Analog? Digital? Does it matter? Wrapping up the MoFi arc
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 08. 2022
- The In Groove's Livestream Q&A: • Live from The 'In' Gro...
Records mentioned:
Roxy Music Avalon: amzn.to/3djXGmW
Akiko Yano Iroha Ni Konpeitou amzn.to/3JJA1Z1
Kate Bush the Dreaming amzn.to/3BTZQnj
Follow me on instagram: / poetryonplastic
Was wondering if you would mention Painted From Memory when you started to talk about the Costello catalog.
I always thought it was a great sounding CD and what a shame it was never issued on vinyl. Was ecstatic that MFSL did it and it sounds amazing. Now comes to light it’s digital. Can’t help but wonder if it could have sounded even better as a all analog record…but otherwise it IS a great sounding record
Think Superfly is one of the best sounding records ever released and thought the MFSL cut at 45rpm was the definitive pressing. Glad it was all analog and think a well done all analog can be better than DSD
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: people are saying garbage like “see, the MFSL records were digital and you didn’t hear the difference” and that’s bs. We weren’t comparing the DSD to a all analog record of the same music.
MFSL needs to press a record using DSD and also do a all analog version. THEN let’s see if we can hear differences. We probably will and if we can’t, that’s a great thing
Anybody want to respond to this so that I don’t have to?
Starting with suggesting that the sound system at Mobile Fidelity is probably the worlds best 😂
i don´t mind if it was recorded from digital masters , always sounds better in vinil the compact disc or sacd is the problem ,the cd was very limited in the frequencies and if a not high-end turntable from 72 can reproduce a much wider spectrum of frequencies than any cd player . what makes me wonder is now everybody that enjoys music that i know are saying that they have to buy a pre-amplifier even to the headphones ,with the same money one can buy a better amplifier or speakers depending on wich needs improvement, normally in the 70´s some receivers had a volume knob in the back or in the side or even in the front panel for mc or mm cartridges ,i saw a yamaha receiver that in the back on top of the rca inputs had a volume knob the level all the sources ,this was in the 70´s ,we are now in 2022 ,cars don´t fly as some expected but the system of comunications is above the science-fiction tv series space 1999 that the moon is projected to deep space along with human instalations after a big nuclear explosion where there are casuality´s but most of them survive and travel in space on the moon having the Eagles (spaceships) to drive to diferent planets with other forms of life ,their means of comunication are some big things that they carry on their belts and have a litle colour crt tv´s that one would phone and at the same time see the person, car still don´t fly but the celular phones are much better than those of the tv series to comunicate ,this a english tv series ,but when talking about sound as in home intertainment why things are so evolved but at the same time sound is worse not bad but worse for what could be expected
Digital source can sound really good, the issue that kills mofi for me is the deliberate deception. I certainly won’t buy another mofi record. Thank you for shedding more light on the whole debacle.
I'm pretty sure that you like the LP better because it becomes an "analog event" once your cartridge "plays" the groove like an instrument plays a score. Plus, albums have to be mastered specifically for vinyl and that in itself changes the sound (as per RIAA and bass EQ etc).
this is true. vinyl playback sounds different, and mastering for vinyl has limitations other formats don't experience. from a purely objective standpoint, we would have to call these differences degradations from fidelity to the source material, but there is a lot that characterization doesn't capture. Listening to vinyl has so many variables that really matter: the weight and quality of the vinyl, the mastering (obviously), the playback speed, the cartridge, the electronics, the provenance of the physical disc in front of you. If all of that comes together in the right way, along with the tactile experience, it feels like finding the holy grail. that experience is way better than just a boring old transparent rendering of the source.
@@dkeener13 Boring? What I am listening to now is anything except boring. And it's from Qobuz. It depends on the DAC: some DACs sound just gorgeous.
@@DaveJ6515 I'm sure it sounds great, but a good DAC shouldn't have a "sound" it should be transparent.
@@dkeener13 And why shouldn't vinyl be transparent? Anyway, there is no arguing about how transparent any component alone is: the sound we listen to has been through a bunch of cables, a preamplifier, a power amplifier and some transducers. After that it bounces a few times around a room, is reflected, absorbed, refracted, and finally reaches our ears. Too complicated.
Well said Michael. I've suggested the flowing topic to be "grouped talked" for 2-3 months at least and, in which WOULD BE HUGE VIEWS: "Why do we buy & play our orig. LPs + our audiophile One-Steps (Impex, AP, MFSL, Craft, etc) LPs if we can secure its 95% twin digital file or its 95% twin SACDs?" IOW let's actually not skip over the vinyl experience IN Detail discussion:
Why we love VINYL?
When do we play vinyl?
When/why buy a great 192/24 digital album OVER a vinyl LP of same.
Does a genre tend to be played more on vinyl (jazz & classical?) and other genres played more on CD or SACD or 92/24 digital file?
AND....is it these resultant demographic(s) that prefers some genres over other genres that lease the online forum arguments!?
I'm a vinyl head w/ 2,000+ LPs and I'm a digital head w/ ~13,000 albums, nicely organized and QUICKLY accessed in various 44/16, 48/24, 96/24 and 132/24 rez 🎶 via my well rounded ROON Audio system.
So do I have a preference????
Let's bring in 4-6 of us in a online group and talk about it!!
As an "old" that's been buying records since the mid 70's, I think what is done in the mastering process matters a lot more than whether digital is involved or not. I think digital to an extent has gotten a bad rep because digital makes things easier, and that means that if you are going to do a bad mastering job it's going to involve digital. Because doing a bad job generally involves cutting corners and not caring about the end result. Analog is hard and you're burning time anyway, and if your OCD enough to want to master analog then you're also OCD enough to care about the result.
So a bad master is more likely than not be digital, but this does not mean that all digital is inherently bad. Now as to whether good digital is as good as it can possibly be there is no real way to know unless someone would do a balls to the wall analog and digital remaster at the same time and release both.
Too often I see someone say "this 2022 remaster of this 1960 release is bad because it's digital". Well it could be bad because the tapes are now 60+ years old and just don't sound the same, it could be bad because of choices made in the mastering process, etc.
Michael, this is by far the best and most informative video that I have seen on this topic. So many audiophiles have been unable to separate the drama of the Mofi situation from the question of what the presence of a digital step actually means. It’s clear that every release should be viewed on its own merit, whether it be from a digital or analogue source. Tape will clearly degrade over time so the question of whether a digital process should be used to improve the quality should always be asked. I agree that analogue cutting techniques should be used for as long as possible but should not always be assumed to provide the best result for every release.
Re: the dylan SACD vs Vinyl you're absolutely not hearing the difference between DSD256 and DSD64. No human can hear the difference. The difference you're hearing is in whatever analog components were used in either the SACD or Vinyl sources (and in the case of Vinyl, the cutting head, etc). Another significant component of this is the DAC used on the way out to the vinyl mastering analog signal (processing) chain + cutting head. There's absolutely nothing wrong with preferring the vinyl over the sacd. It just means you like the analog gear they used in the process and the sound of your turntable, cartridge and preamp (which are FAR more significant than the difference between DSD64 and DSD256, a theoretical improvement neither proven nor reliably/responsibly researched by someone who isn't selling something). It's also important to note the micro-dynamics usually preserved by a vinyl mastering engineer which might get tossed aside on an SACD because the loudness war is *everywhere* except good vinyl pressings it seems. Again, any preference to DSD is usually the result of higher-quality analog input buffers being used. PCM with the same input buffer will perform just as well assuming you're talking about a device made past 1998 or so. Aye...there's just so much misinformation out there. Now we have to educate people about PCM.
Great to see your closure on this! Yours is the only vinyl record channel I follow, so you exposed me to this in the first place. Here's a note about the fantastic Roxi Music "Avalon". Bob Clearmountain mixed that (which to me, pretty much explains its insanely great sound) and his workflow is if given a multitrack analog master tape, he used to transfer them to 44.1/24 digital through Apogee converters on to Sony digital multitrack (reel to reel!) decks, then mix in analog using the Apogee DA to feed analog to an SSL analog desk. I don't know if the two track master that he output from that desk was captured on analog tape, some digital format, or possibly both. But the point is, the analog mix originated from digital files. A benefit of this workflow is the analog multitrack only needs to be played once, preserving its clarity and high frequency detail, no matter how many times Bob reviewed sections of his mix while doing his work. The great Bruce Swedien recorded to analog multitrack, but then dubbed the multitrack tape to a second tape to work out his mix on an automated console. Then, he used the original multitrack only to make a single second pass of playback to send his mix to two a track tape as the master. Again, this is so the original is only played twice to preserve transients and punch of the original multitrack. By using 4x DSD copy of an analog master tape, MOFI can make their one step stampers over and over again from that DSD, without deteriorating the analog master tape. This workflow makes total sense. If they only MOFI hadn't lied about what they were doing.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Yes and this happens all the time. Many mix engineers prefer to work on analog consoles; you'll often hear them use terms like "glue" etc especially for SSLs. People getting caught up in analog vs digital is laughable considering no mixing or mastering engineers even care; they use their ears and nothing else. Analog to digital conversion can't really be blamed for anything when you get to even mid-grade ADC devices (even Apogee PCM devices). DSD is also useless unless you're talking about ADC done before the late 90s. Just wait until its revealed that all these supposed DSD-sourced pressings were PCM. Gasp. Yet not one human on earth could tell the difference...
Great video. Yours have been the most well informed of the videos I’ve seen on this
nonsense. I’m glad to hear someone pointing out that there are so many variables in the creation of records that it’s impossible to create rigid rules as to what is best. It’s also good to hear someone acknowledge that we don’t all agree on what sounds best anyway.
Mic Drop! Thank you, Dr. Johnson. Eloquent and articulate on all fronts. Cheers!
This was a very balanced summary Michael and much appreciated. Thank you!
The age of the tape can explain a lot of “dullness” in the sound. What happens is “entropy”: magnetic particles loose their alignment over time. Think of sand with a precise pattern with sharp edges: the wind will dull the sharp edges first. It is actually dulling all of the structure you see, what happens is there are few particles in the sharp edges so they get blurred out first.
Considering a DSDx4 transfer should be incredibly transparent, you’re actually preserving those tapes.
Yes all methods of transcoding have a sound signature, but so do analog copies - more even.
This was great! Love your videos bro!
Well done Michael! You are such a fresh air.
Great stuff, Michael. Lucid, measured and informative. I’d recommend this to anyone seeking a dispassionate wrap up on what the MoFi situation really means. I fear you’re right that this is a golden era, the ability to use copy and cut from even second or third generation master tapes or safeties is something to cherish. There is hope that AI could replicate analogue feel given enough time, data and resources but I have no idea if anyone has begun to think in those terms. Certainly esoteric shows what’s possible and MoFi themselves if properly marketed and priced could be setting the standard for - at least- a silver age of remastering combining a bleeding edge digital step with a best of breed analogue chain specifically for vinyl. Recognising the scale of the market where tapes have been damaged or lost or were digital first anyway, that’s always going to be our best hope for a significant amount of the music we love. Thanks again.
Man !! I am gonna have to get into your channel ! don't know if I will get around to your very cool contest... but, CONGRATULATIONS on 10,000 ! Simply.. I enjoy both formats at different times, and moods, and situations. I love listening to music in the car, so .. a CD works nicely.. Cheers ! JT
Absolutely outstanding video. Well done.
Man, thank you for providing the two best comments I saw on the mofi drama. It’s unreal how many other videos were highly informed but plagued with emotion and ego. I’ve always sought out an AAA copy if it’s available for the title I’m after. My thinking is that has to be one of the most expensive and arduous pieces of the puzzle when producing a reissue. If you’re going to the trouble then what are the chances you’re going to fumble on the mastering portion? It’s almost like a Michelin star for a restaurant. It’s sort of a guarantee you’re going to get something good. I suspect that a lot of consumers are ultimately impressed with the quality of vinyl mastering that is frequently exclusive to the AAA title. It seems like mofi identified and exploited this. It does not mean that they didn’t get the mastering right which is truly the more important aspect. I say this not really being a fan of mofi. They just seem overpriced regardless of the source. Mofi debacle aside we’re still amidst a renaissance in vinyl reissues. Really looking forward to the next few years.
there has been a recent update in the Mofi website that says: "1/4" / 15 IPS analog copy to DSD 256 to analog console to lathe" for some titles. This might be why they do feel analog, because they would add an extra step after the DSD, at the end of the day these records sound great, and I wish they were more open about it when I originally bought them, but we can only hope this means that they will be more open for better titles and rethink their sourcing for future releases even if they have stated they want to keep using DSD, which again, I'm not opposed as long as it sounds great.
Great video and thoughtful perspective on the whole analog vs digital debacle.
Thank you for being one of the more thoughtful commenters in this space, but I disagree with a lot of what you say. This Mofi thing wasn't set up as a rigorous scientific study (obviously), but it really was a massive unintentional blind test right in the heart of the analog holy of holies, and the analog snobs couldn't hear any of it. All of the analog purist presumptions just failed. Everyone should learn something from it when it comes to this whole process, otherwise we're just being obstinate in clinging to our priors.
What I'm learning is that there are a lot of things you can hear, and some things you can't. Things you can hear: the original recording equipment, the mixing and mastering and everything that goes into the original master. You can hear the months of work, test pressings, etc. that Mofi (and others in that arena) spend with those masters to bring them back to life. You can hear the result they put forward, and whether it appeals to your tastes. You can hear the things about vinyl playback that make that a uniquely appealing medium for many. What you can't hear is the specific technology they used along the way.
There truly are audible differences between different recordings of the same musical source, and if it's a meaningful recording to you it can be worth some time and effort to compare and seek out the version you like best. What doesn't do anyone any good at all are a bunch of falsifiable presumptions and prejudices shaping this industry and this hobby. It directs energy and attention (and $$) away from the things that matter toward things that don't and that hurts everyone.
Thanks for another great video. I 100% enjoyed it.
Very thoughtful coverage of the topic - more than any other release it is the OG pressing of John Coltrane's ballads that sold me on the sound of analog. The soundstage is so wide and you can really hear the room and resonances of the music which creates a full 3D soundstage. This is the case with other Coltrane Impulses as well in head-to-head comparisons vs. audiophile reissues.
Fantastic video and I echo a lot of your opinions. Keep it up, man!
As somebody who's not into vinyl at all and who has fully embraced digital, I just hope this whole fiasco just shifts the industry, the hobby and the market towards more hi-res digital releases. After SACDs (DSD), nobody really tried to beat that technology (not saying it NEEDS to be beaten). I like the vinyl renaissance only because it's bringing young people into the hobby - just having them listen to the songs they love on a deeper level than just lyrics/melody brings me high hopes for the future of audiophilia
Also, you're a great presenter, you have a new subscriber :)
Another digital fan here that completely agrees with this comment and how good this vinyl channel is. I subscribed on the first video about this incident. My two cents today: fidelity is overrated. I'm not looking for accuracy anymore and learned to enjoy the fact that the music I like most is constructed in a studio on a console. The "performance" is me putting it on in my house or my headphones. I've been to concerts and I've been to recording sessions. I get much less from those experiences, something very different at least, than I do from playing records at home.
Also agree. I enjoy vinyl but my digital playback clearly sounds better to me. I'm sure it's the opposite for the long-time vinyl collectors that have really nice decks.
the whole industry would be better in sacds where in the arsenal of every band (even underground rock like bands).
The Sacd is a flop, and the regular cd is not far behind. If I am going to listen to digital, I am using Tidal, and not spending money on a cd. I have slowed way down on purchasing music, as it takes up space, but I do love throwing an lp on the turntable, and just sitting back and relaxing.
@@jeffl915 yes.Unless you have no problem with budget you can collect and also upgrade the equipment.When youre not an audiophile but a music lover, its ok to collect every format on the planet.
Great well thought out talk on the state of the art.
Thank you.
good evening . I have been watching your videos for a while. and I find you brilliant, full of common sense, continue.
My take-a-way from this MoFi fiasco is that both vinyl/DSD and vinyl/analog records can both sound excellent; there is just a better chance of this happening with vinyl/analog.
Hey Michael, can you do a sound comparison between the mofi one step against original now h one step is ou? Thanks
A wonderful overview and reality check to this ongoing saga Michael ✌🏻
Great video Michael!
This is the best video on vinyl playback that I have ever heard
Great video and channel. Hoping someone can tell me the song played at the beginning? Many thanks!
You are always spot on, their marketing wanted to differentiate their brand from all the others, and had to fib a bit to make them unique, by revealing its all DSD, they don't have much to differentiate from all the other pressers.
At this point with the perceived demand for all analogue pressings. I think the labels should invest in tape duplication equipment or company to at least make new safety copies so that we can reset the clock on tape deterioration.
I agree. It's like buying property a mile from the edge of town. Right now it seems like a low value proposition. Most super obsessed audiophiles don't want copies of copies. But tomorrow is closer than we think and suddenly we're going to find that these analog duplicates are super valuable - closest to the original that anyone can get because the originals are unplayable. I think even today there are many people who would be willing to pay even more than the current cost of a MoFi One Step if they could be guaranteed that it was truly a tape master made from a tape copy of the closest copy of a tape master that could be found. Admittedly that market is small, but I contend that it exists.
@@AndyBHome Exactly and I am one of those people who would by them. Whats going to happen a 100 years from now? People are going to want a AAA copy of you name it. Maybe the amount of og's will cover the amount of people wanting them
Excellent commentary! I think you drew some really useful conclusions from subject matter that is anything but black & white. Good sound is where you find it… Keep the thoughtful and interesting content coming. 👍🏻
A wrap? Yes please!
Are all these DSD records EQ's in the analog domain, or converted to PCM, EQ's and back converted to DSD? You can't EQ native DSD for those who don't know. PS: To make records sound better, just use a smile EQ or press the loudness button right?
I can only say one word to describe this video. EXCELLENT!!
Very enjoyable video. Thanks for this! The way I see it, around about 1975 - 1980, record companies realized that original tape masters are irreplaceable, precious treasures, very valuable to history and the preservation, conservation of masters became very serious. So, the idea of conservation is to playback master tapes as few times as possible, preferably not at all. That's when the focus on high fidelity tape copies happened and the desire for high resolution digital files happened. What's in the future? Probably a development of digital to a thousand times more accurate than 4XDSD, something wildly precise.
Oooo. Sweet 'table!
Sign me up!
Please carry on!
Excellent presentation. I took a lot away from this. You are one smart guy. Thank you.
Fantastic video man.
You've done two excellent videos about the situation. I agree with just about all your points. The only difference is I'll still be buying MoFi records, but probably won't be doing as many pre-orders. I think the days of a release selling out in less than an hour are over and we'll probably have more time to wait for reviews before making a purchase.
Studio vs Live speakers, another great topic. I've been doing many digital remaster vs analog comparisons and getting mixed results. Sometimes the digital remaster wins. Sometimes the analog wins. It all comes down to the quality of the pressing/mastering of the specific record you have. I don't know if I'm biased, but sometimes I can really tell if something is coming from an analog tape (has that sort of warm and "glowing" vibrant sound that's pretty unmistakable). Sometimes I can really tell when something is digital (flat and sterile). Clarity can many times be better with a modern clean digital remaster, but is clarity enough to win? Depends on who you ask. What if clarity comes with being sterile leading to a less involving listening experience? There's lots of subjectiveness to it, but I would say ALWAYS compare your pressings. Don't just assume something is better because it's newer or has the "Original Master Recording" banner on the top.
Thanks for the interesting thoughts!
Killer presentation 🎵🎶😎
Common sense and discernment, nice to see👀😬
Great content and thank you. I went ahead and picked up a 7.5 ips reel of Sketches of Spain for a good price after the Mofi digi revelation.
New to your channel - love it…
Outstanding video
It's referred to as a transfer, from tape to digi. A scan is a photographic process and relates to images.
It is the mastering that matters and not, so much, the format. The tape condition also matters greatly. Keep in mind that if one uses the master tape, we have to assume that the machine used is in perfect condition. Let's say that it is. That tape is going to be played back through the electronics of that machine. It is them sent to the cutting lathe and goes through those electronics...now we are at two steps in the process. The cutting engineer now does his work as he/she sees fit. Will they cut the album like the original? I have heard some cutters who have said they prefer the cuts that have more bass and are louder to be cut on the outer grooves as they need more room. They may not have that choice. If you are only going to press up to 1,000 LPs, you can only play the master tape one time. We now have 2 steps in the process, and we have not even talked about plating or mothers or fathers within this process. I have been playing vinyl since 1952 and grew up on the format and have always liked it with numerous turntables and cartridges and phono stages later. As these master tapes get older and older, they need to be archived in the best possible way, whether one chose hi rez PCM (24/192 or 24/384) or DSD at 1 to 4 times the rate. The problem with DSD is that the equipment needed is mastering is expensive if one has to make edits to the source. Some will contract this work out. The main problem with DSD is the ultrasonic noise that is outside the audible band but is there. My test as to a preference is a great recording engineered by the esteemed engineer, Tony Faulkner, who recorded K622 with Antony Michaelson in 2003. It was recorded on a Studer A80RC two track deck with Dolby A, the DCS DSD converter was dCS904. Microphones were Neumann M50c omni"s and one AKG C24 in figure 8 on the clarinet with 3 Schoeps CMC65ug as spot mics on the winds. Mic preamps were EAR 824M's. Console was a TdP custom console. LP mastering was by Stan Ricker. SACD masters were complete by FineSplice on their Sanoma editor, pure DSD. There was a 180 gram LP made along with an SACD with both a stereo SACD layer and redbook layers from both the DSD and tape transfers for comparison by those who bought both formats. It was a great performance and recording and a great way for one to decide for themselves where the sonic losses were, if any. without knowing, I don't know if I could have picked out a favorite from any of them, but I liked the LP and the SACD files equally and had no real preference. Even the analog to digital files were excellent. I still think it comes done to the mastering for any of the formats and then what EQ the cutting engineer does as it goes to the lathe. So many things matter, and AAA does not tell the whole story.
Musicality and pure ear-based analysis are my preference when deciding which editions suit a particular recording best. Technical details are important but can muddy the water when psychology is taken into account. Ears win.
Great video BTW. Well-reasoned as always.
9:20 - Are you sure that's true? What about the resolution of your analog equipment? What about the resolution of the specific analog format? Is 33.3RPM vinyl the best?
What if you record your Blonde On Blonde vinyl on DSD64 and compare it to the SACD?
Hi.Im from the latin audio community and thanks for Pedro I land on your channel and its great. Would you reccomend me the dac Denafrips Ares II if im on a budget or another chinese sabre based dac?
Hey Jesus, I think that depends on what the rest of your system is like. I think the two really good under 1k usd dacs out there right now are the Ares II and the Topping D90 (which I've only heard once). I loved the Ares II, but it is on the warm side, so if you want that super digital sound you might want to look at the topping. If you want a more analog sound from a DAC the Ares is great. I actually use the Pontus II in my system.
Very good video! I enjoyed it very much…😊🙋♀️
Well done Michael 👍🏻
Hey man¡ your records look great, what outer sleeves do you use? Sorry if you've answered that before....Salud!
I mostly use double LP sleeves from Clearbags. They aren't as durable as some other sleeves, but I find they are way clearer/better looking than any others.
Michael I really enjoyed you detail on what’s DSD and analog man I had sold my Elvis Costello armed forces about 3 years ago and miss it and bought it back while diggin’ that awesome analog cut . I was blown away with the Dylan Blonde on Blonde I have an OG mono the Mofi blows it out of the water . Superfly stunning just played a couple of days ago. Those miles are digital they sound great IMO loved Michael great album pulls on digital also I’ve learned a lot from your take. Mofi was dirty in how they do business but you live and you learn. Lovellandrew
Excellent points
Great content & I agree with you. I am snatching up analog pressings mastered by Kevin Gray, Doug Sax & RKS while I can.
great video. very interesting
Apart from the fact which master was used, the question is, do we want to buy digital music on vinyl? Are we willing to pay all that extra money for a digital copy on vinyl?
Newer gen better equipment, iron out problems from the prev. gen DSD64 equipment? On top of it just being a higher number. They did say DSDx4 (256) was an all new DAC/ADC/MASTERING system.
What only matters is if you like it or not. The rest of it is just silliness.
I do agree . But you are swindled when you pay 100 dollars more for a product in the faith of getting a pure analog LP. I have cancelled my Thriller order on LP - and want the SACD instead - and save the money for other good recordings.
@@thomasmarker8198 I do not disagree but the question I ask is this... is it a $100 record because it is "pure analog" or is it a $100 record because it cost more for the whole process regardless of the digital or analog steps? We each will have to decide for ourselves.
Enjoyed!
Very well said.
I wonder why MOFI chose to use DSD64 on the Miles’ One Steps coming out versus using DSD256? Also, did you see The Vinyl Archivist’s Yes Fragile shootout? The UK Plum blew away all other pressings and the One Step finished dead last! -Russ
What are "parcipants"?
Masterclass!
Great video Michael. Those reissue living voice 35mm lps are not from the original tape they were transferred to normal tape. 35 mm. Would deteriorate quicker.
So Mofi is cutting their SACD to vinyl. When dsd64?
Great video, well said on all counts.. agree with you about the importance of these recordings and the need to accept the fate of the tapes (and sadly, the mastering engineers at some point). I think transparency is the key moving forward. Ps.(hope you do a livestream with Ingroove Mike sometime).
That tone poet stuff is all jazz. I’m a very casual jazz listener. That’s why Music On Vinyl is my favorite. They put out the good stuff from the 90s and early Aughts.
The Absolute Sound just published an 'interview' with Jim Davis that was obviously an emailed questionnaire, with 'answers' that sounded like they were prepared by MoFi's marketing dept. Apparently some questions were off limits such as 'why did you lie to your consumers for at least eleven years?' Nothing more than a press release, did not even hint at the ongoing controversy, much less offer any sort of apology. A complete joke.
this is smart,very smart,thanks.
Thinking of music as art, what is the musics message and what does that mean to me or you? It’s a fluid medium, accuracy and reproduction plays a part in the enjoyment of music listening.
Hi, a clear statement of the value of all analogue mastering of vinyl. You are right to say that A to D conversions leave a sonic footprint but there is also a D to A conversion to restore the analogue waves from the digits - another sonic footprint. Best with analogue tapes to stay in the analogue world. I am unconvinced by the MOFI arguments that they can improve the analogue tape.
Beautifully and aptly argued. I have the Josef Krips Beethoven cycle from Everest, reissued by Classic Records, and despite the wow it's still an incredible and enjoyable recording. I am lucky enough to have an original du Pre Elgar and it sounds amazing (her record of Haydn cello concertos is also stunning, and I bet you could find that for less money). I must say that every Esoteric SACD I have sounds incredible, and I would buy them all if I could! Let me also mention the Emil Berliner remasterings for SACD of the DG catalogue. They actually went back to the multi-track masters and remixed as well as remastered. They completely rewrite the book on what we always thought was the "compromised" DG sound (I plan to do a dedicated video on this topic). Anyway, I feel the same way you do about Mofi - and their inept handling of the whole debacle has made it all far worse. Your two videos on the subject have been exemplary.
Let me also add that as a classical music nut I still buy plenty of new CDs, and the sound quality these days is so far beyond even what was being produced just 10-15 years ago. Of course you need a really good player (not necessarily the more expensive ones).....
You make a lot of great points. However I think a person’s opinion about the sound of digital conversion is very easy to test, in a way that doesn’t involve comparing a bunch of records. Simply play an analog signal through your speakers or headphones (like simply listening to a record you’re really familiar with). Then take that signal and run it through a ADC and right back through a DAC (even just use a consumer grade audio interface, say 24 bit 44.1 kHz) and listen to that, toggle back and forth between the signal straight from vinyl, and the signal that’s gone through the digital round trip. Make sure the two are perfectly level-matched. Do it blindly so you don’t know which is which. Guess which one has gone through the digital step. If you’re not sure which is which, that means your ears can’t hear digitization of audio. -- This test is completely different from the preference of records over cds, because the needle moving over the groove adds a sound that you might find pleasing. That’s perfectly cool. And this test doesn’t mean that recordings done with ribbon mics, going through big consoles, in a live room, to tape, using tube compressors and EQs don’t sound way better than the DAW approach used today. The old analog recordings do indeed sound yummy! But the question is: if you take a yummy sound and run it through an ADC/DAC, does it become cold and thin? Or does it remain the same?
If you say it remains the same, that doesn’t mean you don’t love analog sound. It just means you think the digital step is transparent.
I mean I've done a few vinyl rips using a very high quality Universal Audio ADC, they do not sound like the real thing by a long shot.
Please consider doing a talk or talks on playing mono records, stylus and cartridge types that are safe for and best for mono vinyl records.
The best type of cartridge is a true mono cartridge. Many modern mono cartridges are actually normal (stereo) ones that just have the channels summed to mono internally. For the best reproduction of your mono records you need a real mono cartridge, one that doesn't respond to vertical movement in the groove. That is because early mono records (1948-circa. 1970) only have horizontal modulation in the grooves. That's why if you try playing any modern record with said cartridges you risk damaging both the stylus and the groove.
Some examples are the Denon DL-102, the Goldring 600, the General Electric RPX...
The best type of stylus would probably be a 0,7mil or a 1mil conical stylus. It depends on who you ask. Technically the best would be the 1mil, since that's the stylus size that mono records were designed to be played with. Although some argue that with a 0,7, the stylus sits lower and can avoid wear caused by 1mil styli, and also avoid the pinching effect at the inner grooves of the record. Which makes sense to me.
If you look up some of the more archaic cartridges that were designed to play mono records (and the mono records were designed go be played by them) you wouldn't worry about what's more safe. Just enjoy.
One of my favs LP's of the last 5 years or so is Cecil McLoren Salvant Diamonds and Daggers. Great sounding. First heard on 50K Vandersteen and VTL. Digital master.
Could you post a link to the list please?
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ma5KjjGYsC-bvtwfsNIR4NNqGk0o2a7zEPyOCue6Nv0/edit#gid=0
Interesting video, my friend. I'm from México, and I'm a record collector since the 90s, though I only collect editions from the USA and Europe, because very few Mexican editions have good quality. But because I live in México it's very hard for me to get MoFi editions, I only have 2 editions from the 80s and only a one-step edition, which is Yes Fragile. Like most people I was also lead to believe it was cut directly from the original master tapes. But I also have the 2016 edition cut from the original analogue master tapes by Kevin Gray and it somehow sounds to my ears better than the one step edition. Do you know if the 2016 edition was indeed cut from the original analogue master tapes? or was it also another lie?
The 2016 Kevin Gray cut is definitely analogue. I don't have that one, but I do have the 2006 version he cut with Steve Hoffman. To me I prefer the one step of that particular album, but the Kevin Gray cut is also fantastic so its more about what sound you prefer. I think the onestep is pretty dynamic with a very energetic sound, the gray/hoffman is a little mellower based on my memory, but it's been a while since I listened to the Gray so I should revisit it. All the one step releases aside from Sunday at the Village Vanguard are digital. I think Fragile is one of the better sounding of the bunch in my opinion. Janis Joplin, Eric Clapton, and Carol King were very mediocre to my ears (at least mediocre considering the price and what I was expecting).
@@poetryonplastic OK, thank you for your reply! Yes, you should give the Kevin Gray cut another listen and tell us which one you like the most.
The mofi topic will not end any time soon, lawsuit talk, another article today from Australia with a Jim Davis interview, Mofi's next release, Mofi's release of Thriller as we get close to November, and so on. Mofi will remain in the mainstream conversation for the balance of this year and will be the #1 topic of 2022 for audiophiles, so of course you will talk about Mofi again :)) Cheers!
There's no such thing as absolute perfection or absolute accuracy in any analog remastering processes, period. Like CDs, some LPs just have a higher level of sound quality than others. You'll just end up racking your brain trying to figure it all out. It's impossible. Heck, I grew up listing to LP's, CDs, reel-to-reel and cassette tapes. I enjoyed them all. At this juncture, and, after all these years, I've grown old and lazy. I just pick up the old ipad and listen to streamed music files (High Rez & redbook) , which I enjoy immensely. No one ever put it any better.......It's All In The Illusion.
Nice video! Mofi puts out some good ones and some bad ones, both analog & digital.
I haven’t yet seen an explanation of *how* MoFi is mastering from DSD. My whole audiophile life I understood that this was not possible. Are they converting to analog again after DSD? That would be yet another step in their chain if so.
I have been wondering the same thing. If they are EQ'ing (or anything other than flat transfer) they have to be converting PCM or something along those lines
They use DSD as a replacement for the master tape. The mastering is done in analogue when playing back the DSD, which they kinda explicitly have stated on their website (they added some info about the processing chain), at least that's what they tell us.
“Not going to be around forever.” - bingo Well done. It is an art form.
The problem is most of these remasters are trying to capture something close to the originals and usually failing. As our records get worn requiring replacement we have to put up with decades later remasters from worn out tapes. I threw on a vintage Jeff Beck "Blow By Blow" last night on the turntable and despite the background vinyl noise it just blows away my SACD. The freshness of the cymbals and drums especially are just so much more real on this $6.00 lp.
Nice, thanks. By the way, I found a lot of London made in England bluebacks at an old tried-and-true used book/record store this past week. Every one of them in excellent condition. Yea!
“Accurate to what?” - nailed it
Great video! But I have to tell ya if you want true analog go out and buy the used albums from the 60’s and 70’s that’s what I been doing. I did buy all of The Roxy Music reissue they sounds great! And yes I knew they were a digital masters but they sound great! So as we go forward we are going to get more DSD pressing just the way it is.
Nice job. One of the few videos that moves on from the Mo-Fi's lack of integrity and actually looks at whether or not the end result is a good sounding record. Regardless, if its sourced from an analog or digital master. I would agree that as the masters age there will be a need to conserve what is there via a digital file. Much like the Library of Congress does to conserve deteriorated early turn of the century recordings. I also share the concern that future releases will be either an all an digital affairs or comprised of niche labels offering recordings of obscure artist no one has never heard of.
As unrealistic as it may be, I do have a pipe-dream though. Being the bastions of greed that they are, the main stream studios may explore all analog releases of their most popular artist. However, I would strongly suspect such pressings would cost several hundred dollars. Even so, I also fear that most releases will not live up to their lofty price tags, being nothing but hype with little attention to the mix's sound quality. It would be as it is now, many would be mediocre at best and not any better sound-wise, than their digital counterparts. Obtaining an quality recording is an age old problem, that I do not see going away even with advances in technology be it digital or analog.
Very thoughtful and considered video, so thanks. I just wonder if the decision about using a DSD copy of an album, as opposed to the original analog tapes, to cut from is even an option for the label who wants to do a re-issue. My understanding was that MoFi was required by labels who were unwilling to release their analog masters, and instead required that MoFi use hi-res digital copies. I would guess that an “audiophile” would have difficulty discerning a vinyl disc cut from the original master tapes from one cut from a DSD 256 file, all else being equal which, as you mention, is not easy given all the variables. Maybe Chad should do a two-record set with one record being cut from the analog master tape and the other from DSD 256, and let the users decide which is which, and which is best. 😅
I have a fully digital system including a fully digital amplifier. My turntable is connected through an ADC. More than once a record sounds significantly better than the digital Qobuz version. That says it all. Digital is not the problem here. The R3’s don’t do your system justice I think. I have the Focal Clear as well, pro version, however the Clear doesn’t even come close to my speakers. You have the sense of detail inherent to headphones, there it ends.
Wonderful perspective. I feel like Geoff Edgers took a lot of flack for ending his article essentially asking the same question. While MoFi clearly misled customers and will face whatever consequences may come as a result, the real question for vinyl that remains is whether the digital step is really a deal breaker. Mastering from digital isn't necessarily cheaper, nor is it easier. I get the impression there is a lot of iteration required until the vinyl sounds right, but ultimately agree, it's the D2A vinyl step that creates the warmth. The uncertainty in cutting digital to vinyl could be a factor in why some MoFi's hit well, and others don't, and represents a whole niche of skills for engineers. MoFi's engineers did state they can get better isolation of tracks and thus more control over how the details are presented, which is a take away from the Esposito interview that deserves more attention. I think digital has evolved to a point where it is capable of playing an equal role in the listening experience. MoFi may have taken a dubious approach to demonstrate this, but the results are indisputable: some digital source records sound absolutely fantastic. I really believe the future of vinyl music will be have less to do with analog or digital, and everything to do with mastering.
We do have some great up and coming mastering engineers - Joe Nino-Hernes at Sterling and Levi Seitz at Black Belt Mastering (check out his cut of the new Chris Isaak “Heart Shaped World” issue).
You put a few statements in there I wanted to comment on. PCM is generally a very badly understood format, because of the complex math involved. I've been researching this since many years, as I find it very interesting to understand what sound is.
One key insight is that PCM encodes the signal piece-wise in the frequency domain. The Nyquist-Shannon Theorem is defined on each piece, not on the whole signal as "these reddit guys" like you call it are saying. The transitions between the pieces are essentially smoothing these frequency representations, potentially introducing artifacts which we perceive as harshness. Also these pieces - as far as I know span about 256 samples - essentially are perceived as an average and thus create the "illusion" of a well-defined analytical signal. Due to the averaging and the transitions involved, there is also the loss of liveliness/vividness as you perceived it. The age of the tape is surely not the main factor here. I think, you need about one megahertz PCM resolution to approach an analogue quality. The signal gets more and more accurate the higher the resolution.
Also we can do double blind tests easily on our own - when comparing different PCM or DSD resolutions, we should not rely on badly done studies. For this we need proper hi-res sources, proper down-sampling and up-sampling and a player which supports randomizing a playlist (example foobar2000). I've done this in the past comparing 48 and 192 kHz PCM, this was super easy to distinguish using mediocre equipment.
I'm not sure this will be the last word on this matter, and frankly neither should it be. This is something the vinyl community needs to stay on top of constantly and we should all be leading the charge on finding a way to mandate transparency in the mastering chain. We need a new format for the SPARS code as a matter of urgency and that should be backed by some form of legislation which mandates it's use. I have no problem with digital but I do want to know what I'm buying.
The important thing to be concerned about is the dynamic range of a recording. THAT is what sounds different when comparing CD to vinyl. Since 1995 practically every corporate CD release and "remaster" has been purposely 'louded' and compressed, and even brick-walled/clipped. The only CD's I find that retain the original DR are those released before the corporations had the capacity and the idea to destroy the DR of recordings, as well as CDs released by most independent hi-end companies, such as DCC, MFSL, AS, and the rest.
Crushing the DR of a recording means, among other things, that all the tracks on a disc/record have the same volume level, and within a track, all of the proper and original relationships between the various instruments have been destroyed. These recordings are lifeless and annoying to listen to, and all of them bring on early listener fatigue. And they all initally sound 'exciting' and 'newly remastered'.
It is super-easy to observe the dynamic range (DR) of a track. Just open it up in any audio editor program. Audacity, Audition, Soundforge, and dozens of others. Audacity is an open-source free download. It takes seconds to look at the waveform view and instantly see what you are listening to.
Personally, I reject ALL recordings, whether downloads or CDs, that do NOT have full original dynamic range. I've seen jazz and classical 'remasters' and 're-releases' that have been clipped and brick-walled. And boy do they sound exciting when you first listen to them. Until you look at what they are, and realize that you've been duped.
My collection is mostly hi-rez 2496 digitized (and restored) vinyl, CD's that haven't been altered, and hi-rez audio (2488/2496) that contains the original full dynamic range.
Love from Italia!
You notice this trying to listen to a cd’s late night at low levels. Its either to loud or you can hear it.