Michael Fremer on Audio

[Andre Marc]

I'm sorry but I don't put much stock in these "listening panel" reports seriously. And I can give you just as many other recording engineers who found the opposite result.

Nor do my listening experiences agree.

I am only communicating what Ludwig found through his own devices.

I always say that the best medium is the original medium..so if it is originally an analog recording the correctly produced
LP might be best, and if it is a DSD recording, SACD will be best, and if it is a higher resolution PCM recording, the download
will probably be best. Those who pay big money for LPs mastered off of digital masters really puzzle me.

 

[NorthStar]

---Mmmm... And some of my CDs I can hear the clicks and pops from the turntable (older and bad ones of course); like Led Zeppelin for example.

Myles; how much ($) is all of that that cannot be embarrassed with the Master tapes?
And did you yourself compared with pure DSD, high-res PCM, and dubs (tapes)?

And Mykey, what does he have to say 'bout that?

Bruce?

 

[puroagave]

Cd kicks vinyls ass in the measurement dept. no contest. but there's definately something missing with digital--that cant be measured--relating to the recreation of a recording's spatial cues and the sense of the recorded venue's character, i.e its size, the extent to to which its dead or reverberant - it all comes through better over vinyl (analog). i witnessed it time and again at audio shows. i've heard back to back demos with cd/vinyl and most eveyone gets it but then again you have to account for the fact we all hear differently.

im a total dsd/hirez convert but I still love my vinyl.

 

[NorthStar]

---It is similar to tubes versus solid state.

...Or an analog guitar pedal versus a digital one, or the guitar's amp itself (tube or solid state guitar amp).

What's Best? Whatever rocks our boats in the most pleasurable way. :b
Can it be both? Of course, but no multichannel and Digital EQ room correction with LPs.
Or unless ... many complications, inferior sound quality, and with tons of money to waste! :b

Me, I think that the only thing going for LPs (only the good ones of course, not most of the crappy stuff out there), is HEART. Good LPs have heart.
...And some of them turntables simply look GORGEOUS!

The ritual? Good, and Bad also. We all have our limits; in time, in space, and in temper.

 

[microstrip]

I can tell you that Bob Ludwig, who has heard literally 10,000 master tapes said that in extensive testing he did with a panel, LP came in dead last when compared.

DSD was first, High bit depth/sample rate PCM was second, and a tape dub was third.
(...)

Andre,

Can you point to an accessible site that transcribes this statement of Bob? Unless we know exactly in what conditions the listening panel took such position and what were their priorities in sound evaluation such statements are just nice sentences to fuel a fire.

 

[rockitman]

Cd kicks vinyls ass in the measurement dept. no contest. but there's definately something missing with digital--that cant be measured--relating to the recreation of a recording's spatial cues and the sense of the recorded venue's character, i.e its size, the extent to to which its dead or reverberant - it all comes through better over vinyl (analog). i witnessed it time and again at audio shows. i've heard back to back demos with cd/vinyl and most eveyone gets it but then again you have to account for the fact we all hear differently.

im a total dsd/hirez convert but I still love my vinyl.

well said !

 

[microstrip]

(...) Those who pay big money for LPs mastered off of digital masters really puzzle me.

Just consider some one who owns a great vinyl playing system and a just reasonable music server. Most probably he will get much better sound quality and surely much more listening pleasure from the vinyl.

 

[Gregadd]

A properly cleaned record will not have "Ticks and Pops." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZmRy3cbFjw
Niether vinyl nor digital is a straght through propsition . Both have to be manipulated to recreate real music as best as possible. The question is what is loss and how it effects our lisitening perception. Indeed not only is thier loss in mp3 but some distortions are additive. The contrast is that MP3 is intentional loss with no regard to muscial degradation.

 

[Andre Marc]

Andre,

Can you point to an accessible site that transcribes this statement of Bob? Unless we know exactly in what conditions the listening panel took such position and what were their priorities in sound evaluation such statements are just nice sentences to fuel a fire.

I saw him describing the listening panel in a video..which is no longer online..they were listening IN THE STUDIO to the master, then the other formats.

Here is a link to another interview where he says something almost identical.

http://www.musictap.net/Interviews/LudwigBobInterview.html

The whole interview is excellent.

 

[NorthStar]

Cd kicks vinyls ass in the measurement dept. no contest. but there's definately something missing with digital--that cant be measured--relating to the recreation of a recording's spatial cues and the sense of the recorded venue's character, i.e its size, the extent to to which its dead or reverberant - it all comes through better over vinyl (analog). i witnessed it time and again at audio shows. i've heard back to back demos with cd/vinyl and most eveyone gets it but then again you have to account for the fact we all hear differently.

im a total dsd/hirez convert but I still love my vinyl.

-----Could that be some side effects from LP's associated sound imperfections and restrictions?
...And that we simply love to love? ...Reverbs? From the cartridge? ..Sense of space? From the tonearm? ...Speed? ...Tangential angle? ...Direct weight and tracking angle (of the stylus attached to the cartridge) penetrating the album's grooves? ....

 

[Gregadd]

Perhaps I'm having difficulty communicating, there seems to be a rash of people misunderstanding what I say. I'll stick with my original statement: "Vinyl IS the equivalent of MP3. Vinyl is inherently a lossy system." As mp3 does not have the technical capabilities of wav which is at least in theory adequate for recording all music to the limits of resolution and range of human hearing in both frequency and amplitude, vinyl does not have the technical capabilities of the master analog tape from which it was made. BTW the master tape recorder does not have adequate capabilities for recording all music without a lot of help, not just massive equalization but Dolby A and in extreme cases peak limiting. So vinyl is a loss from the master tape signal just as mp3 is a loss from the wav file. There are lossless recordings on vinyl and those are direct to disc but they are not only few and far between, they still have all of the same technical limitations inherent in vinyl.

Here's a question, could you burn a cd that is audibly indistinguishable from any vinyl played on any phonograph with consumer grade CD equipment? How about with laboratory grade CD equipment? My hunch is that with consumer grade equipment you could come awfully close, in lab conditions it could be made indistinguishable with RBCD techology. Can you do the reverse, make a vinyl that is indistinguishable from any arbitrary CD? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

For that matter sound recording is a l"ossy" system. But the term lossy has a specific meaning. It ia technical term not adaptable to hoiw you use it here.
You argue that digtal recortding requires no help? lol.
A term like "my hunch" is not subject to argument. Why would I would want to make vinyl sound like CD?

 

[Gregadd]

you were playing to your faithful audience terryj

He clearly suggests that he was demonstrating a vinyl rig to a neophyte. How could that possibly be considered his faithful. I raely see any reviewer subject to the attacks Fremer gets. That includes your attcks above.

 

[microstrip]

I saw him describing the listening panel in a video..which is no longer online..they were listening IN THE STUDIO to the master, then the other formats.

Here is a link to another interview where he says something almost identical.

http://www.musictap.net/Interviews/LudwigBobInterview.html

Thanks - very interesting interview. But it does not address your main point - the results of a listening panel. And it has a strange sentence "Finally, the high resolution digital is always better than analog from a technical specification and, while not always, it can even sound better to our ears. I’m still a great believer in the use of tube gear and analog!"

Why not always?

 

[NorthStar]

For that matter sound recording is a l"ossy" system. But the term lossy has a specific meaning. It ia technical term not adaptable to hoiw you use it here.
You argue that digtal recortding requires no help? lol.
A term like "my hunch" is not subject to argument.
Why would I would want to make vinyl sound like CD?

-----...For more dynamic range, better signal-to-noise ratio, and less overall distortion?

 

[puroagave]

-----Could that be some side effects from LP's associated sound imperfections and restrictions?
...And that we simply love to love? ...Reverbs? From the cartridge? ..Sense of space? From the tonearm? ...Speed? ...Tangential angle? ...Direct weight and tracking angle (of the stylus attached to the cartridge) penetrating the album's grooves? ....

thats a question for the tapeheads who can do a three way comparo between all formats. if i had to quess, the difference is some sort of quantization error that dithers away needed information (digital). inspite of vinyls archaic spec sheet, subtle recording cues are not lost or treated like thrown away 'bits' as it were.

 

[Gregadd]

I have found LP to be silent, dynamic and distrotion free.

 

[NorthStar]

thats a question for the tapeheads who can do a three way comparo between all formats. if i had to quess, the difference is some sort of quantization error that dithers away needed information (digital). inspite of vinyls archaic spec sheet, subtle recording cues are not lost or treated like thrown away 'bits' as it were.

-----But SACDs (DSD with the 0s and 1s inside the pits) sound pretty good to my set of ears, and with all the sense of space, venue's size, directional cues, musicians' positions, vocal's details including humming, holographic soundstage, width, height, accurate tone of the instruments, and all that high res jazz one can wish for.
...I think. :b

 

[NorthStar]

I have found LP to be silent, dynamic and distrotion free.

-----I also found the same, but to a further extent, with CDs (SACDs too). :b

* You're just in Stereo here right? ...Or do you use Dolby Digital Pro Logic II Music audio mode sometimes?

 

[mep]

Perhaps I'm having difficulty communicating, there seems to be a rash of people misunderstanding what I say.

I don't agree. I think there is some people including me who realized some of the statements you made were factually flawed. And again, I understand you don't like vinyl and you want to pan it. What I don't understand is the statement you made about hearing the same recording via CD and a turntable and hearing no difference between the two. How could that be? How do you explain that?

 

[Bruce B]

The whole interview is excellent.

Is this the one done over 10yr. ago?

If it is, technology has come a long way... even in the past 2yr. For me, master tape and dubs win hands down, though I have heard vinyl come extremely close.
We did recordings at RMAF of master tapes into DSD128fs. They too were close, but definitely a different sound and only distinguishable by doing an A/B comparison. Listening on its own you couldn't tell if it was tape or digital. Well at least I couldn't under those circumstances.