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

[B0RK]

@Ron Jones
well ...Now in your post you switched to looking from the Recording chair angle ...

So first let me clarify what I meant with the "Real Thing":
It was from a consumer / end user, playback point of view ,as the real product, I never mentioned anything about an engineer being faithful to the recorded event .. as it's totally off topic (& as you said not that popular nowadays anyway).
If your'e a recording engineer , no further words are needed.

You'd know how hard it can be to squeeze the tracks in the mix , & you'd know that getting a 16 bit 2 track to shine as it did with the full hi res track count played in the studio is no small feat by any mastering guru's standards.

So after all that effort, having companies & people implying that even the (Downscaled CD) is not a mandatory experience cause it's "indistinguishable" & they can prove (lol) they cannot hear the differnece by failing their foobar ABX tests , & make people pay for lossy music claiming that is the product , is just outrageous really.

You know what I mean ?

This is where we are at now ..:
Every time the word Audiophile is being thrown anywhere nowadays,
you get a bunch of Trolls, waving their Ipods in fury, taking a break from doing spectrals of their transcodes,
& pointing un/ (& sometimes over) educated fingers at analog purists like Fremer.

I am just trying to make a case for why he is a purist.
& How being as close (or even surpassing the experience in a way) to the recorded event and product should be admired & desired by all music lovers, without looking at it only through my angle.


Now about the Recording angle of it:

If I would have taken that seat, Id say the exact words you just used , we are dead on the same page about that.

But Fremer ..Im sure you noticed, is on the Playback side of things ....

You mentioned you know the pain of getting a pure analog recording system setup right.

so I figure on 2nd thought ,even though you implied his $350,000 system is wasted on a Record player source, you'd agree getting a setup like his to tick is not easier ... if not harder.

Looking from the recording angle - I agree , I would never make the effort , & I'd never have the patience, to go the pure analog route today (excluding summing).

As for me, & I think I am not totally alone on this, I cannot help but admire the man for perfecting a purist Analog playback system like his nowadays.

sometimes I wish I would see half that devotion to sonics from the studios.

[kornchild2002]

So after all that effort, having companies & people implying that even the (Downscaled CD) is not a mandatory experience cause it's "indistinguishable" & they can prove (lol) they cannot hear the differnece by failing their foobar ABX tests , & make people pay for lossy music claiming that is the product , is just outrageous really.

You know what I mean ?

This is where we are at now ..:
Every time the word Audiophile is being thrown anywhere nowadays,
you get a bunch of Trolls, waving their Ipods in fury, taking a break from doing spectrals of their transcodes,
& pointing un/ (& sometimes over) educated fingers at analog purists like Fremer.

You really aren't getting your point across. Are people who listen to lossy music through an iPod uneducated? Does conducting a blind ABX test in foobar2000 prove nothing (for that person)? I have absolutely no idea what you mean. No one here is a troll. In fact, someone like Fremer would be perceived as a troll as they often have outrageous ideas without any proof to back them up and their opinion on quality changes based on what they know about the source material (like in ShowsOn's example). They will then go against what we know by posting a whole bunch of nonsense. That is a troll. Someone who listens to lossy music on their iPod and fails a blind ABX test between a lossy and lossless encoder is not a troll. Someone asking for a true blind test so that someone can backup their claims is not a troll.

Lastly, there are big differences between audiophiles and audiophools. An audiophile is someone who cares about sound quality. They are willing to take the time to conduct blind ABX tests to determine what lossy encoder and setting is right for them (or if they should go the lossless route). Audiophools are people who will change their opinions based on what they know about the source material, they look down on blind testing methods because they know that they probably will fail them, and they preach what they think and aren't willing to even look at the other side of the coin. No one has problems with audiophiles here. In fact, nearly everyone here is an audiophile as they care about their music (yes, someone can be an audiophile and listen to lossy music despite what you may think). We just don't like it when the audiophools come along and post nonsense.

B0RK, you continue to step around my question regarding blind ABX testing (which Frumious B asked again). What is so wrong/incorrect/punishable by death when someone listens to lossy music on an iPod knowing that they cannot properly ABX the differences between that lossy music and the source lossy files?

[chelgrian]

B0RK, you continue to step around my question regarding blind ABX testing (which Frumious B asked again). What is so wrong/incorrect/punishable by death when someone listens to lossy music on an iPod knowing that they cannot properly ABX the differences between that lossy music and the source lossy files?

Or indeed listen to lossy music on an iPhone that you know full well you can ABX...but only on headphones that you couldn't possibly carry around with you.

Or indeed trading quality for space so you can get your entire collection on an iPhone (I'm currently listening to organ music compressed at 96Kbit/s AAC as if I'd encoded everything at 128Kbit/s it wouldn't fit...

Someone should take these people from Stereophile round the recording studios that their music came from, even the highest end places don't engage in the kind of silliness that the audiofools do.