advertisement


Supatrac: the world's best tonearm?

Yes - producing a new instruction manual from the original one for the Farpoint version was not a trivial process. I'm working on it. I'm also aware that an installation video is more urgent than ever.

I had been so busy at the Bristol show that I didn't email Michael Fremer for 24 hours after the review publication so he emailed me with concern that he had upset me! I reassured him that I'm delighted with the review and that I will work hard on the shortcomings that he has highlighted.

Above all this review has concentrated my mind on the shortcomings of the Blackbird and the need to make it better still. Level-pegging with other arms is not good enough. I need to improve its performance so that it exceeds by such a margin that reviewers will openly state that it has no equal. This is necessary because a suspended arm will always have disadvantages in installation and set-up compared to simple gimbal arms. I also still have the market disadvantages of obscurity and a short track-record. Whether it's the best, it's about to get better.

Onward and upward!
 
sonddek said:
Whether it's the best, it's about to get better.

Onward and upward!
Click to expand...
I doubt I will ever have the money to have a deck to do this arm justice and at approaching 70 probably don't have the ears either but that Fremer interview and review made me grin. My days in startups were during the 80s Cambridge phenomenon years when modern computing was being invented, they were fun years for a kid in his 20s/30s, and yes, writing instruction manuals is hard! I am excited for you and wish you every success. To quote some guy wearing a black turtleneck, you think different. Skip diving Garrard 301s, FFS!
 
tuga said:
@sonddek , are you allowed to disclose whether Fremer charges for his reviews?
Click to expand...

I suspect that is heading towards libel from Fremer’s perspective, so you need to tread very carefully.

PS From a personal perspective I have always been far more inclined to trust reviewers who use apolitical classic kit. The tried and tested references that can no longer be purchased.
 
Tony L said:
I suspect that is heading towards libel from Fremer’s perspective, so you need to tread very carefully.

PS From a personal perspective I have always been far more inclined to trust reviewers who use apolitical classic kit. The tried and tested references that can no longer be purchased.
Click to expand...

That is why I asked if Supatrac was allowed to disclose that information. I don't need to know how much but I'm interested in learning whether the review is paid for as a marketing 'news' report service or through advertising services.
But if you think that it could cause you trouble I will delete my post.
 
Mebbe my eyesight is far worse then I thought but cannae find any reference to the turntable used? Mebbe just missed a page? Any help appreciated…😎
 
tuga said:
That is why I asked if Supatrac was allowed to disclose that information. I don't need to know how much but I'm interested in learning whether the review is paid for as a marketing 'news' report service or through advertising services.
But if you think that it could cause you trouble I will delete my post.
Click to expand...

FWIW and for clarity I’m positive Michael Fremer only gets paid by the magazines that pay for his writing. I don’t dislike the guy at all and I’d be beyond astonished if he was corrupt. He is a professional journalist. His reputation matters.

The grey area in this picture is review samples, indefinite loans etc. He runs a system that has to retail for half a $million or more, he has a record collection worth a fortune too, a vast amount being highly collectable audiophile pressings that arrived as promos. Hundreds of $thousands here.

The problem is this is all part of the music industry, audio industry, and every other commercial industry on this planet. It is just how things work. This is capitalism. I’m an ex-corporate IT manager and the freebies I was offered were substantial at times by companies fishing for contracts etc. Similarly running this place for 20 plus years I have been offered free stuff and I have turned it down as I don’t do reviews and I don’t do product placement. I’m an idiot as I’ve lost many £thousands over the years thanks to this, but I just can’t do it in good conscience.

Does this mean a reviewer would lie about a product or use something they didn’t like in their system? No, not IMO, and I’d certainly never accuse Fremer of this, but as I say above the reviewers I personally respect the most use tried and tested classic kit that can only be bought used. It keeps things far cleaner IMHO, plus gives a far more meaningful reference point.
 
Tony L said:
FWIW and for clarity I’m positive Michael Fremer only gets paid by the magazines that pay for his writing. I don’t dislike the guy at all and I’d be beyond astonished if he was corrupt.
Click to expand...

I am not insinuating corruption, subjective reviews are what they are. People like what they like and if they choose to promote what they like I'm perfectly fine with that.
I was more interested in his business model.

(Edited for typos)
 
I liked the video from the show, in the article. It made the bearing side of things clear to me. I didn't really understand its workings when I originally read the thread that's been running here for some time. Ingenious, and quite intriguing.

Mick
 
tuga said:
I am not insinuating corruption, subjective reviews are what they are. People like what they like and if they choose to promote what they like I'm perfectly fine with that.
I was more interested in his business model.

(Edited for typos)
Click to expand...

Don't know the ins and outs of his business model but it looks to me like he (or they) monetises the site through advertising. That of course comes with the risk that if you write negatively about a product the advertiser gets sniffy and threatens to pull the advertisement and you lose money. However, with great reputation comes great resistance to that pressure. If you have enough readers/viewers and your bona fides and opinions are respected enough then brands will want to be on your platform regardless, just due to eyeballs. And the surest way to get those eyeballs is through some degree of integrity. Fremer has track record, respect and a substantial following. Also, the volume of ads on that site would suggest he doesn't need to stoop to selling reviews to earn a crust. In fact, as someone who works in media, I've never met anyone professional who does that. It would be career suicide.
 
Corey Greenberg was a phenominal reviewer; amazing writing style, entertaining, and detailed. Plus his reviews were hilarious.

He was caught taking payouts of some kind, something corrupt which wasn't acceptable.

His career ended.

You can accuse Fremer of being annoying or whatever you like, but I can tell you, his system sounds absolutely fantastic, he's a gracious host, and he never writes what he doesn't think honestly. And he does NOT take payouts.
 
TheFlash said:
It’s a very good review and IMHO being so open and honest about the setup complexity/instruction sequence challenges only reinforces the positive aspects of the review, notably how stunning it sounds.
Click to expand...


It’s a very good review and being so open and honest about his athlete's foot only reinforces the positive aspects of the review.

But seriously... although he doesn't seem like very serious person ;) huge congrats to Richard... again!
 
tuga said:
That is why I asked if Supatrac was allowed to disclose that information. I don't need to know how much but I'm interested in learning whether the review is paid for as a marketing 'news' report service or through advertising services.
But if you think that it could cause you trouble I will delete my post.
Click to expand...
It’s also a great way to sully / derail what should be a positive thread…..for once. The question could have been asked by PM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top