Welcome to the Skeptical Audiophile
Click here to see more letters from fans and detractors alike.
A fellow sent me this email a while back. Normally when people find fault with what we do, or how we do it, or the prices we charge, or the things we say, we figure live and let live and just go about our business (you know, the one where we find the best sounding records ever made).
This fellow took me to task for speaking ill of “people in the record industry,” which is a common complaint their number one apologist, Michael Fremer, likes to make, rather foolishly in my opinion, so I thought I would write a few words addressing the topic.
Ray’s letter:
Everytime I am tempted to make a purchase I always read something where Mr. Port is insulting people in the record industry. I get it. Your records may sound better than an audiophile pressing but for the price, they better! I respect the fact that you put a lot of time and effort into what you do, but insulting people is petty and makes you sound as though you are jealous of their success, you can sell records by simple stating that they sound great and with your money back guarantee (which few people actually take advantage of, from what I have read) You should be able to continue doing what you do with great success.
Just my unsolicited opinion.
Ray
I replied as follows:
Ray,
Thanks you for your letter.
Part of the problem with our approach to vinyl is that we not only sell a product that directly competes with those produced by others in the industry, but we also review the products that these other companies make.
We see it as fundamental to our job — something we owe to our customers — that we compare their Heavy Vinyl remastered pressings to our vintage Hot Stampers.
When we do that, insults are hard to avoid.
Their records are mostly a disgrace, but they don’t seem to notice how bad they sound. Nor do the audiophile types who review them.
This used to confound us. It still confounds us, but over the years we have decided it is better to accept reality and just live with it.
We are of the opinion that the people making records today should be held to account for their substandard work. Who better to do that than us?
We can provide the physical records that, when played properly, prove just how second-rate theirs actually are.
Bernie Grundman cut many of the best sounding pop and rock records ever made. I wanted to pay tribute to his fine work, so I wrote this commentary and tagged many of his best records within it: Thriller is proof that Bernie Grundman was cutting great records in 1982
But the bad records he made are very bad indeed. Most of what he mastered for Classic Records is awful, a more recently he has been doing equally spotty work. Here is a link to a select group of his worst remasterings.
Since no one seems to want to write about just how bad these records are, we felt it was our duty, as experts in the world of records, to point out their specific shortcomings. We do this for the benefit of audiophiles who might actually want good sound and not just quiet vinyl.
Some of them may be tired of being ripped off. Some of them may not even be aware they are being ripped off. Some of them never fell for the hype in the first place. (They’re the lucky ones.)
We want to help all of these audiophiles find higher quality records to play. We tell everyone who doesn’t want to pay our prices how to go about doing what we do for themselves.
In the meantime, like Consumer Reports, we help people to see what a scam and a fraud the modern heavy vinyl pressing is, in the hope that they will stop throwing their money away, and that those in the industry will improve their product or find something else to make a buck from.
The world is full of bad sounding records, we don’t need any more, and audiophiles should stop buying them. But who else is going to tell them that? Audiophile reviewers seem to be as easily taken in as everyone else.
As for being petty, I discussed the charge in this commentary. Allow me to quote a few lines:
I never say that the people making these modern records, as well as those reviewing them, are malicious or evil. I say they make (or review) bad sounding records and are simply misguided and incompetent.
You Call That Success?
You accuse me of being jealous of their success. What success? They are selling junk to those who haven’t learned how to spot it. Why would anyone be jealous of those who prey on novices and the ill-informed?
If you want to defend these people, name a record they’ve produced worth defending. If there is no such record, then why defend them?
The rich and powerful who produce these second- and third-rate vinyl offerings are taking advantage of the mostly ego-driven credulity of the typical audiophile record collector.
Why should they be protected from criticism? Shouldn’t you be taking the side of those that are being ripped off?
I am.
As long as they see no reason to stop making bad sounding records, we see no reason to stop criticizing them, and, to the great benefit of everyone, offering an alternative approach that is guaranteed to produce better results.
Thanks for your letter,
Best,
TP
Further Reading
Below you will find our reviews and commentaries for the hundreds of Heavy Vinyl pressings we’ve played over the years.
We confess that even as recently as the early 2000s we were still impressed with the better Heavy Vinyl pressings. If we’d never made the progress we’ve worked so hard to make over the course of the last twenty or more years, perhaps we would find more merit in the Heavy Vinyl reissues so many audiophiles are impressed by these days.
We’ll never know of course; that’s a bell that can be unrung. We did the work, we can’t undo it, and the system that resulted from it is merciless in revealing the truth — that these newer pressings are second-rate at best and much more often than not third-rate and even worse.
Some audiophile records sound so bad, I was pissed off enough to create a special list for them.
Setting higher standards — no, being able to set higher standards — in our minds is a clear mark of progress. Judging by the hundreds of letters we’ve received, especially the ones comparing our records to their Heavy Vinyl and Half-Speed mastered counterparts, we know that our customers see — and hear — things the same way.
Interesting that Ray points out that very few people take advantage of your money back guarantee. Why? Perhaps they just can’t be bothered to put a $900 record back in the box and drive it over to the post office?
Aaron,
I think the point Ray is making is that with a money back guarantee, people can assume our records sound great and there is no risk in trying one.
But the question he fails to ask himself is: Why would anyone pay $500-1000 for a Hot Stamper when there is a $30-150 pressing with quieter vinyl that is supposed to be better than any pressing ever made?
This is the position of many of those who tout these records — they are simply superior to what came before them.
If that’s true, we are the frauds and the rip-offs, money back guarantee or not.
According to those in the know, we offer the equivalent of pills that reduce belly fat while you sleep. Why would anyone take our claims any more seriously?
The original pressings were mastered for the lowest common denominator stereos of the day, not the fancy, high-priced equipment we audiophiles use. We require mastering done to audiophile quality standards free of the limitations placed upon the original mass-produced LPs.
Our reason for criticizing these remastered records and those who make them is to point out that any such claims to superior mastering are baseless and absurd.
In the case of the Rhino pressing of The Cars, I cannot imagine any original domestic pressing played back on good equipment that would not wipe the floor with it.
The audiophiles who own it can read about its specific shortcomings from our review. The next step would be for them to play their original copies to see if our criticisms help them to see the problems with the sound we described.
A great deal of Kevin Gray’s remastering work suffers from this same suite of shortcomings. I doubt if our listening panel playing the record back in Westlake knew who mastered the record. My guys (and gals) don’t care about that stuff. They just play the records and write down what they hear.
Should we keep his name out of our reviews? Is it petty to call out KG for mastering one awful record after another?
On the contrary, we think we are doing the public a service! Stop throwing your money away on these crappy pressings. And if they don’t sound wrong to you in the ways we describe, either work on your playback system or recognize that our reviews are not for the benefit of those with decidedly mid-fi systems who see no reason to improve them, or simply won’t make the effort.
An obvious problem with comparing the new Cars album with an original is that the VTA for your tonearm must be adjusted to play one (or both!) properly. If your arm doesn’t have this adjustment, or you don’t take the time to adjust it, carefully, by ear, then you may be hearing a very different Cars album than we did. Rigorously controlling for all the variables when doing record comparisons is essential to producing reliable findings. We lay it all for you here.
If all this seems like too much trouble, and we would not for a minute deny that practically nothing is harder than achieving top quality sound in the home, then by all means collect any kinds of records you like.
But don’t expect me to stop criticizing the modern Heavy Vinyl pressing, as well as those responsible for mastering them, releasing them and making fraudulent claims for their sound.
And let’s be sure to add to this list the reviewers who write so approvingly of these junk pressings. They bear a share of the responsibility for misleading the audiophile public.
They should all be held to account, and that means naming names, regardless of how petty some may find it.
Thanks for your comment,
TP