Letters to the Editor

Reader Says "You're Nuts" (or an approximation thereof)

Michael Fremer  |  Aug 27, 2012

Dear Michael:

You wrote the following on your website:

"I’ve never gotten an email or letter along the lines of 'Dear Mikey: I took the plunge and bought a turntable. What a waste of money. Records sound terrible. You’re nuts.'"

Well, here's your first. Or a close approximation.

About a year ago, I pulled out a pile of audiophile LPs -- mostly direct disks -- and listened critically. (If it's of any interest -- my pickup is an Ikeda direct-coupled moving coil, the 'table is a Well-Tempered Classic, and the preamp is a Vendetta. Not exactly chopped liver.)

My reaction was that the sound wasn't up to that of the best digital recordings -- multi-ch SACDs, in particular. It didn't sound as natural or realistic. Yes, it was sometimes very pleasing -- but not (to my ability to judge) an accurate rendition of live sound. This is the only valid point on which reproduction can be evaluated, because any criterion other than accuracy is taste -- and you know the Latin expression.

I boxed up most of my audiophile recordings and sold them to Silver Platters (a local chain), which gave me a surprisingly large store credit.

Yes, digital recording can sound "sterile". That's because it's missing the euphonic colorations of electromechanical recording. Heck, open-reel analog tape has a significantly lower level of coloration than LP.

I don't have figures, but it appears classical LPs represent, percentage-wise, a smaller part of the LP market than they do the CD/SACD market. The people who like LPs are overwhelmingly people who have no experience with live sound, and are seduced by the "pleasing" sound of LPs.

I am neither pro- nor anti-analog, pro- nor anti-digital. I only against inaccurate reproduction. And digital is almost always less-inaccurate than analog. The one exception is FM. Live FM broadcasts (such as local concerts or the Met) can have superb sound.

"We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right questions." -- Edwin Land

-William Sommerwerck

Mikey answers:

Well of course it's not sufficient to express a differing opinion on this subject, it's important to be condescending and insulting too—as if we are all inexperienced listeners, unfamiliar with live music.

I told Mr. Sommerwerck that there are many recording engineers who prefer listening to vinyl, including some very well known and respected ones but that apparently matters not to him.

Mr. Sommerwerck asked if I could also give you some of his experiences with live recording to further his case, but I won't because again, I could cite many "live" recording engineers who prefer tape to digits and vinyl to digital, but what does that prove? Nothing.

Mr. Sommerwerck's Ikeda cartridge is how old and last used when? Was set up using what digital microscope for an SRA of 92 degrees? His Well-Tempered arm was set up how? We don't know.

Mr. Sommerwerck is "against inaccurate reproduction." Fine. Then he should be against recordings of all types because none of them are "accurate" to the live event. The idea that one can stuff a symphony orchestra down a couple of microphones, or worse, down a couple of dozen, is absurd on its face.

There are very few "accurate" microphones. They are all colored. The entire recording chain is "inaccurate." The final "inaccurate" product, be it on analog tape or digital tape or a hard drive is inaccurate to the source: "live music" (when we're talking about the rare occasions these days when live music is actually performed).

The idea that either tape or digital, particularly CD resolution digital, is accurate to the live event, or even to the mic feed is also ridiculous but even more ridiculous is the idea that remaining "true" to the sonic drivel that exits a microphone compared to what entered it, is somehow the "holy grail." If it were, we wouldn't need mastering engineers, and clearly we do.

I once read a story (I wish I could recall where and if anyone knows, please remind me) where experienced engineers with access to the live music, were given a live mic feed to compare to a DSD recording, to PCM at a resolution I can't recall, and to 30 IPS analog tape. The engineers all picked DSD as more transparent to the live mic feed, but all preferred the analog tape version because to them it sounded more like the live music. Live music. That is my reference. All of the rest is signal processing. All of it. So if the signal processing that takes a tape or even a digital file and turns it into an LP makes it sound more like live music, then that's what I prefer because for me, live music is the reference, though I try to avoid playback gear that is noticeably colored and/or euphonic (but find me a speaker that isn't colored because you can't).

Now, leaving aside multi-channel audio, which is a different subject (and it's difficult enough to afford a good two channel rig, never mind 5—and the idea of listening five mediocre channels rather than two great ones to get some space or worse hear musicians behind me, doesn't appeal), if Mr. Sommerwerck thinks the digits sound more like the live music, fine. I will not argue with him.

That's his perception and I respect it. But when he condescends to me, and to you by telling me and telling you that your differing opinion is because "oh, you are just unfamiliar with live music and you 'prefer' euphonic colorations," then he tells me, he's bitter for some reason, or not really enjoying his listening because otherwise he'd say as most of us do: "to each his own."

COMMENTS
Dpoggenburg's picture
Submitted by Dpoggenburg on Mon, 2012-08-27 14:32

While I appreciate the fact that Mr. Sommerwerck no doubt carefully crafted his Dear Mikey missive, I find a critical error in his reasoning. Had he stopped with "I compared vinyl to digital and generally preferrred the latter" (setting aside the apples and oranges issue of two channel vs multi channel), one could not take issue, leaving the statement as a matter of opinion,

Instead, however, he attempts to migrate from a question of taste to a pseudo-scientific syllogism. To wit, "the only valid point on which reproduction can be evaluated...(is) an accurate rendition of live sound." Besides Mr. Fremer's concise points refuting the proposition, Mr. Sommerwerck's absolutism creates two problems:

1) He implies that by knowing what live music sounds like, he is able to judge the "accuracy" of the reproduction of a specific performance. Yet, logically, how could he do that, unless he attended the actual recording session? Even then, where would he have been seated (that would have a huge impact on his listening experience)? Framing his argument around this point about "accuracy", he sidesteps the reality that his determination of what sounds "accurate" is still a matter of opinion.

2) His argument implies that any fan of modern music (that is, all the millions of records NOT recorded live) has no ability to evaluate the accuracy of the recording, if the sound of live music is the "only" true reference. Well, he's partly right -- I haven't had the opportunity to hear the master tape of Sgt Pepper's (Mr. Fremer has, lucky bastard!), so how can I judge what's accurate? But I do know the Mofi UHQR pressing sounds ridiculously pumped up in the lower frequencies, compared to the original UK pressing. What I prefer, alas, is still a matter of opinion.

So fare thee well Mr. Sommerwerck, whatever floats your boat is fine. However, I share Mr. Fremer's umbrage at your rhetoric -- I found it a bit too reductive for my tastes.

 

 

Jim Tavegia's picture
Submitted by Jim Tavegia on Mon, 2012-08-27 18:54

As a former broadcast engineer as good as fm might sound, it has more distortion and other artifacts than mst media. If you have a Sequerra tuner, tes you are hearing more than most, but fm is a pretty crippled format. 

I also just bought Billy Joel's The Stranger on SACD and it is not that much better than my warn lp. Elton John' Honky Chateau is way better, but my warn lp is not that bad by comparison. 

If new recordings are not at least 2496 manipulated to death with compression and "cool" mastering tricks that ruin mst recordings , and not sent to me on DVDs, I don't by the digital is overall better. 

Sorry about the typos on my digital iPad that is lame  for this application . Digital is great for some things. 

malosuerte's picture
Submitted by malosuerte on Tue, 2012-08-28 19:44

I guess he shouldn't read this site anymore.

 

Lol

walrusman7's picture
Submitted by walrusman7 on Mon, 2012-08-27 21:15

 

Accurate,

A lot of great equipment, for instance tube driven gear,  can create the illusion of a live performance, while other gear that measures more "accurate" may not pull it off..

Modern movies shot in hi rez digital may technically be more "accurate" then celluloid film, but I'll take celluloid any day over movies shot digitally.... It has a character that looks more lifelike to me..... I feel the same way with tube gear, analog tape, LPs etc...

Its all very subjective.... Which do you prefer, watercolor or oil painting....

 

I've also heard a lot of bad sounding live performances, that I'd rather have just skipped

and instead, play the records at home...

malosuerte's picture
Submitted by malosuerte on Mon, 2012-08-27 21:36

Amen!

Martin's picture
Submitted by Martin on Tue, 2012-08-28 02:14

There's one or two in the bottom of every bucket.

Fact is, in general, a well recorded, well mastered, well played back LP is still the best we have. At least until we get like 300Khz + / 64 bit digital.

But until then, it's funny flat vinyl discs, spinning on horribly expensive toys for grown boys (myself included), with a rock of highly pure carbon being dragged through grooves to pull sound out of plastic.

rosser's picture
Submitted by rosser on Tue, 2012-08-28 09:32

I am a professional musician, and I have never confused live music with any form of playback. I have heard some very, very high-end systems, both analog and digital, and as good as they were, they sounded very little like live music. Good systems can fool me on some small things -- like an isolated cowbell strike -- but once it gets any more complex than that, it's quite far from the sound of live music. 

That said, the closest thing I have ever heard to live music was analog -- a Clearaudio Emotion turntable playing into $35K Sonus Faber Amati's. The three-dimensionality and solidity of the images was astounding. Yet I never would have thought it was a live band. 

grandtatty's picture
Submitted by grandtatty on Tue, 2012-08-28 14:10

I find most studio recordings with overdubs that could not possibly be preformed "live" more satisfying.

deckeda's picture
Submitted by deckeda on Tue, 2012-08-28 12:16

he's bitter for some reason, or not really enjoying his listening because otherwise he'd say as most of us do: "to each his own."

Well-said.

Purgerificus's picture
Submitted by Purgerificus on Tue, 2012-08-28 12:42

"The people who like LPs are overwhelmingly people who have no experience with live sound"

Blanket statements like that will get you in trouble, and it's not true anyway.

"seduced by the "pleasing" sound of LPs."

Yep. That would be me. Every night. I almost have withdrawal symptoms without it.

randy's picture
Submitted by randy on Tue, 2012-08-28 13:00

William Sommerwerck, which Silver Platters did you sell you records to?

Steelhead's picture
Submitted by Steelhead on Tue, 2012-08-28 14:29

I was late to the digital dance and started with a Nakamichi cd2 changer. Enjoyed the quiet backgrounds and lack of hiss, clicks and pops. However, I still maintained my Thorens 125 and 126 and thought they were "better" except for backgrounds. Not much has changed at my house in the past 30 years. I now own a SOTA Cosmos MkIV and my digital spinner is the Esoteric X03SE. I really enjoy some SACD and find it superb as well as some fine redbook. However at the end of the day the Cosmos with a slab of vinyl trumps all. The comparisons I have done with the music I enjoy (multi-track rock) finds me definitely in the vinyl camp. Jethro Tull and Steppenwolf on vinyl versus cd is what I would use at shows if I made record players. I gave a youngster my tull cd's and stated do not compare to vinyl as I was afraid I might infect him.

Ajcrock's picture
Submitted by Ajcrock on Tue, 2012-08-28 17:07

In defense of William the sound quality of an SACD on a good system is very good.

However, how come this type of reply always starts with an old box of records that immediately get placed on the player?  Personally, if I pulled some dishes out of storage I would clean them first before eating off of them.  So why were the records not cleaned and treated for static?

The next step always involves an antique system that did not stand the test of time nor was it calibrated.  I am not saying everyone needs a system like "Mikey".  But in order to accurately judge a format you need to give it a set of operating conditions that allow it to shine.  Through, Michael's reviews, his DVD, email exchanges, I am a happy convert.  Sure digital still has its place but so does analog.  And yes both my systems are on the upper end of mid priced systems.  So just for once I would like to see the the reader cleaned the records, put them on his Garrard 301, Audio Research phono preamp  and was not happy.  Just sayin that's all.

Paul Boudreau's picture
Submitted by Paul Boudreau on Wed, 2012-08-29 04:30

As far as "accuracy" goes, if it ever get to the point where canned music (thank you Dan Hicks) is indistinguishable from live music, we're all in trouble.  Somehow I don't think that will ever happen, though.

ohnofiasco's picture
Submitted by ohnofiasco on Wed, 2012-08-29 16:34

I would absolutely love to play at a venue that can come close to the sound stage and depth that comes from my stereo, given the music I play full time isn't the most hifi. I cant even begin to explain how happy it would make me for low level detail of any sort to translate in a live scenerio. Hell it would be great to even hear a bass guitar half of the time. 

BigE's picture
Submitted by BigE on Thu, 2012-09-06 11:19

As long as he has divested himself of all of his vinyl, he can box up all that hardware and send it to me as he won't need it any longer.  I too would offer a generous store credit as consideration, but he would have to be able to find my "store".  :-)

X