Article: Why We Need Audiophiles, The subjective perspective Options

[2tec]

I'm interested in what the HA community thinks about this new Gizmodo article, or blog, about Michael Fremer, an audio reviewer from Stereophile, which clearly goes completely against the grain around here. For instance:

"We play my solid 256kbps VBR MP3 of "Heroes" off my iPod; it sounds like shit. Free of pops and crackles, yes, but completely lifeless, flat in every way. This is the detail that matters: Audiophiles are basically synesthesiacs. They "see" music in three-dimensional visual space. You close your eyes in Fremer's chair, and you can perceive a detailed 3D matrix of sound, with each element occupying its own special space in the air. It's crazy and I've never experienced anything like it." ~ Why we need audiophiles

[2Bdecided]

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.e. vinyl is better than CD) but anyone who says "256kbps VBR MP3" doesn't actually know what they're talking about, do they?

So it's typical journalistic sloppiness, and probably getting carried away in the moment.

And let's face it - we do need people wanting better quality than can be heard on 99% of pop releases in the 21st century. Does anyone think CDs (as actually sold, rather than as theoretically possible) sound that good in the pop world in 2009?


Where the article is really wrong is in the last paragraph...

we need someone like Fremer up on that wall, a preservationist of archival recordings and an ombudsman for new recording techniques, because one day you'll want to hear it, and it'll be there because of audiophiles.

These guardians in and outside of the recording industry ensure that, whether it's in a movie theater tomorrow or in your own home listening room on some far off future date, you'll be able always get back to a recording that expresses every frequency, every ounce of warmth and life, of the original performance. Because if you can hear, it, if you ever get to live in that 3D space, you'll be glad Fremer helped defend it.

We won't be able to hear music properly in the future because the "?best?" music will continue to be recorded by small labels who release over compressed CDs, and lose the master recordings. It'll be the 1930s and 1960s over again - lose the masters and leave the future with whatever consumer format was issued at the time. The only hope (and I feel like a traitor saying this!) is that large labels buy small labels and preserve their archive properly.

Plus I've heard lots of this hi-end stuff - not $330k, admittedly, but $100k systems with various sources. Some are great, some are garbage (over blown, mental, noise making rather than music reproducing systems) - but the biggest quality improvement I ever heard was 6.0 surround sound with four speakers at the front. And guess what? It's the audiophiles that hate surround sound the most, and keep this most significant advance from getting a foothold.

So much for helping us to hear things better.

Cheers,
David.

EDIT: Interesting post Arny - didn't see it before writing this. I'd probably need physically restraining if I found someone burning The Beatles master tapes or something, but no, not about this!

This post has been edited by 2Bdecided: Apr 16 2009, 16:48