Analog Planet. Can we still rely on the record reviews?

I am becoming perplexed by some of Mikey Fremer's reviews of late. Some I can wholeheartedly agree with but others appear way off from what I am hearing. His fawning over the remixed Pepper is top of the list with his article on the Miles Showel cutting lathe emphasising this. It's just not the sort of thing he used to like. Is he blinded by love of The Beatles or getting privileged access to the Giles Martin publicity machine and Abbey Road. He is also still raving about the last AAA Clapton which sounds like mud. Worst Glyn Johns recorded vinyl I have had in 40++ years. I know I am at odds with many over the 50th Pepper but is anyone else now having doubts about MF's reviews? He once was pretty consistent in the quality of his recommendations.

 

I agree on Clapton latest, Beatles I couldn't care less but overall I find MF's reviews are mediocre.

 

I enjoy Fremer's record reviews. His emphasis on music, sound and pressing quality is appreciated.

It would be great if he did more of them.

 

He does very few these days but I'm finding them increasingly inconsistent. I think he got the YouTube video bug.

 

In all fairness, Fremer has been reviewing more records of late. I enjoy his reviews.

I wish he would write about the current state of new vinyl and the lack of quality control that pressing plants (especially US plants) lack and the possibile consequences that may adversely affect the future of the medium/format that he's been championing for the past 20 years.

Time to take the rose colored glasses off.

 

Can we *still*...?

 

He has written about the poor quality control of certain pressing plants in the U.S. And he's taken them to task.

 

When? Do you have a link?

He's written about labels to avoid.

 

So you question his reliability just because he doesn't agree with you?

 

Complaining about a reviewer and his perception of records on the Hoffman forums? Shut the front door!

 

No. Sorry. It was a while ago. I believe it was part of a larger article on the current state of vinyl.

 

Totally agree with this. For example, domestic pressings from RTI are not what they used to be.

I appreciate all MF has done to help the vinyl "cause" as well, but rose colored glasses do appear to be on his desk for certain issues.

I rely on his reviews to a point. It seems obvious when he goes overboard - like on the Sgt. Pepper remix as stated by the OP.

 

I would argue he still is, even if the example you gave is to the contrary.

Look at the most recent reviews, is there any controversy over:
Mofi Procol Harum A Salty dog
Legrand Jazz from Impex
Desmond Blue from Speaker's Corner
Mofi Costello & Bacharach
Charles Lloyd Forest Flower - Speaker's Corner
mofi one step -Sunday at the Village Vanguard Bill Evans Trio
Analog Productions - CBS The Sound of Jazz
Craft - Thelonious Monk With John Coltrane Complete 1957 Riverside Recordings
Intervention - The Gilded Palace of Sin/The Flying Burrito Bros
Sam- Les liaisons dangereuses 1960 Thelonious Monk

I have to go back to May to the Star Trek The Motion Picture/Jerry Goldsmith review
to find something i don't have (can't say if it's not a home run)
So i don't get your point.

 

I'm wondering if he takes as much care and time with all he juggles. He has altered his opinions from time to time over time.

Also keep in mind the question about whether he is listening to a test pressing. They can sound different, even sometimes pressed at a different plant.

 

Pretty sure he took URP to task for their consistently poor quality control, however he may have been courteous enough to not call them out directly by name but if memory serves there was little doubt it was the noisy off centred "u" company.

 

Okay, thx. I'll Google it and see what I can find. I remember him coming out strongly against labels like Friday Music.

 

I think he almost always has an interesting perspective, and often some great insights. I wish he did more album reviews and perhaps fewer features on audio shows, etc. That said, I agree that I've found several reviews in recent years somewhat perplexing, so I totally get the OP's perspective. I should point out that by "perplexing," I don't mean that I simply disagree, but that I find certain reviews to contradict his usual stated principles.

An example of this is from a few years ago, when he gave a very positive review and a pretty high sonic score for the Ba Da Bing reissues of Talk Talk and Mark Hollis. We all know that he is a big proponent of all-analogue mastering chains, and he will usually claim that hi-res digital sources can sound very good, though rarely quite as good as all-analog. These reissues were not just from hi-res digital sources, though (which I agree can sound great), but mastered straight from the CD. I, and almost everyone who reviewed those albums here, thought they were atrocious. In his review, he didn't even acknowledge that they were from CD sources, which in past (and some future) reviews, he would have treated as a really major point of information. He also gave almost no explanation for the high sonic score itself.

A second example of this is his review of the MOFI Kind of Blue. Here, he goes into a LOT of detail (some of it speculation) about the sourcing, and seems to conclude that it isn't an ideal source, but MOFI did OK with what they had. He wrote very little about its actual sonic characteristics--certainly nothing very positive, but still gave it a 10 for sonics. (My own view is that the sourcing for this is not as relevant as the EQ choices, which I find are not great on this mastering, on my system). I can live with him disagreeing with me on its sonics, but I wish he would have explained his scoring in more detail, so I'd at least have some sense of why we might be in disagreement.

A third example is what the OP referred to--the Sgt. Pepper remix. I'm not as big a critic of the remix as many here have been--I'm in the "It's a lot of fun, but obviously flawed in some ways" camp. Still, the flaws to me are pretty evident--the dynamics are reduced even on the vinyl, and even in relation to the mono LP, and the EQ is unusually harsh to my ears. With little discussion of the dynamics and not a single mention of EQ/tonal issues, he gives it a 10 on sonics. Keep in mind, he gave the recent Grundman-mastered, all-analog, 1-step process Lynn Stanley album a 10 for sonics, while suggesting that its sonics were state-of-the-art outstanding (which he contrasted to Stanley's performance, about which he had some serious reservations).

So the question comes--does he actually think that the Stanley album and the Sgt. Pepper remix album (and the MOFI Kind of Blue that he specifically admitted was not as good as earlier issues from fully analog sources) are completely equal to one another in terms of sonics? It can be a bit of a head-scratcher. But I've noticed an interesting pattern here that adds to the overall sense of perplexity with some of these reviews. In each of the cases I've described, he goes into far less descriptive detail than is usual for him regarding the sonics, focusing instead on musical, performance, or sourcing issues. It seems that precisely when his reviews go most against conventional "audiophile" wisdom, he shies away from detailed (and comparative) descriptions of sonic characteristics. This is frustrating as a reader.

While I honestly doubt it is the case, it also opens up the conditions to raise paranoid suspicions that he may have decided what score to give something based on some external factors in music business politics, rather than based on a close and comparative listen. Again, this suspicion arises not so much from disagreements or seeming inconsistencies with his other reviews, but the combination of those factors with a remarkably uncharacteristic lack of specific reasons for his surprising sonic scores in these instances. That said, I truly don't think this is the case, and I have great respect for his great insights over the decades. I have learned a great deal from him, and expect to continue to do so.

 

I strongly prefer vinyl to digital, but there is something to be said about listening to music without defects that sounds really nice, in most instances (loudness wars aside). Recent case in point, the latest Doors CD.

I've never read a review of Fremer's where he has preferred digital (not saying he hasn't). Perhaps with the QC issues that have been plaguing new vinyl releases, he may not be as justified, at least in my view, that the vinyl version is always the better choice.

 

He did try calling them directly. At least that's what he told me. They didn't respond back to his calls or emails. That was a couple of years ago.

 

Loudness is a defect, though it's not inherent in the medium, of course. It's just a frequent casualty of the format. On the other hand, I have vinyl cut from digital masters that was cut 'loud' and it's not great either.

I don't know how you feel in general about albums cut at 45rpm, but, aside from vinyl noise and warp issues, the fidelity can be so superior to any digital I have heard that it significantly trumps the perceived "perfection" of digital.

I still have yet to see a 4k digital print of a film that is as good as a well-projected new 70mm print of the same film.

 

He noted URP over its issues with non-fill records: This is What "Non-Fill" Looks Like

And this is where he specifically mentioned them:

 

Here, now he has his system info filled out.

 

I agree he is generally still pretty good but more than occasionally he has been inexplicably enthusiastic about moderate product.

 

I agree with you on I Still Do, which doesn't sound great at all. But a lot of people enjoy the Pepper reissue, and Mr. Fremer is quite balanced on this point: If a record sounds good, no matter the source, it gets a good review.

He's not as militant about AAA as he once was, as long as it produces good vinyl listening.

 

Fremer rocks. Great, trustworthy reviews and lots of experienced knowledge. I miss his weekly internet broadcast.