Quote from: krabapple on I've been a Gizmodo reader for a while, but all their recent "articles" all tagged with 'Gizmodo Listening Test', lol about expensive audio gear are starting to get bothersome.
This one about Fremer made me realize the guys at Gizmodo really have no interest in objective criticism. They just want to put as many dollar signs under as many pictures of turntables and amps as possible. I skimmed a few pages of comments, it's nice to see a few smart people in there trying to call thir BS.
Last Edit : by skelly I don't think it's that bad. If you want to listen to music from decades ago, you will find much of the time; not all that a copy of the original vinyl pressing will sound better than a modern remastered CD of the same material. I know the article was trying to say more than that i.
So it's typical journalistic sloppiness, and probably getting carried away in the moment. Does anyone think CDs as actually sold, rather than as theoretically possible sound that good in the pop world in ? Where the article is really wrong is in the last paragraph Quote from: 2Bdecided on Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on Last Edit : by krabapple.
Quote from: Bodhi on Quote from: Ron Jones on Quote from: 2tec on This might finally give some insight to their objection to blind listening tests. If they are not allowed to use their third eye during a test, it must be seriously flawed! For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding. You are using an out of date browser.
It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser. Gizmodo - Why we need audiophiles. Thread starter nirvanaxp Start date Apr 16, I think vinyl sounds more like live, that's why I buy it. For music I only have on CD, I listen and enjoy it. Now, I sometimes listen to the CD dubs for convenience, but after a couple hours, I want to go back to the records.
Original UK is top-notch as well. Everything got brighter as we went on. I was going to ask you why the Speakers Corner version was not on your list, but I just checked and it appears to be out of print or at least not listed at dealers and the price on Discogs is high. I didn't know the tapes were lost, but it makes me wonder about their source, remastered I swing both ways, with music, that is. Hey Mikey, why do you lower yourself to even acknowledge this guy and his writing?
I thought you hated digital audio or are you just kissing Neil Young's ass. As a music lover, I love analog but welcome digital being presented at it's very best to the masses. I would think Michael also thinks along similar lines. That is exactly what I was saying right above. To just write it of as inferior to be worthy of one's golden ears is short sided. I applaud any effort to get better sound and appreciate many manufacturers are focusing on getting the best out of any format, CDs, high rez files, vinyl, whatever.
It all ends up in the same place Neil Young has bags of money, crates of fame. He has had, and continues to have a great deal of influence on his peers, and on the generations of musicians who have followed him. When he dies, he will leave an indelible footprint among us: we will be listening to the music of Neil Young for a long, long time.
Moreover, he is a man of social conscience, and a quiet philanthropist. Neil Young has no need what-so-ever to agitate about the quality of recorded music. But he does. Not because he has anything to gain — consider all the spite and bile that has been hurled at him over Pono alone — but because he cares about how music sounds.
They are not scientific or mathematical; they cannot be measured. They are things that speak to the human spirit, to our hearts and to our souls. Thank you Neil.
And thank you Michael Fremer. Certainly I know this. I use the best DAC available and have even won many best of shows at trade shows. In my latest review, the reviewer also says that he previously did not hear any difference between FLAC and wav and now he can:. As for Neil Youngs push to get better sound to the masses, I think this is wonderful and I appreciate any effort like this.
However I was surprised to see a kickstarter campaign for this given the wealth of Mr. Young, and the hardware focus of the campaign. The hardware development was not needed IMO, only the motivation for recording studios to record in hi-res with minimum compression, and more outlets to download this music at relatively low cost.
We already have portable players that support , but not from the big players. We already have HDtracks and other outlets for downloading, so this is actually nothing new. Pono actually creates no new technology that I can determine, but it claims to deliver something new and innovative and under a brand name Pono, which evidently has some licensing arrangement.
Maybe it took the hardware component to get people to open up their wallets and their minds. The thing to do to really get acceptance of this technology is to get Apple to support Am I totally off-base here? The real problem is what the recording studios are putting out. If Pono is what it takes to change this, then I applaud the effort. Eliminating compression and other EQ from recordings is just as important if not more important. Using digital mastering gear that adds no coloration is also critical.
The best recordings are still mixed with an analog console IME. Also, if one were to deliver a standard for attaching metadata to. This is what happens in most recording studios. There is no need for compressed formats anymore, now that memory is so cheap. Its too bad that Pono does not address these other really more important issues.
Thanks for the link. It seems that Amarra is the issue. Again, the difference you hear are because of the software you use and not because of FLAC as a format. You should try comparing the two with a properly setup Linux player that uses the FLAC codec from here:. They all sound different. Even AIFF, which is essentially wav sounds bad. You are correct, the differences with the Antipodes server I have used, which is Linux-based, are not audible.
One reason why I recommend it, besides sounding great. Shitty codecs in Windows? Badly written applications iTunes? Less than optimized memory and CPU utilization? Lower CPU priority when playing compressed formats? And many other issues. Thanks for posting that essay. It comports so exactly with my experience that I was very interested to read it. I have always suspected that the brain made use of those frequencies, and I am one of those people whose listening stopped entirely well, I made my own music and heard lots of live music but stopped listening to recordings during the CD era.
I feel claustrophobic listening to Just feels like somehow the whole world is right in front of your eyes after a while. Anyway, thanks for letting me know that there's some science behind what I've long suspected! Having read all the comments here I once again ponder the thinking of the sons of I understand that perfect sound forever is the kool-aid of choice for the current, presumably young, crop of audiophiles sic who want nothing more than red book.
What I don't understand is their vehement, nearly violent opposition to attempts by others to improve digital recording and playback. If they are right they have nothing to worry about and will die happy and vindicated. If they are wrong and someone manages to produce an irrefutably superior sound they should be as grateful as the rest of us will be. The degree and tone of opposition however is akin to the fanaticism seen in less enlightened areas of life such as religion and politics.
Since no one is attempting to eradicate Also, no comments about why What must be understood is that it is primarily the digital filtering used in DACs with most The difference between a I doubt if Neil Young has heard this effect.
Don't get me wrong. I am all for making more hi-res music available and making the downloads less expensive and faster. Do I use these at shows? Usually not. The other I wish the kickstarter campaign had created subsidies to the record companies to do this. Even better, put them on the cloud and make them play real-time on an iPhone.
Too much to read this evening, I loved the quote from Bob Ludwig. Incredible response Michael. Perhaps it was over the heads of the people "approving" it. Send them another note, try saying Mr. Aguilar doesn't know what he's talking about, and see if they print that. When the Hi-rez stuff sounds worse than the same CD from , it's hard to convince anybody that it's better.
Bad mastering, poor source material, and poor quality control will kill any momentum in Hi-rez's favor. Some of the recent REM stuff felt like was sticking a power drill into my ears.
Fremer, it seems to me that bulk of your argument rests on a single assertion: That ultrasonics play a decisive role in our enjoyment of music, even though we cannot hear them. I am NOT dismissing this idea out of hand - but your evidence is a single study that no one has been able to replicate. So I remain quite skeptical of your foundational claim. But the core of your argument is that it's the ultrasonics themselves that make a difference - an argument I find particularly specious since many lauded high-res music releases have minimal ultrasonic frequencies, and many of them have ultrasonics that based on the waveforms appear to be quite polluted with non-musical information.
They produce time smear and they ring. The time and phase errors are what the brain is most sensitive to. Far more so than amplitude non-linearity. Raising the sampling rate to move the filters much further beyond audibility makes a great deal of sense.
I am now going to publish a Japanese study that makes a very strong case for what I have experienced for decades as a listener. I wasn't able to explain it just observe it. Now there's an explanation Log in or register to post comments Thank You Submitted by mattruben on Thu, Thank you for your reply, much appreciated.
On your first point, we are most definitely in agreement. On your second point, I remain skeptical in the absence of other studies that can repeat the Japanese studies result - but I am keeping an open mind and I hope other studies will be published to shed further light on this issue. Speaking of ultrasonics, but especially on vinyl, I was wondering if it is, or was, or has been a practice in mastering process or of lathe cutters to cut off high frequencies to the transducer. Is it practiced and if so what is the rational or a practical mechanical or other advantage in it, because I can't imagine how it could have a positive effect on the sound.
If someone were mastering a 24bit 44k source to vinyl, I could see why there may not be a much harm in it. But from a higher frequency digital source? From Analog source? Does this happen only in hybrid mastering? I bring this up because I recall someone visiting on this site a few years back, who happened to be mastering from a digital source, saying something about a mechanical problem for a transducer to cut at high frequencies, namely heat, but how much of an issue is this and are frequencies being restricted and to what degree or can the full frequency range be transferred if a lathe has a efficient cooling system?
Shorter question : What is the common or practical high frequency limit for vinyl and do audiophile mastering labs achieve greater extension? Just spent a couple hours in someone's car listening to XM satellite radio. CD is perfect sound forever. Fremer -- You are entitled to your opinions regarding the sound system in my studio, but I would like to point out to your readers that you resolutely refused to occupy the sweet spot at any time during your visit all those years ago, so you have never experienced what the system is capable of.
And I would never have entertained you so cordially had I known you would eventually resort to so much character assassination in the pursuit of your audio mission, or tell quite so many outright lies about what happened there.
This reflects poorly on your character and your integrity. This is a pity, because it was clear to me from my brief experience listening with you that you have very good ears, even though you don't seem to care very much about a scientific approach to audio.
It probably doesn't matter to you, but I would like to remind your other readers that Mr. Moran's and my paper was published in a refereed journal, which means our methods and conclusions were subjected to rigorous challenge by a panel of engineers of good reputation.
The paper has not in fact been debunked; on the contrary, the modest claims we made for it have held up remarkably well. Stuart's recent paper, which he claims refutes our results, relies as one commenter here has noted entirely on the alleged perceptibility of ultrasonic material. My years with cars, motorcycles and guns have left me unable to hear this stuff, if I ever could, so I leave the discussion of whether it is really important to others. But the idea that high-bit audio has audible effects at normal listening levels and frequencies remains unproven, and despite the aspersions you cast on our motives, Mr.
Moran and I tried mightily to discover listeners and material that would reveal them. Double-blind testing is used in audio for two reasons -- it is very revealing of even tiny differences in many aspects of sound, and it allows the experimenter to separate verifiable results from self-deception. In a world where self-deception is held not to exist, there is no reason to use it, I suppose.
Brad Meyer. That is an area where you did go the extra mile. I am not against blind testing. I am against it being used as the end-all be-all of audio evaluation. Resolution wasn't nearly as impressive and as I remember it neither was staging and imaging but many people don't care about those things.
I don't think what I wrote was so much character assassination as it was an observation about what find a confounded set of values. However I do remember that after addressing the BAS in what I thought was a private Society meeting no one told me a transcript would appear in public and speaking freely about my experiences working on TRON, finding out later that the whole thing had in fact appeared on line was in my opinion a lot worse than what I wrote about my experience visiting you—especially seeing such high quality in everything I saw and then encountering a Sony CDP as a reference in whatever year that was.
That still blows my mind having heard so many far superior sounding CD players, whatever the measurements! That I just don't understand As for the study and it's debunking, Bob Stuart's comments were not the only ones Log in or register to post comments My system and your take Submitted by EBradMeyer on Sat, What I meant by "character assassination" was your portrayal of me as someone who took a casual approach to audio and settled for mediocre equipment and sound.
In the process you got many important details wrong and wound up getting me wrong. I'll try to be brief here to avoid boring everyone else.
The room was purpose-built, with framing isolated with acoustic mounts from the outside shell. It's quiet enough to hear the blood in your ears in there, which is very important for hearing fine detail, something I've never seen mentioned or measured -- it takes an expensive sound-level meter in any high-end magazine.
The turntable mechanism was an AR but the rig bore the same resemblance to a stock model as a Shelby GT does to a straight-six Mustang. The platter mass was approximately doubled with an absorbent pad and it was fitted with an ultra-light JH Formula Four tone arm. The cartridge was never wired in mono; the preamp had a stereo mode control, which I had turned to mono for a project.
The speaker cables were not lamp cord but high-quality braided copper gauge, which is all you need a separate discussion, obviously. The speakers were Snell As, but not placed against the wall, where they image poorly.
They were five feet out from the front wall, toed in to aim at the listening chair you refused to occupy. From that vantage point the imaging is incredibly precise horizontally due partly to the cabinets having been placed the same distance from the center of the chair to within a half inch -- very important and at least very good in the depth dimension.
This is one of the most important properties of the system, and one you missed entirely. I used that facility for decades for recording, editing and mastering both classical and folk productions, belying your claim that I am not an audio professional. My clients were generous in their praise of my system and confident that they were hearing an unvarnished presentation of their recordings, which was my goal -- and is different from the holy grail of most audiophiles.
Of course my clients were present at the original performance, unlike high-end reviewers who are trying to "recreate" something they can only imagine.
Anyway, enough. If you think you can easily tell high-bit from CD-quality, I'll set up the test for you. You can bring the music. If you can do it, I won't call you a lucky coin; I'll help you become even more famous. But yea or nay, the results will be published. And even 15 or 14 or You all always get it wrong! I prefer vinyl but not obviously for its dynamics. Vinyl at best will reach maybe 12 or 13 bits dbx discs?
But let's not make fools of ourself by saying something completely wrong Mike!!! Or someone will think that there are stairsteps in our beloved sinewave I want to see that. I've been hearing ad infinitum about CDs having wider dynamic range, blah, blah, blah for years but on so many of the records I listen to and can compare with the same recording on CD, the vinyl record sounds more dynamic. Then people tell me I can't be hearing what I am hearing and round and round we go.
It's amazing how, in this article this guy spins the low bass cutoff on the original pressing of From The Big Pink to support his ridiculous argument. I enjoyed it a lot, the article is well written and has sources. It doesn't need Caps or name calling to point some facts. If it so ridiculous why don't you comment there? Search form Search.
Analog Corner. News News Analog Gear News. Michael Fremer Jan 24, Mario Aguilar, a Gizmodo blogger with a history degree and little if any meaningful audio listening experience, recently posted a story on that site titled "Don't Buy What Neil Young is Selling" in which he condemns Neil Young and his Pono player. Log in or register to post comments.
When I was born I was dropped on my head Submitted by ravenacustic on Sat, Then I became an audio enthusiast and I got a job in the biz too! NOT Submitted by vince on Sat, Not that you need more ammo Submitted by mmarston on Sun, Submitted by Ortofan on Sun, You miss his point Submitted by Michael Fremer on Sun, You beat me to it Submitted by mmarston on Sun, I was going to invoke a variant of Heisenberg. Your point is? You can devise whatever test Submitted by BrianJ on Thu, So, any results of a comparison test that What he is saying is Submitted by isaacrivera on Sun, That's not reasonable to say Submitted by Monkeytree5 on Tue, They are designed to fail Submitted by Werd on Tue, It's lunacy to think your Submitted by ActorCam on Thu, It's Possible Submitted by hnphnp on Thu, Oh, and I fully agree with your commentary not he Pono player.
I did a blind violin test successfully with a pocket radio! Submitted by Jon on Wed, Blind testing isn't that easy. Submitted by Christian Goergen on Thu, Submitted by Michael Fremer on Sun, Ludwig is right Submitted by Avalon on Sun, I need to do some reading up on the theory to help me argue.. Submitted by SimonH on Sun, Filters Submitted by Michael Fremer on Sun, The problem Submitted by Bruggles on Sun, The Internet Submitted by Kurt on Sun, Submitted by Billf on Sun, Submitted by J.
Carter on Sun, Don't get your logic. I don't know Submitted by Michael Fremer on Sun, I'm well aware of that "Ortofan" and having done this for many years I can easily separate out the flatterers from the others.
Richard is from the "others". Long-time Listening vs. I echo that on Vandersteen Submitted by Jazzfan62 on Mon, Who is an idiot here? Submitted by jito63 on Sun, In Mike's line of work Submitted by Wymax on Sun, Why are you here? Submitted by Joe Crowe on Sun, More to the point why are you? Submitted by Lothar on Sun, Thanks again, MF Submitted by johntoste on Sun, This is why we love you.
I read the gizmodo article a couple of weeks ago Submitted by isaacrivera on Sun, Well done Submitted by barrysconspirac After all of this Submitted by kevintomb on Sun, Do I Really? I do acknowledge vinyl's measured shortcomings In audio, as in many things, there are no "certains", and nothing is final or concrete. Most of the time I don't hear them. Most of the time records sound dead-silent and out of that comes a glorious sound closer to live and far more three-dimensional than any CD or really most digital of any kind.
Whatever is creating that illusion is not important to me only that it is created. If vinyl proponents were more Submitted by BrianJ on Thu, I can explain that! Submitted by Werd on Sun, Speed instability? Submitted by mmarston on Mon, Consider the source Submitted by audiotom on Sun, The mantra "enjoy music, tolerate equipment" rings true, and the analog medium, addressed correctly becomes more enjoyment and less toleration I am grateful to Michael for sharing his experiences.
What can I say? Gee kevintomb Submitted by Zardoz on Sun, David, aka Grumpy, needs our help. Great news. David is home! It was quite the ordeal to get him home and into the house, but it is done. Thank you to everyone for their support. Now a long road ahead to get him back on his feet and functioning normally. I have started a GoFundMe to help with the medical bills.
Please help, if you can. Discussion in ' General Audio Discussion ' started by loomis , Apr 15, Log in or Sign up. Messages: Location: Akron, O. Messages: 24, Location: Mid-Maryland. Interesting Article, Thanks for the link. Regards, Jim. Messages: 5,
0コメント