You're not seriously suggesting their objective views have equivalence? That's a bit like giving equal credibility to someone who has theorised about UFOs for the past 30 years with a physicist.It's sad that this hobby resorts to public name calling. Having degrees and being a college professor doesn't triumph a real job outside of academia. Most people have in theories fail in practice.
Peter believes that digital gives higher resolution, which it probably does or in theory should do. Mikey says it adds distortion and sound worse than analog/vinyl. Maybe it does add distortion as overtones into audible spectrum or it adds more detail and that detail could be noise or something audible that he and some producers don't like it. Or the added detail doesn't mask something that the analog/vinyl process masks/hides/removes. Who knows?
Maybe it's not even measurable or in 1/10th of dB and inaudible to most people. What if they are both wrong? Or both right?
Subjectively, Fremer, yourself or anyone can have a preference for less fidelity in sound recording/playback (i.e. analogue, particularly vinyl records). The problem with Fremerites of this world is that they cannot accept it is their own personal preference and instead resort to outright nonsense (or psuedoscience at best) to make objective claims.
There is no doubt that digital transparency is less forgiving of any flaws in the production processes compared to analogue media, but when done right there also is no doubt of the advantages of a the higher fidelity format. Just ask for a subjective opinion from enthusiasts of classical and orchestral music the most demanding genre for music realism.
Btw Fremer is not a producer, far from it - just a dude with strange thinking.
Last edited: