Harry Lavo
December 22nd 06, 02:20 PM
"fathom" > wrote in message
...
> Stereophile's Michael Fremer (the Analog Coroner) gets his
> grubbies on the NAD Master Series M3 integrated for a major
> test.
>
> So what does he do? Well, he wastes large portions of the
> article babbling about the $175 NAD 3020, circa 1979. In
> fact, every NAD test this rag ever does makes reference to the
> 3020, because every disco-era audiophile once owned one and
> has spent the last 25 years ignoring NAD products except to
> periodically spooj over the 3020 like it was their first
> glance of a bare tit. Well, maybe it was.
>
> The Coroner eventually gets around to describing the current
> product, including some unusual features which he totally
> ignores during the test. He says he did this because he wants
> to use the M3 like most audiophiles would. He then completely
> tosses this concept by using the $2800 NAD with speakers
> costing $46k and $70k. How ****ing dumb is this? NOBODY IN
> THE WORLD is going to hook this amp up to speakers like that -
> so let's do it for the major cover story review.
>
> Maybe he just wants us to know that he's got $116k worth of
> freebie speakers lying around the palace. We get it, Mike -
> your throwaway speakers cost more than our house. You da man.
>
> Well, Fremer spent some time actually listening to the system
> - the source is a $28k CD player (of course), and it's unclear
> whether he likes the M3 - it seems to pale in comparison to
> the $34k worth of amplification it's replacing. Gee, who
> would have thought THAT could happen?
>
> In the end, he makes the bizarre and unsupported claim that,
> even though he hasn't heard any other NAD amps, NONE of them
> can compare to the legendary 3020 - except this new M3. This
> seems to suggest that anyone interested in the M3 should
> instead get a used 3020 off eBay and pocket the other $2750.
>
> There's another unsupported claim where Fremer "bets" that the
> M3 would sound good with $7000 speakers. I guess we'll never
> know if they would or wouldn't, but it sounds like an
> interesting premise for an audio review.
I'm not a big Fremer fan, pro or con. But I usually read him if the
equipment under review interests me. I read the review you are discussing,
and was struck by the same points you make above. It was in fact, a really
bizarre approach. Best I can say is that John had to "dump" the review on
him at the last minute because of his ear issue (discussed in the front
essay of the issue) and that led to MF not having an appropriate setup for
evaluation. But even so...his comments re: the "no other NAD amp" and his
"bet" on $7000 speakers did sound bizarre. And it wasn't until after I read
the review and notice the tone control cureves and slope curves in JA's
evaluation that I even knew the machine had them. Not on of MF or
Stereophiles best efforts.
...
> Stereophile's Michael Fremer (the Analog Coroner) gets his
> grubbies on the NAD Master Series M3 integrated for a major
> test.
>
> So what does he do? Well, he wastes large portions of the
> article babbling about the $175 NAD 3020, circa 1979. In
> fact, every NAD test this rag ever does makes reference to the
> 3020, because every disco-era audiophile once owned one and
> has spent the last 25 years ignoring NAD products except to
> periodically spooj over the 3020 like it was their first
> glance of a bare tit. Well, maybe it was.
>
> The Coroner eventually gets around to describing the current
> product, including some unusual features which he totally
> ignores during the test. He says he did this because he wants
> to use the M3 like most audiophiles would. He then completely
> tosses this concept by using the $2800 NAD with speakers
> costing $46k and $70k. How ****ing dumb is this? NOBODY IN
> THE WORLD is going to hook this amp up to speakers like that -
> so let's do it for the major cover story review.
>
> Maybe he just wants us to know that he's got $116k worth of
> freebie speakers lying around the palace. We get it, Mike -
> your throwaway speakers cost more than our house. You da man.
>
> Well, Fremer spent some time actually listening to the system
> - the source is a $28k CD player (of course), and it's unclear
> whether he likes the M3 - it seems to pale in comparison to
> the $34k worth of amplification it's replacing. Gee, who
> would have thought THAT could happen?
>
> In the end, he makes the bizarre and unsupported claim that,
> even though he hasn't heard any other NAD amps, NONE of them
> can compare to the legendary 3020 - except this new M3. This
> seems to suggest that anyone interested in the M3 should
> instead get a used 3020 off eBay and pocket the other $2750.
>
> There's another unsupported claim where Fremer "bets" that the
> M3 would sound good with $7000 speakers. I guess we'll never
> know if they would or wouldn't, but it sounds like an
> interesting premise for an audio review.
I'm not a big Fremer fan, pro or con. But I usually read him if the
equipment under review interests me. I read the review you are discussing,
and was struck by the same points you make above. It was in fact, a really
bizarre approach. Best I can say is that John had to "dump" the review on
him at the last minute because of his ear issue (discussed in the front
essay of the issue) and that led to MF not having an appropriate setup for
evaluation. But even so...his comments re: the "no other NAD amp" and his
"bet" on $7000 speakers did sound bizarre. And it wasn't until after I read
the review and notice the tone control cureves and slope curves in JA's
evaluation that I even knew the machine had them. Not on of MF or
Stereophiles best efforts.