 
|
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 |
69.171.189.63
In Reply to: Do you really pay attention to this guy? posted by analogcorner on May 1, 2006 at 10:12:59:
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
Follow Ups:
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
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 ]
