This only proves one thing to me. That all of the audiophiles that claim they can hear the difference between digitized music and analog music are full of it, because they have been telling all of us how wonderful the MOFI records sound. I agree with them those records sound great.
I have tested this in my system a few times and for the most part, agree with you. The recording, engineering, and master matter far more than the format.
He is talking about potential digital they could be using which isn't even available for the general public. Most digital vinyls I hear are 96/24, 192/24 or maybe 384/24. I can spot these easily because they sound flat. MOFI might be using way more advanced digital.
@@booom4849 it’s just funny, I too can hear a difference between an mp3 and flac, yes there is a difference between digital media, my point remains. Everyone who sells analog only and has been telling us how wonderful some of the recent ,what was believed to be AAA mofi titles are, clearly can not tell the difference between a well mastered and digitized ADA record and a AAA record. In the next few months we will see all types of excuses as to why this is and how a 50k cable can fix the issue
Most every comparison I have made when listening to the Raw DSD file of a vinyl album pressed from it sounds incredibly different and nearly always no ....always to me sounds better on vinyl. Nobody has yet worked out why but its no less true. Its perplexing fir DSD champion Paul McGowan as he knows it to be true even on the octive records label stuff. It may well be how the human auditory system works , I am not clever enough to comment on the psycho acoustics but I have CD copies and great vinyl copies of the same albums and when people listen they without exception ask if they can listen more to vinyl. There has to be something at work here. You can't make those statements unless you can A/B two vinyl onsteps one from a diflgital copy and the other from the master tape. I think I would be able to diffetentiate. As far as the MOFI one step stuff is concerned, they just need to set the record straight. If the have deceived customers it could seriously damage their credibility.
Hi there. My father, Stan Ricker, passed away in 2015. He wasn’t able to do any masters after that point so I would assume anything past august of 2015 it was digital. I love my dad. He was an amazing talent. We miss him
So basically, MOFI just proved that all these guys who swore they could tell analog from digital were just full of crap!! 🤣🤣🤣 Thanks MoFi for settling that tired old debate!
Aaahh...but young one....a true Jedi Master record collector knew all along that those post 2015 Mofi records had a digital step. The Force that dwells in their ears told them so.
That was my thinking lol. It isn't digital that is the problem. It's how digital is often mastered and compressed. If you make a needle-drop recording of an analog-made vinyl record, then put that recording onto a CD, and play the CD copy and the original vinyl side-by-side, you cannot hear the difference. If digital were a format inherently incapable of capturing the warmth and dynamic range of analog, then even a digital copy of an original record would not be able to reproduce that same sound. But it can. Studies have demonstrated that again and again. I love vinyl, and I love the compression and mastering process that gets music onto vinyl and brings out the warmth and depth that we often hear on vinyl pressings. But if companies can flawlessly reproduce that sound through digital means, and therefore have an infinite number of copies possible to produce, then I see nothing wrong with that. In fact, it makes the release of Mo-Fi sets less elitist and more affordable because we know they'll be able to put them back in print even after the initial runs.
I laughed so hard, when I read the title of this video. I really hope this is true. Because it proves, that nobody can hear the difference between a high quality digital and analog version of the same recording. So, now we can finally leave that 'audiophile' nonsense behind us. Go buy and enjoy the records you like, because it has great music on it. btw. I think MoFi should be honest about what sources they do use. A good quality product will sell, no matter what the source or mastering is.
No that doesn't show nobody can hear the difference. Only comparing the same pressing process, one from analog, one from digital can show that. Plus you need a very high end system to reveal the subtleties. Bottom line is If I want to listen to DSD files, I have a dac that can play them. If I'm going to the trouble and expense of listening to LP's, I want it to be analog, or at least be informed of what I am paying for. It's like saying, go you can't taste the difference between a free range egg and a factory farm egg. It doesn't matter. We're paying for an experience, and lying about your farm is pure deception and Illegal.
Uh no. There is a difference you are just being lied to about what that difference is. I can play with an EQ and mess with any digital song to make it sound different and some would say "better" but it's not original. It's someone elses interpretation. Some are confusing "better" with different. These people that bought these MoFi albums say it sounds better. they may assume that different sound is better when in fact it's different.
This is not about the sound quality. Is about transparency. If I want to buy chicken I want them to sell me chicken, not some other meat because if it takes like chicken, what gives in what they really sell me.
This information definitely tarnishes the brand for me but if the Thriller One Step sounds better than any other version, I'm still going to be a happy customer. I will still buy their records as long as they still sound incredible. I just feel a little hoodwinked right now. Thank you for the video Mike.
If Mofi was selling records at the 25-30 dollar range, I don't think we'd have much to say. It's the fact that they sell records for $60-$125, use hype statements "Mastered from the Original Master Tapes" which has caused me to believe that those records were "AAA". I do want to go on record and say that "if" Mofi has a digital step that helps increase production, I'm okay with it. The results speak for themself, and I too will continue buying Mofi records. I have Thriller, and all the Van Halen one-steps on order. That said, it would be nice to have transparency. Come on Mofi, do the right thing please......
As you know Melinda, I do not like MoFi, and I haven't bought one of their vinyl records since the Miles Davis Kind of Blue 45 rpm box set came out. Old MoFi yes. New MoFi no. Now we find out that it's very likely that they have been BS'ing people on at least some of their releases. I will stick with serious audiophile companies like AP/QRP. That digitally manipulated Thriller One Step will never sound as good as an audiophile all analogue cut vinyl record.
@@audiophileman7047 if the Thriller album is a disappointment, I may reconsider some of my purchases that I intend to make. The Cars, Bob Dylan, Eagles and Miles Davis releases have all been home runs for me. This is disappointing but it would also be disappointing to miss out on great titles because they can't press enough of them. This digital step is probably how they are able to press 40,000 Thriller One Steps. I have been a happy customer for a long time so I'm not jumping ship just yet. I agree with you on Analog Productions. They are a wonderful company that does everything the right way. Take care.
@@audiophileman7047 Funny you mentioned Miles Davis, Kind of Blue, 45 rpm. I just purchased it from the ‘In’ Groove before I saw this video. I still like my MoFi records. They sound incredible, but no doubt, like Melinda, I am disappointed to hear this latest news. And yes, AP/AS is the best and my favorite.
@@vadermstarr5435 No, they actually don't, because Krieg Wunderlich masters the vinyl versions, and Rob LoVerde remasters the SACDs. They EQ quite differently, so the SACDs and the vinyl versions often sound dramatically different.
@@About_Time_Multimedia That's not the point of a remaster. A remaster is supposed to be EQ'ed differently to make it sound better than the original master/source (although some remasters sound worse). If you just release the original master/source again it's not a remaster but a reissue.
@@mcnyregrus I have a feeling everyone is getting off the point. A vinyl print has to be remastered differently to any other source because of a records lack of dynamics and sound characteristics. Tape can be just a pure copy off the original master or EQd if they wish, that's if the original is on tape anyway. Digital is copied on to digital format and then EQd to suit whatever format it finished on. A sound engineer will always play with setting to suit themselves, whatever medium it is finally finished with. Point being. The buyer doesn't know what the hell is what any more. And to a certain extent didn't need to know, all they need to know is do they like the sound and is this the best that can be made from the original source, and hopefully you have the same tastes as the engineer.. I guarantee if you had the ability to mix it to your tastes it would sound a touch different.
I would have a much higher opinion of MSFL if they would just be 100% transparent with each and every album they release. I would ask MFSL if they would rather have a reputation built on total honesty and trust, or constantly have the cloud of suspicion hovering over every release.
So if they came out and said "guys sorry but yes every mofi lp since ____ that youve purchased is digitally sourced and these are the new ones that are" Why would that make a difference? Would it change your mind about how it sounds? I mean you see where Im going with this? How much of this "Oh its aaa, thank goodness!" is placebo affect?
Because people will pay more for analog plain and simple. Regardless if the digital version can sound as good or possibly better vinyl collectors have been conditioned to turn their noses up at digital pressings.
For $129 (stores here mark up to $169), I want to know the origin of the source material. If digital, that is fine...just tell us. For me, if digital, you are not paying for anything really special one step or not. If the source is digital, wouldn't the SACD version be a TRUE one step? One does not need to pay over $100 + for Bernie/Kevin/Ryan mastering,. The big guys master plenty of $29 titles.
My first thought is, “wow”! My second thought is, “Digital isn’t bad, Compression is bad”. It’s certainly possible to utilize DSD files to recreate ambiance and dynamics. Interesting….
Yes, compression is bad but once you get to cd quality, human ears cannot tell the difference between cd and any higher res file. Vinyl, meanwhile, suffers from distortion, dynamic range compression and frequency response compression on the inner tracks. The vinyl is causing way more imperfection than MOFI's very well done digital step. They should have been transparent but covered it up to please and sell to the analog purists.
I think this introduces a new concept, that there is a difference between an “Audiophile” and an “Audiopurist”. The audiophile chases the best sound quality, whereas the audiopurist requires the media to be of a specific origin, and with no deviation, which can be digital or analog. I think the marriage of digital in the analog format works fantastic, and can produce results that are synergistic.
I sort of play into both tbh. Would I rather have AAA? Yes most definitely, But I do care about sound quality as well. After all it’s all about the music for me first and foremost.
It is about good business practice first and foremost, and pricing for something you are not getting. Again, I still hope this is not the case but I fear the worst.
@@puttyputty123 what are you not getting? MFSL goal is to produce a very high quality product and they deliver. Just because someone gets all buggy because they made assumptions doesn’t make it MFSL’s fault. It’s getting tiresome hearing all of this endless “is it all analog???!!” stuff and it takes away from the enjoyment of the music. Honestly these videos remind me of Crazy Eddie in NYC in the 70’s. 😂
I emailed MOFI about their process of mastering about a year and a half ago, specifically asking if they were AAA, and was there any digital step, and they said no. I've always wondered why the MOFI website still says the "gain 2" system is Half Speed Mastered, which i don't think is still the case. So ultimately, the issue is transparency. Why is this a question in 2022 that customers don't know the MOFI process like other with all the other audiophile companies.
@@FleagleSangria no, i dumped a ton of old emails just recently. The discussion came about from a debate on the SHF, and i had a whole bunch of DM's with someone there, is where i remember posting it. But i got bored of that person, and deleted the chat.
First of all Mike….I can see the disappointment in your eyes and can hear it in your voice. I agree with you Mike. As a consumer, we deserve transparency on the products we purchase. If these are 100% true statements of how One Steps are being manufactured, I feel cheated as I own all One Steps with the exception of Abraxis, for obvious reasons. I’m with you Mike!
Not sure what to say. I used to wonder what it mattered if a record was cut from a digital source. But I became impressed with the sound of MOFI records based on the “understanding” that they were analogue. If they are actually digital, I am less impressed and feel kind of stupid for raving about them to my friends. It definitely changes my opinion on the company based on principle alone. I’ve paid a fortune the past two years collecting their titles and the supposed analogue sourcing is part of how I justified the expense. I will have to keep an eye on this and decide if I wasted my money and wether I will continue buying their records. And if it’s true, I think they’ve done some false advertising and should remove that stupid banner from the top of the records.
I too have collected Mobile Fidelity since I was a teen in the late '70s. Their Records, cassettes and reel-to-reels have always held a special place in my heart and ears. To hear that theres a digital step involved us not a surprise to me because like yourself I've lied to myself, and/or shut down trains of thought by consoling myself with the very real fact that nothing sounds better. Its an unavoidable fact that digital will be a part of vinyl record manufacturing. Amd as long as they continue to make records sound better as my ears continue to age, I really don't care. Quieter vinyl, reduction in recording/pressing vibrations, etc, will play a part. Whether I like it of not.
Great vid. A lot to unpack here. Love as a peak vinyl collector you’re still asking questions and seeking the best. I’d still pay $49 for a Mofi pressing but not much more with this info. This could have ripple effects on the whole market. I can see the vinyl market imploding or exploding with info like this, inflation, additional plants, more product, aging artists selling their music rights, etc
I'm a professional studio and touring musician virtually my whole life. Started collecting vinyl in the mid 60's and still am. I have a large vinyl and cd collection and THE most important thing that I've learned, which I believe is a good philosophy to follow: "If it sounds good it IS good"! Whether it's from a digital or an analogue source does not matter to me in the least. I have CD counterparts that sound better than my original vinyl and vis versa. Your prime focus should be the SOUND that the musicians have created and not the SOURCE from which it comes to think otherwise is pure folly! Thus it allows one to enjoy their music and system and feel totally comfortable with that - NO WORRIES over the source be it digital or analogue. Enjoy your music, Greg. 🙂
My thoughts on MoFi are unchanged, honestly. Like you Mike, the One Steps I’ve purchased over the past couple of years, they are and remain, some of the best sounding records in my entire collection, and I’m not a newbie. Like almost all Gen Xers, we’re old enough to have experienced the peak of vinyl, the format’s slow descent into obscurity, and finally, what many thought would be the death of vinyl. Fortunately, it didn’t die, and has now become arguably, the number one physical format. The LP is here to stay.
A lot you guys think if it is all analog, it contains no loudness but recording companies have been adding loudness to albums since the 40s there is a lot you guys don't know.
I am a chef, and sometimes I use food analogies to put things in perspective, so here it goes… If someone purchases a food item based on a label that reads “organic”, therefore ALL the ingredients need to be organic, especially at a higher price point. If not, the label should read “made with some organic ingredients”. At that point, it’s up to the consumer to make a educated decision to purchase an item based on their expectations and/or dietary needs. That said, I have always purchased MoFi records because I was told they were “all organic”, and even if it tastes good, I demand to know what the ingredients are especially at that price point. If MoFi has nothing to hide, they at least need to inform the consumer of what they are “eating” IMHO
I think in this case it is like calling a food "natural". The natural label can be used to describe something that is natural in flavor, or natural in texture. Or sourced from natural ingredients, even if they are further processed. So there are ways to cheat or be deceptive. I don't think MOFI is technically lying about anything, but they are being misleading if this is true.
Exactly! This BS about "audiophile or audiphools" or whatever can't hear the difference that some people manage to spew out already is missing the point completely.
MOFI is a company that generally makes records that sound fantastic. But the implication has always been that, if they bear the slogan “Original Master Recording,” it’s cut from tape, an AAA product. Too many labels throw out claims about being sourced from tape, yet it’s known that most are digitized in the chain; your expectations are diminished and, in a way, realistic. But labels like MOFI/Analogue Productions/Intervention/ERC/Impex/etc. justify their costs and reputations by promoting their analogue sourcing. This doesn’t diminish the fact that most of their products sound great. But if they’re digitized along the way, they should be transparent about it. It all feels a bit like a ruse. Would love to hear comments from the usual suspects - Kassem, Fremer, Gray, Smith, et al. Thanks for posting this, it’s a bit of a mind-blower.
I don’t know what it changes but thank you for putting it out there. I don’t feel differently but with the hiking prices of mofis lately, I may double think some purchases.
The issue for me is not whether or not MOFI is using Digital per se. However, there is a big issue with the pricing and what I am paying for. Buying my first One Step was a big decision $125.00 is alot of money to spend on one record. Especially if that one record is one you already have bought 8 times over in every format! It has been obvious for a awhile that the monicur of "One Step" has not meant that you are buying the definitive or best version available of a certain title. It may be the best vinyl cut of the album and it may not. The Big Issue is COST. The AP Sirius album recently released is a great example of this. It is by far the best sounding version available. So, kudos to MOFI. With that said, it needs to be noted that this version is not a One Step but a regular 45rpm catalogue offering. Yes, some of the One Steps are fantastic i.e. Bill Evans, Dylan and Mingus to name a few. But there are many that are not superior to the $20 dollar remaster or the originals i.e. Pearl, Carole King and Stevie Ray. So, for me this issue is about the dollars- paying for a product that may or may not be superior in every way. I doubt highly that putting out a Dire Straits One Step would add anything to the 45rpm version already released. The dynamics on the Dire Straits records are already on the borderline of needle jump with a properly set up table and arm. I will not support paying double for a record that is not a true One Step if the less expensive one is just as good or better.
"If this is digital what does it change?"... Nothing as far as sound quality. It either sounds the best or not. What it would comfirm for me is what Ive always suspected: The idea that folks can "hear" the difference between digital and analogue in most cases and when the mastering is great is overblown. They simply cant. And if this is true, then what difference does it make whether a company places a designtation hype sticker on the album or not? If one cant hear the difference. This also confirms another issue. That mastering is what counts the most. I was told by a retired recording engineer that if people knew how many records we think are analogue but are really digitally sourced, we would be very surprised. This is most likely why we dont and wont see analogue hype stickers on every reissue. Its not a puzzle. Its because they arent aaa. Im not one to care as long as the album sounds great. That is all that matters. As matter of fact this "we will stick only to aaa mastertapes" is why we have reissues that have issues most likely. I wont name companies or titles. But some of these issues could have been remedied and tweaked with the plangent process. But due to the stubborness or whatever, we have reissues that could have digitally been repaired and are not. The later imo is due to this absolute aaa mindset in those particuliar cases.
@@UberPilot Not always. But Im like Mike, what exactly is making the Abraxas sound so much better. And it does. Ill give it that much. As does the Nightfly (and we know its digitally sourced) Deaf? I can speak for everyone, but my hearing is fine the last time I had it tested two years back.
This video was quite a revelation. We definitely need a industry wide shift to absolute clarity on sourcing and methods. The MOFI records I love still sound the same regardless. But for any product, I want to know and pay for what goes into it. If this is revealed to be true, a big disappointment. I've stated several times I'm not opposed to digital sourced vinyl, but it's the blatant dishonesty that is most troubling here. Thanks for an eye opening video Mike. Not an easy one to do.
"We definitely need a industry wide shift to absolute clarity on sourcing and methods." I'm no audiophile, but I like reading about it. So, for all these decades none of you nerds has demanded total transparency? That's amazing to me.
There is one factor in this discussion I've not seen mentioned: what if, since MoFi wants to preserve the master tape to make more One Steps, they made all analogue records for the first thousand, and used digital copies for the rest? That would be biggest ball of confusion yet, since people would be comparing the two out the wazoo. I have to wonder how forthcoming MoFi will be about this, if at all.
If there is, in fact, a digital step in the creation of the One Steps, and the One Steps are, in fact, as good as you claim, maybe the digital process should be more highly regarded.
I personally attribute the magic of vinyl, regardless of the source the vinyl was made from, is the mechanical to electric conversion that occurs in the cartridge. It's differently nuanced then how a DAC converts its signal. I think that's why vinyl kills digital in terms of soundstage, and imaging.
Vinyl has worst soundstage and imaging than digital, the magic of vinyl is just a fantasy, they have to do different mastering in the studio to comprehend all these vinyl flaws, and that's the supposed magic you talk about. it was great in the 50s and necessary till 40 years ago, now vinyl is just gimmick, a trend for those who like seeing it spin! a problematic medium with lossy quality compared to master tapes and today's digital masters.
DSD was invented specifically to replace master tapes, I am not surprised if digital DSD masters are being used in vinyl pressing. I would prefer that to a pcm step, but that gets complicated. I agree with you 100% that I want the label to be clear and honest about it.
If the one steps are in fact cut digitally, MOFI has found a way to make digital cutting sound great. I can't point to another digital cutting that sounds that good. Abby road just lost any excuse for crappy sounding records. Actually, I am excited that the technology has progressed to this level. Good for them, good for us. The fact that I can put on a one step and not be disappointed by the soundstage is a big win for technology. One (Small) Step For Man......
To be honest digital cutting has always sounded great. It's one of the reason's engineers jumped on Digital Delay systems for cutting in the late 70's, they simply sounded better than all analogue delay systems. Even the initial 12-bit and 14-bit systems were deemed superior.
@@jat13 that has certainly not been my experience with my ears on my system. 99% of the time I can identify a digital cut within seconds of putting a record on my TT. Way smaller images and less open sounding. I get it, ears and systems vary.
@@billa5289 You are kidding yourself if you can tell a digital cut. The majority of vinyl cut since 1980 has had a digital step in for the reason I mentioned above. Even Michael Fremer concedes some of his favorite records were cut from 16-bit digital intermediates. Unless it's a terribly poor pre-mastered digital source, that digital step is entirely transparent and any good cutting engineer can tell you that.
Having a digital step in the MFSL process isn't that big of a deal, ultimately it's the mastering judgement calls that make or break a good album. Not admitting that there is a digital step is problematic. Lots of great albums are cut from digital sources...the recent Mothers Fillmore East LP is a good example. The first five sides are all analog, then side 6 is digitally sourced, yet it sounds just as good as the analog sides. For this we can thanks Bernie Grundman's mastering.
Well said. Of course another one would be Donald Fagen's The Nightfly. It's not analog vs digital that matters the most, but is the audio sourced from the very original master and then who masters it
@@De_La_Soto they are waking up this morning and finding out Santa Clause isn't real. This is going to a real shock to many vinyl "purists" and a total disruption to their "reality." Cognitive dissonance shall be the order of the day. As I mentioned in another post. It aint just Mofi....
I think it's important to qualify "sounds just as good" here, because "sound" is a completely subjective thing. What "sounds" good to one person may not "sound" good to another - and that's fine. Personally, the reason I collect and listen to vinyl is not necessarily because it "sounds" the best to me, it's because I want to experience the all-analog pathway from performance to playback. Of course this doesn't always result in the best "sound", but in this case that's not always what I'm after. If it "sounds" amazing, so much the better. Recent case in point - the UHQR "Are You Experienced" - mastered with the original tape hiss in place. It doesn't bother me, and I think everyone would agree that tape hiss doesn't "sound" good, but personally I'm not bothered because it's as close to the original performance as possible. That's why that vinyl is worth $125 to me. Yes, I'm aware that there is still mixing and mastering in there that adjusts the parameters of the original analog source but those adjustments are attenuations of the original analog masters. And to the "high-bit digital is just another analog format" crowd, the analog->digital process is a re-recording of the original analog source - it's not a direct representation of the analog signal on the tape. That is, you can't just take the original analog signal and "print" the digital version of it. Rather, the ADC samples the original recording and the sampler has all the same gain/balance/dynamic range problems that an analog transducer would have, and this absolutely depends on a good engineer to manage. Worth noting too that the same thing happens on the DAC end of things. It's this "re-recording" that I object to. Don't charge me $125 for a "re-recording". I want the original master recording as advertised, not the original master re-recording.
My ears told me along time ago that its all about MIXING AND MASTERING!!! I like both formats but the difference between the mediums are negligible. The differences between mixes and masters are everything.
A little shocking to say the least. The “language” used for their SuperVinyl releases seem about as transparent as we’d want MFSL to be: “MASTERED FROM THE ORIGINAL MASTER TAPES, PRESSED ON MOFI SUPERVINYL, AND LIMITED TO 3,000 NUMBERED COPIES” The answer you got from them was, as you said, disappointing but it also diminished a lot of trust I have in the company until proven otherwise. Thank you for posting this!!?
I have mix feelings about this. True, their product sounds amazing, no doubt about it. But to have the masses going around promoting (believing) MOFI records being all analogue when they're not, it just as bad as MOFI telling us they're all analogue when they're not. Cosumers are spending quite a bit of money for their records. I think we, the consumer, deserve to know what we're buying.
I love AAA titles - but not everything I own that has been cut from analogue masters - sounds amazing. Most of it comes down to mastering for vinyl. I have a lot of outstanding sounding MoFi titles that I love - along with other quality records from Analogue Productions, etc. I always thought part of MoFi's magic was the mastering, the pressing process and not necessarily the master source. Bottom line, I'm not going to stop buying from any company that's putting out quality releases. I don't feel mislead in the least. Cheers.
What's next... we're going to find out the 10,000 dollar cables are made of the same materials that a the 500 dollar cables are made of ? I need a Xanex
It’s a bit disappointing if it’s true, we buy these for the ‘all analog’ nature. But in another way, it’s kind of amazing, if they can make them sound that amazing, then a digital copy of a master tape, mastered well is obviously good enough, and as a result, hopefully other people could produce this level of sound with these sources.
@7:00 yes , they sound spectacular but due to the signal chain used.. not worth the dollars they are expecting as they could crank them out all day for as long as they want. Not a 'rare' process based on limited resource. Some things need to be adjusted like making them affordable to the general collector now.
as someone who works in professional recording studios and on analog tape for tracking and mixing as well as hi res digital (+ audiophile), it is absolutely possible to get a hi res transfer of a tape and with the right cutting system, cut a lacquer that is on par with or more consistent than running a master tape direct to lathe for cutting. i have heard it cutting engineers can preview the cut and levels to ensure signal to noise ratio is as good as can be plus the biggest thing to remember is that analog does not equal better. recently, i have been able to work with bernie grundman and chris bellman cutting lacquers from digital masters and the quality is stunning. the recording and mixing matters 100x more than the simple fact tape was used. obviously transparency is important and that’s the issue here but at the same time, music is meant to be listened to and the techniques used to capture it are there to enhance it tape is a storage medium and is tricky. playing a master tape back on a different machine than what cut the original lacquers is a different sound - the heads, electronics, cabling all effect playback and in the analog realm, nothing is “transparent” if electricity runs through it, there is color even if it’s 2% different, it’s different.
Thank you for sharing your interesting and valuable information with the rest of us. I wish your comment was pinned at the top of the comments section here.
@@Rawhphonicz i agree, lack of transparency sucks. i truly wish there was more talk about the quality of the transfer, plating and pressing formulas of the pvc that goes into the sonics of why these mofi releases sound so spectacular.
@@MJEvermore853 always happy to chat audio - it is a massive part of my life. i also wish people would talk more about importance of listening environments over equipment as well
Remember how the first CDs all had the AAD/ADD/DDD label that told you how it was recorded/mixed/mastered? Maybe something like that for records. But I'd like additional details on the mastering - who did it and when. I know it's in the deadwax for a lot of things, but I want to see it on the jacket so I know before I buy.
I'm an audiophile and a music lover. I like both analogue and digital - I don't favor one over the other just as long as it sounds great to my ears. If it's all analogue and it sounds great then I'm in. If it's all digital and it sounds great then I'm in. If it's a combo-platter of analogue and digital and it sounds great then I'm in. This is not a religion to me. I purchase Mo-Fi vinyl - including the One-Steps and I purchase Mo-Fi SACDs, and I have no intention of stopping. So, my reaction to the news that it's possible there might be a small digital step somewhere along the line in the manufacturing of Mo-Fi vinyl? Well, isn't that interesting...they sure sound great, so keep 'em coming! My two-cents.
This isn't a matter of digital sounding as good as analog, it's a matter of a company selling premium audiophile products yet not fully disclosing details of how the product is made, consumers deserve to know. If your ok with there being a digital step involved or the entire chain being digital that's fine, as long as you're informed before you make the decision to purchase.
If a company selling audiophile products does not release a good sounding product then I care. If it sounds great, I don't care if they've digitized the master tape or run it through a cheese grater
From a listener perspective, if a record is the best sounding record of that particular recording, i don't really care too much if it was cut from a digital file or the master tape. If it sounds good, it sounds good. Pretty much what you said about the Santana One - Step. However, as a customer, if your advertising something as being cut from the original master tape and its actually a digital file then we have a problem as thats just straight up lying. In Mo-Fi's case, yes, they may never have actually straight up said that these were cut from the original master tape, but as far as I'm concerned they pretty much have implied that for years. Did they lie? No. Disingenuous? Absolutely.
I understand your concern Mike but I’m not sure it really matters. I still have the SACD and vinyl of several recent Mofi titles and they’re each a unique listening experience to me. I enjoy both but they do sound different to me and on my system.
It matters, it may not matter to you but it matters. It would be like saying your car drives just fine and you can't tell the difference between the suspension in your car and the suspension in the exact same car, they're both great. Even though the manufacturer of the suspension in your car used child labour in the process of making the springs. It still drives and feels the same to you so in that sense "it doesn't matter". But it matters that the manufacturer hasn't disclosed information as to how their product is made. Now, I'm not saying mofi is using child labour but it matters that they're not disclosing details about how their product is made, because in the world of high end audiophile premium products details matter
@@crazyprayingmantis5596 I understand your point but ultimately audiophiles are paying for the best possible sounding product. If say, the Mofi Love Over Gold 45rpm isn’t a fully analog product (and Mofi has never claimed that it was), does it really matter to your ears? I understand it matters from the standpoint of analog purity, but that album sounds absolutely stunning. That it may not be fully analog is secondary from the standpoint of audio quality. Look at the Mofi Japanese release of Santana’s Lotus album. It’s clearly stated as being digitally sourced but are you telling it doesn’t sound fucking amazing?
@@chrismckee4154 It doesn't matter if there's s digital step involved or if they're completely digital, what matters is these companies not disclosing the information to the consumer. I don't care if it's a record or a cake, I want to know what I'm paying for.
MIKE.. brave post. Never stop, never change. Credibility... you got it in barrels full. You approached this topic cautiously, and handled it with great care. NEVER STOP. This is why we love your videos, and keep you as a preferred retailer.
Bottom line is MoFi Inc. 100% knows their audiofile end consumers BELIEVED it was an all analog process, and are/were willing to PAY more money for that. Through very careful word smithing, MFSL maintained that illusion. That is until the last week or so, when the illusion was shattered. Shame on them for not being transparent. I, personally, am not willing to pay $125 per LP, no matter how good it might sound. It doesn't bring me 5x more joy than the $25 version I can buy at my local record store. If I only cared about the sound, I'd listen to streaming over a high-end DAC. Vinyl's value is in the whole vinyl experience. High end vinyl better deliver a high end experience. (I'm looking at you, Alan Parson's crap jacket.)
@@Frip36 See 45 RPM Audiophile's video titled: "MoFi Might Die Sooner Than Later Unless They Make Some Significant Changes". The point being that the quality of the jacket is an important part of the overall vinyl experience.
It says that done right, you can't tell the difference between an AAA cut and a partial AAA/Digital cut. We should all stop being AAA snobs and appreciate the quality of end product that can be made having a digital step in the process.
It doesn't say that. If these accusations are true, we don't know what an all analog one step sounds like. It could be better. We thought we were paying for an analog experience, warts and all. If I want a digital experience I'll play my excellent PS Audio DS DAC.
it would be nice to know what you're paying for, but the sound quality is what matters to me. All companies should state the source(s) for the finished product just for good business practice and the buyer can decide to purchase or not.
To answer your question, Mike, I'm disappointed about this news for two reasons: 1) we're paying premium prices for what turns out NOT to be all analog recordings, and 2) Mofi seems to be happy to allow that incorrect perception to linger in the market without clarification on their side. It doesn't feel right to me. Do I like the sound of their LP's? Yes. Do I knowingly like paying $60, $100, $125 for a recording with digital steps in the production when I thought I was getting an all analog recording (which their marketing pretty much implies)? Nope. Will I continue to buy Mofi pressings with this info in hand? Not saying I won't, but I'm definitely far less likely at this point.
So people would rather pay more for an inferior sounding record over a superior sounding one because of (1) digital step at the beginning???? That seems, well, stupid to me. After all it's end result (the record) we all like the sound of.
@@bradt.3555 the audiophile mantra is that digital is terrible and analog is great. The revelation that a bunch of supposed audiophile analog LPs have been revealed to have digital step is causing an existential crisis for audiophiles...because they were unable to hear that digital step. They were fooled. Even with their obscenely expensive audio systems.
@@peskypesky So much for "golden ears" & being a "trained" listener. At that level of digital and that early in the chain of record making NOBODY can tell. I believe at the end user level a difference can be heard in dig vs analog.
I’m a vinyl lover - however - my opinion A dsd copy of a master tape is going to be indiscernible from the tape. The difference is what you play it back on. the way a DAC delivers it and how your analog equipment represents it is different. Sound is an illusion to begin with. BUT most agree that vinyl gives a more natural and pleasant presentation. The fact is that a bad ass analog system provides a ton of flexibility to each component in the chain to make things warmer, sharper, increase the gain, lower the gain… the list goes on
Not true, the digitization is a re-recording step and introduces a generational degradation no matter how good the ADC is. The sampler in the ADC has to measure what it “thinks” the analog value is for the given sample window and it’s the “measure” and “think” steps that introduce differences no matter how imperceptible they may be to the human ear.
Stan, for the sake of analog I really wish any of what you’re saying was true. I really do. Fact is, a dsd copy is even closer to the master than an analog gen + 1 copy of the tap of the original tape. I wish it weren’t true, I truly love analog… but it is
If it wasn’t true people would not be paying thousands of dollars for a Mobile Fidelity one step of Abraxas that we now know is from a DSD file. What’s more is that even the most discerning Professionals are not able to tell that these were digital in the first place. Michael Fremer and all the others were just flat wrong. Cutting / mastering engineers have known it for a long time but chose not to let the cat out of the bag
@@aaronsmith8265 people were willing to pay inflated prices for one steps because of the false economy that MoFi created by only pressing 2000 copies of what was represented as something that was akin to capturing lightning in a bottle. MoFi strongly insinuated and let everyone believe it was some magic all-analog process they could only do once, thus the exclusivity, rarity, and cost. But, now it turns out they can cut new lacquers any time they choose and press as many as they want. The truth is, as good as they sound from DSD, they may have sounded even better from the original analog master tapes, but we’ll never know. These are not “original master recordings” they are digitizations, and they have all the aliasing, bit drift, and error introduced by that process that was most definitely “cleaned up” post ADC. So the glorious “great sound” you hear is partially based on that post-processing that was never in the original recording.
As a person who has been "digital" essentially since CDs came out, I don't really care if vinyl lacquers are cut from this or that. Give me the 24-bit WAV file from Bandcamp, thanks! If it sounds good, it is good. That said, labels and manufacturers should be truthful and forthright about what they are making and selling.
As a collector who does not even own a single MOFI record....I would like to but they are so hard to find and expensive - which brings me to my beef here....I think they charge a premium and manufacture FOMO by making it seem like there HAS to be a limited quantity. The fact that this shines a light on their ability to make 40,000 copies of that Santana record as well as the MJ means they are just manufacturing "limited" quantities. I dont like that. I dont care that they use digital in the process - if the record sounds great who cares - I would like to KNOW this though, and it would mean they need to charge less for these records and make more.
I don't have any either. I always assumed they make as many as they think they can sell quickly at their high price point, which will vary by title. They could easily make more, but this is the business model they have chosen
As long as it is sufficiently high-resolution digital, done carefully surely no problem. Surely you have to do that to not degrade the original master tape, unless it is a super-limited edition. Now if MoFi has been somewhat misleading about their process, then I agree that is not cool considering the price premium you pay.
2015? ...Try 2011 ! "Exactly when (what year and titles) did MFSL start mastering from DSD files? The first MFSL title mastered from a DSD file was Tony Bennett I Left My Heart in San Francisco, which was released in 2011. Over time, we mastered progressively more titles using the DSD archival capture step. Sourcing-information for all Mofi vinyl titles is being added to the Mofi website daily, and a complete discography will be posted on the site."
Digital doesn't always equal bad quality. DSD is a fantastic format. Analog doesn't always equal good quality. From what I understand if the person engineers the mix well, you'll have a good product regardless of the format.
I used to worry about this topic. But I don't anymore. Analog mastered vinyl, Great turntable. All Tube components. The sound of Angels singing out of my speakers. But over the years I;ve determined that there are so many ways to reproduce great sound at home that it's best to chase what is best for you and not be a Luddite.
Thank you for always sharing the facts, and your opinions, Mike! The math to help us realize this has been there for a while now, but it took glaring numbers hitting us on the head with a hammer for us to notice the elephant in the room. With a new pressing plant on the way, MoFi needs to get out in front of this and have a spokesperson clear some things up for us. Trust is much easier lost, than regained, and some people will be reluctant to pay top dollar for products from a company that has been less than transparent, no matter the quality of the product.
I don't see any problem with digital remastering. To me, remastered is remastered, and if done correctly, I don't necessarily care how they got it there. I'm getting these records because I want the best sounding quality possible, and if that's been achieved, I again, don't care how they got it there. That, however, is besides the point. Mobile Fidelity was being blatantly non-transparent, I would say intentionally, which should not be happening from what is supposed to be the gold standard in audiophile manufacturing. They have certainly not handled this situation very well, which I don't expect to change. Hopefully this doesn't take away all their business.
This “issue” is an issue because it blows assumptions and folk legends out of the water re: analog being inherently better than digital. The bottom line should always be: How does it sound? Should it matter the origins? Should you avoid a great sounding record because the dreaded “D” word is found in the chain? Some will hold tight to the purity and goodness of analog, and I DO think they would avoid a fantastic sounding record if digital is involved. Crazy!
Thanks for this video. Transparency from a "premium" manufacturer is not an unreasonable request. I won't be buying any MoFi vinyl until I'm confident that I know what it is.
Man, at least listen some DSD recordings. It's a totally different thing from PCM and it actual sounds like the analog source audio. Don't conflate the two.
I KNOW !! If they are really cutting from digital or a copy of the master tape, that colored band at the top of the cover can read: ORIGINAL MASTER RECORDING *
I agree with buying records that are well mastered. The only thing I care about are the dynamics. Modern CDs and streaming have squashed dynamic range. I’ll buy digital/analog records if they sound 💯.
I also agree, the end result is what matters most. I seem to remember old promotional material from them that talked about cutting from master tapes, but that might be the Mandela effect. I wish they would be more upfront, they have always been the most "secretive" of the audiophile labels. Chad has always been very transparent, even sometimes filming the mastering engineers cutting the records, same goes for Music Matters. Typically with premium products, the buyer wants to understand the process and what goes into it, whether that be well made goodyear welted shoes, or bespoke instruments, or vinyl records. The secrecy is weird, they make good sounding records and they should be open with their process.
This opens up the most important question again. Is what most of audiophiles consider best sounding just a very heavy seasoned and tasty flavor, or as close as possible to the original? Perfect mastering = master chef
I buy vinyl because I like to watch the disk spin and I like handling the actual disk. I have no illusions that the sound is better (its not and never has been) than digital all else equal. Mastering is more important than format. That's a given. I dont care if they master off digital or analog.
….perfectly sums up my feelings. This is the best response here. I will continue to make individual decisions on every vinyl purchase, MoFi or any other.
Uncompressed DSD Files sound absolutely superb. Probably far better, when fully balanced than a 50 year old Analogue Magnetic could ever hope to sound. It was always naive to think THE MASTER TAPES were the Source of all these Pressings. They are to precious to be played regularly. Once DSD technology had got to a certain spec, it is a godsend Uncompressed sound waves…
I still listen to vinyl records, its a hobby and love to have those sleeves and artwork to look at. But i totally agree that DSD files are absolutely fantastic. Do you listen to the standard DSD or DSD128 or DSD256 or even maybe DSD512?
Audio engineer here! A lot of labels are not allowing original master tapes to be used for obvious reasons so they just transfer them digitally in at least 24/96 for archiving purposes and remasters. MoFi just needs to be more transparent about the actual process on their records.
I've asked this elsewhere. If digital sources are used.....wouldn't the SACD/Hi Rez files be a TRUE One-Step? Besides a cardboard box full of foam inserts and surface noise, is one really gaining anything vs the $30 SACD version?
If you have a revealing system, you can easily tell the difference, when you compare apples to apples. When I bought the Beatles catalog stereo release (not knowing it was not an AAA issue) my body immediately stiffened. Something was wrong. The sound was dead and lifeless. Then a few years later, Parlophone released the mono catalog. From the first song, I could tell I was listening to an analog recording. The music was liquid, rich, organic, and engaging. BTW, to this audiophile that's what it's all about- an emotional connection to the music. Plain and simple.
If they say that their records are mastered from original master tapes and not "cut from the original master tapes", then they would not be lying. And if there is a digital step but you like music and sound quality, what is the problem?
The problem is they're selling a product yet not fully disclosing to the consumer what ingredients are in it. Details matter when it comes to audiophile premium products and consumers would like to know.
The problem is their price point. Mofi is not the only company that can make great sounding records cut from digital files. Rhino has amazing sounding $25 records digitally cut. Kinda like Swiss watches, are in house movements necessarily more accurate than a good ETA movement, probably not, but people will pay a premium for the uniqueness of an in house movement. Same applies to an all analog chain.
@@arize84 I get the point and would certainly like more information on sources. My comment is in the sense of what is more important: having the better sounding version of X album or having more information about that edition? Of course, it shouldn't be one or the other. I've been going through my pre-2015 and post-2015 MoFi records and none are advertised as AAA or "cut from the original master tapes". What can be misleading (if it involves a digital step) is the name of its technology, GAIN 2™ Ultra Analog™, but sure, it can be "Ultra Analog" with a digital step. Anyway, I have no problem repurchasing or recommending any post-2015 Miles Davis reissue, regardless of whether it has gone digital, because they are incredible records (and great sounding records).
@@arize84 Yes, but Rhino is part of Warner and doesn't pay the license fees that MoFi does. MoFi does not sell its records at the price it does by saying they are AAA. That would be a bigger problem.
As a 50 year Record Collector who started buying Albums for five to seven dollars each (Albums that sounded great then and still sound great), I could never really justify paying the asking price for a One Step MoFI Album, so I've never purchased one. I've never even listened to one, so I can't make comparisons. However, I do own a few 180 gram Virgin "Simply Vinyl" and "Rhino Vinyl" Albums, and they are absolutely quiet and sound incredible. Usually cost between $18.00 and $30.00 dollars. Good enough for my ears.
I really prefer to have an analog source, so, yes, this will curb my future Mofi purchases. I do have other choices, and Analog Productions does the finest job, in my opinion. I just wish Chad would release less jazz, and more classic rock.
So, basically, vinyl lovers are listening to digital music all this time, except they don't need a DAC in the process. In addition, they have the added bonus of crunch, surface noise, cleaning up recordings, ensuring storage space for recordings... Yes, vinyl is definitely a superior format.
If they employed DSD then it matters not.Its so close to analog its indistinguishable.Yes they should have been transparent.Only the purest of the pure would insist on AAA.
My initial thought is that well done digital could be as good as analog , based on the fact we all praised one steps , putting them as the end all be all versions and turned out to be digital .
WHuuuuttt ? You're telling me that I spent tens of thousands of dollars in MOFI vinyl product for NOTHING (digital copy garbage) ????? Had I known better, I would have saved all that money and download the music from Spotify ! :(
Good work. I'm not an audiophile. Have maybe a dozen MFSL albums that I bought second-hand. But thank you for having the balls to tell us what you really think.
Digital or analog, it really does not matter. What matters is a great recording, mastering, and engineering. One of the best-sounding albums of all time in my opinion is Dire Straits Brothers In Arms. All DDD but it sounds amazing.
The whole marketing name “one step” is implying they are making these from fewer steps, ie implying closer to the analog master, or from the master. Clearly that’s their intent. Misleading at best. Until MOFI gets transparent then I will no longer buy their overpriced records. Their competition is doing a better job.
I l collected vinyl for 30 years. I’m luckily I kept up my CD collection because 2 years ago I decided vinyl was to much of a pain in the arse! Good riddance! I’ll stick with a high-end system and CD’s. I’m done with this record racket
Don't be duped by the MFSL business model. They are basically the "Supreme" of vinyl. Yeah they make good sounding records while desicrating the artwork with their logo.
It goes to show that digital isn’t always the enemy. If you think they sound good, than great they sound good. The problem now is people are going to say they sound worse because the placebo of knowing it has digital in the process but prior to knowing this ohh they were the greatest thing since sliced bread.
I'd still buy them if it has a DSD step. PS Audio's Octave Records only records artists in DSD and Paul has discussed at length why they record only in DSD. I think their vinyl cuts sound amazing.
Interesting to see that vinyl enthisiasts are angry about the use of DSD in Onestep records but none of them had noticed anything at all these years. In fact, many kept going on on internet forums for years about how excellent and sublime the records are. The whole says a lot about their true listening perceptions. As a SACD enthusiast, I can't stop laughing!
@@gmsingh100 So it seems some explaining is required. The dogmatic approach of defending one format over another is laughable, not the sound quality per se. Each person has his preferences and their own way of enjoying music. Dogmatism is laughable.
@@johnz4860 fair enough, but it should be noted that at the time the way the marketing went CDs were supposed to be superior to records, and by almost every audiophile's admission 16/44 CDs were inferior and the format is all but dead now. Personal preference is another thing, but in audio and in music. You like what you like.
@@gmsingh100 What you say about 16/44.1 CD is true, it was a poor start for the optical disc. SACD and Blu Ray Audio discs are completely different animals with their much higher sample rate and massive dynamic range. As to CD being all but dead, I strongly disagree, yes the numbers have gone down but they remain solid in Japan and Germany. In 2021 the sales of CDs went up. I have been hearing about the death of CD since 2005 and here we are with new releases coming out all the time.
Even for non-audiophile labels -- straight up major labels, indy labels, everyone -- put that mastering chain info on the damn record. Not this "remastered (likely poorly, unnecessarily and excessively brightly) from the original analog tapes," which means nothing. And how about credits in general, on vinyl and on streaming? Wtf is wrong with this industry? Everybody's buying vinyl where the CD likely sounds better and you can't tell who the fuck played drums on or mixed a damn record
Very disappointed if true. The common answer has always been, if it has the “Original Master Recording” banner, then it was cut from the original tapes. If it was “Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab” banner, then it is from the best source possible. If this is true, it certainly makes the question about the banners more interesting
Wow. Speechless. I think I would still buy the records. If they sound fantastic, and the Mofi's do, I feel that I will continue as-is and not let a little digital step in the process bother me. Still, they should have been forthcoming about this. This might make them look pretty bad to some people...
There's nothing inherently wrong with digital audio. The CD got a bad rap because a lot of record companies were pushing out bad masters (third generation copies or worse) in order to make a quick buck. Bad quality MP3s and the loudness war didn't help either.
I love vinyl and SACD. DSD can sound amazing, so not super surprised if that is the case. MFSL has always used/pushed some new technology to reissue titles - both digital and analog.
If it sounds good why the hell fret about?!? Mofi has never been transparent about their sourcing. Take Kind of Blue for example, they claim it it's from the original master tape but it's not. It's from Wilder's new master so they use the term 'Original Master Recording' loosely. Moreover, if you look at their new Alan Parsons, they suspiciously removed the information that was included in the original album, liner notes, the album was digitally mixed.
You got me. Its totally baffling. Its like "Do you guys actually listen to your records or just make sure the hype stickers that say AAA are all in one section" Weird. There is probably some sort of psychological study in this. heh.
Every label should include the Neil Young code on the package. The small label on the back of every record he now releases. Lena's need to be transparent !!!
Well... 1. You've heard about the Universal Music fire? A LOT of master tapes don't exist any more. All that exists is a digital copy. 2. It doesn't matter. Digital is capable of reproducing the analog waveform 100%. No reason to be upset they're using a digita source. 3. Their mastering is what makes the difference. As long as you use a good quality source, that's all that matters.
the issue here is sooooo amusing- so many people are so hung up on AAA vinyl . . . . finding out some of the best sounding releases are NOT AAA has to be painful. how do you reconcile your beliefs about digital ruining things when some of your favorite 'analog' releases are actually digital? This is a HUGE emperor has no clothes moment for youtube influencers who have pushed AAA vinyl but I'm not sure they realize it yet. lotta credibility OUTSIDE of MOFI has just gone boom. Also if abraxas is that good on vinyl I want to hear that source DSD file please :)
This only proves one thing to me. That all of the audiophiles that claim they can hear the difference between digitized music and analog music are full of it, because they have been telling all of us how wonderful the MOFI records sound. I agree with them those records sound great.
I have tested this in my system a few times and for the most part, agree with you. The recording, engineering, and master matter far more than the format.
He is talking about potential digital they could be using which isn't even available for the general public. Most digital vinyls I hear are 96/24, 192/24 or maybe 384/24. I can spot these easily because they sound flat. MOFI might be using way more advanced digital.
@@booom4849 it’s just funny, I too can hear a difference between an mp3 and flac, yes there is a difference between digital media, my point remains. Everyone who sells analog only and has been telling us how wonderful some of the recent ,what was believed to be AAA mofi titles are, clearly can not tell the difference between a well mastered and digitized ADA record and a AAA record. In the next few months we will see all types of excuses as to why this is and how a 50k cable can fix the issue
@@fernandoplata9785 That would be AAD(A) though. I'm pretty skeptical about the current generation digital mixing capabilities.
Most every comparison I have made when listening to the Raw DSD file of a vinyl album pressed from it sounds incredibly different and nearly always no ....always to me sounds better on vinyl. Nobody has yet worked out why but its no less true. Its perplexing fir DSD champion Paul McGowan as he knows it to be true even on the octive records label stuff. It may well be how the human auditory system works , I am not clever enough to comment on the psycho acoustics but I have CD copies and great vinyl copies of the same albums and when people listen they without exception ask if they can listen more to vinyl. There has to be something at work here. You can't make those statements unless you can A/B two vinyl onsteps one from a diflgital copy and the other from the master tape. I think I would be able to diffetentiate. As far as the MOFI one step stuff is concerned, they just need to set the record straight. If the have deceived customers it could seriously damage their credibility.
Hi there. My father, Stan Ricker, passed away in 2015. He wasn’t able to do any masters after that point so I would assume anything past august of 2015 it was digital. I love my dad. He was an amazing talent. We miss him
So basically, MOFI just proved that all these guys who swore they could tell analog from digital were just full of crap!! 🤣🤣🤣 Thanks MoFi for settling that tired old debate!
Aaahh...but young one....a true Jedi Master record collector knew all along that those post 2015 Mofi records had a digital step. The Force that dwells in their ears told them so.
That was my thinking lol. It isn't digital that is the problem. It's how digital is often mastered and compressed. If you make a needle-drop recording of an analog-made vinyl record, then put that recording onto a CD, and play the CD copy and the original vinyl side-by-side, you cannot hear the difference. If digital were a format inherently incapable of capturing the warmth and dynamic range of analog, then even a digital copy of an original record would not be able to reproduce that same sound. But it can. Studies have demonstrated that again and again.
I love vinyl, and I love the compression and mastering process that gets music onto vinyl and brings out the warmth and depth that we often hear on vinyl pressings. But if companies can flawlessly reproduce that sound through digital means, and therefore have an infinite number of copies possible to produce, then I see nothing wrong with that. In fact, it makes the release of Mo-Fi sets less elitist and more affordable because we know they'll be able to put them back in print even after the initial runs.
@@Progger11 SPOT! W#$@$ing ON!
That is actually a really good point. There are a lot of snake oil salesmen in the audio world.
As an all-digital systems user, I’ve never laughed so hard at this hobby as I’m laughing now
Ephinany moment, it’s taken a vinyl record to show how good digital can sound.
🤣
True
I laughed so hard, when I read the title of this video. I really hope this is true. Because it proves, that nobody can hear the difference between a high quality digital and analog version of the same recording. So, now we can finally leave that 'audiophile' nonsense behind us. Go buy and enjoy the records you like, because it has great music on it.
btw. I think MoFi should be honest about what sources they do use. A good quality product will sell, no matter what the source or mastering is.
No that doesn't show nobody can hear the difference. Only comparing the same pressing process, one from analog, one from digital can show that. Plus you need a very high end system to reveal the subtleties. Bottom line is If I want to listen to DSD files, I have a dac that can play them. If I'm going to the trouble and expense of listening to LP's, I want it to be analog, or at least be informed of what I am paying for. It's like saying, go you can't taste the difference between a free range egg and a factory farm egg. It doesn't matter. We're paying for an experience, and lying about your farm is pure deception and Illegal.
@@johnnycashlesscomedy8616 Bingo.
@@johnnycashlesscomedy8616 Just let it go man
@@johnnycashlesscomedy8616 Totally agree.
Uh no. There is a difference you are just being lied to about what that difference is. I can play with an EQ and mess with any digital song to make it sound different and some would say "better" but it's not original. It's someone elses interpretation. Some are confusing "better" with different. These people that bought these MoFi albums say it sounds better. they may assume that different sound is better when in fact it's different.
This is not about the sound quality. Is about transparency. If I want to buy chicken I want them to sell me chicken, not some other meat because if it takes like chicken, what gives in what they really sell me.
This information definitely tarnishes the brand for me but if the Thriller One Step sounds better than any other version, I'm still going to be a happy customer. I will still buy their records as long as they still sound incredible. I just feel a little hoodwinked right now. Thank you for the video Mike.
I share your sentiment.
If Mofi was selling records at the 25-30 dollar range, I don't think we'd have much to say. It's the fact that they sell records for $60-$125, use hype statements "Mastered from the Original Master Tapes" which has caused me to believe that those records were "AAA". I do want to go on record and say that "if" Mofi has a digital step that helps increase production, I'm okay with it. The results speak for themself, and I too will continue buying Mofi records. I have Thriller, and all the Van Halen one-steps on order. That said, it would be nice to have transparency. Come on Mofi, do the right thing please......
As you know Melinda, I do not like MoFi, and I haven't bought one of their vinyl records since the Miles Davis Kind of Blue 45 rpm box set came out. Old MoFi yes. New MoFi no. Now we find out that it's very likely that they have been BS'ing people on at least some of their releases. I will stick with serious audiophile companies like AP/QRP. That digitally manipulated Thriller One Step will never sound as good as an audiophile all analogue cut vinyl record.
@@audiophileman7047 if the Thriller album is a disappointment, I may reconsider some of my purchases that I intend to make. The Cars, Bob Dylan, Eagles and Miles Davis releases have all been home runs for me. This is disappointing but it would also be disappointing to miss out on great titles because they can't press enough of them. This digital step is probably how they are able to press 40,000 Thriller One Steps. I have been a happy customer for a long time so I'm not jumping ship just yet. I agree with you on Analog Productions. They are a wonderful company that does everything the right way. Take care.
@@audiophileman7047 Funny you mentioned Miles Davis, Kind of Blue, 45 rpm. I just purchased it from the ‘In’ Groove before I saw this video. I still like my MoFi records. They sound incredible, but no doubt, like Melinda, I am disappointed to hear this latest news. And yes, AP/AS is the best and my favorite.
As someone that uses digital and vinyl, I really would love to see Mobile Fidelity offer the DSD source of these records for sale.
They kind of do! They sell Super Audio CDs that contain a DSD layer and a PCM layer
@@vadermstarr5435 No, they actually don't, because Krieg Wunderlich masters the vinyl versions, and Rob LoVerde remasters the SACDs. They EQ quite differently, so the SACDs and the vinyl versions often sound dramatically different.
@@mcnyregrus so neither of them are true to the source.. lol
@@About_Time_Multimedia That's not the point of a remaster. A remaster is supposed to be EQ'ed differently to make it sound better than the original master/source (although some remasters sound worse). If you just release the original master/source again it's not a remaster but a reissue.
@@mcnyregrus I have a feeling everyone is getting off the point. A vinyl print has to be remastered differently to any other source because of a records lack of dynamics and sound characteristics. Tape can be just a pure copy off the original master or EQd if they wish, that's if the original is on tape anyway. Digital is copied on to digital format and then EQd to suit whatever format it finished on. A sound engineer will always play with setting to suit themselves, whatever medium it is finally finished with.
Point being. The buyer doesn't know what the hell is what any more. And to a certain extent didn't need to know, all they need to know is do they like the sound and is this the best that can be made from the original source, and hopefully you have the same tastes as the engineer..
I guarantee if you had the ability to mix it to your tastes it would sound a touch different.
I would have a much higher opinion of MSFL if they would just be 100% transparent with each and every album they release. I would ask MFSL if they would rather have a reputation built on total honesty and trust, or constantly have the cloud of suspicion hovering over every release.
So if they came out and said "guys sorry but yes every mofi lp since ____ that youve purchased is digitally sourced and these are the new ones that are" Why would that make a difference? Would it change your mind about how it sounds?
I mean you see where Im going with this?
How much of this "Oh its aaa, thank goodness!" is placebo affect?
@@FleagleSangria then why the apparent deception? Hmmm?
@@FleagleSangria only placebo if you have a shitty system
Because people will pay more for analog plain and simple. Regardless if the digital version can sound as good or possibly better vinyl collectors have been conditioned to turn their noses up at digital pressings.
@@vcp93 Because they know their illogical customers? lol
For $129 (stores here mark up to $169), I want to know the origin of the source material. If digital, that is fine...just tell us. For me, if digital, you are not paying for anything really special one step or not. If the source is digital, wouldn't the SACD version be a TRUE one step? One does not need to pay over $100 + for Bernie/Kevin/Ryan mastering,. The big guys master plenty of $29 titles.
Sounds like they are doing digital right. That Monk record is phenomenal. Maybe the manufacturing process is a bigger factor than we assumed
My first thought is, “wow”! My second thought is, “Digital isn’t bad, Compression is bad”. It’s certainly possible to utilize DSD files to recreate ambiance and dynamics. Interesting….
DSD is actually superior to tape...its all in the gear...
Yes, compression is bad but once you get to cd quality, human ears cannot tell the difference between cd and any higher res file. Vinyl, meanwhile, suffers from distortion, dynamic range compression and frequency response compression on the inner tracks. The vinyl is causing way more imperfection than MOFI's very well done digital step. They should have been transparent but covered it up to please and sell to the analog purists.
Absolutely, COMPRESSION is the true enemy. I feel this ignores the real problem.
I think this introduces a new concept, that there is a difference between an “Audiophile” and an “Audiopurist”. The audiophile chases the best sound quality, whereas the audiopurist requires the media to be of a specific origin, and with no deviation, which can be digital or analog. I think the marriage of digital in the analog format works fantastic, and can produce results that are synergistic.
I sort of play into both tbh. Would I rather have AAA? Yes most definitely, But I do care about sound quality as well. After all it’s all about the music for me first and foremost.
It is about good business practice first and foremost, and pricing for something you are not getting. Again, I still hope this is not the case but I fear the worst.
@@puttyputty123 what are you not getting? MFSL goal is to produce a very high quality product and they deliver. Just because someone gets all buggy because they made assumptions doesn’t make it MFSL’s fault. It’s getting tiresome hearing all of this endless “is it all analog???!!” stuff and it takes away from the enjoyment of the music.
Honestly these videos remind me of Crazy Eddie in NYC in the 70’s. 😂
its like solid state amps w/ tube pre's works well in synergy
@@nybravado4123 dombo, als je graag rotzooi koopt die verkeerd geadverteerd wordt doe je dat toch lekker
I emailed MOFI about their process of mastering about a year and a half ago, specifically asking if they were AAA, and was there any digital step, and they said no. I've always wondered why the MOFI website still says the "gain 2" system is Half Speed Mastered, which i don't think is still the case. So ultimately, the issue is transparency. Why is this a question in 2022 that customers don't know the MOFI process like other with all the other audiophile companies.
You save that email?
@@FleagleSangria no, i dumped a ton of old emails just recently. The discussion came about from a debate on the SHF, and i had a whole bunch of DM's with someone there, is where i remember posting it. But i got bored of that person, and deleted the chat.
Is it me or is calling them "One Step" false advertising since making a digital copy of the master would be a second step.
Who cares. If it sounds good then it sounds good. Moving forward we should demand they be more forthcoming about their sources and cutting practices.
First of all Mike….I can see the disappointment in your eyes and can hear it in your voice. I agree with you Mike. As a consumer, we deserve transparency on the products we purchase. If these are 100% true statements of how One Steps are being manufactured, I feel cheated as I own all One Steps with the exception of Abraxis, for obvious reasons. I’m with you Mike!
He is speculating. He does not have a first hand source for his claim. It may or may not turn out to be true but that's a different issue.
I have two Abraxis One Steps. One unopened. Believe it is number 8. I got onboard early.
Abraxas, but an approximation of the title is kind of fitting.
Not sure what to say. I used to wonder what it mattered if a record was cut from a digital source. But I became impressed with the sound of MOFI records based on the “understanding” that they were analogue. If they are actually digital, I am less impressed and feel kind of stupid for raving about them to my friends. It definitely changes my opinion on the company based on principle alone. I’ve paid a fortune the past two years collecting their titles and the supposed analogue sourcing is part of how I justified the expense. I will have to keep an eye on this and decide if I wasted my money and wether I will continue buying their records. And if it’s true, I think they’ve done some false advertising and should remove that stupid banner from the top of the records.
Sue them.
I too have collected Mobile Fidelity since I was a teen in the late '70s. Their Records, cassettes and reel-to-reels have always held a special place in my heart and ears. To hear that theres a digital step involved us not a surprise to me because like yourself I've lied to myself, and/or shut down trains of thought by consoling myself with the very real fact that nothing sounds better. Its an unavoidable fact that digital will be a part of vinyl record manufacturing. Amd as long as they continue to make records sound better as my ears continue to age, I really don't care. Quieter vinyl, reduction in recording/pressing vibrations, etc, will play a part. Whether I like it of not.
Great vid. A lot to unpack here. Love as a peak vinyl collector you’re still asking questions and seeking the best. I’d still pay $49 for a Mofi pressing but not much more with this info. This could have ripple effects on the whole market. I can see the vinyl market imploding or exploding with info like this, inflation, additional plants, more product, aging artists selling their music rights, etc
I'm a professional studio and touring musician virtually my whole life. Started collecting vinyl in the mid 60's and still am. I have a large vinyl and cd collection and THE most important thing that I've learned, which I believe is a good philosophy to follow: "If it sounds good it IS good"! Whether it's from a digital or an analogue source does not matter to me in the least. I have CD counterparts that sound better than my original vinyl and vis versa. Your prime focus should be the SOUND that the musicians have created and not the SOURCE from which it comes to think otherwise is pure folly! Thus it allows one to enjoy their music and system and feel totally comfortable with that - NO WORRIES over the source be it digital or analogue.
Enjoy your music,
Greg. 🙂
point missed.
Agree with you 100% Same with an audio equipment. No need to see graphs and measurements if you can just listen and let your ears decide.
My thoughts on MoFi are unchanged, honestly. Like you Mike, the One Steps I’ve purchased over the past couple of years, they are and remain, some of the best sounding records in my entire collection, and I’m not a newbie. Like almost all Gen Xers, we’re old enough to have experienced the peak of vinyl, the format’s slow descent into obscurity, and finally, what many thought would be the death of vinyl. Fortunately, it didn’t die, and has now become arguably, the number one physical format. The LP is here to stay.
A lot you guys think if it is all analog, it contains no loudness but recording companies have been adding loudness to albums since the 40s there is a lot you guys don't know.
I am a chef, and sometimes I use food analogies to put things in perspective, so here it goes…
If someone purchases a food item based on a label that reads “organic”, therefore ALL the ingredients need to be organic, especially at a higher price point.
If not, the label should read “made with some organic ingredients”. At that point, it’s up to the consumer to make a educated decision to purchase an item based on their expectations and/or dietary needs.
That said, I have always purchased MoFi records because I was told they were “all organic”, and even if it tastes good, I demand to know what the ingredients are especially at that price point. If MoFi has nothing to hide, they at least need to inform the consumer of what they are “eating” IMHO
Exceptional analogy
Well put
I think in this case it is like calling a food "natural". The natural label can be used to describe something that is natural in flavor, or natural in texture. Or sourced from natural ingredients, even if they are further processed. So there are ways to cheat or be deceptive. I don't think MOFI is technically lying about anything, but they are being misleading if this is true.
Absolutely
Exactly! This BS about "audiophile or audiphools" or whatever can't hear the difference that some people manage to spew out already is missing the point completely.
MOFI is a company that generally makes records that sound fantastic. But the implication has always been that, if they bear the slogan “Original Master Recording,” it’s cut from tape, an AAA product. Too many labels throw out claims about being sourced from tape, yet it’s known that most are digitized in the chain; your expectations are diminished and, in a way, realistic. But labels like MOFI/Analogue Productions/Intervention/ERC/Impex/etc. justify their costs and reputations by promoting their analogue sourcing. This doesn’t diminish the fact that most of their products sound great. But if they’re digitized along the way, they should be transparent about it. It all feels a bit like a ruse. Would love to hear comments from the usual suspects - Kassem, Fremer, Gray, Smith, et al. Thanks for posting this, it’s a bit of a mind-blower.
The IMPLICATION. It's something they never STATED.
@@VideoArchiveGuy What is your problem?
I don’t think it was implied. Mobile fidelity made CDs for years.
@@777jones so true. I think they sold about twelve of them.
You hit the nail on the head...
I don’t know what it changes but thank you for putting it out there. I don’t feel differently but with the hiking prices of mofis lately, I may double think some purchases.
The issue for me is not whether or not MOFI is using Digital per se. However, there is a big issue with the pricing and what I am paying for. Buying my first One Step was a big decision $125.00 is alot of money to spend on one record. Especially if that one record is one you already have bought 8 times over in every format! It has been obvious for a awhile that the monicur of "One Step" has not meant that you are buying the definitive or best version available of a certain title. It may be the best vinyl cut of the album and it may not. The Big Issue is COST. The AP Sirius album recently released is a great example of this. It is by far the best sounding version available. So, kudos to MOFI. With that said, it needs to be noted that this version is not a One Step but a regular 45rpm catalogue offering. Yes, some of the One Steps are fantastic i.e. Bill Evans, Dylan and Mingus to name a few. But there are many that are not superior to the $20 dollar remaster or the originals i.e. Pearl, Carole King and Stevie Ray.
So, for me this issue is about the dollars- paying for a product that may or may not be superior in every way. I doubt highly that putting out a Dire Straits One Step would add anything to the 45rpm version already released. The dynamics on the Dire Straits records are already on the borderline of needle jump with a properly set up table and arm. I will not support paying double for a record that is not a true One Step if the less expensive one is just as good or better.
125$ mate? Sorry that you didn't get what you've paid for
"If this is digital what does it change?"...
Nothing as far as sound quality. It either sounds the best or not.
What it would comfirm for me is what Ive always suspected:
The idea that folks can "hear" the difference between digital and analogue in most cases and when the mastering is great is overblown. They simply cant.
And if this is true, then what difference does it make whether a company places a designtation hype sticker on the album or not?
If one cant hear the difference.
This also confirms another issue. That mastering is what counts the most.
I was told by a retired recording engineer that if people knew how many records we think are analogue but are really digitally sourced, we would be very surprised. This is most likely why we dont and wont see analogue hype stickers on every reissue. Its not a puzzle. Its because they arent aaa.
Im not one to care as long as the album sounds great. That is all that matters.
As matter of fact this "we will stick only to aaa mastertapes" is why we have reissues that have issues most likely. I wont name companies or titles.
But some of these issues could have been remedied and tweaked with the plangent process.
But due to the stubborness or whatever, we have reissues that could have digitally been repaired and are not.
The later imo is due to this absolute aaa mindset in those particuliar cases.
I agree with this.
Yes, I think these are the main takeaways really. The fetishizing of AAA has gotten a bit out of hand.
Yeah, because everyone wants a digital vinyl record. Audiophiles are mostly deaf. This is why OP are so valuable.
Excellent points
@@UberPilot Not always. But Im like Mike, what exactly is making the Abraxas sound so much better. And it does. Ill give it that much. As does the Nightfly (and we know its digitally sourced)
Deaf? I can speak for everyone, but my hearing is fine the last time I had it tested two years back.
This video was quite a revelation. We definitely need a industry wide shift to absolute clarity on sourcing and methods. The MOFI records I love still sound the same regardless. But for any product, I want to know and pay for what goes into it. If this is revealed to be true, a big disappointment. I've stated several times I'm not opposed to digital sourced vinyl, but it's the blatant dishonesty that is most troubling here. Thanks for an eye opening video Mike. Not an easy one to do.
"We definitely need a industry wide shift to absolute clarity on sourcing and methods." I'm no audiophile, but I like reading about it. So, for all these decades none of you nerds has demanded total transparency? That's amazing to me.
There is one factor in this discussion I've not seen mentioned: what if, since MoFi wants to preserve the master tape to make more One Steps, they made all analogue records for the first thousand, and used digital copies for the rest? That would be biggest ball of confusion yet, since people would be comparing the two out the wazoo. I have to wonder how forthcoming MoFi will be about this, if at all.
If there is, in fact, a digital step in the creation of the One Steps, and the One Steps are, in fact, as good as you claim, maybe the digital process should be more highly regarded.
Indeed
That’s the thing. Digital can sound FANTASTIC but it’s used as an excuse to rush junk out into the market. I don’t think that’s the case here.
I personally attribute the magic of vinyl, regardless of the source the vinyl was made from, is the mechanical to electric conversion that occurs in the cartridge. It's differently nuanced then how a DAC converts its signal. I think that's why vinyl kills digital in terms of soundstage, and imaging.
Exactly! Why does everyone accept that music can go from analog to digital, but somehow digital to analog is unacceptable?
Vinyl has worst soundstage and imaging than digital, the magic of vinyl is just a fantasy, they have to do different mastering in the studio to comprehend all these vinyl flaws, and that's the supposed magic you talk about. it was great in the 50s and necessary till 40 years ago, now vinyl is just gimmick, a trend for those who like seeing it spin! a problematic medium with lossy quality compared to master tapes and today's digital masters.
DSD was invented specifically to replace master tapes, I am not surprised if digital DSD masters are being used in vinyl pressing. I would prefer that to a pcm step, but that gets complicated. I agree with you 100% that I want the label to be clear and honest about it.
If the one steps are in fact cut digitally, MOFI has found a way to make digital cutting sound great. I can't point to another digital cutting that sounds that good. Abby road just lost any excuse for crappy sounding records. Actually, I am excited that the technology has progressed to this level. Good for them, good for us. The fact that I can put on a one step and not be disappointed by the soundstage is a big win for technology. One (Small) Step For Man......
Could be the start of more digital era MoFi releases
To be honest digital cutting has always sounded great. It's one of the reason's engineers jumped on Digital Delay systems for cutting in the late 70's, they simply sounded better than all analogue delay systems. Even the initial 12-bit and 14-bit systems were deemed superior.
@@jat13 that has certainly not been my experience with my ears on my system. 99% of the time I can identify a digital cut within seconds of putting a record on my TT. Way smaller images and less open sounding. I get it, ears and systems vary.
@@billa5289 You are kidding yourself if you can tell a digital cut. The majority of vinyl cut since 1980 has had a digital step in for the reason I mentioned above. Even Michael Fremer concedes some of his favorite records were cut from 16-bit digital intermediates. Unless it's a terribly poor pre-mastered digital source, that digital step is entirely transparent and any good cutting engineer can tell you that.
@@jat13 this is exactly the reason 90+% of the vinyl I own and seek out was cut prior to 1980. No kidding there sir.
Having a digital step in the MFSL process isn't that big of a deal, ultimately it's the mastering judgement calls that make or break a good album. Not admitting that there is a digital step is problematic. Lots of great albums are cut from digital sources...the recent Mothers Fillmore East LP is a good example. The first five sides are all analog, then side 6 is digitally sourced, yet it sounds just as good as the analog sides. For this we can thanks Bernie Grundman's mastering.
Well said. Of course another one would be Donald Fagen's The Nightfly. It's not analog vs digital that matters the most, but is the audio sourced from the very original master and then who masters it
Don’t tell that to the purists who insist on all-analog. They’re still in denial.
@@De_La_Soto they are waking up this morning and finding out Santa Clause isn't real. This is going to a real shock to many vinyl "purists" and a total disruption to their "reality." Cognitive dissonance shall be the order of the day. As I mentioned in another post. It aint just Mofi....
I think it's important to qualify "sounds just as good" here, because "sound" is a completely subjective thing. What "sounds" good to one person may not "sound" good to another - and that's fine. Personally, the reason I collect and listen to vinyl is not necessarily because it "sounds" the best to me, it's because I want to experience the all-analog pathway from performance to playback. Of course this doesn't always result in the best "sound", but in this case that's not always what I'm after. If it "sounds" amazing, so much the better. Recent case in point - the UHQR "Are You Experienced" - mastered with the original tape hiss in place. It doesn't bother me, and I think everyone would agree that tape hiss doesn't "sound" good, but personally I'm not bothered because it's as close to the original performance as possible. That's why that vinyl is worth $125 to me. Yes, I'm aware that there is still mixing and mastering in there that adjusts the parameters of the original analog source but those adjustments are attenuations of the original analog masters. And to the "high-bit digital is just another analog format" crowd, the analog->digital process is a re-recording of the original analog source - it's not a direct representation of the analog signal on the tape. That is, you can't just take the original analog signal and "print" the digital version of it. Rather, the ADC samples the original recording and the sampler has all the same gain/balance/dynamic range problems that an analog transducer would have, and this absolutely depends on a good engineer to manage. Worth noting too that the same thing happens on the DAC end of things. It's this "re-recording" that I object to. Don't charge me $125 for a "re-recording". I want the original master recording as advertised, not the original master re-recording.
not really a good excuse to not to reveal that information, I may cancel all my mofi orders
My ears told me along time ago that its all about MIXING AND MASTERING!!! I like both formats but the difference between the mediums are negligible. The differences between mixes and masters are everything.
A little shocking to say the least.
The “language” used for their SuperVinyl releases seem about as transparent as we’d want MFSL to be:
“MASTERED FROM THE ORIGINAL MASTER TAPES, PRESSED ON MOFI SUPERVINYL, AND LIMITED TO 3,000 NUMBERED COPIES”
The answer you got from them was, as you said, disappointing but it also diminished a lot of trust I have in the company until proven otherwise.
Thank you for posting this!!?
I have mix feelings about this. True, their product sounds amazing, no doubt about it. But to have the masses going around promoting (believing) MOFI records being all analogue when they're not, it just as bad as MOFI telling us they're all analogue when they're not. Cosumers are spending quite a bit of money for their records. I think we, the consumer, deserve to know what we're buying.
I love AAA titles - but not everything I own that has been cut from analogue masters - sounds amazing. Most of it comes down to mastering for vinyl. I have a lot of outstanding sounding MoFi titles that I love - along with other quality records from Analogue Productions, etc. I always thought part of MoFi's magic was the mastering, the pressing process and not necessarily the master source.
Bottom line, I'm not going to stop buying from any company that's putting out quality releases. I don't feel mislead in the least. Cheers.
There are a lot of wonderfully mastered lps mastered from high-res files. People should listen with their ears and enjoy the music
What's next... we're going to find out the 10,000 dollar cables are made of the same materials that a the 500 dollar cables are made of ? I need a Xanex
It’s a bit disappointing if it’s true, we buy these for the ‘all analog’ nature. But in another way, it’s kind of amazing, if they can make them sound that amazing, then a digital copy of a master tape, mastered well is obviously good enough, and as a result, hopefully other people could produce this level of sound with these sources.
Honestly as long as it sounds good, I don't really care if it's digital or not
@7:00 yes , they sound spectacular but due to the signal chain used.. not worth the dollars they are expecting as they could crank them out all day for as long as they want. Not a 'rare' process based on limited resource. Some things need to be adjusted like making them affordable to the general collector now.
as someone who works in professional recording studios and on analog tape for tracking and mixing as well as hi res digital (+ audiophile), it is absolutely possible to get a hi res transfer of a tape and with the right cutting system, cut a lacquer that is on par with or more consistent than running a master tape direct to lathe for cutting. i have heard it
cutting engineers can preview the cut and levels to ensure signal to noise ratio is as good as can be plus the biggest thing to remember is that analog does not equal better.
recently, i have been able to work with bernie grundman and chris bellman cutting lacquers from digital masters and the quality is stunning.
the recording and mixing matters 100x more than the simple fact tape was used.
obviously transparency is important and that’s the issue here but at the same time, music is meant to be listened to and the techniques used to capture it are there to enhance it
tape is a storage medium and is tricky. playing a master tape back on a different machine than what cut the original lacquers is a different sound - the heads, electronics, cabling all effect playback and in the analog realm, nothing is “transparent” if electricity runs through it, there is color even if it’s 2% different, it’s different.
Thank you for sharing your interesting and valuable information with the rest of us.
I wish your comment was pinned at the top of the comments section here.
Thanks. That sounds correct to me.
Very true indeed. But the dilemma here is the way reputation was built…
@@Rawhphonicz i agree, lack of transparency sucks. i truly wish there was more talk about the quality of the transfer, plating and pressing formulas of the pvc that goes into the sonics of why these mofi releases sound so spectacular.
@@MJEvermore853 always happy to chat audio - it is a massive part of my life.
i also wish people would talk more about importance of listening environments over equipment as well
Remember how the first CDs all had the AAD/ADD/DDD label that told you how it was recorded/mixed/mastered? Maybe something like that for records. But I'd like additional details on the mastering - who did it and when. I know it's in the deadwax for a lot of things, but I want to see it on the jacket so I know before I buy.
I'm an audiophile and a music lover. I like both analogue and digital - I don't favor one over the other just as long as it sounds great to my ears. If it's all analogue and it sounds great then I'm in. If it's all digital and it sounds great then I'm in. If it's a combo-platter of analogue and digital and it sounds great then I'm in. This is not a religion to me. I purchase Mo-Fi vinyl - including the One-Steps and I purchase Mo-Fi SACDs, and I have no intention of stopping. So, my reaction to the news that it's possible there might be a small digital step somewhere along the line in the manufacturing of Mo-Fi vinyl? Well, isn't that interesting...they sure sound great, so keep 'em coming! My two-cents.
This isn't a matter of digital sounding as good as analog, it's a matter of a company selling premium audiophile products yet not fully disclosing details of how the product is made, consumers deserve to know.
If your ok with there being a digital step involved or the entire chain being digital that's fine, as long as you're informed before you make the decision to purchase.
If a company selling audiophile products does not release a good sounding product then I care. If it sounds great, I don't care if they've digitized the master tape or run it through a cheese grater
From a listener perspective, if a record is the best sounding record of that particular recording, i don't really care too much if it was cut from a digital file or the master tape. If it sounds good, it sounds good. Pretty much what you said about the Santana One - Step. However, as a customer, if your advertising something as being cut from the original master tape and its actually a digital file then we have a problem as thats just straight up lying. In Mo-Fi's case, yes, they may never have actually straight up said that these were cut from the original master tape, but as far as I'm concerned they pretty much have implied that for years. Did they lie? No. Disingenuous? Absolutely.
I understand your concern Mike but I’m not sure it really matters. I still have the SACD and vinyl of several recent Mofi titles and they’re each a unique listening experience to me. I enjoy both but they do sound different to me and on my system.
It matters, it may not matter to you but it matters.
It would be like saying your car drives just fine and you can't tell the difference between the suspension in your car and the suspension in the exact same car, they're both great.
Even though the manufacturer of the suspension in your car used child labour in the process of making the springs.
It still drives and feels the same to you so in that sense "it doesn't matter".
But it matters that the manufacturer hasn't disclosed information as to how their product is made.
Now, I'm not saying mofi is using child labour but it matters that they're not disclosing details about how their product is made, because in the world of high end audiophile premium products details matter
@@crazyprayingmantis5596 I understand your point but ultimately audiophiles are paying for the best possible sounding product. If say, the Mofi Love Over Gold 45rpm isn’t a fully analog product (and Mofi has never claimed that it was), does it really matter to your ears? I understand it matters from the standpoint of analog purity, but that album sounds absolutely stunning. That it may not be fully analog is secondary from the standpoint of audio quality. Look at the Mofi Japanese release of Santana’s Lotus album. It’s clearly stated as being digitally sourced but are you telling it doesn’t sound fucking amazing?
@@chrismckee4154
It doesn't matter if there's s digital step involved or if they're completely digital, what matters is these companies not disclosing the information to the consumer.
I don't care if it's a record or a cake, I want to know what I'm paying for.
@@crazyprayingmantis5596 so that’s more important to you than how iit sounds?
MIKE.. brave post. Never stop, never change. Credibility... you got it in barrels full. You approached this topic cautiously, and handled it with great care. NEVER STOP. This is why we love your videos, and keep you as a preferred retailer.
“Brave”? There was no jeopardy or actual risk, just OCD adults. It doesn’t matter in the real world
Bottom line is MoFi Inc. 100% knows their audiofile end consumers BELIEVED it was an all analog process, and are/were willing to PAY more money for that. Through very careful word smithing, MFSL maintained that illusion. That is until the last week or so, when the illusion was shattered. Shame on them for not being transparent.
I, personally, am not willing to pay $125 per LP, no matter how good it might sound. It doesn't bring me 5x more joy than the $25 version I can buy at my local record store.
If I only cared about the sound, I'd listen to streaming over a high-end DAC. Vinyl's value is in the whole vinyl experience. High end vinyl better deliver a high end experience. (I'm looking at you, Alan Parson's crap jacket.)
This is 100% what I was thinking. They were for sure riding on the vagueness of the situation.
(I'm looking at you, Alan Parson's crap jacket.)" Can you briefly explain that comment and the term "crap jacket"? Thanks
@@Frip36 See 45 RPM Audiophile's video titled: "MoFi Might Die Sooner Than Later Unless They Make Some Significant Changes". The point being that the quality of the jacket is an important part of the overall vinyl experience.
It says that done right, you can't tell the difference between an AAA cut and a partial AAA/Digital cut. We should all stop being AAA snobs and appreciate the quality of end product that can be made having a digital step in the process.
It doesn't say that. If these accusations are true, we don't know what an all analog one step sounds like. It could be better. We thought we were paying for an analog experience, warts and all. If I want a digital experience I'll play my excellent PS Audio DS DAC.
it would be nice to know what you're paying for, but the sound quality is what matters to me. All companies should state the source(s) for the finished product just for good business practice and the buyer can decide to purchase or not.
To answer your question, Mike, I'm disappointed about this news for two reasons: 1) we're paying premium prices for what turns out NOT to be all analog recordings, and 2) Mofi seems to be happy to allow that incorrect perception to linger in the market without clarification on their side. It doesn't feel right to me. Do I like the sound of their LP's? Yes. Do I knowingly like paying $60, $100, $125 for a recording with digital steps in the production when I thought I was getting an all analog recording (which their marketing pretty much implies)? Nope. Will I continue to buy Mofi pressings with this info in hand? Not saying I won't, but I'm definitely far less likely at this point.
😂😂😂
So people would rather pay more for an inferior sounding record over a superior sounding one because of (1) digital step at the beginning???? That seems, well, stupid to me. After all it's end result (the record) we all like the sound of.
@@bradt.3555 the audiophile mantra is that digital is terrible and analog is great. The revelation that a bunch of supposed audiophile analog LPs have been revealed to have digital step is causing an existential crisis for audiophiles...because they were unable to hear that digital step. They were fooled. Even with their obscenely expensive audio systems.
@@peskypesky So much for "golden ears" & being a "trained" listener. At that level of digital and that early in the chain of record making NOBODY can tell. I believe at the end user level a difference can be heard in dig vs analog.
@@bradt.3555 nah. that's why everyone was fooled.
I’m a vinyl lover - however - my opinion
A dsd copy of a master tape is going to be indiscernible from the tape. The difference is what you play it back on. the way a DAC delivers it and how your analog equipment represents it is different. Sound is an illusion to begin with. BUT most agree that vinyl gives a more natural and pleasant presentation. The fact is that a bad ass analog system provides a ton of flexibility to each component in the chain to make things warmer, sharper, increase the gain, lower the gain… the list goes on
Well put
Not true, the digitization is a re-recording step and introduces a generational degradation no matter how good the ADC is. The sampler in the ADC has to measure what it “thinks” the analog value is for the given sample window and it’s the “measure” and “think” steps that introduce differences no matter how imperceptible they may be to the human ear.
Stan, for the sake of analog I really wish any of what you’re saying was true. I really do. Fact is, a dsd copy is even closer to the master than an analog gen + 1 copy of the tap of the original tape. I wish it weren’t true, I truly love analog… but it is
If it wasn’t true people would not be paying thousands of dollars for a Mobile Fidelity one step of Abraxas that we now know is from a DSD file. What’s more is that even the most discerning Professionals are not able to tell that these were digital in the first place. Michael Fremer and all the others were just flat wrong. Cutting / mastering engineers have known it for a long time but chose not to let the cat out of the bag
@@aaronsmith8265 people were willing to pay inflated prices for one steps because of the false economy that MoFi created by only pressing 2000 copies of what was represented as something that was akin to capturing lightning in a bottle. MoFi strongly insinuated and let everyone believe it was some magic all-analog process they could only do once, thus the exclusivity, rarity, and cost. But, now it turns out they can cut new lacquers any time they choose and press as many as they want. The truth is, as good as they sound from DSD, they may have sounded even better from the original analog master tapes, but we’ll never know. These are not “original master recordings” they are digitizations, and they have all the aliasing, bit drift, and error introduced by that process that was most definitely “cleaned up” post ADC. So the glorious “great sound” you hear is partially based on that post-processing that was never in the original recording.
As a person who has been "digital" essentially since CDs came out, I don't really care if vinyl lacquers are cut from this or that. Give me the 24-bit WAV file from Bandcamp, thanks! If it sounds good, it is good. That said, labels and manufacturers should be truthful and forthright about what they are making and selling.
As a collector who does not even own a single MOFI record....I would like to but they are so hard to find and expensive - which brings me to my beef here....I think they charge a premium and manufacture FOMO by making it seem like there HAS to be a limited quantity. The fact that this shines a light on their ability to make 40,000 copies of that Santana record as well as the MJ means they are just manufacturing "limited" quantities. I dont like that. I dont care that they use digital in the process - if the record sounds great who cares - I would like to KNOW this though, and it would mean they need to charge less for these records and make more.
I don't have any either. I always assumed they make as many as they think they can sell quickly at their high price point, which will vary by title. They could easily make more, but this is the business model they have chosen
As long as it is sufficiently high-resolution digital, done carefully surely no problem. Surely you have to do that to not degrade the original master tape, unless it is a super-limited edition. Now if MoFi has been somewhat misleading about their process, then I agree that is not cool considering the price premium you pay.
2015? ...Try 2011 !
"Exactly when (what year and titles) did MFSL start mastering from DSD files?
The first MFSL title mastered from a DSD file was Tony Bennett I Left My Heart in San Francisco, which was released in 2011. Over time, we mastered progressively more titles using the DSD archival capture step. Sourcing-information for all Mofi vinyl titles is being added to the Mofi website daily, and a complete discography will be posted on the site."
Digital doesn't always equal bad quality. DSD is a fantastic format. Analog doesn't always equal good quality. From what I understand if the person engineers the mix well, you'll have a good product regardless of the format.
👍👍👍
I used to worry about this topic. But I don't anymore.
Analog mastered vinyl, Great turntable. All Tube components. The sound of Angels singing out of my speakers.
But over the years I;ve determined that there are so many ways to reproduce great sound at home that it's best to chase what is best for you and not be a Luddite.
Thank you for always sharing the facts, and your opinions, Mike! The math to help us realize this has been there for a while now, but it took glaring numbers hitting us on the head with a hammer for us to notice the elephant in the room. With a new pressing plant on the way, MoFi needs to get out in front of this and have a spokesperson clear some things up for us. Trust is much easier lost, than regained, and some people will be reluctant to pay top dollar for products from a company that has been less than transparent, no matter the quality of the product.
I don't see any problem with digital remastering. To me, remastered is remastered, and if done correctly, I don't necessarily care how they got it there. I'm getting these records because I want the best sounding quality possible, and if that's been achieved, I again, don't care how they got it there. That, however, is besides the point. Mobile Fidelity was being blatantly non-transparent, I would say intentionally, which should not be happening from what is supposed to be the gold standard in audiophile manufacturing. They have certainly not handled this situation very well, which I don't expect to change. Hopefully this doesn't take away all their business.
This “issue” is an issue because it blows assumptions and folk legends out of the water re: analog being inherently better than digital. The bottom line should always be: How does it sound? Should it matter the origins? Should you avoid a great sounding record because the dreaded “D” word is found in the chain? Some will hold tight to the purity and goodness of analog, and I DO think they would avoid a fantastic sounding record if digital is involved. Crazy!
Thanks for this video.
Transparency from a "premium" manufacturer is not an unreasonable request. I won't be buying any MoFi vinyl until I'm confident that I know what it is.
Man, at least listen some DSD recordings. It's a totally different thing from PCM and it actual sounds like the analog source audio. Don't conflate the two.
I KNOW !! If they are really cutting from digital or a copy of the master tape, that colored band at the top of the cover can read: ORIGINAL MASTER RECORDING *
I agree with buying records that are well mastered. The only thing I care about are the dynamics. Modern CDs and streaming have squashed dynamic range. I’ll buy digital/analog records if they sound 💯.
"Some" modern cds have squashed dynamic range
@@crazyprayingmantis5596 Many*
I also agree, the end result is what matters most. I seem to remember old promotional material from them that talked about cutting from master tapes, but that might be the Mandela effect. I wish they would be more upfront, they have always been the most "secretive" of the audiophile labels. Chad has always been very transparent, even sometimes filming the mastering engineers cutting the records, same goes for Music Matters. Typically with premium products, the buyer wants to understand the process and what goes into it, whether that be well made goodyear welted shoes, or bespoke instruments, or vinyl records. The secrecy is weird, they make good sounding records and they should be open with their process.
This opens up the most important question again. Is what most of audiophiles consider best sounding just a very heavy seasoned and tasty flavor, or as close as possible to the original?
Perfect mastering = master chef
I buy vinyl because I like to watch the disk spin and I like handling the actual disk. I have no illusions that the sound is better (its not and never has been) than digital all else equal. Mastering is more important than format. That's a given. I dont care if they master off digital or analog.
The only thing is important is the music itself not if it's digital or analog.
….perfectly sums up my feelings. This is the best response here. I will continue to make individual decisions on every vinyl purchase, MoFi or any other.
Uncompressed DSD Files sound absolutely superb. Probably far better, when fully balanced than a 50 year old Analogue Magnetic could ever hope to sound.
It was always naive to think THE MASTER TAPES were the Source of all these Pressings. They are to precious to be played regularly.
Once DSD technology had got to a certain spec, it is a godsend
Uncompressed sound waves…
I still listen to vinyl records, its a hobby and love to have those sleeves and artwork to look at. But i totally agree that DSD files are absolutely fantastic.
Do you listen to the standard DSD or DSD128 or DSD256 or even maybe DSD512?
Audio engineer here! A lot of labels are not allowing original master tapes to be used for obvious reasons so they just transfer them digitally in at least 24/96 for archiving purposes and remasters. MoFi just needs to be more transparent about the actual process on their records.
24/96 is not anywhere in this process. They use DSD.
@@ian_5184 same as SACD
@@ian_5184DJ Topcat never said MoFi was using DSD, he was stating that the tapes being archived are transferred at least 24/96 quality.
Best audiophile real life blind test ever.
I've asked this elsewhere. If digital sources are used.....wouldn't the SACD/Hi Rez files be a TRUE One-Step? Besides a cardboard box full of foam inserts and surface noise, is one really gaining anything vs the $30 SACD version?
Yep.
To answer your question: No.
If I had a dollar for every time an audiophile told me they can instantly recognise a digital recording.
If you have a revealing system, you can easily tell the difference, when you compare apples to apples. When I bought the Beatles catalog stereo release (not knowing it was not an AAA issue) my body immediately stiffened. Something was wrong. The sound was dead and lifeless. Then a few years later, Parlophone released the mono catalog. From the first song, I could tell I was listening to an analog recording. The music was liquid, rich, organic, and engaging. BTW, to this audiophile that's what it's all about- an emotional connection to the music. Plain and simple.
@@greencraig8570 apparently not with MoFi records. Even Michael "The Digital Whisperer" Fremer couldn't.
Pretty irrelevant comments as DSD sounds leaps and bounds closer to the analog source than a garden variant PCM cutting.
audiophiles are untrained astronauts who tell us what space is like and want us to believe it
@@chipsnmydip but they generally make a point how "digital" sounds sterile and lifeless and analogue is the only way, just like a typical cult.
If they say that their records are mastered from original master tapes and not "cut from the original master tapes", then they would not be lying. And if there is a digital step but you like music and sound quality, what is the problem?
The problem is they're selling a product yet not fully disclosing to the consumer what ingredients are in it.
Details matter when it comes to audiophile premium products and consumers would like to know.
The problem is their price point. Mofi is not the only company that can make great sounding records cut from digital files. Rhino has amazing sounding $25 records digitally cut. Kinda like Swiss watches, are in house movements necessarily more accurate than a good ETA movement, probably not, but people will pay a premium for the uniqueness of an in house movement. Same applies to an all analog chain.
@@arize84 I get the point and would certainly like more information on sources. My comment is in the sense of what is more important: having the better sounding version of X album or having more information about that edition? Of course, it shouldn't be one or the other.
I've been going through my pre-2015 and post-2015 MoFi records and none are advertised as AAA or "cut from the original master tapes". What can be misleading (if it involves a digital step) is the name of its technology, GAIN 2™ Ultra Analog™, but sure, it can be "Ultra Analog" with a digital step.
Anyway, I have no problem repurchasing or recommending any post-2015 Miles Davis reissue, regardless of whether it has gone digital, because they are incredible records (and great sounding records).
@@arize84 Yes, but Rhino is part of Warner and doesn't pay the license fees that MoFi does. MoFi does not sell its records at the price it does by saying they are AAA. That would be a bigger problem.
@@rodrigollanes7619 I agree on the licensing fees.
As a 50 year Record Collector who started buying Albums for five to seven dollars each (Albums that sounded great then and still sound great), I could never really justify paying the asking price for a One Step MoFI Album, so I've never purchased one. I've never even listened to one, so I can't make comparisons. However, I do own a few 180 gram Virgin "Simply Vinyl" and "Rhino Vinyl" Albums, and they are absolutely quiet and sound incredible. Usually cost between $18.00 and $30.00 dollars. Good enough for my ears.
I really prefer to have an analog source, so, yes, this will curb my future Mofi purchases. I do have other choices, and Analog Productions does the finest job, in my opinion. I just wish Chad would release less jazz, and more classic rock.
Same here!
So classical doesn't even exist in your universe?
@@gmsingh100 Nope
@@jeffl915 how sad.
So, basically, vinyl lovers are listening to digital music all this time, except they don't need a DAC in the process. In addition, they have the added bonus of crunch, surface noise, cleaning up recordings, ensuring storage space for recordings... Yes, vinyl is definitely a superior format.
I agree clarity is needed on their process but it won’t change my desire for their product.
My thoughts exactly.
If they employed DSD then it matters not.Its so close to analog its indistinguishable.Yes they should have been transparent.Only the purest of the pure would insist on AAA.
My initial thought is that well done digital could be as good as analog , based on the fact we all praised one steps , putting them as the end all be all versions and turned out to be digital .
WHuuuuttt ? You're telling me that I spent tens of thousands of dollars in MOFI vinyl product for NOTHING (digital copy garbage) ????? Had I known better, I would have saved all that money and download the music from Spotify ! :(
Good work. I'm not an audiophile. Have maybe a dozen MFSL albums that I bought second-hand. But thank you for having the balls to tell us what you really think.
Digital or analog, it really does not matter. What matters is a great recording, mastering, and engineering. One of the best-sounding albums of all time in my opinion is Dire Straits Brothers In Arms. All DDD but it sounds amazing.
Donald Fagen Nightfly as well, unless they went back and worked from analog mixes
But it matters that they're not fully disclosing details about how their premium audiophile products are made.
@@audiotomb no analog tape was used in the creation of that album.
Totally agree Jerald Quist.
The whole marketing name “one step” is implying they are making these from fewer steps, ie implying closer to the analog master, or from the master. Clearly that’s their intent. Misleading at best. Until MOFI gets transparent then I will no longer buy their overpriced records. Their competition is doing a better job.
He explains One Step in the video. It has nothing to do with the master tape.
I l collected vinyl for 30 years. I’m luckily I kept up my CD collection because 2 years ago I decided vinyl was to much of a pain in the arse! Good riddance! I’ll stick with a high-end system and CD’s. I’m done with this record racket
Don't be duped by the MFSL business model. They are basically the "Supreme" of vinyl. Yeah they make good sounding records while desicrating the artwork with their logo.
Tapes get old and fragile. Digital is the best way to preserve them.
It goes to show that digital isn’t always the enemy. If you think they sound good, than great they sound good. The problem now is people are going to say they sound worse because the placebo of knowing it has digital in the process but prior to knowing this ohh they were the greatest thing since sliced bread.
This is exactly what is going to happen. People are stupid and predictable. Unfortunately.
They should not sound "good" at these prices. They should sound great or better.
@@VinylRundown they DO sound great
I'd still buy them if it has a DSD step. PS Audio's Octave Records only records artists in DSD and Paul has discussed at length why they record only in DSD. I think their vinyl cuts sound amazing.
Interesting to see that vinyl enthisiasts are angry about the use of DSD in Onestep records but none of them had noticed anything at all these years. In fact, many kept going on on internet forums for years about how excellent and sublime the records are. The whole says a lot about their true listening perceptions. As a SACD enthusiast, I can't stop laughing!
Is the audio quality you get actually laughable then?
@@gmsingh100 So it seems some explaining is required. The dogmatic approach of defending one format over another is laughable, not the sound quality per se. Each person has his preferences and their own way of enjoying music. Dogmatism is laughable.
@@johnz4860 fair enough, but it should be noted that at the time the way the marketing went CDs were supposed to be superior to records, and by almost every audiophile's admission 16/44 CDs were inferior and the format is all but dead now. Personal preference is another thing, but in audio and in music. You like what you like.
@@gmsingh100 What you say about 16/44.1 CD is true, it was a poor start for the optical disc. SACD and Blu Ray Audio discs are completely different animals with their much higher sample rate and massive dynamic range. As to CD being all but dead, I strongly disagree, yes the numbers have gone down but they remain solid in Japan and Germany. In 2021 the sales of CDs went up. I have been hearing about the death of CD since 2005 and here we are with new releases coming out all the time.
@@johnz4860 yeah, the rub is is anyone supposed to be impressed if an sonically inferior format continues to sell?
Even for non-audiophile labels -- straight up major labels, indy labels, everyone -- put that mastering chain info on the damn record. Not this "remastered (likely poorly, unnecessarily and excessively brightly) from the original analog tapes," which means nothing. And how about credits in general, on vinyl and on streaming? Wtf is wrong with this industry? Everybody's buying vinyl where the CD likely sounds better and you can't tell who the fuck played drums on or mixed a damn record
Very disappointed if true. The common answer has always been, if it has the “Original Master Recording” banner, then it was cut from the original tapes. If it was “Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab” banner, then it is from the best source possible. If this is true, it certainly makes the question about the banners more interesting
In their pamphlet it shows one step from tape to lacquer to convert if this is not the case we have been lied too. They are sold as all analogue
Wow. Speechless.
I think I would still buy the records. If they sound fantastic, and the Mofi's do, I feel that I will continue as-is and not let a little digital step in the process bother me.
Still, they should have been forthcoming about this. This might make them look pretty bad to some people...
There's nothing inherently wrong with digital audio. The CD got a bad rap because a lot of record companies were pushing out bad masters (third generation copies or worse) in order to make a quick buck. Bad quality MP3s and the loudness war didn't help either.
exactly
I love vinyl and SACD. DSD can sound amazing, so not super surprised if that is the case. MFSL has always used/pushed some new technology to reissue titles - both digital and analog.
They will never reveal how it’s done . Both the label and them don’t want the information out there because the records won’t sell as much.
If it sounds good why the hell fret about?!? Mofi has never been transparent about their sourcing. Take Kind of Blue for example, they claim it it's from the original master tape but it's not. It's from Wilder's new master so they use the term 'Original Master Recording' loosely. Moreover, if you look at their new Alan Parsons, they suspiciously removed the information that was included in the original album, liner notes, the album was digitally mixed.
You got me. Its totally baffling. Its like "Do you guys actually listen to your records or just make sure the hype stickers that say AAA are all in one section" Weird. There is probably some sort of psychological study in this. heh.
Every label should include the Neil Young code on the package. The small label on the back of every record he now releases. Lena's need to be transparent !!!
Well...
1. You've heard about the Universal Music fire? A LOT of master tapes don't exist any more. All that exists is a digital copy.
2. It doesn't matter. Digital is capable of reproducing the analog waveform 100%. No reason to be upset they're using a digita source.
3. Their mastering is what makes the difference. As long as you use a good quality source, that's all that matters.
the issue here is sooooo amusing- so many people are so hung up on AAA vinyl . . . . finding out some of the best sounding releases are NOT AAA has to be painful. how do you reconcile your beliefs about digital ruining things when some of your favorite 'analog' releases are actually digital? This is a HUGE emperor has no clothes moment for youtube influencers who have pushed AAA vinyl but I'm not sure they realize it yet. lotta credibility OUTSIDE of MOFI has just gone boom.
Also if abraxas is that good on vinyl I want to hear that source DSD file please :)
I guess this means we need a DAC as good as what MoFi uses and the DSD files.
😂😂😂
The only way to be sure that you have a true analog lp is to buy used lp from the year it was pressed for the first time, in good conditions.