Analog? Digital? Does it matter? Wrapping up the MoFi arc
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 вер 2024
- 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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Mic Drop! Thank you, Dr. Johnson. Eloquent and articulate on all fronts. Cheers!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This was a very balanced summary Michael and much appreciated. Thank you!
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.
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.
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.
It's referred to as a transfer, from tape to digi. A scan is a photographic process and relates to images.
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.
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.
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
Oooo. Sweet 'table!
Sign me up!
Please carry on!
Great video. At this point, I think the analog versus digital debate is irrelevant. Both can sound great and if done right I don’t think very many people, including the expert (with 70+ year old ears), who claims he can “90% of the time” tell the difference.
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).....
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.
For me, the whole point of vinyl is it’s analog, otherwise I will just stream it…great videos on the topic, thanks!
I was aiming the same way, for a while. Then I realized I am not opening Tidal much. 🤷🏻♂️
the best thing that came out of all of this was that i learned that Brothers in Arms was recorded direct to digital. that's one of the best sounding recordings of all time regardless of format
A wrap? Yes please!
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.
Doubt I’ll buy MOFI records again. One nice thing that’s come out of this scandal is the renewed interest that many of us have in original pressings, which are often much more affordable than MOFI pressings and sound as good or better.
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.
This is the best video on vinyl playback that I have ever heard
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.
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.
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 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. 😅
A wonderful overview and reality check to this ongoing saga Michael ✌🏻
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. 👍🏻
good evening . I have been watching your videos for a while. and I find you brilliant, full of common sense, continue.
There are similar debates in other fields. In photography, the continuous tone of film cannot be duplicated in pixels. There is a degradation of some sort in translating content of any kind to digital. I'm a career graphic designer, and much of the contempt for digital (or what little contempt now remains) in my field comes not from any practical inferiority of digital, but from the poor use of digital tools by those who do not recognize the difference and have no aesthetic refinement.
In the 1980s if we wanted to reproduce a company logo and did not have a photographic negative to work from, we would blow the logo up to the size of a drafting table and cut it by hand from masking film, and then reduce it back down to its print size of a few inches. We did this because we were trained that the integrity of the brand mark was paramount and had to be perfect. Visual fidelity. Today, no one has a negative of a logo, they have a vector file. And if the vector file is unavailable? Then someone scans it from a secondary source and Photoshops it until it is "good enough". This is repulsive to anyone with an appreciation for the difference, but it is also a practical, useful process in the hands of a designer who will execute it properly.
I do not have the ability to discern such details in music. For me, much of it is "good enough". But I admire the attention to detail maintained by those who have that ability.
If there are questions about whether or not the analog tape cannot be run in one pass, make an analog copy and go with that. Once you go digital, the results are totally different and the digital artifact are present. Analog to analog is the only way to go.
“Not going to be around forever.” - bingo Well done. It is an art form.
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.
Simple. Trust your ears. Your hearing ability is finite. Physical material is finite (although CD's are destined to las longer). Great channel!
I can only say one word to describe this video. EXCELLENT!!
It shouldn‘t be a conversation about what is „better“ but more what is enjoyable, necessary and potentially „accurate“. High quality audio isn‘t always the best solution if the purpose and mode of original recording is meant to be Low-Fi. Yes there is a difference. That should not be in question. The main downfall with digital is honestly the preservation side, because even though we are all backing things up digitally, sometimes those digital backups fail and we loose ALL the data/sound, as opposed to a tape that had degradation over time but can be preserved more appropriately with a higher guarantee of safety than a random failing disk drive. So the answer really is, to try and have as much of the music preserved in all manners possible and giving options and choices when it comes to listening preferences. I run a label and would love to have gull access to original sources, but most the time the digital source IS the original master source. LOTS of music is recorded digitally and never ever sees celluloid.
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
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?
Well done Michael! You are such a fresh air.
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!
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.
I started listening to LPs with any frequency only in late July 2022, and only got my current turntable in September. I believe I may even have started listening to LPs on the very day that the Mo-Fi scandal broke, which was certainly a rapid education. ("What's a master tape?? Oh...What's an all-analogue process? Oh! Jeez...")
The education didn't end there. I have had to evaluate, largely by myself, the nature of audio and the digital/analogue divide. I knew ahead of time (having dipped into aspects of the audio world in the past) that audio is, shall we say, schismatic. I hope nobody here takes offense if I say that the world of audio seems to be more full of...uniquely vigorous communicators, than practically any other area. It is also no secret that, frankly, the world of audio is a world full of charlatanry - which only exacerbates the schismatic nature of that world. Is it any wonder that there is such anger and sarcasm in a world so thoroughly beset by con-artists?
Let us assume (all this is my oversimplification) that there are two sorts of people who are interested in LPs today. Those who cheerfully regard it as being technically impractical, but who listen to it anyway (whether you call it fun or nostalgia or something else), and those who think there are actual practical advantages to the analogue medium. I am a historian, and therefore even if there were absolutely no practical advantage to vinyl I would probably still be interested in listening to it - in much the same way that it pleases me that I own a copy of Gullivers Travels from 1749. But I am a funny fellow, and balk at actually admitting this fact to myself; and therefore would in fact much prefer if there were also some practical advantage to vinyl.
Those who see a practical advantage to vinyl are also in two camps: those who claim that there are non-sonic advantages to vinyl and those who claim there are sonic advantages. Let's put aside non-sonic advantages for the moment and look at sonic advantages.
Among those who claim sonic advantages to vinyl, I would classify these claims as follows:
1. Those who outright claim that, all things being equal, vinyl is superior to digital. I would place in this category Michael Fremer.
2. Those who claim that, all things being equal, vinyl is inferior to digital, but that vinyl has what I would term "analoguiness" that nevertheless makes listening to vinyl preferable to digital. I would place in this category the fellow that makes youtube videos under the name "cassettecomeback".
I would classify this as being similar to the argument over digital video vs physical film - accuracy of reproduction versus a pleasing medium that does not attempt to perfect transparency. Another analogy I have thought of is pencil-sketching using hot or cold-pressed paper, where cold-pressed paper is highly textured and introduces a grain that is technically non-transparent to the artist's pencil, in a situation where the artist actually wants distortion of the pencil-strokes.
Where above I have said "all things being equal", I am talking about comparing vinyl and digital recordings where, in both cases, one assumes competent engineers making a competent recording that goes to a competent pressing plant to create a disc that is maintained competently and is played on competent equipment.
But "all things being equal" implies a third category:
3. Those who claim that, all things being equal, digital is superior to vinyl; but that, for any individual recording, all things are not necessarily equal. I think I would place myself in this category.
I seriously doubt if any statistics would show that digital music, as it exists today, has any technical shortcomings compared to vinyl, all things being equal. I also either cannot hear "analoguiness", or my entry level equipment is not good enough to resolve it, or else I can hear it and simply do not value it (I like film grain; not so sure I would care about the equivalent in music). My interest in vinyl as a practical alternative to digital depends on two factors that are usually ignored: the physical world and the imperfect human being.
When people claim that vinyl records are "obsolete" (actually today I came across someone online describing all vinyl as "snake oil" - and therefore, presumably, something that ought to be banned) I think they are imagining a higher dimension in which "digital music" pours forth from heaven, untrammelled by considerations of an actual material universe containing actual human beings with actual failings.
But how much of a guarantee can there be, for example, for perfect digital versions of old music, where that music was recorded on to an analogue tape in the year 1960, which tape might only exist today in degraded form or might not exist at all except in duplicates rather than the earlier generation tapes that were available back in the day?
Even if the tape has been kept competently since day one, can a digitisation of that tape in the year 2023 always blithely assume superiority to a record master cut when that tape was about two days old? And even if the tape is actually as pristine as that, can you guarantee that a modern engineer, a fallible human being, would be able to create digital files, and press CDs, that are always going to be superior in sound to the original vinyl records?
In terms of actual records and actual digital files/CDs that exist in the real world, I would say that there is plenty of scope, not to claim that analogue in itself is superior to digital in itself, but that individual recordings on vinyl are still superior to the corresponding recording available in even the best digital form today.
In my case, I listen mostly to old music (and have not that great an interest in buying vinyl copies of new music). Since late July last year I have, in my limited way, already come across too many examples of vinyl versions of old music simply blowing the latest CD/digital versions away in terms of sound quality. (I have come across the opposite situation as well, but that isn't relevant to this argument, which is whether there is EVER any practical reason to listen to a record over digital).
We live in an all-too real world, in which materials degrade and human beings are fallible; and as long as I keep finding vinyl versions of old recordings that I also have on CD, comparing the two, and finding that the digital has been weighed in the scales and has been found wanting - well then, I see that there is still a practical reason to listen to records.
It’s all a reminder about the nature of any company’s reputation- difficult to build and easy to lose.
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.
Another reason is MOFI is doing is they compensate for LP formats shortcomings.
That is why they do all of those many test pressings and SAYING that they need to listening to the finished product (LP) when they don't know how it sounds if they don't listening to the finished product!
So the process and goal is NOT to have a as good 4xDSD they can make. The goal is to make the LP as good they want. (Of course two completely different objective)
They listen to the LP and if the test pressed LP sounds to much or to little (sound level) at x frequency range.
Then they're bumping up/down that X frequency range in the 4xDSD to COMPENSATE the shortcomings in the LP production processes.
And they iterate the process with a new test pressing so they can hear the LP if it is sounding as they want and if not then adjust the 4xDSD and retry.
As MOFI said they has time on their side so they can to do this until they are content of how the test LP pressing sounds.
As everyone understand that this method is a BIG difference and the final 4xDSD that were used for one step production of the LP than the DSD version that ends up on the SACD (they're not the same)!
And that is one of the reasons why there is another mastering engineer for the SACD when the final version of 4xDSD is nothing anyone what to listen to (!) and they need to revisit the first/original 4xDSD version they got from the tape, and start from there and mastering engineer Rob need to fix that into DSD and to a SACD.
So the final 4xDSD that were used for LP production is not anything we want to listen to when it contain compensations and fixes for LP shortcomings and therefore is just a tool that are adjusted for getting the LP to sound like the mastering engineers preferences. And the DSD on the SACD is another mastering branch from the 4xDSD that were derived from the master tape.
And they two has nothing to do with each other other than that and they will sound differently to each other.
Thank you, good arguments and let us stop arguing about what is best, vinyl or digital. Useless discussion.
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.
Was your t-shirt intentional? My Bloody Valentine albums are AAA, even the reissues. You don't necessarily need to buy expensive records with big name engineers and fancy marketing, you need dedicated indie musicians.
Killer presentation 🎵🎶😎
Common sense and discernment, nice to see👀😬
Rant incoming… As someone who regularly handles tapes of all types and ages, including some fairly old masters and master copies… no, I don’t buy that the age of the tape is a factor in most cases.
I’ve said it a million times, digital is good for many things, it’s temporal fidelity greatly outshines any analog format. It is “set in stone”. It can be losslessly backed up and copied, it will never degrade… but it just doesn’t sound like the tape.
I recently got a London Records tape copy of the Stones “between the buttons” as originally used in the production of the album for the US market. Dated January 1967, 15IPS, no NR, on Scotch 120 which is an ancient high-output acetate base formula, and by nature has to be a couple of generations away from the UK master tape.
The Rolling Stones catalog has also been available in various DSD releases since the early 2000’s… yeah. No digital release comes even close to what’s on this tape. Not even a little bit. And this is true for any tape I’ve ever managed to hear. Versus PCM, versus DSD, you name it. What sounds like the tape is the tape, and occasionally a carefully mastered record will retain a lot of its good qualities.
I don’t even like DSD. I don’t understand how it came to be known as the choice audiophile digital format. Sony developed it to be another one of their proprietary digital formats so they would have a hand in all aspects of its usage. I think it’s pretty telling that even Sony barely uses it on a professional basis. DSD inherently has an absurdly high level of quantization distortion that requires so much noise shaping and filtering just to push all the noise out of the audible band and make the signal sound remotely passable without eating up amplifier headroom, or frying your speakers with higher levels of ultrasonic junk than is present on even the noisiest tape formulations.
Unfortunately most people will never even be able to compare PCM and DSD because the vast majority of “PCM DACs” are just delta-sigma converters in disguise. It’s a great cost savings measure since the chips are much cheaper to produce than true PCM converters. This is why oversampling converters started to get big in the mid-90’s. The true resistor-ladder network PCM converters built today will cost thousands of dollars.
There is something to be said for letting analog be analog and letting digital be digital. I’m choosing to support whichever labels are continuing to produce high quality all-analog reissues, while they are still allowed to by whichever labels will allow them to.
Agree with many comments that the reason for buying vinyl is to get Analogue. To me the only real reason even for the existence of digital (as it relates to music) , is convenience - CDs, streaming, preservation, etc. As with many other "record collectors", I enjoy the used record store experience while browsing for (analogue) LPs. If I want something more modern (I usually seek old stuff) which I anticipate will be digitally mastered anyway, I'll just buy a CD. No sense in spending the extra bucks for a digital or digitally remastered LP. To me the whole story is somewhat like coin collecting, or better yet, gems. If you want a diamond for your girl friend, you want a REAL diamond, not a synthetic one, which can be made to look better than a real one. If I relate this argument to coins, it would be like paying $2,000 for (what you think is) a $20 St Gaudens gold piece, and getting a very nice counterfeit. It ain't the same. I'm not going to argue which is better because I find both very enjoyable. I just prefer collecting PURE analogue vinyl records. Like the diamonds and coins mentioned....“When it comes to a natural diamond (substitute Analog LP), we are looking at something that is really a rarity and a treasure from Earth." When it comes to pure analog (AAA) recordings, many feel the same way.
Great video and thoughtful perspective on the whole analog vs digital debacle.
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?
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.
Excellent presentation. I took a lot away from this. You are one smart guy. Thank you.
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.
Great video and channel. Hoping someone can tell me the song played at the beginning? Many thanks!
i dont think it matters whether digital or analog...how well it was recorded and how well it was mastered makes the difference...that being said, I would say that analog is more forgiving of less than good recording techniques than is digital.
Great well thought out talk on the state of the art.
Thank you.
Blonde on Blonde MoFi now confirmed as DSD
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.
The Price matters to me / especially on how the album was made.....
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.
Fantastic video and I echo a lot of your opinions. Keep it up, man!
This was great! Love your videos bro!
Thanks for another great video. I 100% enjoyed it.
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).
THANKS A LOT, MICHAEL!!! Love to see younger hifi/listener folks like you and FULLY focus on music original meaning: enjoy, no matter if it is vinyl or digital. I'm much older and completly went to digital and fully understand your emotions. Source matters, end of story...MUSIC IS ART & PRESENTING A CULTURAL SNAPSHOT
Couple of things (in my opinion)...
1- Archiving to DSDx4 is almost surely more transparent than doing an analog tape copy
2- I would like to be able to purchase those exact DSDx4 transfers but I presume that MoFi only has a license for selling physical media (LPs and SACDs)
3- I have a bunch of the MoFi SACDs (and have ripped them to DSD files which I play with Roon) - now I know those are closer to the vinyl than I had thought
4- Although you can get high resolution PCM versions of many of these albums on Qobuz, I think the DSD rips from MoFi sound better
It seems to me that there's very few DACs that can play DSD 256 right now. But we are starting to see more DSD capability in higher end models so hopefully that will trickle down.
@@poetryonplastic Very few?, I think you'd better spend an afternoon seeing which dac don't read DSD or DSF.
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.
I think this is a very pragmatic view of audio. I have digital recordings I love, CD, PCM and DSD. But for some reason I alway prefers the sound of a good Vinyl, if mastered well. I started collecting vinyl in 1970, so I have a lot of originals, but back then I had a very cheap record player, I soon progressed to a decent turntable and amplifier during the early 70’s hifi boom. I embraced CD when it hit the market around 1985, and put away my turntable. In 1994 i went to a Hi-Fi show in London and was blown away by some of the vinyl setups, it wasn’t long before I brought myself a Michell Gyrodec/ RB300 arm an a Denon DL304 Cartridge, and I’ve never looked back. I still collect SACD,s which are usually the version of the vinyl albums I have purchases, I think these tend to sound nearly as good as the vinyl. I wish I could tell you why I prefer vinyl, but I really can’t, I just find listening to digital for long periods fatiguing, but I can listen to vinyl all day long.
I very rarely find myself coming home and wanting to throw on a cd or a stream. I reach for records most of the time.
Absolutely outstanding video. Well done.
I'm suprised you prefer the original UK of the dreaming. I only have the original but 99% of Kate bush fans on hoffman and fishpeople forums prefer the 2018 remaster. Maybe due to the bass but most people were super happy about it and recommend it as the one to get.
I have ORGS to some records no amount of money can make the digital reissues i have make them sound the same ..i want them too to save the orgs from getting tired..the fact i payed a fair price makes the digitals value and sound okay
Realism over "accuracy" anyday of the week! I want the illusion!
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.
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?
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!
The 50th anniv. LA woman has super digital processing creating a black background. I think in some ways that is better than my 45RPM from analog copy. Tried SACD sampler from MA recordings on Oppo 203, and it was poor. Never tried it on MoFi dual layer SACD. CD quality playback is easier. Classic records RCA reissues were extremely bright compared to the same engineer for the Acoustic Sound reissues. Still no videos from the leading mastering engineers about speed correcting old tapes such as RVG made on non constant tension machines when played back on AMPEX ATR or REVOX machines but which minimize damage to the old tapes. This is digital processing of the tape speed. Obviously, MoFi can do more correction of the DSD tape from original machine artifacts. I never knew that processing Michael Fremer mentioned, on their website has been fixing recordings for over 10 years. There have been some quotes from the engineer regarding the MoFi stories. We could use an interview with him talking about fixing old master tapes for reissue. Regards your old video, did you record your senior recital in NY, etc. analog along with the video digital version?
“Accurate to what?” - nailed it
New to your channel - love it…
Very well said.