom as well. You think the interest of their readers came first?
I've taken other hardware advice from Salvatore's blog and found that advice quite dependable. Like all writings AND EVEN MORE ESPECIALLY THOSE OF THE COMMERCIAL PRESS I read it and evaluated it very carefully.
Salvatore's is a free blog. So he doesn't keep it up to date. So what else is new?
Now along comes Fremer who years ago promised that he would never again step into this forum. But now he has something to sell--his turntable set-up DVD. Well, he's back and in order to attract attention to his marketing and product he pulls out a Salvatore quote that's years and years old and treats it as though it were current. Salvatore is therefore an easy target and all the inmates are ready to kiss Fremer's behind in order to get on the "ridicule Salvatore" bandwagon and draw attention to Fremer's DVD (a DVD for which no one who regularly frequents the Vinyl Asylum should have a need). I'm sure that's exactly what Michael had in mind.
Let's see if MF stays around to make a more positive contribution here, as do many commercial writers including his colleagues at Stereophile. I kinda doubt that he will. We'll see shills for his DVD on the Vinyl Asylum; then he'll be gone--again.
Mel
> As was pointed out YEARS later in the commercial press, [the Shelter
> 501] was an excellent purchase and a GREAT value especially when
> bought from the Japanese dealer that Salvatore recommended. Where
> was Stereophile and Fremer then?
As we have written on many occasions, Stereophile only publishes
reviews of products that are formally distributed in the US. We
occasionally relax this rule for coverage in our regular columns, but
even then, 99% of our coverage concerns products that are available
from US retail outlets.
When the Shelter cartridges did become available in the US, Michael
did write about them.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Well, I don't think the Stereophile policy was forced on you by the tablets at Ararat and IMNSHO it is a bad policy, and specifically not in the interest of your readers. Rather it's in the general interest of your advertisers.When it came to the US and MF reviewed it the Shelter cost hunderds of dollars more than it had been directly from Japan. And don't hit me with the service issue--the service from overseas sources, such as the source for the Shelters, is excellent, reputedly better than from the domestic distributer.
And you conveniently forgot to mention Michael's earlier review of the same cartridge at four times the price. We could import it ourselves, as many of us did, by heeding Salvatore.
So you see, that's exactly why we NEED the Salvatores of this world--so that we can be ahead of you and of the domestic importers that simply buy, mark up, and sell--and add no value.
Mel
forget about the fact that when I wrote my review of the Crown Jewel, there was no Shelter being imported.
Wrong! It WAS being imported by many of us.
More "BS" from John Atkinson and Stereophile.The Shelter line had U.S. distributors in early 2002.
So there was a 3 YEAR period of no review, or even a mention of the Shelter line by Fremer on this website.
Yours truly,
Arthur Salvatore
Arthur- I've always truly enjoyed your writings immensely, as well as having learned a great deal as well as gaining many valuable(non vested interest type)insights.I just wished you wrote more.
Up until about 6 or 7 yrs ago I was a regular reader of the Audiophile press, now however,I firmly believe a great many of the prominent magazine hacks would be considerably more appropriately attired,wearing way too much makeup, slit skirts and fishnet nylons and then standing under street lights !
Kindest Regards Fred
right. you make a lot of sense. I point out where this guy has libeled me and you're still on his side. call me names. As for your haberdashery fantasies, you give yourself away.
sorry I didn't live up to your schedule. But you clearly haven't lived up to your obligation to take crap down when it's both libelous and outdated.
> I don't think the Stereophile policy was forced on you by the tablets
> at Ararat and IMNSHO it is a bad policy, and specifically not in the
> interest of your readers. Rather it's in the general interest of your
> advertisers.
I respectfully suggest you put your conspiracy theories back in your
pocket. I fail to grasp why the fact that I disgree with you over this
matter means I support the interests of my advertisers over those on
my readers.
In fact, Stereophile's policy on reviews is generally unpopular with
manufacturers, because it prevents a brand being launched in the US
on the back of a positive review. Which is why I implemented it back
in the 1980s. Much the same reasoning underlies our "5-dealer rule."
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Don't know why this popped up here. I was responding to "Mel" further
down the thread.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"I respectfully suggest you put your conspiracy theories back in your
pocket. I fail to grasp why the fact that I disgree with you over this
matter means I support the interests of my advertisers over those on
my readers."In fact, Stereophile's policy on reviews is generally unpopular with
manufacturers, because it prevents a brand being launched in the US
on the back of a positive review. Which is why I implemented it back
in the 1980s. Much the same reasoning underlies our '5-dealer rule.'"
And I respectfully suggest that you avail yourself of a good dictionary. I neither said nor did I imply "conspiracy". I did not suggest that any more than if I were to point to a merchant's good customer service. That is not a conspiracy. But, perhaps as my grandmother used to say, "The thief's hat is on fire."A review is not the only means to inform your readers. It turns out, in fact, that Harry Pearson (who seemed at once less beholden to advertisers and less successful than you) wrote about the qualities of the Shelter cartridge in The Absolute Sound before anyone was importing them. Apparently he found it of such quality and so reasonably priced that he could not resist. If memory serves he hoped that someone would import it. An adventurous soul could put that together with what Arthur Salvatore wrote, or with what information one could pick up on the Asylum and come to the correct conclusion, and purchase.
But not by reading Stereophile at the time.
It is not unreasonable for a relatively large circulation magazine (or commercial webzine) to write about products that are generally and easily available and have a continuing and convenient supply stream. But for the hobbyist, and I think the Asylum is full of hobbyists, that is not enough. Hence the interest in, and need for, sites like the Asylum and Arthur Salvatore's "High End Audio".
Mel
> It turns out, in fact, that Harry Pearson...wrote about the qualities
> of the Shelter cartridge in The Absolute Sound before anyone was
> importing them. Apparently he found it of such quality and so
> reasonably priced that he could not resist. If memory serves he hoped
> that someone would import it.
And as I said in my earlier message, that is precisely the scenario
that my policy is intended to avoid, for reasons that should be
self-evident. Introducing a product line to market should not be a
joint venture between manufacturer and the press, in my opinion. I
much prefer to let a new brand get established on its own before it
gets coverage in Stereophile.And I fail to see what your problem is if TAS had already alerted you
to the existence of the Shelter cartridges. Why the need for further
validation on your part?
BTW, I snipped the gratuitous insult from your text above because,
frankly,I am growing weary of being straight with inmates, only to
have some people taking the opportunity to be snide. I have no
problem with anayone disliking Stereophile for whatever reason.
But when you throw out the nasty little innuendos, you cross the
line between strongly expressed opinion and namecalling.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
v
BTW, you really ought to give Fremer a good kick in the shins the next time you see him ... IMHO of course! :)
First, I don't dislike stereophile. I am a subscriber and have been continuously for many years. You even ran a letter from me. I don't know what I said to make you think that. Do I think it could be better? Yes, of course.What HP did was simply good reporting; it wasn't a "review". If the NY times reports on a GM car running on sugar water in Brazil, it might generate interest on the part of US consumers. That does not put the Times into a joint venture with GM.
In direct response to your question, sometimes I find myself interested in a product that I have no opportunity to audition. At the time the Shelter was such a product. I seek out all the information I can and from whatever source I can. I evaluate the advice and the advisor. Thus, it was not merely the existence of the Shelter that interested me but rather the consensus that it had the qualities I was looking for. Validation at the time by Stereophile, to which I subscribed, would have helped come to a decision. As it is I made a good decision, but there was some trepidation.
I did that again just recently with a Lavry Black.
I'm sorry you think that my remark was a snide innuendo. It wasn't so intended. Had you been born closer to New York than to York you would have recognized it as a light-hearted and folksy remark. Apologies if you didn't.
Mel
z
> I'm sorry you think that my remark was a snide innuendo. It wasn't so
> intended. Had you been born closer to New York than to York you would
> have recognized it as a light-hearted and folksy remark. Apologies if
> you didn't.
Aoplogy accepted, Mel. I was put off by your inference that I put the
interest of Stereophile's advertisers ahead of those of my readers. I
do not. For me the readers always come first, which is why I operate
the policies I have described.
Glad the Shelter is working out for you.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Right!Next you'll tell us that our Congressmen and Senators in Washington NEVER put the interests of campaign contributors above those of their constituents back home.
__________________________________________________
Boo!
Now this Mel guy is really hilarious! Salvatore did not say that he beat me to the Shelter line. He made accusations about me, about the reasons why I had not reviewed the Shelter line at that point in time that are clearly llbelous--and Mel's response is that he likes Salvatore's classical music recommendations. Well, Mel if Arthur called your mother a whore, I guess his classical music recommendations would trump that right? I came back because a reader alerted me to Salvatore's rant against me that's still up there and which is patented false....I take it as a compliment that you think I came to AA to push my DVD. I don't have the marketing chops to think of something like that.. but thanks for the complment.
What a load of crap.You've been feuding withg Salvatore in public for years. Now you're going to convince everyone that you've just discovered his years old comments about you and the $2600 Crown Jewel (while there was a $600 equivalent Shelter) and the three year delay (following Shelter's official import) in your review. And you wold not have discovered Salvatore's remarks but for the fact that a reader alerted you to it? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! And you just happened to discover it and return to AA to let everyone know of your discontent just as you are about to launch your DVD which you promote in your post? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Because you are evidently too thick to understand, my favorable comments about his site were in response to a number of earlier posts calling Salvatore all sorts of names. As for what he said about you, you evidently deserve that and more.
If anyone wants to know your true nature they can click on Salvatore's link and read your childishness. And you never heard about the Shelter before writing about the Crown Jewel? That means you didn't read TAS wherein HP wrote it up? I could say worse, but I'll say: not credible.
Mel
can't delete
~Slainte,
The OMalley
I will not comment too much except to say that I think Mr. Salvatore's basic audio philosophy is actually quite sound. There are many positive aspects to his website and I also find that his recommendations, particularly with analog gear and recordings, to be quite valuable. I have had the opportunity to hear many of the amplifiers and speakers that he also recommends and find that he is not far off the mark with regard to audio priorities and getting truly good sound. He has a minimalist approach to electronics that is reminiscent of many Japanese high companies that many serious audiophiles respect. His belief in the preservation of low level signal, low "noise" floor (per his definition), and dynamics are indeed a good approach to getting close to a "live" sound (recordings permitting).A less savory part of his website is the discussion about reviews, reviewers, and reviewing. I am not a conspiracy theorist, however, there have been instances in the past where collusion between magazines and manufacturers has occurred and we should be mindfull of this (Peter Aczel is one example). His accusation that the whole reviewing process is in the manufaturer's pocket is clearly over the top, however.
As a reviewer (although on a much smaller scale in some ways than stereophile), I have never been approached to give a good review in exchange for favors, either explicitly or implicitly. I make it clear to companies before I start reviewing that I am in fact a hard critic and will not pull my punches on their product if it is deserved (likewise, I give plenty of praise where deserved). I believe in maintaining integrity from beginning to end of a review. I am sure that you are no different; however, Mr. Salvatore obviously thinks otherwise and that is his right.
I have to say that if what he has published on his site regarding your comments to him are true then it is possible that you are as crazy as you claim him to be. I don't think you exactly took the moral high ground in your disputes with him. There are more civilized ways to deal with someone who is attacking your character (and probably more effective ways to "prove" that he is not correct). Ignoring them would have likely been the best. You simply added fuel to his "reviewers are dishonest" diatribe. Unfortuneately, your comments posted on his site in many ways painted you in a bad light, IMHO.
That is not to say that he isn't a bit nuts. Perhaps he is but he is as clearly dedicated to his vision of good sound as you seem to be.
yea, no doubt my email to him was not my shining hour and you can make of it what you wish but I've been doing this for 20 years and I'm proud of my behavior in this arena. I don't have "long term loans" on gear as many reviewers do. I buy all that I own, and yes I get it at a discount, but I BUY it, and much of it is expensive and requires me to take out bank loans.But when I read accusations attacking my character based upon someone's delusions, excuse me for fighting back. I don't take crap from anyone in any arena. Never have, never will. When I am wrong, I admit it, but what this paranoid huckster Salvatore has written about me, and which he obviously is happy to leave up there for anyone to see is simply beyond the pale. If he wishes to leave up the crap I sent him in a private email? Fine. I wrote it and I have to live with it. But when he writes CRAP about me that is proven to be his psycho-delusions, like that Shelter thread, in which he accuses me of being corrupt, excuse me, but I won't take that kind of crap without responding.
> > But when he writes CRAP about me that is proven to be his psycho-
> > delusions, like that Shelter thread, in which he accuses me of
> > being corrupt, excuse me, but I won't take that kind of crap
> > without responding.Like when your magazine sold all those three year subscriptions right before it folded. Remember those who had ponied up becoming psycho-delusionals accusing you of wrong doing? I do and I remember your similarly self-righteous name calling responses then too.
Everyone's always picking on mikey.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
It's obvious that YOU pay (obsessive) attention to me.For good reasons, because you forgot to mention that this section was posted in 2001, 4 YEARS before you got around to writing the Shelter reviews. Prior to that time, you never once mentioned the brand. That gave plenty of time for the former distributor, charging $ 2,650 for a cartridge now selling for $ 850, to get rid of his stock.
I wonder how you handled that price discrepancy? Any compassion for the audiophiles who were ripped-off? Any anger for the person who outrageously overpriced the cartridge? Any excuse why you waited 5 years to inform your readers that the $ 2,650 cartridge was available for $ 800, or even less at one time by mail order?
As for now...
I will replace that section sometime this month. I will also read Fremer's Shelter review, with my focus on the price discrepancy for the Crown Jewel and Shelter 501, as mentioned above. My main question: does Fremer defend the Crown Jewel distributor, or is he outraged? You must take a side on this price issue if you claim to be an independent audio journalist.
Also, at a later date, I intend to review the history of Fremer and the Rockport turntable; from the initial (A+) review to the present. The SME, Avid, ELP laser, Brinkmann and now the new Caliburn reviews will all be discussed. I will also bring up my own website's posted history of the Rockport, and Fremer's response to those postings. My focus; was Fremer "consistent" during this period of time?
Finally, I was intriqued by the controversy about Fremer's
"purchase" of the ($ 90,000) Caliburn turntable. It appears he is afraid, almost terrified, of disclosing the actual price he paid for it. He won't even state that price to within plus or minus $ 1,000.Worse, he is now discussing reviewer's actually purchasing components at "parts costs", which can be only 10% to 25% of the retail price. Folks, I never received a deal like that in my entire audio life, and I was in the audio business for more than 20 years, and I have had close friends in the audio business. Neither would I even ask for such a deal.
Fremer also wrote that it's none of the readership's business what he pays for a component. That's a unique claim for a person who's supposed to be an independent audio journalist. No journalist, in any other field, would dare to state that they had such a right.
If the audiophiles, on and off this board, accept this warped journalistic perspective and behavior, you deserve the results.
Yours truly,
Arthur Salvatore
The butler er...manufacturer did it.Considering the convoluted pricing/distribution practices of said "butler", Stereophile should be hailed for not writing about Shelter earlier than they did.
Cheers!
such CRAP.
...regards...tr
The link in my post above is incorrect. Sorry.The correct URL is below.
As mentioned in posts above, Arthur Salvatore's site has a large section devoted to well made recordings. The point in having a very resolving system is not to be able to hear the recording flaws of every record you put on it. There is no other place to find such a list certainly not one that is freely available.Also, Arthur takes the trouble to explain his own priorities in audio very carefully and he openly states that these priorities are not shared by everyone. He is always careful to say that when he recommends a component, it is because of its performace with respect to his own priorities. How many professional reviewers do this? Reading MF it seems like whatever he prefers is simply the best full stop. There is no question that whatever MF likes you should like too, because he likes "the best" (c.f. Fred's comment below re validation).
Even components that Arthur recommends, he criticizes often severely. He says why the component doesn't live up to his ideal, and often why it doesn't have certain properties that other people appreciate, even if he doesn't rate it so highly. Again, most reviews are not critical at all and go out of their way to say positive things almost all the time. If they were doing their job correctly, they would make criticisms with every other statement, in order to give the reader an idea of the limitations as well as the desirable qualities of the product under review. Too many reviews are best described by the phrase "puff piece". Of course, manufacturers might not give review samples to writers who are known to say negative things in their reviews half the time...
Arthur, please don't waste your time expanding your "reviewing the reviewers" section! You have more interesting things to do. MF's vulgar diatribes on your site and Romy's are enough to discredit him in my eyes.
-stark
your "analysis" of me was interesting. bullshit, but interesting. I hope Arthur calls your wife a whore and you respond by saying he's a great guy.
can't delete
~Slainte,
The OMalley
z
...you will have the guts to write about all this (including this last little gem of yours) and place it under your real name in next month's rag. But, I doubt that will occur If so, though, I might even buy a copy.Wonder what Mr. Atkinson thinks of your wishes toward this man and his wife? Way to represent. Bet everyone in at the rag is proud.
I am glad Arthur will remove his libelous rant about my motives in not having reviewed the Shelter line at a time of his choosing. That's the least he could do. He should read what I wrote before asking questions but that's apparently too much to ask. I am sorry that I did not mention the Shelter brand in time to meet his "stringent" requirements. I will try to get on his schedule moving forward to avoid being called corrupt. And I am glad that AFTER THE FACT Arthur will discuss my reviewing consistency. How easy to do that! I am not terrified of anything. Never have been, never will be. However, compared to many reviewers who have "long term personal loans" on much of what's in their systems, I have purchased everything in mine. That's not good enough for Artie. He wants to know the exact amount. Perhaps I should send him my tax returns too? "Folks," Artie was a dealer. He got stuff at around 40 or 50 points off. So therefore he's a crook too, right? Because that's what he's accusing me of being because I got a better deal. And that's the crux of his problem with me. I got a better deal. Let me tell you: what I paid for the Continuum was the same as what a very nice car costs. EXCUSE ME for getting a better price than you or Artie Salvatore got. AT LEAST I BOUGHT IT which is more than can be said for some reviewers I know who have bought nothing, but keep plenty and do their best to mention those products as needed to keep such stuff in their system. YOU can decide whether I am "crooked" because I get a good discount on what I use as reference gear but you can be sure that I paid for it. I am sorry Artie is offended that I paid less than he did but that doesn't give him the right to accuse me of being "corrupt." Any dealer can get stuff at 40 or 50 points less than what it costs you. SO CALL THEM ALL CORRUPT. Any reviewer can get stuff at at least that much off. So call them ALL corrupt too. Everyone's corrupt then, except who? Let me end by saying, I am very proud of my 20 years of reviewing. I have not always been correct. I have made my mistakes. But when anyone attacks my honesty I will fight them with everything I have. If anyone should be "terrified" it is the people who take gratuitous shots at my integrity. John Kerry didn't fight the Swiftboat lies told about him. I fight back.
Fremer- "He wants to know the exact amount."That's one more lie to your collection. I clearly stated that...
I would like to know what you paid for the Continuum to within plus or minus $ 1,000. That's a long way from being "exact". You are obviously afraid of disclosing the price, even to within $ 1,000, which is a lot of money to some people.I wonder why? What are you afraid of, Mikey?
"Libelous"? Sorry, not if it's true when it's written and only changes 4 YEARS later.
About your "purchases"...
Purchasing components for "peanuts" doesn't place you above the (nameless) reviewers you criticize for taking "loans". The loaners can always be returned. If they aren't, that's a different issue.
The bottom line...
You still feel you are in the marketing chain of the audio business. That's a direct contradiction with being an Independent Audio Journalist. Marketers promote, buy, sell and take risks. I know, I was in the audio business for 20 years.
So what is it? Are you an independent audio journalist, or are you a marketer, who deserves generous industry perks and discounts for promoting product?
(Even the normal industry insider discounts, 40 to 50% off of retail, are apparently not good enough for you. Now it's "parts costs", which is 75 to 90% off of retail. Is this true?* And who keeps the profit when the components are eventually sold?)
*Hmmm. 25% of $ 90,000 is $ 22,500, plus "other costs". Total-$ 25,000. Value "Used"= $ 50,000. Potential Profit= $ 25,000
I have to say, that a reviewer getting a discount on a product that they have received favorably is very troubling. You compare that to a dealer discount, but it is not the same thing and I think you know that or should know it the discount a dealer receives is to cover the time and effort to sell the product, the cost of carrying the inventory, the cost of support and a profit so they can continue to offer their services. It is pretty obvious what benefit a manufacture receives for offering their product to a dealer at a discount, what is the benefit they receive from offering the product to you at such a deep discount?If one of my employees purchased a product at a discount from one of my suppliers they would be fired, no questions asked, no discussion. I want my employees to evaluate products objectively and fairly with absolutely no outside influence. Since you purchased your products (or product) at such a substantial discount how do I the reader know if the review is unbiased? If George Bush told you his background in the oil industry had no influence in his decisions, you would say BS, but yet you and Mr. Atkinson say that there should be no concern with the practice of allowing reviewers to purchase product at substantial discounts (and I would put long term loans in the same category), that the practice does not unduly influence the reviewers view of a product, well pardon me if I find that a bit native.
To sum it up all I can say if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck and it looks like a duck then it is a duck. Shame on Mr. Atkinson for allowing this practice to go on he is doing his publisher, advertisers and readers a big disservice.
Jeff
what a transparant move.You were out of date, Salvatore called you on it, and now you are trying to change history because the history is embarrassing.
Why don't you just fess up and say you were late for lunch instead of this petty nancy-ass approach.
Sheesh.
I think Salvatgore is a little emotional, sure, but he got the move on you, none the less.
~Slainte,
The OMalley
so what you're saying is that it's okay to leave paranoid infantile rants up once they've been proven to be just that? If Salvatore said he reviewed the Shelters before me, fair enough because that's a fact. But what you're saying is that I should not object to his paranoid, psycho delusions about me? Give me a break. I'm sure if someone wrote that kind of bullshit about you, you'd be fine with it, right?
what i am saying is that you should leave it alone. yeah, leave it alone.if you think you are better than all this petty shit then act like it and leave it alone. move on. drop it.
you restarted this shit with this thread.
i would not be fine with paranoid shit being written about me. but when the fight is over, and i thought this fight was supposed to be over some time ago, then i'd move on.
why did you dust up this mess again? for resolution? I hope not!!! :-)
any press is good press, is that it?
~Slainte,
The OMalley
you know what? I have written stuff before that was wrong. Everyone does. And when I do and I get called on it, I apologize. It doesn't matter that that stuff was posted a few years ago. It's still there for people to find and believe. And it's complete crap.Salvatore's response was very telling. Instead of saying "gee, in that case I was wrong, if Fremer did cover the Shelter line, I'll take that down," he deflected as I knew he would. I wouldn't have brought this up if it hadn't been brought up to me today by a reader wanting to know what the story was because he was doubting my crediblity and I defend myself. So excuse me for defending myself.
...you're a two-bit writer who seemingly knows even less about the real world (as opposed to wallowing in a cloistered "job") than he does about good sounding audio equipment (as hard as that is to believe). Give it a rest and try to do or say something that is neither self-serving nor advertiser-serving, for once. Please.
Wah! Wah! Wah!!!!!!I guess in the real world you live in, if I call you corrupt, you'd say, "gee, thanks." Well in the real world where I live, I don't care if someone disagrees with me and I don't even care if you call me a "two-bit" writer. That's your opinion. I have 10s of 1000s of readers who think otherwise. But if you call me "corrupt," as Salvatore has, you'd better believe I'll come after you. You, on the other hand, would obviously sit back and take it if I were to call you a child molester. Right?
if you don't care then shut up.
you coming after anyone is a joke.
i am one of your readers and i think you are an asshole.
~Slainte,
The OMalley
"Wah, Wah, Wah"? You who have been whining and crying through this whole THread? You need to get a grip. Nothing that was said about you rises to the height of child molester or whore, anyway. OK, maybe we'd all be angry if out integrity was called into question (even if it was something that was already general believed), but they'd address it with integrity if they in fact had integrity, which it seems you decidedly do not.I am through with this drivel. Rant away further on deaf ears.
oh EXCUSE ME for not reviewing on Arthur Salvatore's schedule BUT DON'T EXCUSE HIM FOR LIBELING ME AND LEAVING THAT LIBEL UP ON HIS SITE YEARS AFTER THE FACTS prove that what he wrote were masturbatory delusions.YOU'RE A JERK OFF. Now call me "unprofessional" for labeling you what you clearly are...
a JERK OFF
you are a fairy. piss off.
~Slainte,
The OMalley
Audiophiles that don't take everything they read with respect to this hobby with a grain of salt get what they deserve. Having read a bit of both what you and Salvatore write, I can only conclude that I'd certainly apply a larger grain to your writing (actually, I find Salvatore's site to be a very interesting source of information with no commercial agenda, which is pretty refreshing) now even more re-inforced by this transparent shilling of your "new DVD". "Toiling" as a reviewer? "Devoted" a big column (as Salvatore points out a few years late)? Buying that jazzy table at "parts cost"?Frankly, your post is pretty tasteless and not doing much for your cause. You should quit while you're ahead (or is that behind?).
"shilling?" Do you know what the word means? I can't "shill" for my own labors you idiot. EXCUSE me for promoting a project I INVESTED MY OWN TIME AND MONEY IN to produce. Excuse me!!!!!! EXCUSE ME for not reviewing gear on Arthur Salvatore's schedule. EXCUSE me for defending myself against baseless libelous charges. I mean, how about this: how'z about if I call you a pedophile?. Would that be okay with you? Based on your idea that I should roll over when Arthur Salvatore calls me corrupt, that would be fine with you, right? RIGHT??????
and EXCUSE ME for saying that my job is "toiling." And EXCUSE ME for getting a turntable at "parts cost," and you can't. I mean, please attack Arthur Salvatore for getting stuff at wholesale, why don't you?????? and finally EXCUSE ME for defending my reputation you retard...oh, and now say that for me being pissed off at a butthead like you I'm "unprofessional."
.
...for you, or anyone who acts like you. You’ve done nothing but prove again and again to increasing with every post and with increasing degree that you are terribly immature, and quite possible psychotic. If you feel you’ve been libeled, sue, although after your performance here, I doubt you find any court of sympathy.I really have a very hard time believing that you are a professional reviewer and not some troller assuming your name on this board. Is the real Mike Fremer standing up, here?
I see. I should just lie back with my legs in the air and take it. Well you know what? I don't care if someone disagrees with my opinions. Opinions are just opinions. Everyone's entitled to them, but if your definition of "professional," is to be called "corrupt," "a liar," a "shill," a "phoney" and all the rest, and just sit back and take it, well then I guess I'm not a "professional." Fortunately for me, my definition of "professional" does NOT include being a pincushion for PRICKS.I received an email today from a reader showing me that Salvatore's delusional rant was still in public view. FACTS show that the rant was wrong. Yet many of the respondents here today feel it's okay for me to be called corrupt and worse, and have my integrity called into question because Salvatore got to the Shelter cartridges before me.
Well guess what? My definition of "professional" tells me I stand up for myself. I am sure that no matter what I said or did you'd attack me. So if Salvatore attacks and libels me, that's okay with you. And if defend myself, I'm "unprofessional."
.
~Slainte,
The OMalley
I think you better pull out the meds and have a few cocktails with Big Andy before you blow a gasket. Try and take a few aspirin and a big glass of water before you hit the sack and check back in the morning.
...because it hasn't been listened in too long a time? It was still listed as a MF associated component well into the second half of 2005, presumably until it was replaced by the Caliburn. Surely MF cannot have forgotten how it sounded so quickly?
"The Audio Asylum is a free,
independent resource"
The Simon Yorke S7 is a great turntable. I don't put together the Recommended Components section. I am a free, independent source too.
nt
"The Audio Asylum is a free,
independent resource"
The Simon Yorke remained in the listing well beyond the usual 3years because of Michael's continued use. Once he stopped using the Simon Yorke, the recommendation ceases until one of my writers takes a further listen.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
