As I have watched this channel with Paul for quite some time now...I am impressed by Paul's unselfish use of his time vto help people with a barrage of questions, and he does so with humor, patience, and in a humble manner of graciousness. I think Paul has earned a place of honor and deserves any measure of success for all he has done for the audiophile community and for what appears to be a genuine pleasure in helping people over, around, and through the maze of those, who have done quite the opposite. I would imagine that his interaction with his employees is one of respect, a level of high quality expectations to do their very best...but I believe with a fairness and environment that provides an atmosphere of creativeness that nurtures their skills and high professional results. In any case...the questions and answers are certainly interesting, entertaining, and many times quite informative...thanks Paul!
@@JonAnderhub If I was crawling in the middle of the Sahara desert dying of thirst and I stumbled across a billboard with Paul McGowan advertising ice cold water 1 mile NW ahead, I'd be grateful for that ad campaign, the same way I'm grateful to him for persevering and pushing DSD until I eventually understood that he was right. Native DSD needs to become the dominant format for audio worldwide which will ultimately bring down the costs of, and advance, DSD recording technology and consumer device technology and media.
for me, it's not about the dsd in terms of quality - they should've been transparent and priced accordingly. if you are able to basically make unlimited lacquers, that should reflect in a much lower price than a limited run off analogue masters
@Douglas Blake One can charge any price for any goods & service. It’s up to us as consumers to decide if the price is fair or not. If fair, people will buy it. If not fair, people won’t and that specific good or service won’t be around in the long run.
I've been waiting for you to cover this since the controversy started about MoFi and what you have just presented is Exactly what I thought you would say. Thank You Thank You THANK YOU!! Much Appreciated Mr. Paul 👍
Thanks Paul for such a clear description of the process and the results. I have a few of the mofi records from dsd that sound terrific and I will continue to enjoy them. I will however not do any further business with them as they told too many porky pies in marketing. Integrity counts for something.
For those old enough to remember: Back in the late 1980's prior to home digital formats; a lot of LP's advertised as DIGITAL, or DIGITALLY RECORDED prominently on the cover art. So what you say makes absolute sense.
I agree with you. Makes the best of what's possible. Also consider this: They are using what is arguably one of the most carefully setup playback unit (the Tom deParravicini Studer), and they are making azymuth adjustments when needed. The DSD256 transfer is as good as it gets. Also consider one interesting point: the DSD limitation of level adjustment is not an issue here as you're transferring the already-final mix.
Thanks 🙏 again 👍 Paul for another great educational video! Especially emphasizing 💿 DSD’s numerous outclassing benefits like bandwidth, DR etc. Mega kudos to PS Audio!
Thanks Paul for clearing that up. What I appreciate about you and your channel is that you show the difference between objective reality and subjective perception and you are unafraid to criticize yourself quite harshly. I have learned a phenomenal amount from you and look forward to hearing more.
You cannot simply compare PCM with DSD without bringing the values to the identical performance. For example, only a comparison that has realistic parameters is possible: 1-bit 2.8224MHz DSD64 SACD is equal to 20-bit 141.12KHz PCM or 24-bit 117.6KHz PCM. And you won't hear any difference anymore. Btw. Processing is not possible in 1Bit files due to the principle. Consequently, for processing, DSD recordings must also be converted in a PCM multibit process. Thus almost all DSD projects have been processed in PCM before being converted to DSD.
Yup. This 100%. But then again I'm not surprised that this gets conveniently omitted in a PS Audio video. Especially when it's been proven that each of those conversion steps (DSD -> PCM -> DSD) does actually come at the price of fidelity and resolution. The more you mess with digital recordings in various ways the more they lose their essence. They'll all end up sounding similar in an artificially processed way. DSD is a great archival format but as soon as you start messing with it and having to change things it falls short very quickly. Digital is not perfect, never has been. However expensive, inconvenient and outdated, to this day nothing beats a full analogue recording transferred directly to either vinyl, CD, SACD or whatever digital file flavour you might prefer. Old recordings or current ones it doesn't matter... yes people do still record music to tape and I doubt they'll stop anytime soon.
@@werk4408 I absolutely agree with you there. I would even go a step further and say DSD is ONLY an archive format because for processing must always be converted and thus the actual advantage dissolves into thin air. The question, which is better, does not arise in the practical world.
@@werk4408 I absolutely agree with you there. I would even go a step further and say DSD is ONLY an archive format because for processing must always be converted and thus the actual advantage dissolves into thin air. The question, which is better, does not arise in the practical world.
Thanks Paul. What many forget is that the mastering process takes a digital recording of the analogue tape played back through the best possible pro-tape player and converts the signal into digital without applying and compression or other global changes. I am sure that the ADC used for this recording is set at the highest bit depth and sample rate - one simply does not have access to play master tapes like these famous recordings more than once or twice. The accuracy of the gear used in these processes are incredible.
What I've always enjoyed about you Paul and PS Audio with Octave Records is you've always been proud and transparent when it comes to using DSD in your music recordings. For as much recognition as the quality of MoFi records has been given by audiophiles, it's really too bad MoFi didn't take the opportunity to talk about the benefits of DSD in the recording chain for vinyl records. Instead of selling a nostalgic "all analog" fairy tale...MoFi could helped the industry along by helping "analog purists" to better understand that producing quality analog vinyl records now depends on digital. Without something like DSD...vinyl record enthusiasts wouldn't have new vinyl records to purchase.
The problem is not their process, it is how they knowingly deceived their customer base into thinking the records were all analog. As soon as they introduced DSD into their chain, they should have come up with a way to use this to their advantage from a marketing/branding standpoint. One of the ways would be showing their engineers transferring the tapes inside the label vaults. Some of their releases would not have been possible without this process, as most labels do not allow their tapes to be sent out, but it's the way they went about it that people are so upset about.
@@deadandburied7626 all of my Mofi LP's, most of which are recent releases, have "Gain 2 Ultra Analog" written on the back, which implies it is an analog chain. They also had details about the Gain 2 Ultra Analog system on their website, stating that it was an analog process. I agree that people did assume that these were all analog, but Mofi also did not explain the DSD step because it wasn't in their financial interest to do so.
@Douglas Blake There are video interviews of their mastering engineers stating their process is all analog. I like their products, but this has been quite a mess.
they kept it secret because they recognized that purists are mad and crazy and there is no point in disclosing anything more than they have to. Plus MoFi never lied about anything. People wanted to believe what they wanted to believe.
Paul, Can you make available a sample of a DSD capture and the same on PCM? I'm very curious since you displayed such a negative response to PCM. I appreciate your logic on maintaining the master tape.
Great take, thanks! The next question becomes once you have this DSD version of the master tape (which is indistinguishable from the original) is the best way of getting this musical information to your speakers by making a vinyl record and playing it? How could it possibly be? Analog purists have been fooling themselves for years, IMHO, and I doubt this will change very many minds but I'll take a SACD or a digital file....
I use both and like both. I think due to the limitations of vinyl they are mastered somewhat different (when done right) to perform best on a turntable. If so, it can sound completely relaxing and pleasant. True, a lot can go wrong in the process, but I got some original 70s records (cheap ones even) I have no need to replace them with a sacd or even a cd. The hunt for such records is even fun, so let's enjoy all media.
@@robinr5787 I completely agree, vinyl sounds fine and I do own vinyl. It's the obnoxious attitude of superiority that some analog purists had/have that I am happy to see debunked. If you enjoy playing vinyl, great! There is certainly something about old records that is appealing - they are tactile and organic for lack of a better word. Happy listening!
You will find many people that will state they prefer the sound of an analog record over the same music on sacd. While Mofi May not be making pure analog records, there are others that do, and those records sound great. If you look online, the Sacd is a failed media source.
Was it shady how mofi went about it? Sure, but I personally love the fact that a lot of people got exposed that claim they can spot digital “from a mile away” and that it’s “very easy” 😂😂 because let’s face it ,if they were transparent from the start, then you would have had those same people saying how inferior it sounds because they know before hand there was a digital step involved. I don’t get into that stupid nonsense. I don’t care if it’s analog, digital, whatever. If it sounds good then that’s all I care about. 🤷♂️
Lmao I don’t have a “chippy” at all brother. I don’t give a damn what anyone listens to, but I have yet to see the person that listens to analog and says “I just prefer analog” no it’s always “analog sounds so much better” and “you can tell the difference easily” well, obviously not 😂😂. Digital can sound just as good IF it’s done right and this whole mofi deal proves it. I don’t listen to analog or digital. I listen to music that sounds good, period.
@@ryanrichardson2957 Nice reply; but your original note was somewhat “aggressive” to be frank ; OTOH : its OK for people like me to prefer AAA when playing our vinyl records - I know that isn’t always possible and certainly not on modern releases. I also play digital through a DAC and modern vinyl releases which are digitally sourced.
@@highfell1 absolutely! Everybody has their thing and they can enjoy their music however they want. I have no issue at all with people that prefer all analog. Hell, I tend to seek out older pressings more times than not because of the analog. If I have aggression towards anybody it’s these UA-cam people and people like Michael fremer sitting there going on and on about how analog is so much better you can easily hear the difference blah blah blah. I take serious issue with that but I don’t want to make this response anymore long winded than it already is 😂. Bottom line , people should enjoy the music and whatever way it makes them happy, if it’s analog, great! If it’s mp3 or 8 track, hey that’s great too. I will never fault someone for the way they choose to listen to music and I do honestly feel bad for the people who bought from mofi thinking they were getting all analog when that was not the case, those people have ever right to be upset, but I’d be lying if I said there was a part of me that didn’t like the fact that it happened because let’s face it, something like this was the only way people like fremer would get exposed 🤷♂️. Cheers brother.
If you transfer a master tape to DSD, unless you are cutting directly from that DSD transfer with no edits, how do you go about editing, applying EQ to the DSD, before cutting in order to keep that transparent 1 to 1 transfer from the master tape without converting to PCM?
The answer is that it is converted to PCM and then back to DSD. Perhaps Paul would benefit from watching Bernie Grundman explain the process of converting a master tape to DSD. The process PS Audio uses by recording in DSD differs from how MOFI makes a copy in DSD. Surprised Paul did a video equating what he does from DSD to what MOFI is doing.
Yep, making the best quality infinitely-copyable digital transfer possible of those precious tapes is obviously the right thing to do. The tape can then be preserved until such a day as we might have even better digital technology. Even if it were possible to make a marginally better product from analog copies today, minimizing damage to the master tapes for future generations is far more important.
Question is that you need to go from DSD to DXD to do any form of mixing or mastering as Paul has previously explained. So is it better to then stay with DXD or transform back to DSD which surely adds additional, unnecessary processing? So which version should I buy from Octave Records, the DSD or DXD?
Concur 1000 percent. For the people screaming about the price. Well that really makes no sense. Oh I guess it does for say your first MOFI purchase. But after that, well it really does not make any sense. The 1st MOFI they were pleased with and so pleased they kept buying them. So what is the issue? They bought their 1st MOFI for what ever price. Loved it enough at that price to buy more. Period. Thinking, playing a master tape 20 times to make a 20 stampers is more expensive .... and thinking this is the cause of the price of the LP? I would say these people never worked in a MFG facility. What work had to be done after the DSD copy was made could have been many days of work ( say the 8 tracks all came for 8 different studios). And be more work then just going all analog with out a DSD copy. Now comes the issue about clarity.. about the process. Again for me a silly concern. Equate this to food. So you go have a very excellent and expensive French dinner. The best dinner you have ever had! You go back for 10 yrs and love everything the chef makes. So one day you ask the chef if all was made from scratch? And if you do and he says... well we do use some canned tomatoes or something you did not expect. Do you think less of the dinner or think, it should be cheaper? OFC not. You just had the best dinner you ever had over and over. IMO. Keep the good work Paul!!
Can you not reuse the lacquer disk to make more stampers or can you do the mother father back-and-forth thing so that you can continue to make stampers? I understand how with a one step process you’d have to keep going back to the tape but what about just cutting from tape like they did in the 1970s? Did they have to keep going back to the Master tape or did they do the mother/father back-and-forth thing so they can keep making stampers?
But the question is around copying from tape, not a live recording. So, if they made a copy tape of the master tape would that work better than a DSD copy of the master tape?
I fully agree with you. I have som e MoFi releases and they all sound awesome. It doesn't matter if there's a DSD link in the process, if that translate in audio awesomeness.
I hear a lot about DSD. How can I buy / download / and play a DSD album via output from my Mac mini? I already have a DAC that can handle DSD. Thanks in advance.
Thank you, Paul. Clear cut and dry. Too bad we’ve become a society not given to sound reason… today it’s all about ‘how i feel about it’ that makes something right or wrong for many. Subsequently ,your sound reason will definitely fall on deaf ears and result in consternation for many. Anyway, thanks for the sound reason.
Apparently DSD would want to scramble the signals that I produce at this point in time. It will take all of my careful work and tear a long frequency hole through my compositions. I have carefully done signal processing, that pushes the harmonics of Carlos Santana at Woodstock, well above the 20kHz threshold that DSD wants to limit. So what is my option, if I am already producing a file that does satisfy my criteria? ..why do I need DSD?
As a technician, this is the best answer I know of about this whole situation. It's impossible to capture an absolutely transparent cut from the original tape as it's going through more equipment. I'd take a DSD cut any day but then the record shouldn't say "original master tapes" maybe? And shouldn't price shouldn't be so high etc.remastered cd's say Original master recording.
Purist discussion. DSD is a way to save those analogue masters for eternity. Make the best copy you can an put the master in a safe place, only to be used when something significantly better than dsd comes along.
Unfortunately, I cannot get 4xDSD to sound as good as the vinyl I'm recording. I use a RME ADI-2 Pro FS. Last optimization I will try is to use a linear power supply, will it be worth it?
How can a live feed from the microphones captured directly to DSD, then converted to PCM for processing, be better than capturing the live feed directly to PCM?
You might want to visit a studio session where you can compare the sound. That's how we made our decision to record to DSD over PCM. To give you an idea of the differences we hear, if you have a DSD capable DAC, you can compare 3 DSD and 4 WAV formats. bluecoastmusic.com/hifilife/test-your-music-systems-for-high-resolution-audio-dsd-wav-flac-and-mqa-with-free-downloads
I agree with most of what you’re saying Paul but you commented that you did not want to get into the fray is how mobile fidelity presented their vinyl record releases as “Original Master Recording:“ which is called misleading advertising. The real issue is not about the quality of the sound of their recordings, it’s about how much money they could make by charging huge prices based on the statement indicated above. Most of us know that these records sound incredibly good but the cost does not justify value for your dollar. I just think this company is run by arrogant corporate masters. Their customer service with their importation and distribution of certain lines of high fidelity equipment is so bad that it’s a joke. it’s a lot easier to get away with this type of behavior on the Internet now and it’s not only Mobile Fidelity that’s pulling this nonsense. I’ll go with Analog Productions any day head-to-head with Mobile Fidelity because they do get original master tapes which takes a hell of a lot of effort to be trusted with possibly second generation master tapes. Mobile fidelity has not apologized and is trying to weather the storm. Octave’s recording techniques have nothing to do with dishonest marketing and advertising.
Did they market their stuff as only analog? I know very little about them obviously. I remember seeing their albums in record stores many years ago but never bought any because of the prices.
@@DelmarToad that depends on the sample rate. DSD64 certainly is not, since it has noise in the audio band. My point being here that tape in fact has a quality limit; transferring it to DSD wil not change that. Making a hq tape copy is a little worse, but I very much doubt you will be able to hear that in the final (vinyl) product. The advantage would be that you could do a lot of the remastering, restoration, re-editing etc. purely analogue. Disadvantage of that could be that just one copy probably won't suffice.
@@vincentwerner4856 I’ve been doing all my needledrops to DSD128 in effort to avoid the inaudible noise like you said. But I think DSD64 competes very favorably with even the best professional analog tape systems.
Deception aside, Mofi can make as many stampers as they want since they record to dsd from the master. Fine. The problem is that their pricing reflects a “limited” amount of records capable of being made available. Analogue productions makes their one stamper from the master tape and that limits production to about 1000 copies. This makes their pricing understandable.
So Paul after all the MOFI controversy with DSD and your kind explanation to help us all understand this better do you feel this has been played out far too dramatically in the end? I will still enjoy and continue to enjoy my MOFIs and not get so hung up on the way they have chosen to produce outstanding recordings. Like Tevya the milkman in Fidder On The Roof kept saying "Tradition" he too had to and DID accept change. Thank you.
Hi Paul, thanks for all the videos, I got in to them during lock down and now they have become part of my daily routine! Due to the sad event yesterday and that the Hifi show at Ascot racecourse has been postponed are you still travelling to the UK this weekend (are you already here?)? I was so looking forward to hearing your equipment, especially the FR30's and perhaps having an audience with the great sage himself!
What has been very interestingly telling in all of this is to watch older reviews of various MoFi pressing recorded before the DSD step was known. When the review compared the new MoFi One Step to other relapses they regularly found them to sound inferior. Even actually using the word "analog" to describe the other records in comparison. Or something like "more like what you expect from a record". Reviewers were actually catching that MoFi was using digital even though MoFi was not admitting it. So the reviewers were stuck trying to find ways to describe the inferior digital sound in ways as if expressing more of an analog failure.
Spot on! Vinyl can sound great, and I love it, but it is still a «lossy» format. I find the MoFi debate to be so filled with black-white arguments that, it is frustrating to listen to. DSD is so different from PCM as it gets; there is no «digital vs. analog», and there is no «pure - holy grail» mastertape. That said I don’t care much for the absurd prices and the nebulous marketing strategies of MoFi, but the whole argument makes some of the «fanatic» analog purists look more than just a bit silly.
Sony really screwed the pooch with their scummy digital audio manipulations thru the years. Now that SACD is practically at end of life (or beyond?) it’s being increasingly recognized for it’s sonically superior SQ.
@@DelmarToad SACD is far from dead. The format is projected to have over 600 releases worldwide in 2022 and has surpassed 15,000 releases worldwide since it debuted 23 years ago. It's up to the music labels to release music on SACD.
I wonder there is any listening test between DSD64 and 96khz24bit PCM ..being two consumer-ready hi-res formats. I like a 4-minute song stored in rather 96khz AAC encoding of 10MB size than a 200MB DSD wav file...
I prefer hi-rez pcm. To me, dsd always has a coloration which I can only describe as a "whitewashed" character to the upper frequencies. Maybe this is an artifact of cheaper players/convertors who knows. A while back Steve Hoffman did a test where he compared a recording he had done in pcm and dsd and found the pcm copy sounded more like master tape. This was in the early days of dsd though.
Whoa now, Paul. We all know that MoFi is altering the EQ and adding filters (de-esser) after the DSD transfer. And we all know that no DSD editors exist. So in MoFi’s case specifically, they had to convert to PCM to perform the EQ and filtering. You just stated that PCM can be heard “every time”. I feel that you should have addressed this fact as part of your video here. And I’m not seeing enough mention of this fact in the comments. I kind of feel like you’ve added to some of the confusion instead of clarified anything objective.
I am not convinced of that (though you might be right). Best I can tell they handled all of those EQ and effects in the analog chain before capturing on DSD. But, even if I am incorrect on that it doesn't matter. As long as the capture was in DSD256, then what they do afterward in DXD (if they get to DXD properly) is transparent. It's the same process we use at Octave Records. The most important aspect is to make sure the initial capture is in DSD and from there you can convert to analog or DXD and do what needs to be done without much loss.
Paul, are you really stating that at Octave you are recording to tape and then doing a transfer? If not, then what you do at Octave, recording direct to DSD, is not equivalent to what MOFI has been doing. Have you not compared and listened to a One Step from MOFI verses the same title done by Chad at Acoustic Sounds? If so, again you must admit that there is a big discrepancy in the result. According to what you state here they should sound the same and yet they do not. You may have a young ear and prefer digital but most of us want a full analog chain. Also, what the hell is up with you and everyone else trying to fear monger about master tape deterioration? You claim the tapes are in bad shape, I suppose without ever having one (the myth is that they are never given out) but Kevin Gray, Ryan Smith and Bernie all claim that only a few are in bad shape while the great majority are in great shape. Who do you suppose knows more about that? Believing the liars from MOFI or the truth tellers I just mentioned? You really haven’t taken the time to watch the interview done just a few weeks ago with Bernie, Ryan, Chad and Michael Ludwig. Go watch, then comment. You will find the interview on 45 rpm’s channel on UA-cam. Regards.
Wouldn’t they make a DSD master and play that back thru their analog mastering chain for whatever effects they’d like to use and then to the cutting head? I would assume that they do not use plugins or any effects in the digital domain. So yes, if they’re using plugins effects then they’d have to convert to pcm. I assume they use the DSD as a digital tape. So DSD-> DAC -> Analog Mastering Chain -> Cutting Head. I highly doubt any effects are added between the Master Tape and DSD recorder.
Yep - agree with other people on here: Mofi’s branding has been synonymous with an all analogue chain, reinforced by their ‘detailed’ breakdown of how their vinyl is produced. It probably sounds amazing from DSD - but tell us and we can decide if we still want to purchase them. However, it is nice to hear a defence of DSD to balance things out. Should Mofi reduce their prices? I don’t know - I’ve read a lot about how arduous it still is pressing from DSD, and about the licensing etc…. I cancelled the Thriller order, but am tempted again now the dust has settled. At least we know what we’re buying now!
Paul, mixing up his mastering of their vinyl records with MOFI is a huge mistake! why oh why Paul has not taken the time to listen to both Bernie Grundman and Ryan Smith explain the differences in working with digital and analog is crazy! Paul, go listen to the interview - find out what actually happens when mastering from a master tape. Equating a DSD driect recording to what MOFI is doing is ludicrous. Reading the ignorant comments that have now been perpetuated by someone who speaks about a process - taking the master taoe and converting it to DSD, without knowledge is really sad. As far as who is in the know about mastering projects it is like Paul being an ant against Grundman who is an elephant. Trying to make this about just setting up a master and then transfering it to DSD without having a PCM step is not what has been happening - Paul should know it and if he doesn't it is high time he research more about what really happens when you have the raw recording. I am so sad to see so much misinformation on this subject when the truth is out there and can be watched to understand the real process. How many people watch Paul but don't have a clue about Chad Kassem's Acoustic Sounds and their process is astounding!
What flummoxes me about the DSD recording process, is that it has to be converted, PCM, or analog, in order to mix ,if its being done digitally then PCM I believe. so then converted back to DSD for the final file the customer purchases. So how does the DSD advantage hold up? I accept Paul's advocacy that it does, but something doesn't add up for me or I am misunderstanding what's going on with Octave's recordings
@@DelmarToad Its used for mixing the tracks, which is not possible with native DSD, also I doubt that it ever is recorded on Vinyl even if theoretically it could be, would be like playing DSD directly to loudspeakers.
The main thought, why MoFi got screwed comes at 5:47 :) It's perfectly clear that DSD is the only way to go on with stamping records in the future, but this should be told from the very beginning (and come at a lower price, because runs are virtually unlimited again).
I could not agree more with you when it comes to quality; no one has the ears to distinguish records made from properly made DSD masters and the analog "Master Tape". And it probably costs a lot of money to procure the equipment it take to do this. MoFi could have been more transparent, but look at how butt-hurt all the "audiophiles" are now...
All of these guys speak highly about things that makes money for them. Simple as that. If you're in a digital business like Paul, you'd be speaking highly about DSD, and if you're in an analog business then you'd be all into analog, because its what's good for your part of industry.
In this case why mofi makes vinyl records anyway? Is it not better to get an SACD and that is probably more accurate than buying a digitally sourced vinyl.
I had like 20 DSD discs of data and turned all of them into v0 48khz mp3 files for portable everyday listening. and also the TTAs, Dolby AC3 DVD audios, DTS and most commonly FLACs, all turned into stereo mp3s. downmixing is exciting.. earlier from the get-go I thought having more bass is cool so I included the LFE channel in the downmixing, which is totally wrong...I corrected that after ruining 3 discs...
DSD/PCM transfers allow for the 1st generation 1/2” MIXDOWN tapes for each song. Cutting straight from tape means only a 2nd generation production master must be used.
Paul, the word you were looking for and did not find is lacquer. The "lacquer". is cut and mothers and stampers are made from that. The stamper is not cut from the tape. So you do indeed get more than one stamper out of the single perfect pass of a master tape. Sorry if this seems like nothing, it seems like more stampers available to me. Anyway the issue with MFSL is that they lied, and it's not with their DSD digital process. Honesty is the RIGHT WAY to do buddy.
What's unfortunate is that MoFi didn't feel confident enough that people would be ready to pay a premium for the superior re-mastering they did (nobody has disputed the quality of the recordings) and resorted to misleading claims to justify their higher prices
You only need to cut a new lacquer for each stamper if you’re using a one step process. With more conventional record pressing you can create multiple stampers from a single lacquer
I don't know as much about the audio transfer process, but I wasn't concerned when I heard that MFSL was copying the tape to DSD. I assumed it was irrelevant to the sound quality. Sure, MFSL should have been more transparent. If they explained the reason for the DSD step how Paul does here, I'd think any reasonable consumer would appreciate why the DSD step is the most responsible way to do it.
Maybe, I’m missing something here. If the master copy is DSD (regardless of where it originally came from) and making a vinyl copy is that much trouble, I would rather have a good quality CD or Blu-ray copy since it’s all digital from master to end product. I was also informed that vinyl has to be substantially compressed due to its limitations. Hopefully, I explained my point of concern.
If you feel that strongly about it, then you'll want to buy their SACD version. Some people simply like the way vinyl sounds, and that's what I've pre-ordered!
Listening to music is an experience. The experience of putting a record on a well set-up turntable is its own thing-you pay attention in a different way knowing that you have to turn it over soon, knowing that the sound is coming from physical groves vibrating a needle, and so on. Listening to music is not just about maximizing signal and minimizing noise and distortion. As Emily Dickinson said, "The thought beneath so slight a film/is more distinctly seen." But different strokes for different folks.
I agree that the most responsible thing, in the long run, is to introduce a digital step in the process. The thing is (in my humble, non-expert opinion) once you do introduce a digital step, it makes more since too me to keep the process digital up to the end result. I'd rather listen to a near digital sourced recording from a quality digital source. I really don't see the point in converting it back to an analogue format. The only thing you might gain from this is the tactile and visually more exciting experience that vinyl can provide-which is not trivial and can be just as important as the actual sound quality.
Dsd cant you take the orignal recording Thats limited in its bandwidth and use the harmonics to give a wider bandwidth then the tape had thats true to the orignal sound. Might be worth a try, and you can use the DSD formate to experiment with as a copy.
So Paul just for clarification are you saying all of Octave Records new vinyl pressings are coming from a 100% pure DSD master with no, thhhhhp, DXD (PCM) conversion? Just asking for a whole bunch of friends.
Anything above 150 Khz would be picking up the radio stations nearby, not the actual signal from the microphone/instrument. Therefore, 150khz x 2 x 64 = 19.2 Mhz DSD would be my personal way to go, if I was to create a Master copy in DSD. There is no technical limitation for doing so, just psychological limitations. Is it overkilled? It must be, it is a master copy.
What you're saying re live vs playback is true however I have had the privilege of spending (too) many hours at various recording studios including Abby Road and Olympic in my 20s /30's and used to try my hardest to detect differences between live and pb coming off 24/48/64 track interlocked machines and I swear I could not hear ANY difference. I'm sure there would be a difference if the signal was measured by a scope but to my ears there was none. So like you say, the reproduction cannot be more faithful to what the artist indended
Wouldn’t it make more sense to just listen to the DSD files? I think mofi will have lost a lot of fans because they didn’t stick to a full analogue chain. Out of all the trouble, wouldn’t it give an appreciation for DSD listening?
I’m still amazed how many people don’t understand the basic reason why mofi were in the wrong. Quality was never the issue, it was them lying to their customers and overcharging as a result.
AN awful lot of audiophiles who swore they could tell the difference between analog and digital have egg on their face today. If you're stupid enough to spend $150 on a single album, I'm not sure I can muster much sympathy.....
Then there are all the professional reviewers that actually caught the inferior sound of the DSD process and said so in their reviews that came out before the MoFi DSD exposure. Often flatly stating that some other release sounded more "analog". Before even knowing the MoFi was actually digital. One mentioned shortly after the exposure that his comments on one MoFi review was filled with people saying they heard digital in it and he should have caught it. But he had been lied to by MoFi when he asked. So I don't know who all your audiophile friends that were could not tell the difference. But professional record reviewers can just as I can.
@@glenncurry3041 Come now, Glenn. You mention one person, and "comments on one MoFi review was filled with people saying they heard digital in it", and think it disproves the obvious conclusion - the emperor has no clothes. Seriously? You do know how many people have been buying this stuff for the last 7 years right? You're going to have to do better than that, much better. In fact, let's start with this instance, and give me a link. I'd love to read it. Although, apparently even in your case, the reviewer did NOT notice themself.
@@MaterLacrymarum WOW the obvious desperation to throw shade! Ignore 75% of what I wrote and desperately cling to one statement about one particular incident! SAD! And then LIE about what I said? So long!
@@glenncurry3041 Glenn, I understand your ego is suffering a good beating. Truly, I get it. But when your response is..... well, some ridiculous rant like that, you just look yet more silly. I responded directly to your comment, and I specified the point that I was most interested in. This is how conversation works (I assume you have some experience of actual conversation). Why not simply post the link as I asked? I'm still waiting, and I'll give it a fair reading. As for desperation, seriously? Desperate to what? You made a silly post, and I responded, that's all. You tried to pretend people knew all along, they just didn't think to mention it. Oh wait, they did,. but you've yet to post that link.... Desperation, I think, is something you know something about. It's clear, the vast majority of audiophiles couldn't tell the difference. Not only then, but now. Fact.
The MoFi thing is only an issue because some in the vinyl community that have spent thousands of dollars on equipment, think they are audio experts and can hear a flea fart have egg on their faces. Because god forbid they listen to anything digital because they are purists! When in actuality MoFi will have the last laugh when these masters are no longer playable and they have the most pristine copy. And those asking for transparency…hmmm. I think there are other more important “organizations” that we should be screaming for transparency from instead of a record label.
Here's the dirty little industry secret: Most of the SACD's are pcm because of editing. Also, many AAA vinly records are also pcm and not AAA because a digital delay was used instead of an analog delay to the cutting lathe. So, there ya go. It had to be said.
For one thing.....it's not the 'real' master, but a first gen master dup. And I agree with Paul, you really think even a first gen master dup should be subjected to repeated playing when they need another stamper? I think not.......get it on DSD, mix it right and it's captured digitally for perpetuity.
I wish all records that were cut from digital files used DSD as well. But yeah they hid that step and avoided telling people about it. Cutting from DSD is probably going to be the only way to get vintage records while being as close to the original source. But that doesn't mean they should stop cutting records from the analog masters either.
I had done before using my RME dac. I had run comparison in between FLAC version of the music running at 192khz and 384khz vs DSD64 and DSD128 version, and it's devastating humiliation in cons PCM. DSD is the close you can get to real live music.
As I have watched this channel with Paul for quite some time now...I am impressed by Paul's unselfish use of his time vto help people with a barrage of questions, and he does so with humor, patience, and in a humble manner of graciousness. I think Paul has earned a place of honor and deserves any measure of success for all he has done for the audiophile community and for what appears to be a genuine pleasure in helping people over, around, and through the maze of those, who have done quite the opposite.
I would imagine that his interaction with his employees is one of respect, a level of high quality expectations to do their very best...but I believe with a fairness and environment that provides an atmosphere of creativeness that nurtures their skills and high professional results. In any case...the questions and answers are certainly interesting, entertaining, and many times quite informative...thanks Paul!
LOL
How much did Paul pay you to post this dribble.
Do you really think all theae letters are true?
This is just cleverly guised ad campaign.
@@JonAnderhub If I was crawling in the middle of the Sahara desert dying of thirst and I stumbled across a billboard with Paul McGowan advertising ice cold water 1 mile NW ahead, I'd be grateful for that ad campaign, the same way I'm grateful to him for persevering and pushing DSD until I eventually understood that he was right. Native DSD needs to become the dominant format for audio worldwide which will ultimately bring down the costs of, and advance, DSD recording technology and consumer device technology and media.
for me, it's not about the dsd in terms of quality - they should've been transparent and priced accordingly. if you are able to basically make unlimited lacquers, that should reflect in a much lower price than a limited run off analogue masters
@Douglas Blake definitely! just not the same as a by nature limited edition
Had MoFi been fully transparent, this would be a non-story. Pricing wise, let the market will decide what's fair.... Capitalism at its finest !
@Douglas Blake I believe that market forces will eventually determine what the value of any goods and service.
@Douglas Blake One can charge any price for any goods & service. It’s up to us as consumers to decide if the price is fair or not. If fair, people will buy it. If not fair, people won’t and that specific good or service won’t be around in the long run.
@Douglas Blake Value is actually in the eye of the beholder. That's why there are $200 turntables as well as $200,000 turntables...
I've been waiting for you to cover this since the controversy started about MoFi and what you have just presented is Exactly what I thought you would say. Thank You Thank You THANK YOU!! Much Appreciated Mr. Paul 👍
I appreciate your take, very insightful.
Thanks Paul for such a clear description of the process and the results. I have a few of the mofi records from dsd that sound terrific and I will continue to enjoy them. I will however not do any further business with them as they told too many porky pies in marketing. Integrity counts for something.
For those old enough to remember: Back in the late 1980's prior to home digital formats; a lot of LP's advertised as DIGITAL, or DIGITALLY RECORDED prominently on the cover art. So what you say makes absolute sense.
Especially the Classical genre. They bragged about producing digital vinyl albums.
I agree with you. Makes the best of what's possible. Also consider this: They are using what is arguably one of the most carefully setup playback unit (the Tom deParravicini Studer), and they are making azymuth adjustments when needed. The DSD256 transfer is as good as it gets. Also consider one interesting point: the DSD limitation of level adjustment is not an issue here as you're transferring the already-final mix.
Thanks 🙏 again 👍 Paul for another great educational video! Especially emphasizing 💿 DSD’s numerous outclassing benefits like bandwidth, DR etc. Mega kudos to PS Audio!
Thank you Paul you're the best with the explanation and clarify all around this controversy Excellent video
Thanks Paul for clearing that up. What I appreciate about you and your channel is that you show the difference between objective reality and subjective perception and you are unafraid to criticize yourself quite harshly. I have learned a phenomenal amount from you and look forward to hearing more.
You cannot simply compare PCM with DSD without bringing the values to the identical performance.
For example, only a comparison that has realistic parameters is possible:
1-bit 2.8224MHz DSD64 SACD is equal to
20-bit 141.12KHz PCM or
24-bit 117.6KHz PCM.
And you won't hear any difference anymore.
Btw. Processing is not possible in 1Bit files due to the principle. Consequently, for processing, DSD recordings must also be converted in a PCM multibit process.
Thus almost all DSD projects have been processed in PCM before being converted to DSD.
Yup. This 100%. But then again I'm not surprised that this gets conveniently omitted in a PS Audio video. Especially when it's been proven that each of those conversion steps (DSD -> PCM -> DSD) does actually come at the price of fidelity and resolution. The more you mess with digital recordings in various ways the more they lose their essence. They'll all end up sounding similar in an artificially processed way. DSD is a great archival format but as soon as you start messing with it and having to change things it falls short very quickly. Digital is not perfect, never has been. However expensive, inconvenient and outdated, to this day nothing beats a full analogue recording transferred directly to either vinyl, CD, SACD or whatever digital file flavour you might prefer. Old recordings or current ones it doesn't matter... yes people do still record music to tape and I doubt they'll stop anytime soon.
@@werk4408
I absolutely agree with you there. I would even go a step further and say DSD is ONLY an archive format because for processing must always be converted and thus the actual advantage dissolves into thin air.
The question, which is better, does not arise in the practical world.
@@werk4408
I absolutely agree with you there. I would even go a step further and say DSD is ONLY an archive format because for processing must always be converted and thus the actual advantage dissolves into thin air.
The question, which is better, does not arise in the practical world.
Thanks Paul. What many forget is that the mastering process takes a digital recording of the analogue tape played back through the best possible pro-tape player and converts the signal into digital without applying and compression or other global changes. I am sure that the ADC used for this recording is set at the highest bit depth and sample rate - one simply does not have access to play master tapes like these famous recordings more than once or twice. The accuracy of the gear used in these processes are incredible.
What I've always enjoyed about you Paul and PS Audio with Octave Records is you've always been proud and transparent when it comes to using DSD in your music recordings. For as much recognition as the quality of MoFi records has been given by audiophiles, it's really too bad MoFi didn't take the opportunity to talk about the benefits of DSD in the recording chain for vinyl records. Instead of selling a nostalgic "all analog" fairy tale...MoFi could helped the industry along by helping "analog purists" to better understand that producing quality analog vinyl records now depends on digital. Without something like DSD...vinyl record enthusiasts wouldn't have new vinyl records to purchase.
The problem is not their process, it is how they knowingly deceived their customer base into thinking the records were all analog. As soon as they introduced DSD into their chain, they should have come up with a way to use this to their advantage from a marketing/branding standpoint. One of the ways would be showing their engineers transferring the tapes inside the label vaults. Some of their releases would not have been possible without this process, as most labels do not allow their tapes to be sent out, but it's the way they went about it that people are so upset about.
This is the real problem. They weren't transparent about it. They kept being said as an AAA label (with obvious exceptions from digital recordings).
MF did not, not say, that digital was being used. Analogue purists ASSUMED that there was no digital, and went on their assumptions.
@@deadandburied7626 all of my Mofi LP's, most of which are recent releases, have "Gain 2 Ultra Analog" written on the back, which implies it is an analog chain. They also had details about the Gain 2 Ultra Analog system on their website, stating that it was an analog process. I agree that people did assume that these were all analog, but Mofi also did not explain the DSD step because it wasn't in their financial interest to do so.
@Douglas Blake There are video interviews of their mastering engineers stating their process is all analog. I like their products, but this has been quite a mess.
they kept it secret because they recognized that purists are mad and crazy and there is no point in disclosing anything more than they have to. Plus MoFi never lied about anything. People wanted to believe what they wanted to believe.
Paul, Can you make available a sample of a DSD capture and the same on PCM? I'm very curious since you displayed such a negative response to PCM. I appreciate your logic on maintaining the master tape.
Excellent Paul! As always...
Great take, thanks! The next question becomes once you have this DSD version of the master tape (which is indistinguishable from the original) is the best way of getting this musical information to your speakers by making a vinyl record and playing it? How could it possibly be? Analog purists have been fooling themselves for years, IMHO, and I doubt this will change very many minds but I'll take a SACD or a digital file....
I use both and like both. I think due to the limitations of vinyl they are mastered somewhat different (when done right) to perform best on a turntable. If so, it can sound completely relaxing and pleasant. True, a lot can go wrong in the process, but I got some original 70s records (cheap ones even) I have no need to replace them with a sacd or even a cd. The hunt for such records is even fun, so let's enjoy all media.
@@robinr5787 I completely agree, vinyl sounds fine and I do own vinyl. It's the obnoxious attitude of superiority that some analog purists had/have that I am happy to see debunked. If you enjoy playing vinyl, great! There is certainly something about old records that is appealing - they are tactile and organic for lack of a better word. Happy listening!
You will find many people that will state they prefer the sound of an analog record over the same music on sacd. While Mofi May not be making pure analog records, there are others that do, and those records sound great. If you look online, the Sacd is a failed media source.
Perfect explanation.
So glad to finally hear a sober and technically sound opinion on the matter. Thanks Paul.
Was it shady how mofi went about it? Sure, but I personally love the fact that a lot of people got exposed that claim they can spot digital “from a mile away” and that it’s “very easy” 😂😂 because let’s face it ,if they were transparent from the start, then you would have had those same people saying how inferior it sounds because they know before hand there was a digital step involved. I don’t get into that stupid nonsense. I don’t care if it’s analog, digital, whatever. If it sounds good then that’s all I care about. 🤷♂️
LOL - do you have a little chippy on your shoulder towards those folks who prefer to listen to AAA. Maybe an inferior digital complex ?
Lmao I don’t have a “chippy” at all brother. I don’t give a damn what anyone listens to, but I have yet to see the person that listens to analog and says “I just prefer analog” no it’s always “analog sounds so much better” and “you can tell the difference easily” well, obviously not 😂😂. Digital can sound just as good IF it’s done right and this whole mofi deal proves it. I don’t listen to analog or digital. I listen to music that sounds good, period.
@@ryanrichardson2957 Nice reply; but your original note was somewhat “aggressive” to be frank ; OTOH : its OK for people like me to prefer AAA when playing our vinyl records - I know that isn’t always possible and certainly not on modern releases. I also play digital through a DAC and modern vinyl releases which are digitally sourced.
@@highfell1 absolutely! Everybody has their thing and they can enjoy their music however they want. I have no issue at all with people that prefer all analog. Hell, I tend to seek out older pressings more times than not because of the analog. If I have aggression towards anybody it’s these UA-cam people and people like Michael fremer sitting there going on and on about how analog is so much better you can easily hear the difference blah blah blah. I take serious issue with that but I don’t want to make this response anymore long winded than it already is 😂. Bottom line , people should enjoy the music and whatever way it makes them happy, if it’s analog, great! If it’s mp3 or 8 track, hey that’s great too. I will never fault someone for the way they choose to listen to music and I do honestly feel bad for the people who bought from mofi thinking they were getting all analog when that was not the case, those people have ever right to be upset, but I’d be lying if I said there was a part of me that didn’t like the fact that it happened because let’s face it, something like this was the only way people like fremer would get exposed 🤷♂️. Cheers brother.
@@ryanrichardson2957 to be fair it is always satisfying when smartars&s get their comeuppance. Keep yourself cool dude
If you transfer a master tape to DSD, unless you are cutting directly from that DSD transfer with no edits, how do you go about editing, applying EQ to the DSD, before cutting in order to keep that transparent 1 to 1 transfer from the master tape without converting to PCM?
No static at all:
DSD -> analog console -> apply EQ -> cutting lathe
analog mixer
The answer is that it is converted to PCM and then back to DSD. Perhaps Paul would benefit from watching Bernie Grundman explain the process of converting a master tape to DSD. The process PS Audio uses by recording in DSD differs from how MOFI makes a copy in DSD. Surprised Paul did a video equating what he does from DSD to what MOFI is doing.
Yep, making the best quality infinitely-copyable digital transfer possible of those precious tapes is obviously the right thing to do. The tape can then be preserved until such a day as we might have even better digital technology. Even if it were possible to make a marginally better product from analog copies today, minimizing damage to the master tapes for future generations is far more important.
Bravo!!!!!! Perfect way to explain it. That earned a subscription! I still love MoFi.
How is it that Bernie G, Ryan K Smith and Kevin Gray all disagree with this?🤔🤔
Awesome answer. Yeah I paid more for Music Direct records but they were 180g and well packaged so I was happy.
Question is that you need to go from DSD to DXD to do any form of mixing or mastering as Paul has previously explained. So is it better to then stay with DXD or transform back to DSD which surely adds additional, unnecessary processing? So which version should I buy from Octave Records, the DSD or DXD?
Concur 1000 percent. For the people screaming about the price. Well that really makes no sense. Oh I guess it does for say your first MOFI purchase. But after that, well it really does not make any sense. The 1st MOFI they were pleased with and so pleased they kept buying them. So what is the issue? They bought their 1st MOFI for what ever price. Loved it enough at that price to buy more. Period. Thinking, playing a master tape 20 times to make a 20 stampers is more expensive .... and thinking this is the cause of the price of the LP? I would say these people never worked in a MFG facility. What work had to be done after the DSD copy was made could have been many days of work ( say the 8 tracks all came for 8 different studios). And be more work then just going all analog with out a DSD copy. Now comes the issue about clarity.. about the process. Again for me a silly concern. Equate this to food. So you go have a very excellent and expensive French dinner. The best dinner you have ever had! You go back for 10 yrs and love everything the chef makes. So one day you ask the chef if all was made from scratch? And if you do and he says... well we do use some canned tomatoes or something you did not expect. Do you think less of the dinner or think, it should be cheaper? OFC not. You just had the best dinner you ever had over and over. IMO. Keep the good work Paul!!
Can you not reuse the lacquer disk to make more stampers or can you do the mother father back-and-forth thing so that you can continue to make stampers? I understand how with a one step process you’d have to keep going back to the tape but what about just cutting from tape like they did in the 1970s? Did they have to keep going back to the Master tape or did they do the mother/father back-and-forth thing so they can keep making stampers?
But the question is around copying from tape, not a live recording. So, if they made a copy tape of the master tape would that work better than a DSD copy of the master tape?
Well, that's good to know. Thanks, Paul.
I fully agree with you. I have som e MoFi releases and they all sound awesome. It doesn't matter if there's a DSD link in the process, if that translate in audio awesomeness.
The most sensible man on the planet 👏
I hear a lot about DSD. How can I buy / download / and play a DSD album via output from my Mac mini? I already have a DAC that can handle DSD. Thanks in advance.
Everyone who is discouraged on digital mofi discs,they should watch this video! Right Paul?
Super Cool Video Paul ...Well done !
Funny how alot of the big time mastering engineers completely disagree with his statements 🤔🤔
Thank you, Paul. Clear cut and dry. Too bad we’ve become a society not given to sound reason… today it’s all about ‘how i feel about it’ that makes something right or wrong for many. Subsequently ,your sound reason will definitely fall on deaf ears and result in consternation for many.
Anyway, thanks for the sound reason.
Apparently DSD would want to scramble the signals that I produce at this point in time. It will take all of my careful work and tear a long frequency hole through my compositions. I have carefully done signal processing, that pushes the harmonics of Carlos Santana at Woodstock, well above the 20kHz threshold that DSD wants to limit. So what is my option, if I am already producing a file that does satisfy my criteria? ..why do I need DSD?
As a technician, this is the best answer I know of about this whole situation. It's impossible to capture an absolutely transparent cut from the original tape as it's going through more equipment. I'd take a DSD cut any day but then the record shouldn't say "original master tapes" maybe? And shouldn't price shouldn't be so high etc.remastered cd's say Original master recording.
Purist discussion. DSD is a way to save those analogue masters for eternity. Make the best copy you can an put the master in a safe place, only to be used when something significantly better than dsd comes along.
Unfortunately, I cannot get 4xDSD to sound as good as the vinyl I'm recording. I use a RME ADI-2 Pro FS. Last optimization I will try is to use a linear power supply, will it be worth it?
How can a live feed from the microphones captured directly to DSD, then converted to PCM for processing, be better than capturing the live feed directly to PCM?
You might want to visit a studio session where you can compare the sound. That's how we made our decision to record to DSD over PCM. To give you an idea of the differences we hear, if you have a DSD capable DAC, you can compare 3 DSD and 4 WAV formats. bluecoastmusic.com/hifilife/test-your-music-systems-for-high-resolution-audio-dsd-wav-flac-and-mqa-with-free-downloads
Cookie- your process and Paul’s keeps the file in DSD without having to convert it to PCM- a luxury that MOFI does not enjoy!
I agree with most of what you’re saying Paul but you commented that you did not want to get into the fray is how mobile fidelity presented their vinyl record releases as “Original Master Recording:“ which is called misleading advertising. The real issue is not about the quality of the sound of their recordings, it’s about how much money they could make by charging huge prices based on the statement indicated above. Most of us know that these records sound incredibly good but the cost does not justify value for your dollar. I just think this company is run by arrogant corporate masters. Their customer service with their importation and distribution of certain lines of high fidelity equipment is so bad that it’s a joke. it’s a lot easier to get away with this type of behavior on the Internet now and it’s not only Mobile Fidelity that’s pulling this nonsense. I’ll go with Analog Productions any day head-to-head with Mobile Fidelity because they do get original master tapes which takes a hell of a lot of effort to be trusted with possibly second generation master tapes. Mobile fidelity has not apologized and is trying to weather the storm. Octave’s recording techniques have nothing to do with dishonest marketing and advertising.
Did they market their stuff as only analog? I know very little about them obviously. I remember seeing their albums in record stores many years ago but never bought any because of the prices.
That wiping off of metal oxide from each play of tape… is that significant, what’s the life expectancy or acceptable play number of tape?
What is wrong with making a high quality tape copy? As far as I understand quality loss would be minimal, negligiblely so in the final vinyl copy.
DSD is infinitely better in every possible SQ metric compared to tape, without any of the numerous fatal flaws exhibited by analog tape.
@@DelmarToad that depends on the sample rate. DSD64 certainly is not, since it has noise in the audio band. My point being here that tape in fact has a quality limit; transferring it to DSD wil not change that. Making a hq tape copy is a little worse, but I very much doubt you will be able to hear that in the final (vinyl) product. The advantage would be that you could do a lot of the remastering, restoration, re-editing etc. purely analogue. Disadvantage of that could be that just one copy probably won't suffice.
@@vincentwerner4856 I’ve been doing all my needledrops to DSD128 in effort to avoid the inaudible noise like you said. But I think DSD64 competes very favorably with even the best professional analog tape systems.
Deception aside, Mofi can make as many stampers as they want since they record to dsd from the master. Fine. The problem is that their pricing reflects a “limited” amount of records capable of being made available. Analogue productions makes their one stamper from the master tape and that limits production to about 1000 copies. This makes their pricing understandable.
So Paul after all the MOFI controversy with DSD and your kind explanation to help us all understand this better do you feel this has been played out far too dramatically in the end? I will still enjoy and continue to enjoy my MOFIs and not get so hung up on the way they have chosen to produce outstanding recordings. Like Tevya the milkman in Fidder On The Roof kept saying "Tradition" he too had to and DID accept change. Thank you.
Hi Paul, thanks for all the videos, I got in to them during lock down and now they have become part of my daily routine! Due to the sad event yesterday and that the Hifi show at Ascot racecourse has been postponed are you still travelling to the UK this weekend (are you already here?)? I was so looking forward to hearing your equipment, especially the FR30's and perhaps having an audience with the great sage himself!
Thank you for your very clear explanation 😉
What has been very interestingly telling in all of this is to watch older reviews of various MoFi pressing recorded before the DSD step was known. When the review compared the new MoFi One Step to other relapses they regularly found them to sound inferior. Even actually using the word "analog" to describe the other records in comparison. Or something like "more like what you expect from a record". Reviewers were actually catching that MoFi was using digital even though MoFi was not admitting it. So the reviewers were stuck trying to find ways to describe the inferior digital sound in ways as if expressing more of an analog failure.
Spot on! Vinyl can sound great, and I love it, but it is still a «lossy» format. I find the MoFi debate to be so filled with black-white arguments that, it is frustrating to listen to. DSD is so different from PCM as it gets; there is no «digital vs. analog», and there is no «pure - holy grail» mastertape. That said I don’t care much for the absurd prices and the nebulous marketing strategies of MoFi, but the whole argument makes some of the «fanatic» analog purists look more than just a bit silly.
@@uccelino ridiculous
I wish dsd was more mainstream 😕
Sony really screwed the pooch with their scummy digital audio manipulations thru the years. Now that SACD is practically at end of life (or beyond?) it’s being increasingly recognized for it’s sonically superior SQ.
Paul is making his contribution to that goal. ;)
@@DelmarToad SACD is far from dead. The format is projected to have over 600 releases worldwide in 2022 and has surpassed 15,000 releases worldwide since it debuted 23 years ago. It's up to the music labels to release music on SACD.
Have you ever used a null analyzer to compare DSD with a high-resolution PCM file, so you can hear how much difference there is?
I wonder there is any listening test between DSD64 and 96khz24bit PCM ..being two consumer-ready hi-res formats.
I like a 4-minute song stored in rather 96khz AAC encoding of 10MB size than a 200MB DSD wav file...
I prefer hi-rez pcm. To me, dsd always has a coloration which I can only describe as a "whitewashed" character to the upper frequencies. Maybe this is an artifact of cheaper players/convertors who knows. A while back Steve Hoffman did a test where he compared a recording he had done in pcm and dsd and found the pcm copy sounded more like master tape. This was in the early days of dsd though.
Whoa now, Paul. We all know that MoFi is altering the EQ and adding filters (de-esser) after the DSD transfer. And we all know that no DSD editors exist. So in MoFi’s case specifically, they had to convert to PCM to perform the EQ and filtering. You just stated that PCM can be heard “every time”. I feel that you should have addressed this fact as part of your video here. And I’m not seeing enough mention of this fact in the comments. I kind of feel like you’ve added to some of the confusion instead of clarified anything objective.
I am not convinced of that (though you might be right). Best I can tell they handled all of those EQ and effects in the analog chain before capturing on DSD. But, even if I am incorrect on that it doesn't matter. As long as the capture was in DSD256, then what they do afterward in DXD (if they get to DXD properly) is transparent. It's the same process we use at Octave Records. The most important aspect is to make sure the initial capture is in DSD and from there you can convert to analog or DXD and do what needs to be done without much loss.
Paul, are you really stating that at Octave you are recording to tape and then doing a transfer? If not, then what you do at Octave, recording direct to DSD, is not equivalent to what MOFI has been doing. Have you not compared and listened to a One Step from MOFI verses the same title done by Chad at Acoustic Sounds? If so, again you must admit that there is a big discrepancy in the result. According to what you state here they should sound the same and yet they do not. You may have a young ear and prefer digital but most of us want a full analog chain.
Also, what the hell is up with you and everyone else trying to fear monger about master tape deterioration? You claim the tapes are in bad shape, I suppose without ever having one (the myth is that they are never given out) but Kevin Gray, Ryan Smith and Bernie all claim that only a few are in bad shape while the great majority are in great shape. Who do you suppose knows more about that? Believing the liars from MOFI or the truth tellers I just mentioned? You really haven’t taken the time to watch the interview done just a few weeks ago with Bernie, Ryan, Chad and Michael Ludwig. Go watch, then comment. You will find the interview on 45 rpm’s channel on UA-cam. Regards.
Wouldn’t they make a DSD master and play that back thru their analog mastering chain for whatever effects they’d like to use and then to the cutting head? I would assume that they do not use plugins or any effects in the digital domain.
So yes, if they’re using plugins effects then they’d have to convert to pcm. I assume they use the DSD as a digital tape. So DSD-> DAC -> Analog Mastering Chain -> Cutting Head. I highly doubt any effects are added between the Master Tape and DSD recorder.
Yep - agree with other people on here: Mofi’s branding has been synonymous with an all analogue chain, reinforced by their ‘detailed’ breakdown of how their vinyl is produced. It probably sounds amazing from DSD - but tell us and we can decide if we still want to purchase them. However, it is nice to hear a defence of DSD to balance things out. Should Mofi reduce their prices? I don’t know - I’ve read a lot about how arduous it still is pressing from DSD, and about the licensing etc…. I cancelled the Thriller order, but am tempted again now the dust has settled. At least we know what we’re buying now!
What a great positive attitude, very well put, good on you ))
Well said, Paul!
Paul, mixing up his mastering of their vinyl records with MOFI is a huge mistake! why oh why Paul has not taken the time to listen to both Bernie Grundman and Ryan Smith explain the differences in working with digital and analog is crazy! Paul, go listen to the interview - find out what actually happens when mastering from a master tape. Equating a DSD driect recording to what MOFI is doing is ludicrous. Reading the ignorant comments that have now been perpetuated by someone who speaks about a process - taking the master taoe and converting it to DSD, without knowledge is really sad. As far as who is in the know about mastering projects it is like Paul being an ant against Grundman who is an elephant. Trying to make this about just setting up a master and then transfering it to DSD without having a PCM step is not what has been happening - Paul should know it and if he doesn't it is high time he research more about what really happens when you have the raw recording. I am so sad to see so much misinformation on this subject when the truth is out there and can be watched to understand the real process. How many people watch Paul but don't have a clue about Chad Kassem's Acoustic Sounds and their process is astounding!
What flummoxes me about the DSD recording process, is that it has to be converted, PCM, or analog, in order to mix ,if its being done digitally then PCM I believe. so then converted back to DSD for the final file the customer purchases. So how does the DSD advantage hold up? I accept Paul's advocacy that it does, but something doesn't add up for me or I am misunderstanding what's going on with Octave's recordings
which is why it is often used for classical music. the advantage seems to be mostly in the recording stage.
Yeah, as far as MOFI goes it went back to analogue for mixing for the most it seems.
PCM is not required. As Paul explained in this video & prior videos, DSD can be lathed to vinyl without any PCM step whatsoever.
@@DelmarToad Its used for mixing the tracks, which is not possible with native DSD, also I doubt that it ever is recorded on Vinyl even if theoretically it could be, would be like playing DSD directly to loudspeakers.
@@DelmarToad Really ? how is it mixed ?
The main thought, why MoFi got screwed comes at 5:47 :) It's perfectly clear that DSD is the only way to go on with stamping records in the future, but this should be told from the very beginning (and come at a lower price, because runs are virtually unlimited again).
absolutelly right:
objectively AND subjectively !
I could not agree more with you when it comes to quality; no one has the ears to distinguish records made from properly made DSD masters and the analog "Master Tape". And it probably costs a lot of money to procure the equipment it take to do this. MoFi could have been more transparent, but look at how butt-hurt all the "audiophiles" are now...
Thanks Paul!
I would love to see a video discussion between Paul,Bernie Grundman, and Ryan Smith because they have not spoken highly of DSD.
All of these guys speak highly about things that makes money for them. Simple as that. If you're in a digital business like Paul, you'd be speaking highly about DSD, and if you're in an analog business then you'd be all into analog, because its what's good for your part of industry.
How much would you pay (worth?) for direct download from MoFi these DSD files which were used to press LPs ?
In this case why mofi makes vinyl records anyway? Is it not better to get an SACD and that is probably more accurate than buying a digitally sourced vinyl.
How’s dsd a one step?
I had like 20 DSD discs of data and turned all of them into v0 48khz mp3 files for portable everyday listening.
and also the TTAs, Dolby AC3 DVD audios, DTS and most commonly FLACs, all turned into stereo mp3s. downmixing is exciting..
earlier from the get-go I thought having more bass is cool so I included the LFE channel in the downmixing, which is totally wrong...I corrected that after ruining 3 discs...
DSD/PCM transfers allow for the 1st generation 1/2” MIXDOWN tapes for each song.
Cutting straight from tape means only a 2nd generation production master must be used.
Paul, the word you were looking for and did not find is lacquer. The "lacquer". is cut and mothers and stampers are made from that. The stamper is not cut from the tape. So you do indeed get more than one stamper out of the single perfect pass of a master tape. Sorry if this seems like nothing, it seems like more stampers available to me.
Anyway the issue with MFSL is that they lied, and it's not with their DSD digital process. Honesty is the RIGHT WAY to do buddy.
Yes, agreed. They should not have lied.
What's unfortunate is that MoFi didn't feel confident enough that people would be ready to pay a premium for the superior re-mastering they did (nobody has disputed the quality of the recordings) and resorted to misleading claims to justify their higher prices
Yep perfect explanation. Thank You for a common sense take.
You only need to cut a new lacquer for each stamper if you’re using a one step process. With more conventional record pressing you can create multiple stampers from a single lacquer
They ARE using one step... that's the thing.
I don't know as much about the audio transfer process, but I wasn't concerned when I heard that MFSL was copying the tape to DSD. I assumed it was irrelevant to the sound quality. Sure, MFSL should have been more transparent. If they explained the reason for the DSD step how Paul does here, I'd think any reasonable consumer would appreciate why the DSD step is the most responsible way to do it.
Totally agree 👍😊
your not wrong, completely agree
Maybe, I’m missing something here. If the master copy is DSD (regardless of where it originally came from) and making a vinyl copy is that much trouble, I would rather have a good quality CD or Blu-ray copy since it’s all digital from master to end product. I was also informed that vinyl has to be substantially compressed due to its limitations. Hopefully, I explained my point of concern.
I agree. If it’s getting converted to digital/dsd, why even go to vinyl?
If you feel that strongly about it, then you'll want to buy their SACD version. Some people simply like the way vinyl sounds, and that's what I've pre-ordered!
Listening to music is an experience. The experience of putting a record on a well set-up turntable is its own thing-you pay attention in a different way knowing that you have to turn it over soon, knowing that the sound is coming from physical groves vibrating a needle, and so on. Listening to music is not just about maximizing signal and minimizing noise and distortion. As Emily Dickinson said, "The thought beneath so slight a film/is more distinctly seen." But different strokes for different folks.
Because vinyl fans like the added distortion. A straight DSD copy would be too clean for them.
Bernie Grundman claims DSD will lose data bits, where analog tape will not.
I agree that the most responsible thing, in the long run, is to introduce a digital step in the process. The thing is (in my humble, non-expert opinion) once you do introduce a digital step, it makes more since too me to keep the process digital up to the end result. I'd rather listen to a near digital sourced recording from a quality digital source. I really don't see the point in converting it back to an analogue format. The only thing you might gain from this is the tactile and visually more exciting experience that vinyl can provide-which is not trivial and can be just as important as the actual sound quality.
Thanks to Merging Technologies for providing the best hardware and software to record DSD.
Mofi fiasco opened many eyes to the beauty of digital.
Dsd cant you take the orignal recording
Thats limited in its bandwidth and use the harmonics to give a wider bandwidth then the tape had thats true to the orignal sound.
Might be worth a try, and you can use the DSD formate to experiment with as a copy.
The crux is in your final words: the way MoFi presented it. MoFi suggested pure analogue with the price tag in excess if 100USD. That is the problem.
So Paul just for clarification are you saying all of Octave Records new vinyl pressings are coming from a 100% pure DSD master with no, thhhhhp, DXD (PCM) conversion?
Just asking for a whole bunch of friends.
He may infer that 😁 but all Octave Records have been converted back and forth from DSD to PCM before pressing to vinyl
@@larrywe3320 dxd is pcm
@@380stroker Corrected... Thanks
Anything above 150 Khz would be picking up the radio stations nearby, not the actual signal from the microphone/instrument. Therefore, 150khz x 2 x 64 = 19.2 Mhz DSD would be my personal way to go, if I was to create a Master copy in DSD. There is no technical limitation for doing so, just psychological limitations. Is it overkilled? It must be, it is a master copy.
Brilliant!
I find SACD to be the superior format for sound quality compared to all.
What you're saying re live vs playback is true however I have had the privilege of spending (too) many hours at various recording studios including Abby Road and Olympic in my 20s /30's and used to try my hardest to detect differences between live and pb coming off 24/48/64 track interlocked machines and I swear I could not hear ANY difference. I'm sure there would be a difference if the signal was measured by a scope but to my ears there was none. So like you say, the reproduction cannot be more faithful to what the artist indended
Wouldn’t it make more sense to just listen to the DSD files? I think mofi will have lost a lot of fans because they didn’t stick to a full analogue chain. Out of all the trouble, wouldn’t it give an appreciation for DSD listening?
Tape or DSD as master, which one better?
Paul answered exactly that question. Didn't you listen?
Bernie Grundman answers this question and has infinitely more experience than Paul when it comes to mastering from a master tape!
I’m still amazed how many people don’t understand the basic reason why mofi were in the wrong. Quality was never the issue, it was them lying to their customers and overcharging as a result.
Totally agree.
wouldn't it be logical to sell the DSD files directly to the consumer and bypass the vinyl step though? the vinyl is an unnecessary lossy step
AN awful lot of audiophiles who swore they could tell the difference between analog and digital have egg on their face today. If you're stupid enough to spend $150 on a single album, I'm not sure I can muster much sympathy.....
I am sure this ruffled a lot of feathers. I get a giggle out of it myself.
Then there are all the professional reviewers that actually caught the inferior sound of the DSD process and said so in their reviews that came out before the MoFi DSD exposure. Often flatly stating that some other release sounded more "analog". Before even knowing the MoFi was actually digital. One mentioned shortly after the exposure that his comments on one MoFi review was filled with people saying they heard digital in it and he should have caught it. But he had been lied to by MoFi when he asked.
So I don't know who all your audiophile friends that were could not tell the difference. But professional record reviewers can just as I can.
@@glenncurry3041 Come now, Glenn. You mention one person, and "comments on one MoFi review was filled with people saying they heard digital in it", and think it disproves the obvious conclusion - the emperor has no clothes. Seriously? You do know how many people have been buying this stuff for the last 7 years right? You're going to have to do better than that, much better. In fact, let's start with this instance, and give me a link. I'd love to read it. Although, apparently even in your case, the reviewer did NOT notice themself.
@@MaterLacrymarum WOW the obvious desperation to throw shade! Ignore 75% of what I wrote and desperately cling to one statement about one particular incident! SAD! And then LIE about what I said? So long!
@@glenncurry3041 Glenn, I understand your ego is suffering a good beating. Truly, I get it. But when your response is..... well, some ridiculous rant like that, you just look yet more silly.
I responded directly to your comment, and I specified the point that I was most interested in. This is how conversation works (I assume you have some experience of actual conversation).
Why not simply post the link as I asked? I'm still waiting, and I'll give it a fair reading.
As for desperation, seriously? Desperate to what? You made a silly post, and I responded, that's all. You tried to pretend people knew all along, they just didn't think to mention it. Oh wait, they did,. but you've yet to post that link.... Desperation, I think, is something you know something about.
It's clear, the vast majority of audiophiles couldn't tell the difference. Not only then, but now. Fact.
The MoFi thing is only an issue because some in the vinyl community that have spent thousands of dollars on equipment, think they are audio experts and can hear a flea fart have egg on their faces. Because god forbid they listen to anything digital because they are purists! When in actuality MoFi will have the last laugh when these masters are no longer playable and they have the most pristine copy.
And those asking for transparency…hmmm. I think there are other more important “organizations” that we should be screaming for transparency from instead of a record label.
Here's the dirty little industry secret: Most of the SACD's are pcm because of editing. Also, many AAA vinly records are also pcm and not AAA because a digital delay was used instead of an analog delay to the cutting lathe. So, there ya go. It had to be said.
For one thing.....it's not the 'real' master, but a first gen master dup. And I agree with Paul, you really think even a first gen master dup should be subjected to repeated playing when they need another stamper? I think not.......get it on DSD, mix it right and it's captured digitally for perpetuity.
That this is controversial shows how little many “audiophiles” actually understand how sound works.
I wish all records that were cut from digital files used DSD as well. But yeah they hid that step and avoided telling people about it.
Cutting from DSD is probably going to be the only way to get vintage records while being as close to the original source. But that doesn't mean they should stop cutting records from the analog masters either.
I had done before using my RME dac. I had run comparison in between FLAC version of the music running at 192khz and 384khz vs DSD64 and DSD128 version, and it's devastating humiliation in cons PCM. DSD is the close you can get to real live music.