Anyone else see this?? I don't get it there very well may not be an analog master tape been recording in digital since the 80's
Rob
https://www.washingtonpost.com/music...gital-scandal/
Anyone else see this?? I don't get it there very well may not be an analog master tape been recording in digital since the 80's
Rob
https://www.washingtonpost.com/music...gital-scandal/
"I could be arguing in my spare time"
The article is typical of the Washington Post; thorough, well researched, and well written. The only error I spotted came early; Michael Fremer is not "the dean of audiophile writing". He is the most prominent cheerleader for vinyl, but that's about it. I have always tried to keep any conversations with him brief. He is not a bad guy but I don't share many if any views with him, and I would not enjoy needlessly aggravating him. I do wish his frame of reference was that vinyl sounds great to him, rather than endlessly claiming it to be technically superior to digital.
As For Mobile Fidelity, the only issue I (and many other) listeners had with it was that for years and years they remixed everything they released and those remasters sounded not only very different but aesthetically (not technically) a step or two down from the original masters. As an example, Mobile's initial releases of Patricia Barber titles did the brilliant Jim Anderson's work no favors.
And as for the core issues with this dust-up, I long ago decided to just nod in agreement or refrain from comment when faced in person with the usual audiophile preference for euphonic music reproduction. An industry having to hide that it employs DSD to keep its customers does not say great things about the decisions audiophiles make.
Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears
Yep, a friend sent me the link yesterday. Interesting.
I am not really a fan of MoFi. I have a few of their vinyl discs that I bought back in the '70s, but wasn't that thrilled with the Stan Ricker EQ curve. I was blown away by how good the original UHQR discs were, but couldn't afford them at the time. When they started selling CDs, I really didn't see the point.
I have mentioned this before, but for anyone who is interested in another person's opinions; in recent years as my system (both the analog and digital portions) has gotten better and better, I have found it very interesting to compare digital files, digital remasters, various pressings, etc. For the albums that I really enjoy, I have found I prefer this digital file of album A and that analog pressing of album B. Until I had a super digital front end, I generally preferred vinyl in spite of the inherent short comings. I also thought most early CDs sounded worse than the original vinyl albums. I no longer feel that those blanket statements are correct.
Widget
+1
I have only met him once years ago at a trade show. We spent some time together in a side room and I was struck by how wide the gulf was between his beliefs and my own. I had thought that his public written stances may have been just that, but no, he really drinks the Kool-Aid.
I think I agree with you here when you are applauding the fun in listening rather than the quote above where you are against the desire for euphonic reproduction.
Fun and joy are always good. If a twelve foot tower of PA speakers brings you joy, right on... if a simple amp with headphones brings you joy, right on as well.
Adding to the “fun is right” stance and referencing back to my earlier comment on the wide range of sound quality found on different discs or digital streams. I have a number of copies of the Dire Straits album, Brothers in Arms. I have a very early CD that I bought in the mid-80s, a remastered CD from some point in the 90s, as well as a couple of “audiophile ” vinyl pressings of the album.
This album was originally digitally recorded so the only reasons to listen to an analog version are curiosity or your digital playback chain isn’t as good as your analog playback or your analog playback colors the sound in a pleasing way. In my system there is no longer very much difference between the analog and the original CD, however the remastered CD from the ‘90s has significantly more compression and sounds much louder and more powerful. Sometimes I prefer it and other times I don’t.
Widget
As far as I can tell, nobody complained about the digital files until the Mobile Fidelity guys told us about them.
I am always happy when music brings joy to any listener. Perhaps I am being nostalgic about what the word audiophile means, and I realize everyone seems to have their favorite distortion when it comes to playback, but if one is going to call themselves or consider themselves an audiophile, seeking veritas of some sort vis a vis the original recording is surely implied. You might say it's all in a name. When someone tells me they want some tubes in the chain to "settle it down" or "take the sharp edges off" or similar remarks (not that it would, but that is the popular perception), telling me they want the Kodachrome not the Ektachrome version, I get it. But you're no audiophile, Bud. It's like tube mikes. They are used because the version of the music they deliver pleases someone, sounds better to them. Better and accurate are not the same words.
I said nostalgic because today the term audiophile to many means music lovers who engage in a form of idiocy, not truth seeker. Going to shows is not the fun it used to be. So many Michael Fremers, so few Todd Garfinkles.
Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears
I'm a dinosaur I still believe in Hi-Fi definitely not into euphoric sound. I want what's on the recording and I know my system is correct when every track is different. When I can hear the track to track changes or changes in the same track it's all good.
Rob
"I could be arguing in my spare time"
If you have a read of the time line below is quite revealing as to how such controversy can live inside the recording process.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_recording
Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears
You can count me in as a fellow dinosaur.
For over 50 years I have gone to great lengths to try to recreate what the engineer put down on the record or CD. I've given up on trying to accurately recreate what the musician(s) created in a live space as I no longer think that is achievable, but I do want to try to hear what they intended the record to sound like.
But I do have to keep reminding myself that that is my personal goal. I regret that a number of years ago I ridiculed a fellow forum member for loving his "terribly flawed" Altec A7-500s. At the time I didn't realize how foolish it was for me to suggest there was something inherently "wrong" with them. Today I realize that if the sound makes your feet tap and your heart race, then it doesn't matter if it is a 4.5" "full-range" speaker or a 1940's theater speaker with a roller coaster frequency response plot, or anything else.
Widget
Remember Soundcraftsman Graphic Equalisers? That was back when Crown had one page advertisements for the DC300A.
Fun times.
Hi Clark,
This is a long post so grab a coffee.
I think taking a word like audiophile needs some sensitivity and best not to generalise too much.
A puritan on sound reproduction can still be an audiophile by definition. See below.
From a Google search blah blah 😑
What is considered an audiophile?
Audiophiles are an exceptional breed of people who are fascinated by pure audio, motivated by sound quality and addicted to audio gadgets. Audiophiles take their passion for music one step further. They're curious about how songs are recorded and the science behind how sounds are reproduced.
https://www.sony.ca/en/electronics/f...-an-audiophile
From the Oxford dictionary
audiophile
/ˈɔːdɪə(ʊ)fʌɪl/
Learn to pronounce
nounINFORMAL
a hi-fi enthusiast.
"it puts professional studio sound within the reach of the audiophile"
If l was asked was l an audiophile l would say Yes and more or less be describing one of the above definitions. I don’t see any reference to distortion in any of those definitions. Glad we got that out of the way….Lol.
On the topic of equipment let’s be pragmatic.
Sometimes when you mix up different brands of hifi equipment some components like loudspeakers might be very clinical, sterile and dry. That’s a fact. So to make it liveable and enjoyable to listen to the advice given by the hifi shop and rightfully so is try a warmer sounding amplifier or Dac. That’s common sense. Not all valve equipment has a valve sound either. Interesting. I think it’s a smart thing do. I advise on the capacitors in some loudspeaker crossover networks because if the multi way loudspeakers are clinical it can be a problem subjectively. Fact.
When people talk about this stuff it’s really a problem solving exercise. At the end of the day you have got to be able to live it. Otherwise how can you enjoy it. The human Ear is the final arbiter. It always has been and it always will be. We all interpret sounds differently too which is another topic in its own right.
Incidentally there is now a whole category of headfi with a-z of headphones types that all have their own take on sound quality and tonal balance. Some people have several sets of headphones and head amps. Why is this so? Perhaps there is no one right answer. Nothing is perfect. Apparently…Lol.
In the pro sound recording space mastering engineers often use equipment like in the link below.
https://abbeyroadinstitute.nl/blog/d...he-pultec/amp/
They love Rupert Neve equipment because it has the Neve Sound. Are they all idiots ? No they are not. That’s an industry standard. Everything the signal path runs through is going to put its footprint on the sound in someway. That’s a Fact. A Midas desk is going to sound different from an API desk. It’s how it is.
In summary if most commercial recordings weren’t given such careful treatment it’s possible you would be less satisfied with your listening experience than you are.
But why is it necessary? Technically the problem is this. As an example l used to listen to quartet at my father in laws Christmas parties and go wow 🤩. It was pretty amazing. But the problem arises when you try and record it. Yup you have to use limiters, compression and EQ on everything to fit in the capabilities of the recording process and the equipment and the acoustics. That’s a Fact. Then the recording has to be suitable to be played back through consumer audio equipment without blowing it up. That’s the role of the mastering engineer.
This is normal no matter what your listening to unless it’s a private recording. I have listened to private recordings without treatment and more often than not it’s very disappointing! The notion that a recording exists that is a pure and untouched is just nonsense.
In the end as long as your happy with what you hear that’s all that matters and that’s what the whole scene is all about. When you take a deeper dive into things there’s no mystic or ambiguity about it at all. It’s just the way things work.
Not everyone will agree with the means but that does not mean someone or everyone else is wrong.
As long as no one gets hurt that’s the important thing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)