Mikey-Beatle Box Analysis
70.95.249.62 |
||
| Posted on October 26, 2009 at 14:42:44 | ||
|
Posts: 601
Location: Left Coast Joined: May 15, 2009 |
Mikey is at it again with the Vinyl Mania. http://www.musicangle.com/album.php?id=781&page=1 He says the original U.K. pressings are "better" than the new Beatle cd sets, minus the surface noise etc. This is contrary to what the engineers have said in multiple interviews in Rolling Stone, British and American Hifi mangazines, and on the web. I'll open the discussion. Any one agree? Disagree?
|
|
| Don't encourage him...(nt), posted on November 2, 2009 at 10:23:10 | |
|
Posts: 15929
Location: SF Bay Area Joined: April 22, 2003 Contributor Since: December 28, 2003 |
(nt)
|
| RE: I will give you credit for this one, Mr. Harbeth., posted on October 31, 2009 at 17:52:35 | |
|
Posts: 601
Location: Left Coast Joined: May 15, 2009 |
Just call me agent provocateur.
|
| they're only the ones that everyone loved in the u.s., posted on October 28, 2009 at 10:10:23 | |
|
Posts: 651
Location: arizona Joined: November 11, 2005 |
they were what 'they were', and we loved them.
|
| so the actual mstering engineer is dogmatic and just plain silly?, posted on October 28, 2009 at 13:12:28 | |
|
Posts: 4001
Joined: January 8, 2002 |
Pretty bold position for some one so far out of position.
|
| RE: Stereo transfers subjected to "some limiting" (compression) to "stand against some of the material today"., posted on October 27, 2009 at 10:17:04 | |
|
Posts: 570
Location: North York, Ontario Joined: June 28, 2009 |
I think this has been discussed to death and it's time to move along. The limiting applied to the stereo remasters is minor at most and does nothing to diminish dynamic range, and these recordings aren't exactly opera in that respect to begin with, and ao even less to diminish enjoyment. Only on the Huffman board would there be any comparison to "loudness wars" style mastering.
|
| RE: Stereo transfers subjected to "some limiting" (compression) to "stand against some of the material today"., posted on October 27, 2009 at 10:22:25 | |
|
Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada Joined: November 22, 2003 |
"The limiting applied to the stereo remasters is minor at most and does nothing to diminish dynamic range, and these recordings aren't exactly opera in that respect to begin with, and ao even less to diminish enjoyment" Well technically that makes little sense as reducing dynamic range is precisely what limiting (compression) does. Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
|
| I saw some scope traces...., posted on October 27, 2009 at 14:59:57 | |
|
Posts: 15929
Location: SF Bay Area Joined: April 22, 2003 Contributor Since: December 28, 2003 |
...of the new stuff and while the remasters are a little louder than the '87s, there is no clipping. As far as I'm concerned, the new remastered stereo CDs sound amazing - almost like hearing the music for the first time.
|
| Good news. nt, posted on October 27, 2009 at 17:41:53 | |
|
Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada Joined: November 22, 2003 |
.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
|
| RE: Stereo transfers subjected to "some limiting" (compression) to "stand against some of the material today"., posted on October 27, 2009 at 13:18:27 | |
|
Posts: 570
Location: North York, Ontario Joined: June 28, 2009 |
Compression does not equal diminished dynamic range. The minimal amount of compression applied in the Beatles remasters can in no way be considered to be such. Dead horse you're flogging here. If you want to get uptight about a word, go for it. I like the remasters and won't get myself worked up about a non-issue.
|
| "I like the remasters ..." I suspect I would like them as well, after all, posted on October 27, 2009 at 13:43:44 | |
|
Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada Joined: November 22, 2003 |
if they're are as good as someone as demanding as Fremer suggests then they're likely the equivalent of a Slam Dunk. I would like to have the mono for much of the earlier stuff however, I find the crude hard left, hard right effects on a lot of early stereo rock/popular stuff (Beatles a typical example) to be distracting.
|
| RE: "I like the remasters ..." I suspect I would like them as well, after all, posted on October 27, 2009 at 15:22:12 | |
|
Posts: 570
Location: North York, Ontario Joined: June 28, 2009 |
I'm with you there, I think the decision to go stereo on the first 3 at least was wrong. The stereo tapes were only made to produce a better mono mix, the vocals all one one side and instruments on the other, with nothing in the middle, is just plain weird. I can't see any problem with what Fremer wrote. He rightly commends the remasters, and goes on having done so to state that he still prefers the vinyl. We know Fremer loves vinyl! What's wrong with liking the digital and also liking the vinyl? If you are a digital guy, that confirms you can buy them with confidence, if you're a vinyl guy, stick with the vinyl and if you want something for the car or for those occasions where the convenience of CD works better, pick 'em up! For the life of me, I can't see where anything Fremer wrote is a problem, and I can't see why vinyl and digital have to be an either-or proposition.
|
| Cool, works for me :), posted on October 27, 2009 at 17:41:04 | |
|
Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada Joined: November 22, 2003 |
Actually I'm a pretty postive digital guy myself. I strive for my two format to be near equals, at least within spitting distance of each other. Works well for me. The odd time when I do a LP/CD shootout, less than you'd think as I don't strive to duplicate material, the LP normally wins but no biggie. I've learned a ferw things while doing so. For example the lush sound on many Capital Sinatra's is obviously something added when equalizing for LP. This seems pretty obvious as Sinatra CDs from masters as so thoroughly different that comparisons are meaningless ... they just ain't the same thing. Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
|
| RE: Yeah I disagree. You might want to check your facts, posted on October 27, 2009 at 09:14:48 | |
|
Posts: 601
Location: Left Coast Joined: May 15, 2009 |
Analog S: That is not what he said in Hifi News, The London Times, Rolling Stone, and 4 other publications.
|
| "That is not what he said in Hifi News, The London Times, Rolling Stone, and 4 other publications. ", posted on October 27, 2009 at 10:46:09 | |
|
Posts: 4001
Joined: January 8, 2002 |
It certainly is what he said in CNN interview. If you have quotes and references that contradict what he clearly said in the CNN interview feel free to post them.
|
| Perhaps you can produce evidence?, posted on October 27, 2009 at 10:00:28 | |||||
|
Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada Joined: November 22, 2003 |
Amongst the publications you mention the only one I could find online was The verdict on The Beatles in Mono and The Beatles Box Set – Remastered in Stereo, from the online version of The London Times, which doesn't contain a single quote from Rouse. On the other hand the atrticle does leave some questions unanswered it seem to me, in particular the question of artistic license (maybe) taken on behalf of the remastering crew?
I dunno, perhaps someone can pull out the LP and inform us if it is features the reverb. --- In any case the author makes it clear that these new remasters leave former CD efforts in the dust. e.g:
Hmmmmm...? I wonder if he ever had the opportunity to hear Dire Straits on a really decent TT (with system to match)? Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
|
||||
| RE: Perhaps you can produce evidence?, posted on October 27, 2009 at 11:13:06 | |
|
Posts: 601
Location: Left Coast Joined: May 15, 2009 |
I was in London a few weeks before the release. Suffice to say in England it was a HUGE deal. Dominated the news cycle. The Times ran multiple pieces, with several part interviews with the AR team. There is no point in going on with this. Wait for the Vinyl releases. Ooops...Too bad for you, they will be run off the digital masters.
|
| You merely making yourself out to be a fool., posted on October 27, 2009 at 11:15:12 | |
|
Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada Joined: November 22, 2003 |
Mind you little damage done, the impression seems pretty universal at this point in any case.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
|
| Might be time to host your own forum, posted on October 27, 2009 at 07:15:59 | |
|
Posts: 79
Joined: September 11, 2009 |
 Seems the same guys are posting over and over. And did I say over again. Do you guys have lifes outside this forum? Are you home bound? A pet might help maybe even going outside to see the glowing orb above;) Or get in the wind like in pic. Time to enjoy life bro...
|
| Couldn't agree more... nt, posted on October 27, 2009 at 07:48:54 | |
|
Posts: 754
Joined: July 6, 2000 |
nt
|
| Hard to treat either side objectively, posted on October 27, 2009 at 06:57:17 | |
|
Posts: 282
Joined: January 24, 2000 |
Mikey generally prefers vinyl to CD. Then again that is what he is known and gets paid for. He is opinionated, but he can be incisive. He does rub people the wrong way. However, if people did not read his output, he would be out of a paycheck. So he must be doing something right. The engineers, producers, marketers opining for mass market publications are saying what they were paid to say. Do you really think that they would be quoted as saying "Well these new limitied edition, premium priced CDs are good, but the original vinyl that my company does not sell anyomore is really better. You should buy that." Digital is like a parabolic curve that approaches but never quite touches the straight line of analogue. But we are getting to the point were carefully produced 16/44 is so good that it takes expensive equipment to easily discern the difference compared to analogue. For many, the new CD package will be as close as we get to orginal pressings and for many that will be enough. For the minority who want the best, the vinyl is still available if you know where to look. Best, Ross
|
| Sad but true. Digital rigs that can approach analogue sound cost $10K and up, way up Nt, posted on October 27, 2009 at 10:25:51 | |
|
Posts: 8435
Location: Copenhagen Joined: March 21, 2005 |
Nt
"What did the Romans ever do for us?"
|
| RE: Hard to treat either side objectively, posted on October 27, 2009 at 09:12:26 | |
|
Posts: 601
Location: Left Coast Joined: May 15, 2009 |
Well said. I agree. The only thing I can add is that Mikey is listening to vinyl on a set up that probably a dozen of his readers worldwide can afford...a 150K turntable set up...when you include cable, tone arm...demag...etc etc etc.
|
| bigger than Jesus, posted on October 27, 2009 at 11:06:38 | |
|
Posts: 651
Location: arizona Joined: November 11, 2005 |
the original beatles recordings (the early ones) sounded great on a g.e. wildcat in 64 and 65. these records were made for 'the young', and today, for those who still 'think young'. I suspect until one man's opinion can derail the beatles, it doesn't matter.
|
| RE: Mikey-Beatle Box Analysis, posted on October 27, 2009 at 02:28:26 | |
|
Posts: 1620
Location: New Jersey Joined: June 14, 2005 |
Vinyl vs. CD shoot-outs using SOTA front-ends like Fremer's are ultimately more about the relative superiority of esoteric & prohibitively priced audio equipment than about the music. His analysis would be more interesting were we to read that he made comparisons on several front ends at various levels of price and sophistication. A leading audio reviewer certainly has the resources to do this. Instead of this, the review follows the standard pattern of music reviews that fail to make such distinctions. As a result, there are probably other readers like myself who own the UK vinyl and remain on the fence about ponying up for the box set.
|
| RE: Mikey-Beatle Box Analysis, posted on October 27, 2009 at 08:49:58 | |
|
Posts: 4001
Joined: January 8, 2002 |
is it more interesting if auto racing is done with damaged vehicles too? If one is trying to compare the Cds and LPs why would one deliberately use compramised equipment?
|
| RE: Mikey-Beatle Box Analysis, posted on October 27, 2009 at 09:42:29 | |
|
Posts: 1620
Location: New Jersey Joined: June 14, 2005 |
Hopefully there is something short of a $100K Caliburn TT and a $80K DCS stack that you do not consider "damaged goods." Personally I own very credible analog and digital front ends on which vinyl and RBCD sound pretty close to each other in quality. IMO such close parity of equipment is necessary to make meaningful comparisons between digital & analog format-- and is also representative of the "real world" for all but the most well-heeled analogistes. Put another way, is there ANY well-produced original vinyl that on his system MF does not find superior to its CD remaster? An equally lopsided view will be obtained comparing digital on a Rotel to analog on a Forsell.
|
| RE: Mikey-Beatle Box Analysis, posted on October 27, 2009 at 10:54:11 | |
|
Posts: 4001
Joined: January 8, 2002 |
> Hopefully there is something short of a $100K Caliburn TT and a $80K DCS stack that you do not consider "damaged goods."> In the TT world it's all matters of degree. If one is looking for the least colored rig so as to test the medium only then one unfortunately is left with a Rockport or Caliburn. > Personally I own very credible analog and digital front ends on which vinyl and RBCD sound pretty close to each other in quality. IMO such close parity of equipment is necessary to make meaningful comparisons between digital & analog format-- and is also representative of the "real world" for all but the most well-heeled analogistes.> If one wants to make meaningful comparisons of LPs v. CDs in so much as they are universally meaningful one has to go beyond "credible" and engage state of the art equipment so as to take the equipment out of the equation as much as possible. > Put another way, is there ANY well-produced original vinyl that on his system MF does not find superior to its CD remaster? > Better to ask Mike than assume. The answer may surprise you. > An equally lopsided view will be obtained comparing digital on a Rotel to analog on a Forsell. > Actually I think my Rotel CD player is probably less colored than My Forsell/ Koetsu. But I am aware of the inherent advantage built into the colorations of my vinyl rig. I don't think Fremer owes it to the readers to review LPs on multiple rigs at various price points. That becomes a review of the rigs as much as the vinyl.
|
| Equipment vs. Music, posted on October 27, 2009 at 13:11:44 | |
|
Posts: 1620
Location: New Jersey Joined: June 14, 2005 |
"I don't think Fremer owes it to the readers to review LPs on multiple rigs at various price points. That becomes a review of the rigs as much as the vinyl." My point is really the same as yours. Whether employing good, excellent, or SOTA equipment as deciders in the format wars, the comparison of music formats by an audiophile reviewer is always coded language for an equipment review. Therefore as in any equipment review, the reviewer owes the reader a sense of context. (MF bows slightly in this direction by mentioning that the bass-heavy CD mix might sound preferable on something less than his full range system.) To consider any audiophile equipment review as credible, we expect that the reviewer will follow convention by using a range of illustrative recordings-- shared knowledge with readers-- to make points about equipment. Why should not the opposite also be true in a music review-- particularly one which is in reality a comparison of source formats? Both types of reviews call for a common vocabulary with the reader-- and music and equipment are both relevant to that shared vocabulary. Anything less expresses mere elitism-- which is btw right where you sit (and probably MF as well) by insisting that a Rockport, Calliburn, or equivalently esoteric TT is necessary for a "true" comparison. Of course the hobby is full of elitists-- particularly those with quite modest systems who consider their ears golden while fantasizing about rock star systems like Fremer's. Above all there is something particularly objectionable about subjecting music as broadly popular as the Beatles to such elitism. "Actually I think my Rotel CD player is probably less colored than My Forsell/ Koetsu. But I am aware of the inherent advantage built into the colorations of my vinyl rig." The conflation "advantage of colorations" reveals the beholder's general preference for a subjective vocabulary. If one really believes that everything is subjective except for the absolute superiority of vinyl, then why not insist that the Beatles shoot-out be performed on a variety of matched systems to prove his point. If you perceive your Rotel to be relatively less "colored" and less "advantageous" than your Forsell, I suppose that keeps vinyl safe in your listening room. But one may decode these adjectives by observing that by any critical judgment a Rotel is just not good enough to come close to revealing the limitations of RBCD. If Fremer was as good as you are at revealing his tastes, then it would be easier to see the context of his opinion about the box sets. But as said elsewhere in this thread, to appreciate his perspective fully perhaps one needs to be an acolyte of his entire body of work.
|
| RE: Equipment vs. Music, posted on October 28, 2009 at 13:38:08 | |
|
Posts: 4001
Joined: January 8, 2002 |
>> Both types of reviews call for a common vocabulary with the reader-- and music and equipment are both relevant to that shared vocabulary. Anything less expresses mere elitism-- which is btw right where you sit (and probably MF as well) by insisting that a Rockport, Calliburn, or equivalently esoteric TT is necessary for a "true" comparison.>> It is not elitism. it is an unfortunate fact of vinyl playback that it is extremely difficult (perhaps impossible) to achieve transparency through the equipment. Not sure why one would insist in coloring the equipment for the vinyl only if one is looking for a fair comparison of titles on the two different media. >> Of course the hobby is full of elitists-- particularly those with quite modest systems who consider their ears golden while fantasizing about rock star systems like Fremer's. Above all there is something particularly objectionable about subjecting music as broadly popular as the Beatles to such elitism.>> Maybe this is just a case of class envy on your part. One is not an elitist just because they acknowledge the difficulty in getting LP playback as uncolored as possible. Nor is one an elitist for simply pointing out the fact that anything less makes for a compramised comparison. >> "Actually I think my Rotel CD player is probably less colored than My Forsell/ Koetsu. But I am aware of the inherent advantage built into the colorations of my vinyl rig." The conflation "advantage of colorations" reveals the beholder's general preference for a subjective vocabulary.>> Ah bullshit. It is simply an acknowledgement that I chose my rig for sound that is obviously not the most uncolored. Since I clearly acknowledge the presence of those colorations and my preference for them does not mean anything about a preference for one sort of "vocabulary." That you would read such an absurb meaning in my post says more about your mind set than it does mine. >> If one really believes that everything is subjective except for the absolute superiority of vinyl, then why not insist that the Beatles shoot-out be performed on a variety of matched systems to prove his point. >> Where did you find the straw for that straw man? Who here has said they believe "everything is subjective except for the absolute superiority of vinyl?" You are just makin shit up now. >> If you perceive your Rotel to be relatively less "colored" and less "advantageous" than your Forsell, I suppose that keeps vinyl safe in your listening room.>> WTF? Seriously dude, get a clue. >> But one may decode these adjectives by observing that by any critical judgment a Rotel is just not good enough to come close to revealing the limitations of RBCD.>> I'd like to see you make such an observation under blind conditions. >> If Fremer was as good as you are at revealing his tastes, then it would be easier to see the context of his opinion about the box sets.>> Fremer is actually pretty good at revealing his tastes. perhaps if you were a little more able to digest and logically analyse the information you wouldn't jump to such dumb ass conclusions. >> But as said elsewhere in this thread, to appreciate his perspective fully perhaps one needs to be an acolyte of his entire body of work.>> His perspective is pretty clear if one doesn't doesn't get side tracked by the nonsense that has obviously side tracked you. He really likes the Beatles remasters. He still prefers the original UK vinyl. He drew these conclusions on source equipment that is relatively low in colorations. You don't need to read a biography and color comentary on Fremer's life to get those simple facts straight.
|
| RE: Equipment vs. Music, posted on October 28, 2009 at 15:08:47 | |
|
Posts: 1620
Location: New Jersey Joined: June 14, 2005 |
You seem to consider colorations in your very impressive analog rig as subjectively desireable, while regarding a relative lack of coloration(as you perceive the sound of a mid-line Rotel)as desireable in a CDP. Putting aside the lop-sided level of quality in these front-ends, I'll allow that there is nothing wrong with a "colors & flavors" approach to judging equipment if that is your preference. However this view is inconsistent with your stricter view that an uber-turntable is necessary to judge vinyl. I can just as easily take the opposite position-- that it is more difficult to get RBCD done right than vinyl. In fact this conclusion was born out in my system after much effort redesigning both turntable and CDP(the CDP was more of a challenge). After many modifications based solely on what seemed like the right thing to do from a technical perspective, analog & digital come close to convergence in my system, and at a high enough level that I am not too envious of Calliburn, Rockport, DCS, EMM, etc. For purposes of this thread, the lesson learned is merely that comparisons between formats are relative to equipment. What's great about Mike's review is that it is the only review that I'm aware of that compares the CDs to the Parlophones. What I like least about it is that by virtue of the exclusivity of his vinyl front end, his comparison of formats is probably useless to the majority of audiophiles. I suppose we all need to buy these box sets and find out for ourselves-- which as someone who has the Parlophones I was hoping to avoid.
|
| RE: Equipment vs. Music, posted on October 28, 2009 at 15:51:51 | |
|
Posts: 4001
Joined: January 8, 2002 |
>> You seem to consider colorations in your very impressive analog rig as subjectively desireable, while regarding a relative lack of coloration(as you perceive the sound of a mid-line Rotel)as desireable in a CDP.>> You are half right. I would be quite happy with the same set of euphonic colorations in the CDP. >> Putting aside the lop-sided level of quality in these front-ends, I'll allow that there is nothing wrong with a "colors & flavors" approach to judging equipment if that is your preference. However this view is inconsistent with your stricter view that an uber-turntable is necessary to judge vinyl.>> I don't see the inconsistancy. I enjoy LPs. Mike reviews them. If I were a reviewer I'd want something more transparent than my Forsell like the Rockport even if I like my Forsell better (which I do) >> I can just as easily take the opposite position-- that it is more difficult to get RBCD done right than vinyl.>> Anyone can take any position. But I would be quite skeptical of your position. I am confident that my CDP is pretty close to transparent to the source encoded on the CDs. >> In fact this conclusion was born out in my system after much effort redesigning both turntable and CDP(the CDP was more of a challenge). After many modifications based solely on what seemed like the right thing to do from a technical perspective, analog & digital come close to convergence in my system, and at a high enough level that I am not too envious of Calliburn, Rockport, DCS, EMM, etc. For purposes of this thread, the lesson learned is merely that comparisons between formats are relative to equipment.>> We clearly disagree on equipment colorations when it comes to CDP and vinyl playback rigs. >> What's great about Mike's review is that it is the only review that I'm aware of that compares the CDs to the Parlophones. What I like least about it is that by virtue of the exclusivity of his vinyl front end, his comparison of formats is probably useless to the majority of audiophiles.>> That will be true of any review of any LP by any reviewer that does not have exactly the same equipment as the reader if the reader is oblivious to the nature of the colorations of his or her TT rig. I don't see how a reviewer in Mike's position would be offering a better perspective for the readers by using a specific TT rig that has it's own unique baggae of colorations simply because that specific rig is less expensive. If the readers are intimately familiar with the colorations of their rig then a review of vinyl from the least colored rig will ultimately be the most useful to the widest readership. Audiophiles gotta know their own equipment if they are going to make any sense out of reviews of LPs and CDs. the more transparent the reviewers' equipment the less deciphering the reader has to do to relate to the review. A review done with a cheaper rig that is different than yours will not somehow magically line up all the colorations of your rig and the reviewers rig just because the price tag may be a closer match to yours than a Rockport. better for the reviewer to use the least colored rig possible and let the readers sort out what that means to them. >> I suppose we all need to buy these box sets and find out for ourselves-- which as someone who has the Parlophones I was hoping to avoid. >> If you got the Parlaphones why bother? I think the box set is a gift from above for those of us who don't have the Parlaphones.
|
| RE: Equipment vs. Music, posted on October 28, 2009 at 17:37:11 | |
|
Posts: 1620
Location: New Jersey Joined: June 14, 2005 |
I guess our disagreement is finally about the inevitability or lack thereof of coloration. At the point where I detect a near absence of coloration digital and vinyl sound almost alike, whether by coincidence or design. IMO this is as good a reason as any to pursue dueling improvements in both front ends. On the other hand, the substantial difference in sound that remains between your analog and digital front ends suggests that you accept appealing colorations in your vinyl while believing that your Rotel is uncolored in the sense that it reveals the absolute limitations of RBCD--which I assure you it does not. In his review Mikey differentiates the formats not according to colorations, but rather according to perception of realism and degree of emotional involvement(e.g. immediacy of hand claps, Lennon's perceived state of mind while communicating lyrics, etc.) You can't use both of these vocabularies without getting past colors. IME either format can get to that level.
|
| RE: Equipment vs. Music, posted on October 28, 2009 at 19:05:45 | |
|
Posts: 4001
Joined: January 8, 2002 |
>> I guess our disagreement is finally about the inevitability or lack thereof of coloration. At the point where I detect a near absence of coloration digital and vinyl sound almost alike, whether by coincidence or design.>> How do you know when you are actually detecting a near absence of coloration by ear alone? What is your reference? >> IMO this is as good a reason as any to pursue dueling improvements in both front ends.>> I have no objection to such persuits. >> On the other hand, the substantial difference in sound that remains between your analog and digital front ends suggests that you accept appealing colorations in your vinyl while believing that your Rotel is uncolored in the sense that it reveals the absolute limitations of RBCD--which I assure you it does not.>> How does it suggest that? it certainly isn't the case. I don't "accept" appealing colorations I embrace them. If it sounds better it is better. I believe the Rotel is low in coloration as are many other CDPs because of what I hear and what I know about their output. I am not against euphonic colorations in a CDP that are akin to the ones inherent in vinyl playback or unique to my rig. Do you know where I can get a CDP that has the same set of euphonic colorations? If so how much is it? Given the ratio of my LPs to CDs this has to be a consideration for me personally. >> In his review Mikey differentiates the formats not according to colorations, but rather according to perception of realism and degree of emotional involvement(e.g. immediacy of hand claps, Lennon's perceived state of mind while communicating lyrics, etc.)>> So? He is reporting his perceptions. Seems like a reasonable thing to do. >> You can't use both of these vocabularies without getting past colors. IME either format can get to that level. >> I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
|
| RE: Equipment vs. Music, posted on October 29, 2009 at 04:35:02 | |
|
Posts: 1620
Location: New Jersey Joined: June 14, 2005 |
"How do you know when you are actually detecting a near absence of coloration by ear alone? What is your reference?" After years mixing and matching components in the typical manner, I took a stand with what I then considered excellent equipment and went down the modification trail with each component to the best of my technical abilities with help from various designers. http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?vaslt&1140494870&view At each step in a long incremental process the two analog and digital sources were references to each other-- with an older Theta Gen 5a and Oracle Delphi III/SME IV for baseline comparisons. What I find most interesting about the process is that while the sources initially sounded quite different, through continuous improvement based solely on technical analysis pursued down entirely different paths, the two sources nearly converge. My ear tells me that both sources are faithful reproducers; more importantly this is confirmed by their convergence on similar reproduction. Can you suggest a better proof of absence of coloration? Many times in this dueling the formats over-leaped each another. As a result, I am cautious about pronouncing one format superior to another. Ergo my skepticism about MF's ultimate thumbs up for the vinyl(which much more than just a personal preference he attempts to objectify by alluding to "others" in the room who agreed with him.) The comparison between formats is all relative to source equipment. This insight is rarely examined closely in reviews.
|
| RE: Equipment vs. Music, posted on October 29, 2009 at 10:28:05 | |
|
Posts: 4001
Joined: January 8, 2002 |
>> "How do you know when you are actually detecting a near absence of coloration by ear alone? What is your reference?" After years mixing and matching components in the typical manner, I took a stand with what I then considered excellent equipment and went down the modification trail with each component to the best of my technical abilities with help from various designers. http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?vaslt&1140494870&view At each step in a long incremental process the two analog and digital sources were references to each other-- with an older Theta Gen 5a and Oracle Delphi III/SME IV for baseline comparisons. What I find most interesting about the process is that while the sources initially sounded quite different, through continuous improvement based solely on technical analysis pursued down entirely different paths, the two sources nearly converge. My ear tells me that both sources are faithful reproducers; more importantly this is confirmed by their convergence on similar reproduction. Can you suggest a better proof of absence of coloration?>> Not sure I could suggest a worse one. Given all the variables involved. A convergence alone doesn't help you. you need some sort of corolation to know you aren't simpley converging on something other than transparency. >> Many times in this dueling the formats over-leaped each another. As a result, I am cautious about pronouncing one format superior to another. Ergo my skepticism about MF's ultimate thumbs up for the vinyl(which much more than just a personal preference he attempts to objectify by alluding to "others" in the room who agreed with him.) The comparison between formats is all relative to source equipment. This insight is rarely examined closely in reviews. >> Clearly Fremer's ecxperience is different that yours. he makes his declarations based on his experience you make your declarations based on your experience. It seems to me your beef with Fremer is that you diasgree about the relative merits of the two media and you think you are right and he is wrong. yet, at best you stand on even ground since you and he are both rooted in anecdotal evidence.
|
| I'll go ahead and fill in the oddly missing context., posted on October 26, 2009 at 21:01:47 | |
|
Posts: 5600
Location: central oregon Joined: November 24, 2005 Contributor Since: March 1, 2008 |
The "better" quoted by our bi-speakered sophisticate comes from this paragraph: "The CDs are genuinely pleasing to listen to physically and intellectually, the LPs sound even better and they take you for an emotional roller coaster ride the CDs just don’t. That’s not just my reaction: it’s what everyone who’s listened here heard, including people who don’t have an analog axe to grind". As seen, he likes the CDs-he just finds the original, British pressed, uber-expensive Parlophones to sound "better". Not surprising considering the brand-spanking-new masters they were derived from, and the from-birth sonic issues with 44/16 RBCD. He's actually very laudatory of the new box sets. For instance: "On the other hand, the closer the digital comes to the analog—and these CDs come closer than most—the more the differences between the two formats assert themselves, for better or worse. Listening to these excellent sounding CDs with their jet black backdrops and ultra-cleanliness means that when you put the records on, while they do sound better, you just wish you could have the superior sound of one and the pristine perfection and black backdrops of the other!" Or: "These CDs do sound really good, with some expression of instrumental textures, depth and inner detail resolution". Etc. In fact, he gives the music an '11', and the sound a '10'. Hardly a negative review. If you don't own the Parlophones, or don't have the money to buy them-or even if you do-the new sets are obviously a great deal. Sounds to me like pretty high praise for the box sets from a vinyl guy-though maybe he has yet to read that review from 'Rolling Stone', that well-known and definitive arbiter of Audio Sonics.  "dammit"
|
| RE: I'll go ahead and fill in the oddly missing context., posted on October 26, 2009 at 21:19:35 | |
|
Posts: 601
Location: Left Coast Joined: May 15, 2009 |
First, I applaud your attempt to paint Fremer as open minded. But no matter how many sweet words he throws as these cd's, he STILL prefers the vinyl...every time. But again, nice try. Hey, at least I didn't call him the "resident biased twit". Second, Rolling Stone did NOT judge the sound, they included an excellent side bar where they interviewed the Abbey Road team that undertook the project. They said the new digital transfers and cd blow away any version of any LP. Hands down. They said there was a huge amount of musical information left on the table. Unfortunately, they do not post it on line, but it was published in August I believe.
|
| Grinding the Invisible Axe., posted on October 26, 2009 at 21:58:30 | |
|
Posts: 5600
Location: central oregon Joined: November 24, 2005 Contributor Since: March 1, 2008 |
Perhaps I'm failing to recognize the Big Issue. Fremer is a well-known vinyl advocate. He generally (perhaps even "every time" as you say, though I haven't read enough of his reviews, personally, to be certain of that. I assume you have) prefers the choice of LP over a digital equivalent. Frankly, again in general and not specific terms, I'd agree-virtually any CD reissue of an LP, to my ears, has been inferior. In fact, most LP reissues of an original LP sound worse than its original. But-so what? If you read a Parker review of a Bordeaux, are you surprised that he gives it a 90+? Expectations are naturally colored by previous history. As for the reissue engineers claiming their product unprecedented-you can't really expect me to take that seriously as an objective 'review'. If asked, I'm pretty sure that Bose engineers will feel the same about their product. Hard to believe you even brought that into evidence. Again, I'm not making any claims vis'-a-vis' the Beatles box set versus the original Parlophone LP's relative sonics, or lack thereof. Just questioning what the agenda is with a Fremer review of same. Though I've got a pretty good idea-stirring foment for foment's sake. "dammit"
|
| RE: Grinding the Invisible Axe., posted on October 26, 2009 at 22:17:09 | |
|
Posts: 601
Location: Left Coast Joined: May 15, 2009 |
The Big Picture is that those who stumble on the Fremer write up who are unfamiliar with his dogmatic approach to reviewing will some how think they are getting an inferior product. And, yes, he prefers Vinyl EVERYTIME, without exception. I have read every one of his reviews from the early 2000's on. He still preferred his vinyl rig to the $80 dcs digital stack, even playing SACD, and high resolution files through its DAC. As far as the Abbey Road team..they have in their hands a recorded legacy that can maybe be matched by a dozen or so more. I'm strictly staying within the genre of pop music. They have absolutely no incentive to over sell it as it would have sold even if they had dipped it in reverb, distortion, and auto tune, the dubbed it to minidisc, DAT, or Cassette and mastered it off that. The enormous pressure to be faithful to the original master tapes is beyond what I can comprehend. When you think about it, it was harder to bring the Beatles into the modern world then let's say, the Stones, ad their recordings were generally more performance oriented and generally grimy, which added to their appeal. Another example would be Frank Sinatra, as he recorded live with the band/orchestra, and it was basically a documentation. The work was was already done. The magic was on the floor, not in the Mastering Studio. The Beatles recordings mid period on were studio collages. I love digital, but I don't look down upon people who listen to LP's as tin eared neanderthals,(more power to 'em) like many of the Vinyl Absolutists do. The difference is the insufferable smugness.
|
| "The difference is the insufferable smugness. ", posted on October 27, 2009 at 03:52:59 | |
|
Posts: 2226
Location: new york Joined: October 19, 2003 Contributor Since: July 13, 2004 |
Try this out: Just pretend for a moment that you are one of those people who prefers vinyl. This is not about some "truth" determined "objectively" but simply a preference. Then read MF's comments. Then read your original post. You might locate the "insufferable smugness" comment elsewhere. I find it almost astonishing that you would have a problem with a guy who has always been clear about his preference for superbly done analogue over digital. This is what allows readers to understand his commentary at all: he's consistent. There is a context from which the opinions come. You seem to wish that he would become format-neutral just in case someone who doesn't know his background won't think the CDs are poor? I read the review before reading this thread, and I have to tell you that as another one of those Luddites who much prefers vinyl as an entire listening experience, I thought he was being much more supportive of the CD effort than he has ever been. Most of us learn how to interpret the critics' op-eds to apply effectively to our own world-views. I am a vinyl guy, but I am not personally a fan of the type of system MF has put together. I know what he likes from reading his work over the years, and I know how to "translate" it. Having owned flea-powered SETs for a long time (even the wonderful Fi equipment he too owns), I understand Art Dudley's point of view as well. I wouldn't want either one to be anything other than what they are. It is because of their specific biases that we are able to give meaning and relevance to the abstract words used to describe common, but certainly not "objective," experience.
|
| RE: "The difference is the insufferable smugness. ", posted on October 27, 2009 at 09:06:03 | |
|
Posts: 601
Location: Left Coast Joined: May 15, 2009 |
Good counter point. Appreciated. But here is a slight counter point to that. I would never, ever buy gear recommended by someone who has such a distinct slant. Same as I would not seek investment advice from stock broker, who is going to tell me that I don't need real estate, bonds, or Index Funds.
|
| Hint ..., posted on October 27, 2009 at 10:43:36 | |
|
Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada Joined: November 22, 2003 |
Perhaps if you dedicated a little time to those critics with ideas more harmonious with your own, instead of railing against those you consider extreme (Fremer, Dudley), you'd appear more balanced and less, well ... childish.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
|
| RE: Hint ..., posted on October 27, 2009 at 11:09:18 | |
|
Posts: 601
Location: Left Coast Joined: May 15, 2009 |
Have you read Fremer's work? He is the poster boy for Childish. And unlike the inbred retard that was our last President, I do want to expose my self to views other than my own.
|
| Wasted effort on my part ... Quelle surprise! nt, posted on October 27, 2009 at 11:10:51 | |
|
Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada Joined: November 22, 2003 |
.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
|
| RE: "The difference is the insufferable smugness. ", posted on October 27, 2009 at 06:59:52 | |
|
Posts: 2137
Joined: September 23, 1999 Contributor Since: March 1, 1999 |
>>You might locate the "insufferable smugness" comment elsewhere. Amen to that. æ If the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off.
|
| He prefers the vinyl huh?... whoda thunk it?..., posted on October 26, 2009 at 16:58:30 | |
|
Posts: 6371
Location: San Francisco Joined: July 8, 2003 Contributor Since: January 28, 2004 |
That's Mike Fremer, the vinyl maniac, right? What a surprise... I have original UK pressings of almost all the titles in stereo (which I prefer with the exception of "Please Please Me" - I have that in mono) and a few of the latest CDs in stereo. For the cost involved (and that's not just monetary) in even acquiring the originals in acceptable shape, there's not just that great a sonic difference. The CDs are great. My ears, my system of course. This wasn't even close to the case previously with CDs, maybe some of the MFSL titles were an exception for some but I don't generally like what MFSL does/did. But as great as the new CDs are, and as happy as I am with them so far, I won't be getting rid of the LPs anytime soon... “ Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination. ” -Michael McClure
|
| RE: He prefers the vinyl huh?... whoda thunk it?..., posted on October 26, 2009 at 18:10:00 | |
|
Posts: 4
Location: Canada Joined: June 23, 2009 |
I previously posted some comments on a comparison of the new mono CDs to original or early UK vinyl. I think the new CDs are terrific, but I also think Michael pretty much nailed it in terms of differences between them and early UK vinyl, at least to my ears.
|
| RE: Mikey-Beatle Box Analysis, posted on October 26, 2009 at 16:31:19 | |
|
Posts: 1682
Location: Indianapolis Joined: August 17, 2005 |
Of course that's what he said. What did you expect? He's a self-admitted extremist. You ever think he is going to say a CD sounds better than an LP? Never gonna happen.
|
| RE: Mikey-Beatle Box Analysis, posted on October 26, 2009 at 17:14:36 | |
|
Posts: 601
Location: Left Coast Joined: May 15, 2009 |
Thank god he is a Democrat!
|
| lol, posted on October 27, 2009 at 00:38:58 | |
|
Posts: 1682
Location: Indianapolis Joined: August 17, 2005 |
I didn't know that. I would have bet money he was a Republican.
|
| RE: lol, posted on October 27, 2009 at 08:58:17 | |
|
Posts: 601
Location: Left Coast Joined: May 15, 2009 |
Nope. Mikey is a liberal. Like me.
|
| RE: Mikey-Beatle Box Analysis, posted on October 26, 2009 at 18:00:32 | |
|
Posts: 336
Location: new england Joined: July 5, 2005 Contributor Since: April 11, 2006 |
ok, spen- a "democrat", just goes to show you. Here's an appropriate misquote: "extremism in defense of vinyl is not extremism". barry goldwater would be churning at mikey, who does evince a bit of extremism and constriction.
|
| RE: Mikey-Beatle Box Analysis, posted on October 26, 2009 at 18:08:58 | |
|
Posts: 601
Location: Left Coast Joined: May 15, 2009 |
Lord, post of the evening. Well done. I'm off to grill some chicken whilst the San Miguel chills to the appropriate temperature. Eat with the wife, then clear the DVR of the ATP Shanghai Masters final, and a few Bill Maher episodes. Peace out.
|
| RE: Mikey-Beatle Box Analysis, posted on October 26, 2009 at 16:29:42 | |
|
Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada Joined: November 22, 2003 |
I have an old Rubber Soul and the sonics, minus the record damage, clearly are very good, very good!
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
|
| RE: Mikey-Beatle Box Analysis, posted on October 26, 2009 at 15:49:29 | |
|
Posts: 601
Location: Left Coast Joined: May 15, 2009 |
In response to Mikey's claim that the bass was eq on every single album, I offer the following, from Allan Rouse, lead on the project. “The original transfers were done in 1986 when digital was in its infancy. I am not knocking the original transfers, but I think from the point where we re-transferred and archived the master tapes, we were already a step ahead because the technology has come on in leaps and bounds. What some people may perceive as an added eq is actually the result of better transfers, especially in the low end and the high top. Upwards of twenty tracks were not eq’d at all because we didn’t think we could improve them in any way.”
|
| RE: Mikey-Beatle Box Analysis, posted on October 26, 2009 at 15:12:05 | |
|
Posts: 651
Location: arizona Joined: November 11, 2005 |
the new cd releases (stereo and mono) rule. do i 'love' my countless rare mint pressings more? yes...but none top the new cd's for sound.
|
| RE: Mikey-Beatle Box Analysis, posted on October 26, 2009 at 15:47:44 | |
|
Posts: 601
Location: Left Coast Joined: May 15, 2009 |
Specifically how do they compare?
|
| So you don't know personally, yet your OP has a certain derogatory bend. Go figure. LOL nt, posted on October 26, 2009 at 16:31:15 | |
|
Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada Joined: November 22, 2003 |
.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
|
| RE: So you don't know personally, yet your OP has a certain derogatory bend. Go figure. LOL nt, posted on October 26, 2009 at 17:05:34 | |
|
Posts: 601
Location: Left Coast Joined: May 15, 2009 |
Of course I don't "know" any more than Fremer "knows. I DO know I had every single Beatles LP, some original UK pressings, including Revolver, Pepper, and a few others. I was listening to them on my dad's system comprised original Quad IIs, Quad ESLs, and good turntable. Whenever Fremer does an LP/Digital shoot out he always seems to have a group of non vinyl absolutists over to his place that end of "agreeing" with him. He also got very flustered and wigged out after he claimed that LPs are more transparent to the master tape when shown a long, and detailed interview with Bob Ludwig who said that LPs, were the farthest from the source, DSD, being basically indistinguishable. I'm throwing this out there, but maybe he thought the bass on the discs were a bit juiced up due to the Maxx3? When I heard I thought there was a very noticeable mid bass emphasis that became fatiguing, and others agreed. Just a theory, but that is what I heard.
|
| Right, you have no idea. Thought so, thanks. nt, posted on October 26, 2009 at 17:15:58 | |
|
Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada Joined: November 22, 2003 |
.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
|
| RE: Right, you have no idea. Thought so, thanks. nt, posted on October 26, 2009 at 17:18:24 | |
|
Posts: 601
Location: Left Coast Joined: May 15, 2009 |
Oh, yeh, I forgot, you are lord of the Audiophile Credentials, and your Lordship has stripped me of mine. Can I crawl before thee and beg for an appeal? Pzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Enjoy your surface noise, I'll listen to John, Paul, George, And Richard.
|
| Oh, and I suppose you don't have a TT either. LOL nt, posted on October 26, 2009 at 17:55:19 | |
|
Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada Joined: November 22, 2003 |
.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
|
| RE: Mikey-Beatle Box Analysis, posted on October 26, 2009 at 16:14:06 | |
|
Posts: 651
Location: arizona Joined: November 11, 2005 |
drums and bass are superior (it rocks) all else is at least as good then any 'lp pressing' anything I've ever heard...everything sounds 'right' and 'immediate'.
|
Page processed in 0.338 seconds.
[
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ Go Green ]
[ Take5 ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]