Jump to content
IGNORED

A Closer Look At Fremer's SHAMEFUL Brinkmann Nyquist DAC "Review"


Recommended Posts

...Since we are on the topic of shaming..

 

Michael Fremer's Brinkmann DAC review is one of the most shameful pieces every published by Stereophile.

 

It was more of a review of MQA than about the DAC.

 

First, no comparisons to unadulterated HiRez were performed, just MQA against Redbook:

 

"Listening to MQA files supplied to me for this review or streamed from Tidal HiFi/Master made two things clear: Those who claim they can't hear a difference between CD-resolution files and hi-rez MQA files either haven't bothered to listen, or don't want to admit that their claims of "CD sound is perfect" are just plain wrong."

 

Then we opinion masquerading as fact:

"MQA has been convincingly demonstrated at Consumer Electronics Shows..."

 

Then we have misleading information:

Clueless Fremer never mentions that MQA is not capable of full 24/192 resolution, in fact, no where in the piece does acknowledge anywhere that is lossy.

 

Then in the ultimate sell, out out, a man who never ever heard a digital component that bettered his precious vinyl,

miraculously, MQA bettered his precious vinyl for the first time in THIRTY YEARS. Yes a miracle right up there with the parting of the Red Sea.

 

"....when I played James Taylor's cover of Carole King's "You've Got a Friend," from his Mud Slide Slim and the Blue Horizon (LP, Warner Bros. 2561), through a Lyra Atlas SL or Ortofon A95 cartridge and the CH Precision P1 phono preamp, it didn't sound as warm and full-bodied as did the MQA version through the Nyquist. I'd never before heard Leland Sklar's bass sound so voluptuous, or Taylor's voice so mellifluous, honey-coated, and round-bodied as it did digitally, through the Nyquist."

 

...and the money shot, the ultimate slap in the face...

 

"As for MQA's ability to "fold" and "unfold" very large files for streaming and playback, hearing 24/96 and 24/192 files streamed through the Nyquist via Tidal was an ear-opener. Had this been CD sound in 1983, I'd still be an LP guy—but I'd also be all in with digital."
 

Shame Shame Shame


https://www.stereophile.com/content/brinkmann-audio-nyquist-da-processor-page-2#Hw4ff7KI65ZJpyeE.99

 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Yes a miracle right up there with the parting of the Red Sea.

The next miracle makes MQA profitable.  It's right there in the business plan.

Pareto Audio AMD 7700 Server --> Berkeley Alpha USB --> Jeff Rowland Aeris --> Jeff Rowland 625 S2 --> Focal Utopia 3 Diablos with 2 x Focal Electra SW 1000 BE subs

 

i7-6700K/Windows 10  --> EVGA Nu Audio Card --> Focal CMS50's 

Link to comment

I have heard MQA on a few systems.  What I am beginning to believe is like many things, the results will be system and source dependant.  

 

1st, the CD is huge as to the results.  Fremer has a YouTube  where he plays Roxy Music.   One CD, then blasts the DCS gear playing it as inferior to vinyl because his British Vinyl is better.  One CD and one album? ????  We should all know by now some CD were produced very well and others much less than not so well.

 

2nd, Some gear is voiced (not necessarily intentionally)  so that MQA brings a pop and bloom to the music.  Other gear is voiced (not necessary intentionally) so that MQA become bright, brittle and fatiguing.  Michael was probably given or utilized gear that benefits from MQA.  Hence his results.  He may still claim his vinyl is superior if he used some other playback equipment.  

Link to comment

Careful,  the Fremer has been known to bite!   

 

But I agree with @KingRex, results will be system (and recording) dependent.  MQA, with its insidious motives (beyond sound quality) is a topic of heated interest.  We shall see.

In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake ~ Sayre's Law

Link to comment

I reread the article,  I don't think he is that far off on sonics of digital and analog.  My system pretty much mimics his results.  Digital is full, warm, harmonic with great soundstage.  My vinyl is more thin, not as rich but really nails the violin or saxophone sound.  It's like the vibrating diamond is a more real representation of a vibrating Reed or string.  I like my digital better for music like Bowie, Cat Stevens, Blondie. Etc.  Vinyl is great for small scale classical or Art Pepper, Dave Brubeck. IMO, on my system.  Wew, glad I got that in there (IMO that is) . 

Link to comment

So he compares 24/96 or 24/192 MQA favorably to CD but you blast him because it is a lossy 24/192?  How much loss?  10%, 50%?  These hi-res formats have a lot of room, clearly since they throw away 85% of a 24/192 file to make a CD.  Talk about lossy. 

 

I listen to MQA and it sounds better TO MY EARS than CD.  Does it sound as good as a true 24/192 or even higher?  No, but for $10/month on Tidal that is OK.  Nobody is forcing you to buy it.  I also listen to vinyl through tubes and actually MQA got me to listen to digital again after giving up on CD.  I never liked the hi-res I've had over the years, DVD-A or downloads.  The music specifically recorded for it sucked and it always felt pointless to buy analog recorded music in hi-res.

 

Did we need MQA?  Probably not given how much bandwidth so many of us have.  Will it take over as a format?  Probably not.  Are they making money at it?  No, so it will likely die a slow death, just like DVD-A, SACD, CD, LP and every other format eventually does.  Get over it.

 

(and if you are thinking I don't get MQA for $10/month, you are wrong.  I have college kids living at home.)

Link to comment
1 hour ago, KingRex said:

I reread the article,  I don't think he is that far off on sonics of digital and analog.  My system pretty much mimics his results.  Digital is full, warm, harmonic with great soundstage.  My vinyl is more thin, not as rich but really nails the violin or saxophone sound.  It's like the vibrating diamond is a more real representation of a vibrating Reed or string.  I like my digital better for music like Bowie, Cat Stevens, Blondie. Etc.  Vinyl is great for small scale classical or Art Pepper, Dave Brubeck. IMO, on my system.  Wew, glad I got that in there (IMO that is) . 

Um, I think you are not understanding.

 

Fremer over the entire 30 year span he has been writing for TAS and Stereohile bashed digital  as thin adn unrealistic, and even the VERY BEST digital comes up short against his vinyl.

 

Here, along comes a DAC from a manufacturer with no history in digital audio what so ever, and whose turntables Fremer has positively reviewed numerous times, and along with it MQA..and now on more modest turntables than is reference, digital wins. Miracle of miracles!!!!!!

 

Incredible that a writer who has savaged digital in every review he has written now has an "ear opening" experience with TIdal lossy MQA.

 

In other words, in every other review he has ever written, he has described the digital/vinyl differences exactly the opposite of what you state.

Link to comment
On 9/23/2018 at 6:23 PM, Brinkman Ship said:

Here is another earthly miracle..convincing moronic readers a horribly measuring $18,000 piece of junk would look good in the hifi rack, because along with it;s noisy tubes, you get distorted MQA...?

You have made several, very reasonable, arguments against MQA. The kind of stretched hyperbole above doesn't help IMO.

 

Good or bad measurements are almost NEVER an indicator of how any one component can affect a system, - sonic character.

 

And tube typologies, depending on implementation, can be the cats meow.

 

There is no shortage of poor reviews by Fremer, - that is true. Many of his reviews are low-hanging-fruit, largely by reviewing components out of context.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

You have made several, very reasonable, arguments against MQA. The kind of stretched hyperbole above doesn't help IMO.

 

Good or bad measurements are almost NEVER an indicator of how any one component can affect a system, - sonic character.

 

And tube typologies, depending on implementation, can be the cats meow.

 

There is no shortage of poor reviews by Fremer, - that is true. Many of his reviews are low-hanging-fruit, largely by reviewing components out of context.

While you make some good points, do you think utter tripe like this holds an $18,000 DAC to a high standard?

 

"I suspect that John Atkinson's measurements will show that the noise floor of the Nyquist's tubed output stage, though inaudible as hiss, allows less than full resolution of hi-rez files. But for those interested in a rich, involving experience of music, regardless of the numbers—and especially analog folks who find themselves interested in the world of easily obtained, superb-sounding hi-rez music now available via digital—the Nyquist would look and sound right at home next to a turntable."

 

If Fremer was not cozy with the manufacturer, and the unit did not have MQA, do you think this piece of junk would have such a softball conclusion?

 

Interestingly, to his credit, JA state there is no reason to make apologies for a DAC this expensive but that is exactly what Fremer does..a veiled slap on the wrist? But in the end JA must have been happy with the pro MQA stance.
 

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

While you make some good points, do you think utter tripe like this holds an $18,000 DAC to a high standard?

 

"I suspect that John Atkinson's measurements will show that the noise floor of the Nyquist's tubed output stage, though inaudible as hiss, allows less than full resolution of hi-rez files. But for those interested in a rich, involving experience of music, regardless of the numbers—and especially analog folks who find themselves interested in the world of easily obtained, superb-sounding hi-rez music now available via digital—the Nyquist would look and sound right at home next to a turntable."

 

If Fremer was not cozy with the manufacturer, and the unit did not have MQA, do you think this piece of junk would have such a softball conclusion?

 

Interestingly, to his credit, JA state there is no reason to make apologies for a DAC this expensive but that is exactly what Fremer does..a veiled slap on the wrist? But in the end JA must have been happy with the pro MQA stance.
 

"" If Fremer was not cozy with the manufacturer, and the unit did not have MQA, do you think this piece of junk would have such a softball conclusion?"

 

Yes, - because Fremer writes consistently bad reviews that do not compare products, and reviews items way outside a commensurate system configuration. This leads to all sorts of problems, - including supporting the narrative that the 4 or 5 trolls that frequent this site who think that there are measurements and objective statements about (individual) components that somehow reflect how a system sounds.

 

This is to say that MQA is a cheap reverb tank filled with all sorts of other "issues" that are outside the realm of sound quality. I agree with you and support your calling out of MQA and even taking apart reviews that sing the praises of a format that no one wants, and is actually setting back advances in file playback.  This isn't Fremer's first horrible review, and it's not going to be his last either.

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

This leads to all sorts of problems, - including supporting the narrative that the 4 or 5 trolls that frequent this site who think that there are measurements and objective statements about (individual) components that somehow reflect how a system sounds.

 

Is this childish name calling really helpful?

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

"" If Fremer was not cozy with the manufacturer, and the unit did not have MQA, do you think this piece of junk would have such a softball conclusion?"

 

Yes, - because Fremer writes consistently bad reviews that do not compare products, and reviews items way outside a commensurate system configuration. This leads to all sorts of problems, - including supporting the narrative that the 4 or 5 trolls that frequent this site who think that there are measurements and objective statements about (individual) components that somehow reflect how a system sounds.

 

This is to say that MQA is a cheap reverb tank filled with all sorts of other "issues" that are outside the realm of sound quality. I agree with you and support your calling out of MQA and even taking apart reviews that sing the praises of a format that no one wants, and is actually setting back advances in file playback.  This isn't Fremer's first horrible review, and it's not going to be his last either.

Me thinks we are in complete agreement at this point.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Is this childish name calling really helpful?

You tell me.

(whom sending childish meme's about digging holes)?

 

I am not the one coming onto an Audiophile website and ignorantly attacking audiophiles with mad, speculations, and for being delusional when the attackers are not engaging in any kind of testing whatsoever. 

 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

 

I am not the one coming onto an Audiophile website and ignorantly attacking audiophiles with mad, speculations, and for being delusional when the attackers are not engaging in any kind of testing whatsoever. 

 

 

I'm sorry that not everyone here conforms to your rigid standards of how an audiophile is expected to act. Perhaps you might want to consider that not everyone approaches this hobby in the same way that you do.

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
Just now, kumakuma said:

 

I'm sorry that not everyone here conforms to your rigid standards of how an audiophile is expected to act. Perhaps you might want to consider that not everyone approaches this hobby in the same way that you do.

 

What you are writing is straw grasping, - and not about me, - as the subject of Brinkman's post, and my comments are about Fremer and his reviews. Whatever I think about the "hobby" is not relevant, and/or really mentioned.

 

"everyone approaches this hobby in the same way that you do.

 

What have i said that would imply the above? No one is discussing anyone's "approach" to the hobby.

 

If you are talking about something else, somewhere else... why post about it here?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Albrecht said:

 

What you are writing is straw grasping, - and not about me, - as the subject of Brinkman's post, and my comments are about Fremer and his reviews. Whatever I think about the "hobby" is not relevant, and/or really mentioned.

 

"everyone approaches this hobby in the same way that you do.

 

What have i said that would imply the above? No one is discussing anyone's "approach" to the hobby.

 

If you are talking about something else, somewhere else... why post about it here?

 

I was simply pointing out that I find your tendency to call people who disagree with you "trolls" childish.

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...