Michael Fremer on Audio

[mep]

I'm confused. Why does it matter if there is headroom above 0 dB on a digital recorder?

Don't be confused Tim. It only matter because Soundminded is trying to pass off fiction as fact. I think he is confusing dynamic range with headroom above 0dB. He stated there is 20dB-30dB more of headroom on a digital recorder above 0dB. It simply isn't true and that is why it matters.

 

[Soundminded]

Don't be confused Tim. It only matter because Soundminded is trying to pass of fiction as fact. I think he is confusing dynamic range with headroom above 0dB. He stated there is 20dB-30dB more of headroom on a digital recorder above 0dB. It simply isn't true and that is why it matters.

I think you missed my point entirely. When you have hit the limit of what an analog tape recorder is capable of, say 50 or 60 db of dynamic range, you've adjusted the gain so that the loudest sounds just reach 0 db on your VU meter and any further increase goes past the liner range of the BH curve for the oxide coating on the tape itself, you'd still have another 20 to 30 db of dynamic range available to you on a digital tape recorder. NO! I did not say you couldn't overload a digital tape recorder, only that you'd have to actually be so careless as to not care or because you wanted to. And some recording engineers actually do want to....with their awful sounding clients whose recordings aspire to be the loudest most ear catching thing on the radio because that's all they have to sell. That's why they deliberatly drive them to clipping. Meanwhile for the first time, engineers who record symphony orchestras, pipe organs, massive choral works finally have a tool that can capture the entire dynamic range of their music without overloading the tape recorder on the high end or losing the signal to the noise floor on the quiet end. And we have inexpensive players that can reproduce those signals with excellent fidelity too. Personally I like the 24 bit 192 khz Toshiba chip. And the players have cost me as little as $30 or less and I can play DVDs on them too.

 

[microstrip]

(...) What it lacks is consistancy of spectral balance. That's most likely because recording studios stopped equalizing their monitor speakers which gave vinyl some sort of consistency, hired recording engineers from the ranks of audiophiles, and when they brought their consumer style high end audio systems into studios for playback, the results are all over the map. That means each recording has to be re-equalized at home to get acceptable results. (...)

I think it must be also something else. I refuse to accept that the sound industry in general is so misguided, and only a few of us know about the truth. The spectral imbalance argument has been used to explain the CDs that were issued using tapes that had been mastered for vinyl production, either by mistake or because the master tape was not available. But these were exceptions, not the general rule.

My belief, surely not shared by everyone, is that the CD format can be better sounding than we generally suppose, and our perception of it is slowly improving as playback equipment is being improved. Also systems and rooms as an whole are becoming more compatible with this format. But it is still a far way from some of the specific best aspects of vinyl and what CD can currently deliver. I wish one day we can refer to CD reproduction in these terms:

"Garth Leerer of Musical Surroundings was DJ-ing analog aboard a Clearaudio table (Aesthetix electronics and Focal Maestro Utopia speakers). He placed an ancient Sheffield direct-to-disc LP of Harry James & His Big Band. Ka-Pow! The blast of brassy, percussive energy seemed to envelope the room in a way that made the system seem extraneous. Whether you were a lover of big band swing or not was no longer the question. We all just stood, gob smacked in amazement at the authenticity and scope of the presentation." (quoted from the Neil Gader RMAF2012 show coverage). I am using this quotation because I got tired of always repeating myself when I refer to this LP.

 

[mep]

First of all, I didn’t miss your point. You were confusing headroom with dynamic range. Second of all, we all know that 16/44.1 has the capability of recording 96dB of dynamic range which should never be confused with the real dynamic range that is actually recorded. How many digital recordings do you own that have a dynamic range above 60dB? Do tell.

 

[Soundminded]

First of all, I didn’t miss your point. You were confusing headroom with dynamic range. Second of all, we all know that 16/44.1 has the capability of recording 96dB of dynamic range which should never be confused with the real dynamic range that is actually recorded. How many digital recordings do you own that have a dynamic range above 60dB? Do tell.

I don't know. I never measured them. How many do you have? If you think you don't have any, how do you know? Did you measure them all? Most pop music has an inherit limit of 10 db of dynamic range. If it doesn't, the recording engineer might just "fix it" so that it does. It plays best on the radio and as background music in supermarkets and elevators that way. According to one music critic/instructor I've read, the softest possible instrument is the clarinet. I'd have guessed the flute. Holst's The Planets has some very soft passages in the last movement Neptune, some very loud ones in Jupiter and Mars. I've got a lot of classical music with very wide dynamic range. Not surprising, one instrument playing PPP at one time, a 100 piece symphony orchestra playing fff at another. Add to it if you like the nearly 400 voices of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and if the situation calls for it some of the more than 8000 pipes in their pipe organ and you've got quite a range of sound levels. Frankly, for what most people call music these days, an mp3 player and ear buds do just fine. It's all they want, it's all they need, it's all their "music" is worth. Small wonder those who sell $150,000 turntables and speakers wonder why they can't attract customers. Personally, I'd rather buy concert tickets with the money. That's where you'll find real music, not a facsimile.

 

[NorthStar]

I think you missed my point entirely. When you have hit the limit of what an analog tape recorder is capable of, say 50 or 60 db of dynamic range, you've adjusted the gain so that the loudest sounds just reach 0 db on your VU meter and any further increase goes past the liner range of the BH curve for the oxide coating on the tape itself, you'd still have another 20 to 30 db of dynamic range available to you on a digital tape recorder. NO! I did not say you couldn't overload a digital tape recorder, only that you'd have to actually be so careless as to not care or because you wanted to. And some recording engineers actually do want to....with their awful sounding clients whose recordings aspire to be the loudest most ear catching thing on the radio because that's all they have to sell. That's why they deliberatly drive them to clipping. Meanwhile for the first time, engineers who record symphony orchestras, pipe organs, massive choral works finally have a tool that can capture the entire dynamic range of their music without overloading the tape recorder on the high end or losing the signal to the noise floor on the quiet end. And we have inexpensive players that can reproduce those signals with excellent fidelity too. Personally I like the 24 bit 192 khz Toshiba chip.
And the players have cost me as little as $30 or less and I can play DVDs on them too.

-----The Sony Playstation 1 cost only $25 (used).
...Class C from Stereophile's Recommended Components (October 2012); same class as the Nuforce CDP-8 ($1,450 MSRP).
...One class above (B) you have the Vincent Audio C-60 for $4,995.95 MSRP.

The new Oppo BDP-103 is a Blu-ray Universal player (plays FLAC, WAV files, and others), has two USB Ports, two HDMI Outs, two HDMI Ins, Digital Coaxial & Optical Outs, plays Hybrid SACDs (Stereo & Multichannel), CDs (even HDCD encoded ones), plays DVD Videos and Audios, plays Blu-rays (of course) with high def video and high res multichannel audio, plays 3D movies, upscales and passes 4K Ultra High Definition video, has tons of streaming video and audio applications, all gold plated jacks including multichannel analog audio outs, acts as a digital preamp (through digital HDMI connections), and many many other things ... It's lightning fast too (loading and playing).
Total MSRP cost: $499 :b

And the Oppo BDP-105 ($1,199 MSRP) can probably hold its own against $20,000 turntables with tonearms, cartridges, phono preamps, LPs' discwashers (for dirty LPs even brand new, and warped ones too), and all the other precise mathematical tools that comes with it!
{The BDP-95, its predecessor, $999 MSRP, is listed as Class A+, also in October 2012 of Stereophile's Recommended Components.}

 

[Gregadd]

This not a didgital v analog thread. It is suppose to be a Fremer thread. How about his opinions on ABX? Or on the WIlson XLF?

 

[Soundminded]

-----The Sony Playstation 1 cost only $25 (used).
...Class C from Stereophile's Recommended Components (October 2012); same class as the Nuforce CDP-8 ($1,450).

The new Oppo BDP-105 is a Blu-ray Universal player (plays FLAC , WAV files), has two USB Ports, two HDMI Outs, two HDMI Ins, Digital Coaxial & Optical Outs, plays Hybrid SACDs (Stereo & Multichannel), CDs (even HDCD encoded ones), plays DVD Videos and Audios, plays Blu-rays (of course) with high def video and high res multichannel audio, plays 3D movies, upscales and passes 4K Ultra High Definition video, has tons of streaming video and audio applications, gold plated jacks including multichannel analog audio, act as a digital preamp (through digital HDMI connections), and many many other things ...
Total MSRP cost: $499. :b

And the Oppo BDP-105 ($1,199) can probably hold its own against $20,000 turntables with tonearms, cartridges, phono preamps, LPs' discwashers (for dirty LPs even brand new, and warped ones too), and all the other precise mathematical tools that comes with it!

Five years ago I needed to replace a CD player for a second system. I couldn't even buy an inexpensive CD player anymore, by then they'd stopped making them. So I bought a Toshiba DVD player instead. I decided to compare it to my JVC ZX431 1 bit 8x oversampling player I'd bought 20 years ago. That player replaced my Denon 1520 high end player and was slightly better than the Denon eliminating the slight trace of metalic sounds the Denon imparted to string instruments, especially violins on some recordings. Earlier CD players were awful in this respect, entirely unacceptable. The Toshiba DVD sounded identical to the JVC model. Not just the sound quality but even the output level was identical. I couldn't tell the difference between them playing duplicates of factory recorded CDs if my life depended on it. What I like about the JVC model is that it is easy to program, easy to cue review fast forward and reverse, and has a remote controlled volume control. So bottom line, BOTH players perform their funciton flawlessly despite using entirely different technologies 16 years apart. Not only are other players that sound different not better, to the extent of their difference to the sound of either of these two players they are defective. IMO a lot of people have foolishly thrown away a lot of money on expensive CD players.

 

[mep]

I don't know. I never measured them.

You made my point. Digital lovers love to talk about how much more dynamic range they have than analog. It’s talked about in such a way that one would believe that all digital recordings are made with at least 96dB of range compared to the ‘pitiful’ 60dB-70dB of dynamic range available on the best tape recorders. I’m convinced that when some of the spec lovers read that CD players have a dynamic range of 96dB they believe that all of their CDs have 96dB of dynamic range which of course is nonsense.

 

[NorthStar]

True Dynamic Range.

1. LPs = 40dB ...Is that 'bout right? Less?
2. CDs = 70dB ...Makes sense? More?
3. SACDs = 90dB ...Possible? Or more?

 

[Soundminded]

You made my point. Digital lovers love to talk about how much more dynamic range they have than analog. It’s talked about in such a way that one would believe that all digital recordings are made with at least 96dB of range compared to the ‘pitiful’ 60dB-70dB of dynamic range available on the best tape recorders. I’m convinced that when some of the spec lovers read that CD players have a dynamic range of 96dB they believe that all of their CDs have 96dB of dynamic range which of course is nonsense.

You're the one who brought up the point that CDs and digital tape recorders have no headroom. You're right they don't. But they don't need any and I've explained exactly why they don't to you. Their dynamic range is more than sufficient to record all music. Analog tape recorders and vinyl recordings aren't. That's why they need dynamic compression and peak limiting. And that's why we care about what happens to the signal when it does overload the tape, how bad does it get and how fast does it get very bad.

I directly compared a recording of Carol Rosenberger playing Water Music on a Bosendorfer Imperial (3 extra keys in the bass to play the Debussy) on CD and vinyl, both on the Delos label. The CD was played on a Toshiba DVD, the vinyl on an Empire 698 with a Shure V15 Type V MR cartridge. Much to my surprise the sound was the same. No audible difference. BTW, the vinyl was in pristine condition. One nice thing about the CD version though is there's a second disc. The vinyl and the CD that are the same have far too much reverberation. The second CD doesn't. I don't recall what's on the second CD but if anyone cares I'll report it if I locate it or you can look it up on Amazon.

 

[NorthStar]

This not a didgital v analog thread. It is suppose to be a Fremer thread. How about his opinions on ABX? Or on the WIlson XLF?

------That is exactly what we're talkin' 'bout. ...Just like if Fremer was with us right now at this exact moment in time & space.
We all know Fremer for years (reading the guy), and we know exactly what he's all 'bout, and luvs to talk 'bout as well.

 

[Gregadd]

We all know Fremer for years (reading the guy), and we know exactly what he's all 'bout, and luvs to talk 'bout as well.

Maybe you do. But based on thier satements many do not.

 

[Soundminded]

So how many of you vinophiles have bought a digital microscope to adjust the rake angle of your phono cartridge stylus to 92 degrees which is what Fremer says you must do to get the best sound from your recordings? Do you think there's a free ap on Android Market?

 

[NorthStar]

-----

 

[mep]

You're the one who brought up the point that CDs and digital tape recorders have no headroom.

Only because you erroneously said they did. I just wanted to set the record straight.

You're right they don't.

I'm glad you agree with me now.

But they don't need any and I've explained exactly why they don't to you. Their dynamic range is more than sufficient to record all music. Analog tape recorders and vinyl recordings aren't. That's why they need dynamic compression and peak limiting. And that's why we care about what happens to the signal when it does overload the tape, how bad does it get and how fast does it get very bad.

Are you a recording engineer? I suspect not based on your earlier comments that were not accurate. I'm not either and don't pretend to be. Again, if you don't peak limit a digital recorder to 0dB, you are going to have a bad day. With analog tape you can overshoot 0dB by anywhere from +3dB to +6dB depending on the tape formulation and your recording won't be ruined.

I directly compared a recording of Carol Rosenberger playing Water Music on a Bosendorfer Imperial (3 extra keys in the bass to play the Debussy) on CD and vinyl, both on the Delos label. The CD was played on a Toshiba DVD, the vinyl on an Empire 698 with a Shure V15 Type V MR cartridge. Much to my surprise the sound was the same. No audible difference. BTW, the vinyl was in pristine condition. One nice thing about the CD version though is there's a second disc. The vinyl and the CD that are the same have far too much reverberation. The second CD doesn't. I don't recall what's on the second CD but if anyone cares I'll report it if I locate it or you can look it up on Amazon.

Interesting. Even though you talk about vinyl as being rubbish compared to CD, now you can hear no difference between a vinyl recording and the same CD.

 

[terryj]

This not a didgital v analog thread. It is suppose to be a Fremer thread. How about his opinions on ABX? Or on the WIlson XLF?

Ahh, so it WAS all that strawman crap about dbts in the first part. Why all the evasion then?

Ok, what about fremer. He's a (offensive word deleted- warning issued). I actually like that he is enthusiastic, but wish he could be a bit intelligent with it as well.

Did he specifically mention wilson xlf? must have missed it, not that I am going back to check.

 

[Soundminded]

Only because you erroneously said they did. I just wanted to set the record straight.



I'm glad you agree with me now.



Are you a recording engineer? I suspect not based on your earlier comments that were not accurate. I'm not either and don't pretend to be. Again, if you don't peak limit a digital recorder to 0dB, you are going to have a bad day. With analog tape you can overshoot 0dB by anywhere from +3dB to +6dB depending on the tape formulation and your recording won't be ruined.



Interesting. Even though you talk about vinyl as being rubbish compared to CD, now you can hear no difference between a vinyl recording and the same CD.

I think you still don't understand what I'm telling you. You put an analog and a digital tape recorder side by side, feed the same signal into both, set the gain so that each is the same level above the noise floor, at the point where the analog recorder runs out of gas, the digital recorder is still at minus 30 db.

On one recording in one setup the digital and analog versions sounded the same. Coincidence? Maybe but I wouldn't count on it most of the time. There will be differences. And because of the fact that analog recordings were made in the way they were in many cases people will like them better. But the technology ain't spit compared to digital technology. It's the way they're used that makes the difference. And when you take an old analog tape that's been hanging around in a warehouse for decades and rip a digital copy from it, it should come as no surprise that the analog vinyl made from it when it was pristine will sound better. For some of the producers of classical music, they've gone back and spent some money and effort to clean up the best recordings in their vaults to improve their sound. But for pop music...why bother? The market doesn't really care so it would be a waste of money. Ear buds and mp3s. That's where most consumer audio is at today. And HT.

 

[microstrip]

So how many of you vinophiles have bought a digital microscope to adjust the rake angle of your phono cartridge stylus to 92 degrees which is what Fremer says you must do to get the best sound from your recordings? Do you think there's a free ap on Android Market?

I bought it after I saw the excellent pictures shown by member Ack in this forum - why forcing my sight to save a few dollars at Ebay?

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?536-The-importance-of-VTA-SRA-and-Azimuth-pics&p=91657&viewfull=1#post91657

 

[Gregadd]

Ahh, so it WAS all that strawman crap about dbts in the first part. Why all the evasion then?

What strawman crap?

Did he specifically mention wilson xlf? must have missed it, not that I am going back to check

If you wont check I wont neither.