Michael Fremer defends Hi-Res digital while chewing out Gizmodo

I already explained it to you once. I see no reason to explain it again. Clearly some people are quite comfortable with attacking a fellow forum member's character without presenting any factual support to the table. I guess that is the nature of internet forums these days. And clearly when called on it the same folks go on the attack.

 

so you're just not going to bother reading anything against your position while at the same time feigning indignance. embarrassing.

 

It is interesting. Back when CD's first came out, they took the record masters and digitized them for CD, mostly they were technically perfect, accurate and all that, I couldn't listen to them. The cassette had already put vinyl in its grave. No digital out's, just RCA's fed by crappy DAC's of the day.

Neil is correct here. Now days most everything is 24-bit digitally mastered and has been for some years.

I wonder, is there anything gained by taking an original digital file and dumping it to vinyl, I have absolutely no idea?

Does the act of placing digital media on a vinyl format result in sweeter sounding music, than the same thing on CD? Less HF and LF than can be had on the CD? Less dynamic range? Will this make it sound better? Perhaps it is the turntable, cartridge, etc...?

From this POV, it does indeed sound like a fashion statement. What is to be gained here, except that perhaps, limiting the sounds to what records record's can reproduce might be musically pleasing to our ears and more importantly, out brains. Again, I do not know, just wondering.

I also don't get this obsession to remaster for 24/192? While I do understand that some material, that perhaps was not mastered well to begin with but everything surely does not require remastering as it should already be quality mastered at 24/192. I can understand to recut a new master and to produce audiophile collectors quality records that might have some TLC that the mass produced originals did not.

That being said, I don't get the idea that I am paying more than a modest fee to get a copy of the digital master file, as opposed to one that has been down sampled to redbook. What am I missing here?

I can see investing in a collector's audiophile record, I can see where the expense is here.

I see ZERO expense in upgrading a digital file.

Why do we need new music services to download HD files? I would have figured that with the better technology that we have today. People who have downloaded lower resolution files in the past and have a large collection of digital music, would be able to back to Amazon or iTunes or wherever and pay an upgrade fee of say $2.00 per-album or 25-cents per-song, and redownload their music at a higher resolution.

That is what I thought would happen.

 

Whose credibility are you attacking? A fellow forum member's credibility. Am I the bad guy for pointing that out? Would you be cool with it if it were you instead of MF? But....since the rest of your post is about audio let's move on and address your points.

Here is my perspective on that and then i will move on from that subject. When a group of people have a consensus of opinion that carries a great deal of conviction but can't between any of them cite one example, not ONE example in support. It has the distinct smell of prejudice mixed with Bull****. When I call people out on their pseudoscience (and I have done it several times including twice on this thread) I don't have to spend anytime looking it up. I already know specifically why I am making the claim. But anyhoo....let's talk about vinyl, digital and accuracy. Since that is where you went in this post and that is much more interesting a subject.

1. the ultimate goal is whatever either a consumer or a maker of audio products decides it is for themselves. For some "accuracy" seems to be the ultimate goal. IMO that goal is fools gold due to the nature of audio recording and playback. For me the ultimate goal is to get the most aesthetically pleasing system and the most aesthetically pleasing versions of my chosen recordings for that system. So why is it ok to make so many excuses for vinyl? Because IME to achieve my goal not only do I need to have vinyl playback as a part of my system along with digital, it needs to be the focus since most of my chosen recordings are much better served aesthetically with one or more of the commercial releases on vinyl.

Well, let's address the veracity of those claims first.

1. If you are hearing audible rumble it is a shortcoming in the design of the specific turntable. Many modern designs including the one I own has reduced rumble to the level of complete inaudibility. So if we are talking about vinyl at it's practical best then rumble is not an issue.

2. If you are hearing hiss then you are listening to an analog recording that has had the hiss come through on the transfer. The claim that the microphones did not pick it up while accurate is misleading. The tape machine certainly did add it and it should be on any digital transfer as well if the transfer was "accurate." So that is not an issue either.

3. Surface noise. Again surface noise is very gear and pressing dependent. At it's best vinyl surface noise is only audible when cranked up and the stylus is tracking blank grooves. When music is actually playing on a clean well pressed record on a SOTA TT rig surface noise is at worst barely barly audible if you are really trying to listen for it during the most quite passages, maybe. But there is a plus side to that same surface noise as it causes a euphonic distortion that adds a sense of room ambience to the playback and increases the percieved size of the soundstage and dimensionality of the imaging on that soundstage. That is a plus if one likes an aural image that is closer to real life.

What is and is not "desirable" is subjective and personal. The rumble and hiss are non issues as explained. For me personally, the surface noise at the right levels is quite desirable since I do prefer the aesthetic experience of more hall ambience, bigger sound stages that more closely mimic the real thing and a more dimensional presentation. But I will not speak for what others find desirable.

He is painting with an overly broad brush and making a lot of assumptions. Neither he nor any of us can speak for the intentions of the many artists/musicians/ composers etc etc unless we speak directly to them on the subject. I have done so on many occasions and I find their intentions to be far more diverse and complex than what is presented in this argument. It doesn't take a lot of research to find out that these makers of music are just as divided on this subject as are audiophiles. Chasing artists' intentions is IMO also fools gold. 1. you probably don't know those intentions. 2. who cares what their intentions were? Do I serve them or do they serve me?

That may be the issue for him and for you. The issue for me is as stated above. What sounds better to my ears. And I suspect that is also the issue for Michael Fremer.

 

dude put a cork in it. You are way out of line here. Are you psychic now? You know what I have and have not read?

 

The unsupported attacks on a fellow forum member's credibility

 

you flat out lied when I showed you specifically what I was talking about and I'm the one who's out of line huh

 

Why does Scott always have to turn it up to 11?

 

Dude, I did not lie. Go back and read post 492. My response to *THAT* was to ask for examples of ***THOSE CLAIMS IN POST 492. **YOU** responded to that. So unless you lack the cognitive skills to follow a conversation it should be pretty clear what went down. Again you are way out of line here. I am not lying about anything.

 

I'm cranking it up to 11? How would you respond to being called a liar?

 

yet there is no mention of "pseudo science" in post 492. so if you're not lying, what are you doing

 

I found this comment from Art Garfunkel, taken from a recent interview, very amusing:

Columbia just released a complete album collection with that other guy. They’re putting all our stuff out on vinyl. Six records. It’s so beautiful. You hold the set in your hands and you want to buy more copies. I called the label and told them to send me more stuff. It’s so buyable. God, we all miss vinyl. We forgot how great it is. It’s so pretty to hold this square with a round record inside of it. There are six of them in this collection. Maybe we can help vinyl come back. This one Columbia set might be a little brick in the edifice. I want to see vinyl happen. That’s what Paul and I and Roy Halee did. We made vinyl records in the ‘60s. That’s my claim to fame...

He never speaks about vinyl being analog, or being technically superior to modern formats - and because of that I think he actually nails it where Neil (and so many audiophiles on this board and elsewhere) are completely in the dark over the renewed popularity of vinyl as a format.

If you don't see the point in vinyl unless it's all-analog, then all I can say is yes - you don't see the point.

 

I was sort of under the impression that this part of the forum, which is clearly labeled "Audio Hardware" would be the part to discuss engineering aspects of audio, while the "Music Corner" would be the correct to discuss music in all its forms per-say.

Since the Music Corner seems to have almost 5x the number of threads that the Audio Hardware forum has, it appears to me that the web site is in no danger of loosing its intended focus and features the best of both worlds.

A little less snake oil and p*ssing contests are always welcome omissions anywhere.

 

It's a shame I can only like this post once!

also I just want to point out, the Hatfields and McCoys ain't got nothing on audiophiles.

 

Seriously? Here is a cut and paste of post #492

↑
I've read several of his articles and website. It has so much psuedoscience it would make a homeopath practitioner blush.
Mikey loves the science when it supports his ranting, but if there's something scientific which calls into question the supposed superiority of vinyl and works in favor of digital, suddenly science isn't the be all and end all and vinyl now exhibits this mysterious "otherness" which science can't hope to capture ...... so he has his bases covered to make sure he wins either way.

I always look at an audience and think, "You can do this you idiots, don't be so pathetic." - Brian Eno


Here is is again with a little help for you since you can't seem to find the magic word

↑
I've read several of his articles and website. It has so much psuedoscience it would make a homeopath practitioner blush.
Mikey loves the science when it supports his ranting, but if there's something scientific which calls into question the supposed superiority of vinyl and works in favor of digital, suddenly science isn't the be all and end all and vinyl now exhibits this mysterious "otherness" which science can't hope to capture ...... so he has his bases covered to make sure he wins either way.

I always look at an audience and think, "You can do this you idiots, don't be so pathetic." - Brian Eno

 

um, that's the quoted post. post 492 actually says:

"Mikey loves the science when it supports his ranting, but if there's something scientific which calls into question the supposed superiority of vinyl and works in favor of digital, suddenly science isn't the be all and end all and vinyl now exhibits this mysterious "otherness" which science can't hope to capture ...... so he has his bases covered to make sure he wins either way."

are you new to the internet

 

Personally I don´t think Mr Fremer is that much different guy than most. He uses rationalities for his beliefs and stands, so do most of us.

 

Again, if you lack the cognitive skills to follow a conversation or read the quoted text in a post that is your problem not mine.

 

and now you're talking in circles. punch out, maverick

 

I've been enjoying forcefully arguing my side in the debate but hopefully I've been civil and paying attention to counter-arguments. There was a developing riff across several posts criticizing Fremer's approach and standards and I mostly like Fremer's approach.

But this discussion is about a billion miles away from something worth getting pissed off about. Please chill everybody.

 

A billion miles? Please, show me where I ever said it was a billion miles. You can't, because I didn't. If you can't even properly represent how many miles this is from something worth getting pissed off about, I don't think you should be telling me I should chill. You're way out of line here.

 

Mikey is a huge pain in the rear. He's highly intelligent, sees vinyl and other forms of audiophile treatments and speaks his mind regardless of what anyone else might think. He's passionate and knows what he likes, explains why and understands vinyl and the hardware mediums quite well.

We need him around, and I would go so far to say we need more of him. Anyone worth the passion he provides or sells is not very much different than you or I.

His effect on the industry is needed, and his bravery and tenacity has made a huge change to the modern way audiophiles engage and buy.

Opinionated nuts like him, I applaud and welcome most of all. He has a strong skin. It's good for everyone.

 

agreed on all counts. I love the Fremer even if I can spot his occasionally glaring inconsistencies.

 

Very true, Sir! Eloquently spoken.