The discussion should be about and against MoFi for lack of transparency or deception, not about fellow listeners or reviewers who could not hear the difference, or actually seem to prefer it as expressed in Fremer's review.
IMHO WBF posters are mature enough to know what discussions should be about. Unfortunately you are not able to separate the facts from the people. Why these people failed to identify the bits and its consequences is a valid and interesting topic. Being against of Mofi is now a beaten subject, everyone expressed his opinion and I do not see nothing new, but is natural people go one discussing it.
Also IMHO, a secondary topic, but also very interesting, is how far we want transparency to go in recordings and the high-end.
I agree Mike. Just listen. It's either good or not, and either liked or not by the listener. The digital step per se is not important to me, personally. I never really liked the few MoFi pressings I bought used. I am just curious about what I perceive as glee or vitriol from the pro digital side in this thread against their so called "golden eared" analog opponents. I don't get that at all. The seem to delight in the "gotcha" moment. The discussion should be about and against MoFi for lack of transparency or deception, not about fellow listeners or reviewers who could not hear the difference, or actually seem to prefer it as expressed in Fremer's review.
i think we have to just live with the 'gotcha' stuff. when analog lovers get too elitist about it, there is then a piper to pay.....and that piper will have his day. today is that day. just roll with it. 'living well' with analog is then the revenge.
my feelings are that there are simply no absolutes in music reproduction. yet our passions drive us to be absolute.
Re Fremer doing somersaults - Basically the two videos he put up on Tracking Angle channel on Youtube. 'I won't say any more about it...' then goes on about it. I think but would have to review again, the video he did with Michael from 45rom Audiophile.
Re his claims about being able to hear digital in the chain - give me some time as I'd need to track through previous articles and videos.
What - you don't think he's said these things or trying to protect the site from any challenge/ libel etc?
You are alleging (in snarky ways: “shot his mouth off”; “discern the merest whiff of digital in the production of vinyl”; “doing somersaults”; “sticking [his] head in the sand even deeper to cover”) that Michael said these specific things, and I am asking you to prove your statements.
Don’t try to change the subject or wriggle off the hook of the specificity of the things you are telling us Michael wrote or said. Show us the writings or videos which prove what you’re saying.
I am not saying or implying you are incorrect. I do not know. I am simply asking you to prove what you are posting. My only objective here is fact-finding.
Please post links to the specific statements Michael wrote, or the specific sections in videos using second and minute references so we can find them, so we can understand the facts underlying your allegations.
Everyone raked Chesky over the coals when it was found that he was selling upsampled downloads, but not a word was said about Kassem selling SACD's that were upsampled for years before that! Guess Mo-fi needs to do what Chad did and plead ignorance...
I am digging the way companies continue to market their technologies. The AKM chip in the Merging DAC has VELVET SOUND. No wonder the DSD256 was used in so many MoFi transfers.
TECHNOLOGY. A faithful re-creation of the original experience, beyond any numerical representation. VELVET SOUND addresses every aspect of sound, delivering an experience that resonates emotionally - beyond the numbers. AKM has developed many new technologies in the name of achieving Real Live...
velvetsound.akm.com
I am about to play my SATVV One-Step. I'm waiting for my Io phono to warm up!
I'm sure if I put a few grams of dog shit in your lasagne you wouldn't be able to tell. Doesn't mean you wouldn't like to know before you order or taste it though.
Ron, I do not know if this will prove the statement, but here is a review of a one step recording from Fremer in which he praises the sonics to an incredible degree. He writes that perhaps it is the best sounding record he’s heard.
Thank you, Peter, but this does not prove Bergm@nn’s statement. This is a different point. No one is disputing — Michael himself cannot dispute — that he has praised highly Mobile Fidelity releases which we now know to be digital conversions.
As someone else posted Michael has never had a problem praising excellent sounding vinyl which he knows has a digital step. So praising the sound quality of a vinyl record which has a digital step is not the question here.
Bergm@nn wrote: “Fremer has long time shot his mouth off about all analogue and his ability to discern the merest whiff of digital in the production of vinyl.” (emphasis added)
I am asking Bergm@nn to show us where Michael claimed that he could discern any digital step in a vinyl record. (If Bergm@nn fails to prove this then, ineluctably, Bergm@ann’s follow-on claim about “the somersaults Fremer is doing right now to try to distract from his former claims” is also false.)
I have heard originals at general before and have heard the folk singer classic records reissue. I have enjoyed both, the originals are special and rare but the classic records and AP reissue are not and quite enjoyable..
Yesterday we were listening to a mix of classical originals, and rock reissues for around 12 hours with just meal and coffee breaks. The muddy waters was among the worst of the lot. I couldn't complete a track on it, took it off. I like muddy waters and I had enjoyed a lot of blues and rock on that system, not necessarily original but not this one.
I have heard originals at general before and have heard the folk singer classic records reissue. I have enjoyed both, the originals are special and rare but the classic records and AP reissue are not and quite enjoyable..
Yesterday we were listening to a mix of classical originals, and rock reissues for around 12 hours with just meal and coffee breaks. The muddy waters was among the worst of the lot. I couldn't complete a track on it, took it off. I like muddy waters and I had enjoyed a lot of blues and rock on that system, not necessarily original but not this one.
I have heard originals at general before and have heard the folk singer classic records reissue. I have enjoyed both, the originals are special and rare but the classic records and AP reissue are not and quite enjoyable..
Yesterday we were listening to a mix of classical originals, and rock reissues for around 12 hours with just meal and coffee breaks. The muddy waters was among the worst of the lot. I couldn't complete a track on it, took it off. I like muddy waters and I had enjoyed a lot of blues and rock on that system, not necessarily original but not this one.
never bought the One Step Muddy Waters. i do have a number of other Folk Singer Reissues, all of which are pretty good to great. i have the Classic Records 33, the early MoFi 33, the AP 2 disc 45, and -3- of the Classic Records 'Clarity' 4 disc single sided 45 box sets (2 unopened).
and then, of course, i have a "2nd gen master" 1/2" 15ips sourced from the original 30ips 1/4" which is the standard. had that 30ips in my hands for a week. i drag that 1/2" out occasionally.
Thank you, Peter, but this does not prove Bergm@nn’s statement. This is a different point. No one is disputing — Michael himself cannot dispute — that he has praised highly Mobile Fidelity releases which we now know to be digital conversions.
As someone else posted Michael has never had a problem praising excellent sounding vinyl which he knows has a digital step. So praising the sound quality of a vinyl record which has a digital step is not the question here.
Bergm@nn wrote: “Fremer has long time shot his mouth off about all analogue and his ability to discern the merest whiff of digital in the production of vinyl.” (emphasis added)
I am asking Bergm@nn to show us where Michael claimed that he could discern any digital step in a vinyl record. (If Bergm@nn fails to prove this then, ineluctably, Bergm@ann’s follow-on claim about “the somersaults Fremer is doing right now to try to distract from his former claims” is also false.)
I think Michael said "it is easy to tell the difference between a digital recording recorded at 96/24 and an all analog recording" in the video. He didn't mention DSD.
I think Michael said "it is easy to tell the difference between a digital recording recorded at 96/24 and an all analog recording" in the video. He didn't mention DSD.
We must separate the process of making a complete recording from just inserting a digital loop. They are completely different processes. Since long we have claims that a proper digital link is transparent, the but the recording methods and processes for digital recording are different from the analog ones. Considering the current status of digital I do not claim being able to differentiate between digital and analog, but I understand that trained people can do it easily.
BTW, when I write transparent I should have written "as transparent as it can be in an hobby where aficionados listen to night and day differences when switching cables"
You are alleging (in snarky ways: “shot his mouth off”; “discern the merest whiff of digital in the production of vinyl”; “doing somersaults”; “sticking [his] head in the sand even deeper to cover”
Sorry I don't agree that this is 'snarky'. Its my opinion, subjective as it is, take it or leave it. I've used as loose language as Fremer uses so I don't think this is inappropriate.
Lets get something straight - I'm poking fun at Fremer but don't misinterpret this as anything more. I actually like the guy and by and large agree with him and applaud his championing of vinyl over the last few decades. What I don't buy is his insistence that AAA is always best.
Don’t try to change the subject or wriggle off the hook of the specificity of the things you are telling us Michael wrote or said. Show us the writings or videos which prove what you’re saying.
Err show me where I'm wriggling. I'm not on any hook. I've characterised what I've heard Fremer say here and there over a long period of time.
He's said on more than one occasion that he believes that digital in any part of the production of vinyl is sub-optimal/ detrimental etc to final audio quality, and that he can hear it. All this storm over Mofi demonstrates is that he couldn't. It's not 'gotcha' or anything like that - its poking fun, but also in the hope that we will see a more balanced and pragmatic view now expressed on the use of various bits of technology whether they're analogue or digital.
I am not saying or implying you are incorrect. I do not know. I am simply asking you to prove what you are posting. My only objective here is fact-finding
Equally I don't think you should hide behind notions of fact finding, accuracy etc - I think your reaction says something else is on your mind and if it is just say so.
Please post links to the specific statements Michael wrote, or the specific sections in videos using second and minute references so we can find them, so we can understand the facts underlying your allegations.
I don't believe that even if I did that you'd accept it. I'm not going to be held to a standard of evidence that others aren't. Inany case this is a forum for discussion not an inquisition or grand jury, I don't have to 'prove' anything in forensic detail. A lot of people will recognise what I'm talking about and in due course I'll find and share examples. Case in point -
howiebrou said:
I think Michael said "it is easy to tell the difference between a digital recording recorded at 96/24 and an all analog recording" in the video. He didn't mention DSD.
