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

[zipr]

Has there ever been any studies where vinyl, CD, and file-based formats are tested against an album master? If someone thinks a vinyl album sounds 'better' than a CD, does that mean that it's closer to the source material -- or the creator's intentions?

Do musicians listen to their own stuff on $350,000 equipment?

[krabapple]

Has there ever been any studies where vinyl, CD, and file-based formats are tested against an album master? If someone thinks a vinyl album sounds 'better' than a CD, does that mean that it's closer to the source material -- or the creator's intentions?

James Boyk claims to have done one between CD and vinyl, long ago, but never published it in any detail (he says vinyl 'won'). I can't find any links to it, but he did release a 'demonstration' recording of sorts:

http://www.performancerecordings.com/albums.html

pr7lp (LP), pr7cd (CD): Boyk plays Mussorgsky 1991
Mussorgsky: "Pictures at an Exhibition"
Performer / Co-engineer / Producer / Album Notes

World's only comparison of (a) pure digital, (b) digital-from-analog, and © pure analog recordings, made at the same time from the same microphones; (a) and (b) on the CD, © on the LP. The analog master tape was the first tape made on MagnesaurusTM. From the album notes: "Interested listeners may use this double release of LP and CD to investigate some timely questions: Given an analog master tape, which medium preserves its virtues better, LP or CD? (Compare the LP with the analog half of the CD.) Does a CD sound better made from digital or analog master tape? (Compare the two versions on the CD.) And most important, which preserves the emotional impact of the music better, purely analog or purely digital recording? (Compare the LP with the digital half of the CD.)"

He also records with a modified tubed Ampex deck....

btw could someone translate the following into a dynamic range figure I can understand? It would appear to set an 'audiophile' bound for analog:


http://www.its.caltech.edu/~boyk/rep-int.htm

REP: How does the noise measure out?

JB: Noise measurements are enough to drive anybody nuts. I can't come up with anything meaningful. What I want to do is the CCIR/ARM measurement that Dolby has promulgated, but I don't have the proper filter for that. My guess is that it's 67dB below 250n/W. (Complete specifications.) I'll tell you what I've learned, and I've looked into each of these questions elaborately: The most meaningful thing you can say about measuring noise is that with blank tape on the machine and the tape stopped, you read the noise off the playback electronics. Then you run the blank, unmodulated tape. Your tape-stop noise, playback electronics only, should be better than 10dB below the silent tape run noise at every point in the spectrum, looking at it with an FFT analyzer.
That's the goal. Then you turn on Record with the level pot down all the way. Now you have bias noise on there, and the record electronics, of course, and ideally it should not go up more than 4dB or 5dB above the blank tape playback noise.


REP: And that's mostly bias and tape modulation?

JB: Yes. Now that's the ideal. The theoretical is that it goes up 3dB. If you get 4dB or 5dB, you're doing great. But let's talk about dynamic range for a moment. The stock, factory 351 gives you a signal-to-noise of 60dB, very roughly. When you go to 1/2-inch tape, you gain 5dB. You ought to gain only 3dB because you've doubled the tape width. But the relevant thing is not the width of the tape; it's the width of the track. The 1/2-inch, 2-track tape uses the tape very effectively; 1/4inch, 2-track does not. When you compare track width instead of tape width, you see that 5 dB is what you should expect.

REP: What is the dynamic range of the machine?

JB: Using a peak meter at the Mastering Lab, we actually measured transients off tape, which are 14.6dB above 250n/W, clean. Absolutely not getting into the tape. Nobody would listen to it and say it was overmodulated, compressed. 14.6 above 250, which means it's 16.6 above 200, or 17.2 above 185n/W. That's almost unbelievable, and frankly a level that I didn't think tape could take. It's hot! With piano transients! I think part of that possibility, that advantage, is tube electronics, much more headroom and much more transient capabilities. It sounds marvelous.

This post has been edited by krabapple: Apr 17 2009, 16:58

[Kees de Visser]

Has there ever been any studies where vinyl, CD, and file-based formats are tested against an album master? If someone thinks a vinyl album sounds 'better' than a CD, does that mean that it's closer to the source material -- or the creator's intentions?

James Boyk claims to have done one between CD and vinyl, long ago, but never published it in any detail (he says vinyl 'won').

Not a study but this message was posted today in a ProAudio mailinglist, FWIW:

...we recently produced a vinyl disc and a DVD and a CD. All of the same 24/96 master.
The vinyl was closer to the master than the CD regarding the over all impression of depth and detail. Yes it was maybe a little colored, very little. But The CD compared to that couldn´t represent the 24/96 master as goog as vinyl. The DVD-Audio of course was exactly like the master.

Roland Storch
Adebar Acoustics