Isn't that the truth. I still see a few people trying to rewrite history and say that they didn't like some Mobile Fidelity titles so it must've been the digital. Sorry, it's possible to not be any good for reasons not related to being digital. It was quite a test, wasn't it?
@@dougschneider8243 It's so much Snake Oil. I mean we all want to have the best quality sound when it's practical but at the end of the day are you listening to the music or are you listening for aliasing?
Hi Doug. As a recording eng and producer - the big sin was the provenance of these recordings by MoFi, not that it didn't sound good, like you said, and that they charged an arm and a leg for that 'provenance'. So it was a scam. Collectors like to know (as I do) that their recordings are what is claimed. Of course back in the day no one gave a hoot how their LPs were made. In fact as you will recall, in the late 70s when digital classical records started coming along, it was a featured advantage, and sure enough, I went mad for collecting Digitally recorded LPs! Then CD came along, and all those analogue transfers with their tape hiss were accurately displayed, more so due to the inherent higher bandwidth dynamically that CD offered. Practically all LPs today are cut with digital files. My one LP I produced so far was cut from 192kHz 24 bit PCM. I always put these factoids on the back of my recordings. Barry Grint, who mastered my disc, and is a well respected cutting engineer, mentioned how many masters are presented to him as 44.1 kHz 16 bit, and sometimes MP3 and worse - are actual masters that are compressed for iTunes and not separate masters for LP. LP when done right can be excellent. But digital, even at 44.1 kHz 16 bit is basically transparent. And if we go double, to 88.4 kHz or 352 kHz 24 bit - more so and more so. Cheers - Jake Purches
this is one of the best lay person videos I've seen on this. A high quality digital source will always be more accurate across the frequency spectrum. The number 1 problem I see with Audiophiles is confusing "pleasing" with "accurate". Vinyl, as you mentioned, can absolutely be a more pleasing sound for a variety of reasons, but it has nothing to do with it being more accurate. I do want to say, depending on your stylus and cartridge, vinyl can have a wider stereo spectrum, but it has nothing to do with accuracy but rather needle and cartridge manufactures exploiting the medium and accentuating the unique information on the sides as opposed to the the middle.
To me, like the MOFI product, don't like the MOFI product isn't the issue, the issue is they knew that admitting that they inserted a digital step would hurt their sales, so they lied and they continue to lie, that's my problem with MOFI. But hey you do you.
Well, the great thing about records is the fact that any imperfections that may have occurred in the recording and mastering process are covered up by the pops, clicks, wow and flutter. And as to that record "sound" you're hearing; in the digital domain we call that " distortion".
The best explanation on digital vs vinyl sound. I agree 100% with you, I can easily hear a vinyl transfer to digital but not the other way around.... Thumbs up Doug 👍
My 2 cents on MoFi is that I don't care how their product is produced because the end result pleases me. I am predisposed, because of my age (70), to like the sound of vinyl. This is how I heard music in my formative years. On the digital side I have CD, HDCD, XRCD, SACD, SHM-CD, SHM-SACD and hires files. They all have their advantages. However, IMHO, it is the tools and how they are used that produces a product that interests me. In the end, we all have a sound in our mind that hits our buttons. How those buttons get pushed is immaterial to me and I suspect to many others as well.
Good points. I personally really enjoy vinyl and analog recordings precisely because it is less resolving and transparent. It sounds more pleasing to my ears for many styles of music. But cannot deny that digital has always been superior for hi res.
@indiemichael @soundstagenetwork Define "high res". When CD came out, it was supposed to be "perfect" sound and "lossless" sound with 16 bits. Then after most audiophiles called out this nonsense, they had to bring out SACD and 24 bits to digital a little bit more of a leg to stand on, and yet Vinyl is still agreed to be superior. Vinyl is not limited in terms of resolution, anything Digital is. Analog is tangible reproduction. Digital is pure speculation reproduction. Case closed.
@@Pete-eb3vo Vinyl is limited more, in literally every way, than CD. Cutting limitations means the top end can`t be too high, this is why the cutting console has an accel limiter such as the bsb-74 that begins working at 3-5khz. Vinyl has problems with wide stereo image + wide dynamics. This is because the cutter can either bottom out and go through the lacquer, damaging the cutter, or skip and leap. So the low end in vinyl is treated quite seriously. For a start it goes through the RIAA curve at cut, as vinyl cannot take the full frequency range flat, then at playback the RIAA curve will be reversed. So that`s 2 levels of EQ/Filtering before you hear it. Extra to that the low end below certain frequencies, anywhere from 30hz up to 150 or higher, will be put into mono via an elliptical filter. Sometimes this means information is lost. Luckily these days in the digital realm we have a way of resolving the bass mono issue without losing the stereo information, as there is technology now that will fold the antiphase back into the path without cancelation. Vinyl doesn`t have an even response across the whole disc. As you reach the inner side of the vinyl, towards the centre, the curve gets tighter. This causes cramping of the waveform at the cut, and can lead to distortion (usually this manifests in the top end) which is why the quieter, less dynamic tracks tend to be the last few tracks on each side of an LP. There is more that I can go in to (I master music, for vinyl and digital), but suffice to say, none of these restrictions are present in the digital domain in any way. Digital = full range Vinyl = restricted range, dynamically + frequency but pleasing harmonic distortion and softer transients which are pleasing.
Michael 45RPM has repeatedly compared MoFi and often Analaogue Production editions and confirmed on several occasions that the differences between them are big. I think that in a direct comparison, Analogue Production releases always won. In any case, it was a "blind test". Don't forget that in most cases people can't directly compare MoFi with other editions.
LP is a format that is a analog version of MP3. In that sense that it is a lossy format. We can NEVER go backwards from LP and digitize it back to the DSD source, hence lossy. When LP is a lossy format then the upside is that it is also indirectly a (analog) physical copy protection. That has many record labels understood and therefore providing better source material "SQ" wize for production of a LP than a digital format production gets from them. Think LOGICAL about this. We have let say a DSD source that we: X cut a lacquer (does that induce SQ or most probably will lose SQ when we can only at BEST preserve SQ in this step..) X then plating the lacquer (does that induce SQ or most probably will lose SQ when we can only at BEST preserve SQ in this step..) X then I'm some cases making plating copies father, mother and son's. (does that induce SQ or most probably will lose SQ when we can only at BEST preserve SQ in this step..) X pressing when the stampers getting physical worn, so the first pressed LP is not the same as the last pressed LP before the stampers is discarded. (Does that induce SQ or most probably will lose SQ when we can only at BEST preserve SQ in this step..) X what vinyl formula is used. And how much are they grinding down in % and reuse. Some pressing plants reuse mix in and re-melt up to 10% so it is only 90% that is virgin vinyl compound. And other pressing plants are making some records with 100% reused material and call it eco vinyl. (does that induce SQ or most probably will lose SQ when we can only at BEST preserve SQ in this step..) All those production steps and others that are a part of making a LP will and can only reduce by losing SQ. Some won't be glad that I call LP for a analog variant of MP3. But we can ALSO see that a nice way to put it because MP3 do not ADD random click and pops.. In reality and in practice I have seen new pressed LPs fresh from the press. Going into quality control department in the pressing plant and showing deviation between what signal was feed to the cutting head for producing the lacquer and what the stylus picked up from the groove on the finished LP in the QC department. Yes, there were already clicks and pops. And remember that is fresh and only some minutes old LP. In other words it is not dirt or wear or ANYTHING of that sort of issues! The issues of the click and pops that the QC department finding in that stage is coming from somewhere in the production in the pressing plant. And not something Vivaldi, AC/DC or Shakira has in their songs. 😉 Anyway with all that said I primarily listening to LPs. But it is not because of its superior SQ when I don't fool myself to think that is the reason. It is for other reasons.. ..like the format has no skip >> forward button to next track. And that indirectly "forces" me to listening to a whole side in one go of a LP. And I may wind down and enjoy the music.. But with a remote/phone I can listen to a song and it is great and all is super but my brain tells me "the next song is MAYBE better.." and I skip to the next song. That keeps my stress levels elevated and I can't relax and enjoy with that skipping around. But that is my own problem/issue. 🤣
Thanks for the clearest comparison between digital and vinyl, especially the inverse process of recording vinyl to digital. Vinyl has a sound, and its fine to like it more.
Setting the analog versus digital debate aside. I feel Mo-Fi should reap what they sowed. They first duped many of us to believe that "All Analog" (Which I never fully bought into, despite enjoying listening to records the most.) is the only thing that offers the ultimate listening experience, over charged its disciples for them, then failed to deliver. You do not make a fool out of your costumer and expect to get out of it by simply saying oops our bad, but hey ours pressing are still something special, give us !!!$125.00!!! for one. If they want to establish a little good will. I suggest they give something back. Like a 2 for 1 deal on any record that uses the DSD files in the mixing and mastering chain. If not, I hope the current lawsuit hits them hard for the B.S. they been trying to pull. For me, it is not simply about offering good sounding releases, but dealing with me straight.
In the early days of digital releases one of the classical music magazines-- I believe it was FANFARE-- published a technical article about the physical effect of digitally recorded L.P.s on turntables. The article included microphotographs to prove that playing digitally recorded music caused cracks in the turntable spindle. I never figured out if the article was an anti-digital hoax (why microphotograph a turntable spindle?) or legitimate science.
Still today there is no modern record I‘m aware of with a more pleasing sound than Ray Charles „Modern Sounds…“ or Oliver Nelsons „Abstract Truth …“ I‘ m talking of 16/44 red book cd for moderate money.
@@dougschneider8243 By every measurable metric the compact disk is the superior medium. There are badly mastered CDs but there are also badly pressed records (mostly new pressings designed to cash in on the "vinyl revival").
If DSD was so good, why didn't they just come out and say it instead going through the scandal and settlement that ensued? Plenty of labels have done wonderful work with analog tapes, so the 'need' of MoFi to have an infinite amount of time to master a digital scan of a master tape is a double gimmick. And I understand the quality digital can be and all that lovely technology, but to me, vinyl is the end-point of a system built on the analog process. Digital is great for CD's, analog is great for vinyl.
The only trouble with that is that analog tapes deteriorate. It's not always practical or even possible to reliably create records from analog tapes. There's also the very real possibility that record companies won't let others have them -- and a digital copy is all that's really available.
@@dougschneider8243 I've been seeing labels doing 'direct tape transfers', aka safety masters, and that seems to be a good substitute for having to work with the original tape... even an 'ultra hqr' version of John Coltrane was done from one of these, and the upcoming Waylon Jennings box from Vinyl Me Please... I think folks like Kevin Gray have the correct gear in place to run a tape the minimal amount of times to get the best sound... folks like MoFi have it out to tweak things to a rate that running the original tape will definitely destroy it...
Some of the commonly used logic here used has never made sense to me. People are saying things like “See! Many of the MFSL records are digital but you didn’t hear it and you thought they sounded great” Here’s why I think this is poor logic: just because people liked the sound of MFSL’s DSD records doesn’t mean they wouldn’t hear the difference between analog and DSD versions of the same record. What needs to happen is this: have MFSL press a Lp that’s DSD and press the same title all analog. THEN ask people if they hear differences. Note: when many people thought digital MFSL titles were all analog, they preferred other pressings that actually ARE all analog like Analog Productions over the MFSL pressing. Explain this when saying people can’t hear a difference. Of course the mastering, etc is different but maybe some of the differences people are hearing is digital vs analog when they prefer something like the analog UHQR Kind Of Blue to the DSD MFSL pressing? People have also preferred (among others) the analog Muddy Waters Folk Singer over the MFSL DSD version Those reviewing vinyl pressings didn’t say they disliked records because they heard digital? Again, this is poor logic. A reviewer probably won’t flat out say “I hear digital” however if they say things like “I thought the pressing had strident higher frequencies and dry presentation with a smaller soundstage” they inadvertently could very well be saying that the aforementioned misgivings they hear are in fact shortcomings that can often be associated with digital playback Re: “Myth number 2 that was busted” You mention digital retrieves more musical information plus has better resolution and detail than vinyl. Doesn’t this depend on the mastering? Not to mention: retrieval of information, low noise floor and amount of detail aren’t the only aspects of recorded music. Other aspects include ear fatigue and soundstage/imaging. Digital can cause ear fatigue. Vinyl usually does not. Virtually anyone reviewing for arguments sake…speakers…talks about how a vinyl recording on a great turntable “began to show how well the speakers throw a deep & wide soundstage when compared to playing a CD” - Why? What measurements explain that. Or the ear fatigue often found with digital playback and it’s better measurements? There’s clearly more to music than measurements? Let’s take a solid state guitar amp that measures better than a tube guitar amp. Virtually any musician will say they prefer a overdriven tube amp to the sound of a overdriven solid state amp and it’s better measurements. Regarding “you can hear vinyl when ripped to digital because of pop, clicks and surface noise” - C’mon…Using this logic, can we say that when a CD skips, we’re hearing the digital? No. We’re hearing what happens when there’s a defect in digital playback. Just as pops/clicks and surface noice are defects of vinyl playback. Vinyl CAN be quiet without those issues…provided that the cartridge, etc can track past any surface noise, the pressing isn’t defective with noise issues to begin with…and the vinyl is good quality plus clean/well cared for. I have vinyl I’ve bought new and owned 40 years that’s still dead quiet. In the end, both analog and digital have virtues. Let’s not lose sight of that because people didn’t know records they liked were DSD Thanks for reading
I am a vinyl enthusiast and prefer the sound of vinyl when all else is equal. But I know high res digital is audibly transparent while vinyl is always audibly colored.
Agreed. I'll go one step(get the joke?) further, that recording a record to digital, when done right and not playing through a system, can in some ways improve upon the record itself. Frankly, I have heard enough demonstrations to prove this.
The RIAA curve is necessary to get all the frequency information on the vinyl. While cutting, the bass is attenuated and the highs increased. On playback, the phono stage basically does the opposite.
@@dougschneider8243 it was also designed to eliminate as much of the high frequency surface noise by attenuating high frequencies that were boosted while cutting. They had to choose the noise or sibilance so they picked the later which can be a problem for mastering engineers.
In order to actually hear the difference you must have something to compare it to. So you would need to compare the original analog tape to the DSD file, double blind, to see if you can hear the difference. The problem of course is that the individuals with high-end systems are still caught in a logic loop, because to compare the two on an analog system the DSD file must be decoded. That means any perceived difference could be simply due to the decoder chip algorithm, or any other number of factors that interfere with a pure translation to analog. Perhaps a truer test of audio file ears would be to compare analogue with five digital formats and see if the listener can pick out the analog source from the other options including flac24192, dsd64, dsd128, dsd256, & dsd512.
To be fair though the audiophiles almost always considered old analog vinyl's as better sounding than the old digital formats, I guess their ears preferred vinyls, but was that due to hearing the difference between analog and digital or was it bias, who knows, but I think most people are pissed off because Mofi lied and misrepresented their premium products, myself included.
The difference is not in the format, the difference is in the sound engineering techniques: the ample headroom of the old analog days vs no headroom and compression in the digital realm at the end of the century and a somewhat return to the analog approach with lots of headroom brought about by 24-bit. Random Access Memories were pressed from the digital originals but they sound amazing. Why? Two words: Bob Ludwig.
The sound quality of records did improve with digital recording in the studio, but vinyl is too flawed a medium for distribution. I can see the why some prefer analog recording in the studio. Some of the best audio I've ever heard has been well-mastered digital from analog sources. The Harry James CD's ripped from vinyl by Sheffield Labs, and some of the early stereo classical recordings from Mercury and RCA on SACD, are my particular favorites. But I see no advantage, at this point, for analog to ever again become the primary medium for distribution. If sound quality were the goal, why vinyl and not reel-to-reel? Of course if we ever get to a situation where there was no more electricity, we could still play records.
"The Harry James CD's ripped from vinyl by Sheffield Labs" No Sheffield Lab CDs were ripped from vinyl. Doug Sax mastered the CDs from the backup analog tapes that were recorded at the same time the lacquers were cut. If you compare the original LPs to the CD versions it's no comparison, the LPs win every time.
@@BB.......... I'm glad they didn't master from vinyl! But if they did, back in those days you would've definitely heard it as they wouldn't have been able to get the noise out.
@@BB.......... They certainly do and why wouldn't they. Its one less noisy analogue step in the way of the music. Mind you they were still fantastic sounding CD's. A lot to do with the actual recording quality/techniques. The Sheffield crew knew what they were doing!
@@andrewhutchison3712 They certainly DID NOT! All you have to do is read the liner notes of the CDs, read some articles about Doug Sax re-issuing the albums on CD, and maybe even watch a video or two of Bill Schnee talking about it. Don't be stupid.
Funny how the self-proclaimed audiophiles could not hear the "digital coldness" they claim to be able to perceive. It's no different to those who spend hundreds of pounds on their oxygen-free, gold-plated HDMI cables.
From what I understand, DSD is a far superior digital format, so I wouldn’t be too concerned about records being cut from a DSD master. They should have been more transparent (pun intended) about their process, though.
The merits of the various digital formats can be debated, but it's safe to say that what almost everyone agrees on is that Mobile Fidelity should've been, as you said, "more transparent" in their marketing.
DSD is superior, but the MoFi fiasco has convinced people that PCM is audibly transparent because they dont understand that these are completely different formats.
All good points. But . . . one of the problems with digital is that the physical medium (CDs) doesn't always hold up due to flaws in the disc manufacturing process. And CD players themselves can introduce mechanical problems with skipping, transport break downs etc. In addition, streaming can be problematic due to limitations of bluetooth and such services as Tidal (ever have the volume drop off at the end of your Tidal file? Quite annoying.) These problems led me back to vinyl, not the supposed sonic superiority of analog bc digital recording is, as you stated, a perfectly fine process. Indeed, it was the poor quality of early digital remastering (reissues) that fed the vinyl resurgence. The strength of digital recording could easily be heard on Brothers in Arms and other digital recordings. I listen to all these formats equally, primarily based on convenience---I still own thousands of CDs and purchase new ones regularly
You will probably not believe me. I commented on an hifi forum maybe 2 years ago that I found some MOFI lps sounding a bit digital. It’s the case for Dire Straits first album, Santana/ Abraxas, and Jeff Beck/ Wired and Blow by Blow. I wrote at that time that even if they sound very good, dynamic and open, clean and quiet, something is missing vs the originals I have too. A certain kind of authenticity, life, naturalness. Most disagreed with me. You will certainly laugh, but I tried at least to share.
That could be! I've also criticized Mobile Fidelity recordings as sounding like nothing special, but that was in the 1990s and early 2000s. But truthfully, not ever reissue sounds that good.
People love the boards -- and always recognize Powell. I have others, but Powells get the attention. I love skateboarding. I did some of it on this hi-fi trip. ua-cam.com/video/arxrv6OGJFQ/v-deo.htmlsi=TEkofqnvrw2YEYLH
in case of Kind of Blue, the Analogue Production’s UHQR version destroys the MFSL but I still prefer the DSD due to it’s dynamic and ZERO SURFACE NOISE. You are left only with the music
When cds came out, everybody loved the sound of cds as they were clearer with less rumble. UA-cam led to the vinyl revival because it's easier to market a product that is 12 inches than one that is 5 inches.
Not all of us. Although I got onto CDs pretty quickly in the 1980s, I was underwhelmed at first. Over time, however, I found many spectacular-sounding CDs.
@@DorianPaige00 I don't blame digital that much. The technology had to evolve -- and so too did the people using it. Great improvements were made from the early days.
What people are falsely equating is (A) Digital vinyl, as in an album that was recorded and mastered for digital but pressed to vinyl With (B) An album that is recorded all analog, mastered for analog and has used a digital transfer to cut to vinyl. You could technically say both are digital But you can't equate the two, they are not the same. So be careful when you say people can't hear digital when cut to vinyl, because I can absolutely hear (A)
MoFi have product in the top class. They have a system that makes excellent products and is repeatable. They could make that into the mass market standard for all record manufacture but use it ironically for limited editions. They kept the price high by not disclosing the mastering and archiving being digital. Lots of people are forgetting to celebrate the quality because they want to be angry and, I guess at the price they pay for copies of MoFi albums, the notion that limited editions are a MoFi choice when they can make huge runs from DSD files with no degradation and sell them cheaper or, license their system to general record manufacturers to raise the general quality of vinyl replay. We are lucky to have such good quality available even if MoFi secretly resorted to DSD to achieve it.
As tape degrades over time, DSD was intented to create a digital "analog master" for archival purposes. Did MSFL create a DSD master straight from he master tapes, or did they take the PCM route because you can't EQ DSD. I hope they will someday offer the DSD files for sale.
There's no surprise at all with MoFi. When you look at the pressing runs, there's no way that the master tape would be used. It would simply get worn out!
I thank you for you video. you nailed the main points, but there are more points which I would like to share with you:: 1) The MOFI one step vinyl is cut from a DSD copy of the original analog master. The cutting process is a chain of "analogue copying steps" which MOFI has been able to reduce from 6 steps (2 Laquer --> 3 father --> 4 mother --> 5 stamper --> 6 vinyl pressing) into 4 steps by cutting from a DSD file (2--> Lacquer, 3 Stamper, 4 Vinyl pressing ). Each step is an analogue generation, so a Vinyl pressing (which starts from original master) is a 6th generation copy of original master, and a Mofi one cut is a 4th generation copy of the DSD of the original master (or 4th generation of the original master if we assume that DSD is almost 1:1 copy of original master) Here is the what I refer to as "The elephant in the room": The process begins with a 2nd generation digital copy of the original master, which by definition is superior to it's 4th (or 6th) generation analogue vinyl pressing. Any Audiophile who prefers a genuine copy of the original master would or should prefer a hi resolution digital copy of original master than a 4th to 6th generation analogue copy 2) Can a master recording be fully restored from a vinyl recording or from a CD recording? the surprising answer is answer is yes from a Vinyl, no from a CD! Here is the information based on my technical knowledge and many years of professional experience I have 25 years of expert for original master restoration and remastering from vinyl recordings (as well as from original master tapes). On rare occasions I get results which are sometimes better than original master. I share below my knowledge experience and explanation: 2a) Vinyl ability: Vinyl pressing is like a time capsule capture of original master. you can find many examples on my UA-cam channel. i.e here : ua-cam.com/video/BhxnVT6Vs3U/v-deo.html 2b) Vinyl can capture the full analogue information which is contained on the original master. it has a frequency response capability from 10Hz to up to 50KHz Vinyl has a Dynamic range limitation which typically is limited to 18 dB (i measured also 20dB LPs ), however modern CD and digital streaming are typically using a 16 dB dynamic range or less. The lightly compressed dynamics of vinyl can be easily restored to full dynamics. Vinyl has limitation of low frequency amplitude due to grove limitation there for the range below 50Hz is lightly attenuated ( Apx. 6 dB via Low shelf equalization) but is present in the recording Vinyl has limitation of High frequency tracking due to needle tracking ability there for the high frequency range has some compression together with light high shelf attenuation of the above 5KHz range, all this can be easily restored. I find on many vinyl recording high frequency information above 35KHz and many that reaches the 45KHz. Vinyl Adds surface noise and clicks and pops to the recording, this is unavoidable. however this added noise do not erase the audio information it only may mask some of it for our ears. I am specialized in removal of any Vinyl "fingerprint" on the audio information without any "sonic effect" on the original audio. 2c) A Standard Digital recording is limited to 22 KHz and for that applies a "brick wall" low pass filter of ~20KHz which has a critical phase effects on the audible mid frequency range phase. Digital recording can reach up to 0Hz at low frequency, however practical CD masters have a low frequency cut at below 30Hz which are lost and cannot be recovered. Most CD and now streaming production are adjusted for hand held devices performance this why they sound inferior to vinyl when are listened to on a high quality audiophile system. This is why the Digital reputation is so poor (this is before mentioning the MP3 additional effect ) 2d) from the above reasons I prefer to use a vinyl recording as a source for Master recording restoration rather then a CD quality source. 3) Here is a link to a measurements I have performed on Vinyl ability 3a) ua-cam.com/video/yjEYNbAc3y4/v-deo.html 3B) ua-cam.com/video/ZQGWP0E_ioo/v-deo.html
@@SPAZZOID100 Thank you for your comment. instead of going into (too lengthy) discussion I ask you to please check the following UA-cam links. All are remastered versions from original Vinyl LP recording which I have made. hope you'll like the result and get a better idea to what are the capability of a vinyl recording to fully preserve the original master musical information and details. 1) Santana - Se A Cabo - Vinyl remaster ua-cam.com/video/Ad36oIw9GFM/v-deo.html 2) Genesis - Squonk -Vinyl Remastered ua-cam.com/video/xAHV0ylR6ig/v-deo.html 3) Steely dan - Black Cow - High Dynamics MFSL Vinyl Remastered ua-cam.com/video/32aZZi80yV8/v-deo.html 4) Paul McCartney - Only Love Remains ua-cam.com/video/CDCM4z0RaXI/v-deo.html 5) Chick Corea - Central Park ua-cam.com/video/NDqtfEEwNys/v-deo.html 6) Quincy Jones - What's Going On - Vinyl Remaster ua-cam.com/video/O3EeTDTdMXk/v-deo.html 7) Supertramp - Goodbye Stranger - Original Vinyl Remaster ua-cam.com/video/8ZKxAy9YqU4/v-deo.html 8) Michael Jackson - Billie Jean - Vinyl Remaster ua-cam.com/video/nUgJzoRua2M/v-deo.html 9) Santana - Singing winds crying beasts / Black magic Woman Gypsy Queen - Vinyl Remaster ua-cam.com/video/9aAoSJBHATc/v-deo.html 10) ELO - Concerto for a rainy Day (4 Parts) ua-cam.com/video/4aXuc0lKB_Y/v-deo.html
Some people prefer the sound vinyl for the same reason some people prefer the sound of valve amps - they like the "warmth" distortion adds to the signal. I'm surprised no one adds a "vinyl sound" setting to their DACs!
Yes agree with the vinyl to digital rip. I hear that vinyl heads are now ripping LP s to digital and sticking them on kickass torrents. A joke who wants to hear all that surface noise? Yes I do laugh because I have been sick of those who have been saying for years they hear the difference between digital and vinyl. 😂 don’t they look stupid. The Audiophiliac “Steve” is one that comes to mind. Reckons he can hear the difference between everything. He is full of it. Great video.
We need to thank Mobile Fidelity for embarrassing all the so-called vinyl “gurus” with their claims that vinyl is the superior format. MoFi has managed to prove that a good digital master is as good, if not better, than a vinyl master. In any case, most newer recordings do not exist on analogue masters, hence the only source would be digital. So what happens then?
There are artists that still like to record to tape, it’s not mainstream by any means, but artists still use it. I compare this to movies that are now recorded digitally, and not to film. Whether you like it or not, film adds a grainy appearance to movies, some people like it, some don’t even notice. I have never liked the cd, always buy records, and I like the way they sound, and having a physical product in my hand. Streaming is great for work, I stream music all day, while I work. I grew up in the 60’s-70’s, so I feel a connection to records, and nothing to a cd. I will still buy Mofi records because they sound great. Good news is, we have enough formats to please everyone. I will say that when Digital came out, it was the beginning of the end for artists, because people stole their work. Artists make very little money from the music, they have to tour, and sell ticket to make money.
@@jeffl915 I have a great fondness for vinyl myself, and have for the last 55 years. Even though I stopped playing records for almost 10 years, it did not stop me from buying records, and aptly described by you, purely because of the intimacy of fondling these lovelies with the tenderness and care they rightly deserve. Many vinyl lovers may not care to admit that why records sound good to them is it's inherent coloration which stems primarily from turntable arm/cartridge alignment and a host of other adjustments that make it a tweaker's paradise. These fine adjustments can make some impact on the musical presentation but more so, a feeling of intense personal satisfaction that one has attained the best sound possible from your record after tinkering with the multitude of adjustments. The CD killed this and removed an element of "tweakability" and left them dead in the water. This started a new revolution of cable and Digital-to-Analog converter manufacturers to be born who used various designs and scientific theories to recreate a return to the aforementioned tinkering. This has remained an ongoing process until today and will remain as long as product marketing exists. With the advent of high resolution streaming (either PCM or DSD), this has only bolstered the effect and brought the entire industry to new heights, or for some, depths. The greatest victims in this scenario are the artists themselves who have no control over this industry, and to them I can only offer my sincerest sympathy for the losses sustained due to this evolution of technology. However I will still continue buying and listening to records, MoFi or any other reputable manufacturer that cares about quality and good vinyl formulation in their product, immaterial of it's source. It is in my blood, as probable as it in yours, because of the relationship we have had with this media over the many years that we have cared to listen to it. To summarize this as eloquently as I can, analog is human and digital is mechanization.
@@garyproctor1032 Fie upon those who have "golden ears"; my music's all digitized and I listen to it via my laptop's stock DAC and a pair of mid-priced headphones. Sounds fine. One reaches a point of diminishing returns very quickly.
The reason so many original analogue tape mastered recordings were "archived" to 1 bit digital in DSD64 is simply cos that was all that was available at the time, 128/256 and above came later. The record labels needed a secure and reliable archiving method to store the recordings and tape was not the answer so they turned to digital, it was not perfect but simply the best solution at the time. The question concerning what media is best, analogue v digital or vinyl over a computer file is not simple to answer cos it depends on the equipment used (hardware & software) and the engineers, all have a significant influence over the final result. What makes vinyl different, the warmth the harmonics the tape/valve saturation can all be accurately emulated with software to the extent you cannot tell the difference !! That is what makes JRiver Media Centre so special, you can add in your own flavour of plugins like CrystalClear64 or Fabfilter Saturn 2/Pro EQ3 or a full channel strip allowing you to do your own remastering to suit your own taste. I like to start with the original reel to reel master tape digitised as my source where and when possible, its the closest you can get to the original analogue master tape recordings before they were butchered by digital
Absolutely the best video on this whole subject. Love that these superior audiophiles now eat crow because they couldn't tell the mofis were digital! I'll stick with my og copies.....
Why do you love that? And do you think there is essentially no sonic difference between redbook CD and DSD256? That all digital has a common sound signature?
@@EskWIRED Nobody's talking about CDs. Quit trying to reframe the subject. Lee Herbert made an excellent point and it's also hilarious. Your reply was part of the hilarity actually.
@@AbsoluteFidelity I've done countless blind tests working in the audio industry.. Nobody in audio does double blinds because it is an elaborate and ridiculous waste of time and more appropriate for a prescription drug trial than a listening test. To a trained ear, on an accurate system, the difference between almost any converter, as well as any sample rate and bit depth should be apparent. This is EASY stuff if you actually experiment in person instead of relying on a textbook or some poorly executed study. The only people I've encountered that make claims about the amazing transparency of modern digital audio are people who have never actually done comparisons with their own ears. Since nobody in the real world can be bothered to prove the obvious, the knowledge base of people who don't have experience is dominated by less than a handful of shoddy studies and screw loose ideologues. The common thread is always people asking me to waste my time, essentially get a PhD and run a million dollar lab test, to prove to them something they could easily discern for themselves on their own time if they were serious about the truth.
I think comparing digital and analog source components has a greater effect, that the difference between comparing digital and analog in the recording process.
Since 1979 many albums were recorded digitally on 3M digital tape machines . Alan Parsons made Eye in the Sky 1982 an Analog multitrack recording mixed to Sony 1610 digital format for the master...
I enjoyed the video. I choose not to listen to the digital media because I like and I'm used to the sound and the hands on that vinyl gives. At the end of the day a good recording is a good recording.
Why buy digitally sourced overpriced records if you can buy dirt cheap old records on second hand stores? Rich people who has money is their milking cow not us true music lovers.
I think it's hilarious that the so called audiophiles couldn't hear the difference and now their crying into their beer! When Brothers In Arms was released they raved about the sound but it was a full digital recording. To me if it's sound good, that's all that matters no matter what the source.
Lex Peters - So called audiophiles listened to DSD records and liked them. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t hear a difference if they compared a DSD Lp from MFSL to a all analog version by MFSL of the same title.
Once I got a denon HD cd recorder and a musical fidelity dac and mapleshade cable you need atleast an. Ortifon blue cartridge and needle to somewhat equal the cd
I don't think its fair to conclude the MoFi "scandal" proves there is no difference between digital and analog because nobody reviewed a MoFi pressing and said they "heard the digital". I don't think "digital" adds a "signature" that the human ear can pick out. Audiophiles who claim pure analog sounds better when there is no digital in the production chain are simply claiming "it sounds better" - not that they can hear that there's "digital". "better" is relative not absolute. Given two recordings that are otherwise identical, one pressed with no digital processing and the other with a DSP - some folks may legitimately conclude pure analog sounds better. This may sound like I'm in the "pure analog sounds better" camp. I'm not. I personally do not have ears tuned to where I can reliably discern a difference between pure analog and digital all else being equal. Maybe I hear a difference, maybe I don't. The point of this comment is the MoFi scandal doesn't prove there is no difference.
You`re absolutely right. But i don`t think the likes of Michael Fremer would agree with you, ever. Just because vinyl is their religion and you can`t fall from that. Btw. this is one the debullshitting the discussion about mofi you can watch.
Please excuse my ignorance but did Mobile Fidelity advertise that they used all analog and sold products advertised as being all analog but instead contained some digital? If not how were people led to believe otherwise?
Yes, the company mislead and there was a judgment against them. You can read about it here. www.soundstagexperience.com/index.php/features-menu/pulse-menu/1112-the-mobile-fidelity-settlement-an-update
I don't have a problem with respect to sound quality if DSD 256 or DSD 512 recordings are made from the original analog masters and then used to cut a record. As someone who loves vinyl and frequently buys records, both old and new, I admit it is tough to beat DSD. Vendors should just be honest if they are using DSD as an intermediary between analog tape and a record lathe. As a rule of thumb, I prefer listening to good LP over a CD because of the sound, but to my ears can DSD outshine both. However, the rub with DSD is the limited number of recordings and cost. For example, try finding Frank Zappa's catalog on DSD or SACD - good luck with that. It is easier to locate and purchase well preserved used records for a reasonable price and you have the subjective experience of some really great album covers and inserts. Let's face it, part of the enjoyment of record is the album cover, especially those that fold open or have inserts. You won't get that from a digital file.
I got back into vinyl when I purchased a new Pioneer PDR-609 real time analog to digital CD burner back in 2000. made many recordings of my Lp's to CD I would say many of them sound better than a often overly loud store bought CD.
All the analog magic (musical color and tone if you will) starts with the cutting head on the lathe hitting the shellac and ends with what comes out of your speakers. If what happens before any of that is poorly done all the pixie dust in the cosmos won't fix it. In ten or fifteen years, what digital can do will make all of this sound like tin cans on a string. If you can imagine an audio mastering A.I. that "knows" how any instrument sounds, has an encyclopedic knowledge of how any individual player does things, which brand and model of instrument was played, what kind of recording equipment was used in what studio that the recording was made in and can take a half dozen copies of the same record, "listen" to all of them where the snaps, crackles and pops are all in different places, recreate that battered 78 RPM record performance the way it would have sounded if you had actually been there. We ain't heard nothing yet.
Apply the ‘improvement to technology’ curve to analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) and digital-to-analog converters (DACs) since digital audio became a thing. In the early days of CDs there were definitely bad ADCs and DACs in use. Today bad ADCs and DACs are far more rare. Most of the differences in specs between the most common ones wouldn’t be revealed in listening tests. IOW they are far below the threshold of the human ears ability. Vinyl records are not some holy gift that God bestowed upon us like some audiophiles believe. They are a flawed medium that delivered acceptable results at a low cost to achieve profits. I don’t hate vinyl but when I see what they are charging for a vinyl record with another re-release of classic album it’s just another niche collectors market designed to suck as much money as possible from the small base of consumers.
In fairness it's not all profiteering (although that's certainly a factor!). Manufacturing vinyl records is necessarily going to be expensive now than it was 40 years ago because the economies of scale that made them cheap to produce back then no longer apply. It's a niche medium and that means niche prices.
There is a big difference within "digital". DSD and PCM are both digital but very different. A lot of players play DSD by converting the signal to PCM. Kudos to PS Audio for promoting (pure) DSD all the way. Too bad there are so few recordings in DSD (SACD).
Actually, the pioneer of DSD in hi-fi is Ed Meitner of Meitner Audio and EMM Labs. In terms of tech, the PS Audio DSD-type DACs look an awful lot Meitner's DACs have for many years. Also, Ed was who helped Sony with the 1-bit DAC architecture for the DSD project.
It's the "low resolution " digital is what you can hear 44.1k/16 bit or lower, not 96k/24bit or higher! Vinyl does have more information in the grooves! The vinyl is only playing back the quality of the source weather low or high! If you cut a record from analog tape , it will sound better than than the same record cut from 44.1k! Hogwash, vinyl has much higher resolution than digital, and it has a wider dynamic range (measured below the noise floor)! And not all people couldn't hear a difference, there's a lot of us who knew it ! But DSD is so close TO TAPE that's tough to hear the difference! So this scandal didn't prove shit!
Well, the price of the MoFi lps will not change. If anything, they will charge more. Trust me. If some folks are unwilling to pay, that's ok. There will be others who will buy like me. Regardless of whether it is analog or a digital file, MoFi has total control and can limit production and create scarcity....just like Swiss watchmakers.
The best analog record is the one made before the digital area. So by used records made before 1979. If you want the sound digital, stream digital music.
Most of the youtube videos that I have seen totally disregard the fact that many of the ORIGINAL MASTER RECORDINGS from the studio are digital originals. Where do these fit in the scheme of things?
@@emilspec1227 100% agree. In fact, most today aren't analog. But his point is a good one -- what about those digital recordings, which are more than likely to be PCM.
"Nobody actually heard the digital" you claim. Nobody? R U sure? Did you talk to everyone who purchased MFSL vinyl? I purchased a few MFSL vinyl titles and they remain sealed. I'm quite certain MANY Mo-Fi buyers do this. Hard to "Hear" digital when you don't LISTEN, won't you agree? Also, did MFSL offer the same pressing all analog and DSD? They did not, so unless you can compare them side by side, is it not almost impossible to "Hear the digital"? Myth #2. Are you now arguing that digital recording is NOT sampled? Or are you arguing sampled waveform (most of it, but not all) is every bit as good as the entire waveform? Either argument is idiotic. Is 95% of a pie as good as 100% of a pie? Is an airline flight that gets you 98% of the way to your destination as good as all the way? Digital audio does have advantages. It also has disadvantages. My daughters fiancee once told her "Your dad probably can't hear the difference between an MP3 and a wave file. I'm a recording engineer. It's my friggin JOB to hear that. I asked him if he'd like to wager on that. He foolishly agreed. He recorded a single piano recording at 128, 192, 256 and 320 mp3 and uncompressed wav. I asked him to play each, tell me which was which, then play any file randomly, and I would not only tell him if it was wav or MP3, but what BIT RATE it was. He bet me $50.00 I was wrong. After 17 consecutive "Lucky guesses" he gave up. So don't tell me no one can "hear digital". Maybe YOU can't,. but that doesn't mean others can't. Digital is superior in measurements? Care to point me to those please? That pre signal "ringing" on digital devices is superior? How exactly? I'll leave you with this: My Martin D28 is an analog instrument. Acoustic piano's analog. Horns, strings, analog, voices, analog. Acoustic drums are analog. Microphones are analog. Speakers are analog. Even CD players and DACS convert back to...............wait for it...............ANALOG. If digital recording, those wonderful musical ones and zero's are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO superior, why do we not have digital speakers? Digital headphones? Digital ears? Digital BRAINS? Starts analog, finishes analog. I'm NOT going to argue with the Nyquist idiots about this. I'm simply stating FACTS. One final FACT. MFSL LIED to it's customers. They LIED to their dealers (I used to be one)
The whole digital vs analog debate is dumb. It's all a matter of opinion. Some people prefer one over the other. Some people like digital sound. Some like analog. Who cares which one is superior. Just listen to music and enjoy it.
I think U are missing the point. If U take a digital recording and release on CD & LP I still think the LP sound better and it is the vinyl that make the difference. Just my opinion.
Duh. Nature is analogous. You can't reduce nature to a binary signal. That requires translation into a code that only machines can process. You don't listen to binary code; the machine has to translate it back into an analog signal for your ears to hear it. The entire process is an artificial attempt to reproduce nature. It took decades from the time that the concept of using digital as a storage medium for digital audio became a reality. When I took a Music Appreciation class circa 1970, one lecture was presented by the state of digital music which was the production of simple frequencies such as those in a child's digital piano. When I was in the Navy in 1976, operating a mainframe computer dedicated to basically word processing, nobody I asked thought it possible that computers would process sound. Meanwhile, analog sound production had reached a level in the 1960s such that recordings made at that time are still regarded as some of the best ever made. Digital will always and ever be an attempt to mimic analog. So we are looking at the convergence of two different timelines, and although the history of digital, from whatever application realm we consider, is one of exponential development, analog has maintained a level of perfection achieved before digital took it's first baby steps. Eventually, the engineers were able to provide enough data processing and storage to reproduce sound at an audiophile level, although the fact remains that the goal is to approximate nature. The way they did this was to chop the signal into small enough bits to "deceive" the ear into thinking one was listening to something natural. Early digital was to music as Minecraft is to real world. Ok, fine, the industry succeeded in fooling the public into believing what it was hearing is what came out of the strings, horns, and vocal chords. But what comes out of a computer has an inherent flaw, and that is the stored information is susceptible to degradation every time it is processed or reproduced. This is why analog copies, which have been analogously reproduced from beginning to finished product, are so important to preserve. Archivists have a problem with access to information stored on previous generations of formats. Is there any guarantee that complex sound recording and reproduction equipment, along with the complex software used to develop it, will still be available to make it come alive? By come alive we mean something that the senses can recognize. Here's a floppy disc. Try and find a computer that can show you what information has been stored there. Any vinyl record can be brought to life with the simplest reproduction device such as a folded piece of cardboard with a post to manually spin the record, and a needle attached to the bottom corner of a folded flat side of the player. Such a simple device was actually designed to bring audio to remote parts of Africa. All that was needed was to unfold the device, snap the tabs into place, set the needle and spin the disc. A million years in the future, any culture with the ability to fashion simple tools would be able to figure out how to play records. You cannot say the same for CDs or DVDs. Cuneiform tablets survived better and longer than any other means of storage. They will survive longer than digital or vinyl. Perhaps the next generation of analog recording will come up with some silicon-based medium that is more durable than clay, stone, or vinyl. It will still be infinitely more useable and decipherable regardless of the level of sophistication of the culture than any digital medium, which requires development of optical readers, determining the purpose of the artifact, reproducing the encode/decode steps, and all the hardware and software developments necessary to resurrect the sound, let alone share it with anyone.
I would never try to convince anyone who wants to listen to a digital source to change. If everyone would employ streaming, I could find original LPs in great condition at low prices. Vinyl playback simply sounds better to me and many others. Pointless to debate.
Very odd that this was considered a scandal in the first place. Mofi has released plenty of contemporary records which must have been digital recordings before creating the analogue master. They know that you can create a perfect copy without the degradation of cloning an analogue master or hassle of mastering from the original tapes by working from a digital master. Why would you not seek to create new digital masters for everything you want to press in that case. Especially if all new releases are digital anyway. If sound quality is the goal it's obvious why Mofi uses the technically best way of preserving it. Any sound characteristics you prefer about vinyl over digital are entirely down to the mixing (some mixes intended for vinyl are different from digital presentations due to the nature of reproducing stereo on wax) and the equipment you have. Many of these characteristics can be replicated in the digital space with EQ. Edit: There's a reason audiophiles are enthusiasts and audio engineer's are professionals :)
The reason is was considered a scandal is because Mobile Fidelity misled consumers -- and that was demonstrated in court. That was really the issue. Frankly, when I first found out about it, I thought, "Of course they're using digital, what else?" But then it was shown to me that for many albums, Mobile Fidelity was actually claiming they were mastering direct from master tapes, not a digital intermediary. So that was really the issue.
The problem is the price and the number ! Original master ,2000 pices 100 dollar ??? If ypu write ,original master converted in dsd ,no limit album 30 dollars is more correctly. Saluti dall'Italia
to be honest, at least one prominent vinyl person now claims they heard things on several of mofi's albums and decided not to say anything at the time, for whatever reason. take that with a grain of salt.
Hi. I take that with a grain of salt because, as I mentioned in the video, there are some trying to save face now by claiming they heard something and were going to say something, etc. But never did. The fact of the matter is that no one called out digital -- but the same vinyl gurus praised many of the releases as the best sounding ever.
@@dougschneider8243 First of you should not consider MoFi quality as top. You should first compare an original first "full analog"release and a MoFi release. Then we can talk about sampling rate , phase shift , frequency response etc. When a CD quality (fs=44.1kHz) have 2 samples 20kHz , do you considers this accurate in sound recording?? 4.8 samples @20kHz sound when fs=96kHz? Or even better 9.6 samples @20kHz sound when fs=192kHz?
@@Bandit400VC So it's long been established that with a proper reconstruction filter, the time resolution of even CD-resolution playback exceeds human hearing. So are you saying that's not true?
The Miles Davis record is simply up there to show a Mobile Fidelity release. The video is about Mobile Fidelity in general. But the point I made about it was that no one called it out as being digitally sourced. If there are problems with the sound, no one pointed to that.
When people talk about "digital" audio, 99.99% of the time they are talking about PCM audio which does change the sound compared to analog. MoFi uses DSD, which actually sounds like analog, but it functions and sounds fundamentally different from PCM and should the two should not be conflated as the same thing under the umbrella "digital". In reality, DSD is an exotic and prohibitive format that does not represent what all but the tiniest fraction of digital audio, which has the same issues as ever.
I'm not sure that anything has shown that PCM changes the sound. All of the tests that have been done that I've seen that have inserted digital into a playback chain to check for transparency have been done with PCM. Regarding DSD being "exotic." Not really. DSD is pulse density modulation. The DSD origins could arguably be the bitstream DACs that Phillips came out with in the late 1980s. People can pretend that DSD isn't digital -- but it's digital. But what might be true is that it is "prohibitive" -- from an editing point of view. Any substantial editing has to be done in PCM.
@@dougschneider8243 I can say that I have inserted a PCM ADC/DAC into an analog signal chain hundreds, if not thousands of times with around 15 different professional converters in tracking, mix and mastering environments. It is obvious every single time, with every converter, at every bit depth and sample rate. The first time I ever heard playback that sounded almost exactly like the tape machine output was DSD. No contest. The idea that any PCM ADC/DAC on earth is perfectly transparent is a myth held together by a small number of flawed studies. In fact, no recording medium or signal path is, even DSD, but DSD is transparent to a satisfying degree. DSD IS exotic because it is rare, supported by only one current workstation, and can't be natively processed at all (it's more like a tape machine), and thus doesn't fit in the workflow of most modern recordings. These are the reasons it never replaced PCM and remains fringe.
DSD64 is waaaaay better than pcm 24 bit 96k, and better than 16 bit cd's, and better than mp3. Do an a-b comparison of the same exact mastering job, one AAA and one AAD and then you'll get answers. Not sure this video or the MoFi thing busts any myths. There's all kinds of idiots who say they can hear things -- doesn't mean shit without a proper, unflawed a-b comparison
For us, if it sounds good, we’re satisfied. However, we do not care for Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs lack of transparency or anyone else for that mater.🎧
Thank you. This was the ultimate blind taste test I've been wanting to see for years.
Isn't that the truth. I still see a few people trying to rewrite history and say that they didn't like some Mobile Fidelity titles so it must've been the digital. Sorry, it's possible to not be any good for reasons not related to being digital. It was quite a test, wasn't it?
@@dougschneider8243 It's so much Snake Oil.
I mean we all want to have the best quality sound when it's practical but at the end of the day are you listening to the music or are you listening for aliasing?
Hi Doug. As a recording eng and producer - the big sin was the provenance of these recordings by MoFi, not that it didn't sound good, like you said, and that they charged an arm and a leg for that 'provenance'. So it was a scam. Collectors like to know (as I do) that their recordings are what is claimed. Of course back in the day no one gave a hoot how their LPs were made. In fact as you will recall, in the late 70s when digital classical records started coming along, it was a featured advantage, and sure enough, I went mad for collecting Digitally recorded LPs! Then CD came along, and all those analogue transfers with their tape hiss were accurately displayed, more so due to the inherent higher bandwidth dynamically that CD offered. Practically all LPs today are cut with digital files. My one LP I produced so far was cut from 192kHz 24 bit PCM. I always put these factoids on the back of my recordings. Barry Grint, who mastered my disc, and is a well respected cutting engineer, mentioned how many masters are presented to him as 44.1 kHz 16 bit, and sometimes MP3 and worse - are actual masters that are compressed for iTunes and not separate masters for LP. LP when done right can be excellent. But digital, even at 44.1 kHz 16 bit is basically transparent. And if we go double, to 88.4 kHz or 352 kHz 24 bit - more so and more so. Cheers - Jake Purches
100% true. Basically, it was the misleading and the cover-ups that were the crime. They foolishly misled people, it's a simple as that.
this is one of the best lay person videos I've seen on this. A high quality digital source will always be more accurate across the frequency spectrum. The number 1 problem I see with Audiophiles is confusing "pleasing" with "accurate". Vinyl, as you mentioned, can absolutely be a more pleasing sound for a variety of reasons, but it has nothing to do with it being more accurate. I do want to say, depending on your stylus and cartridge, vinyl can have a wider stereo spectrum, but it has nothing to do with accuracy but rather needle and cartridge manufactures exploiting the medium and accentuating the unique information on the sides as opposed to the the middle.
@Rik ster bullshit
Wrong, wrong, wrong!
@@analoguecity3454 Why?
Lay person ? Seriously ? Who ssys thst anymore ?....lol
Nope. Vinyl has, due to cutting limitations, generally a slightly narrower image. Digital has absolutely no restrictions at all on stereo width.
To me, like the MOFI product, don't like the MOFI product isn't the issue, the issue is they knew that admitting that they inserted a digital step would hurt their sales, so they lied and they continue to lie, that's my problem with MOFI. But hey you do you.
Exactly what you said seems to be the consensus of most.
We are bot talking about that here, we are talkin about THE 2 MYTHS BUSTED BY THIS ISSUE. Stop bitchin... but hey, you do you.
This shows just how good DSD can be.
And that's been known for a very long time. And please don't be shocked that PCM can sound amazing (and transparent) too.
@@soundstagenetwork That too has been known for a very long time.
But I always avoid them .....don't like their "signature sound", didn't buy a single piece after the millennial.
Well, the great thing about records is the fact that any imperfections that may have occurred in the recording and mastering process are covered up by the pops, clicks, wow and flutter. And as to that record "sound" you're hearing; in the digital domain we call that " distortion".
The best explanation on digital vs vinyl sound. I agree 100% with you, I can easily hear a vinyl transfer to digital but not the other way around....
Thumbs up Doug 👍
Thanks for the feedback!
My 2 cents on MoFi is that I don't care how their product is produced because the end result pleases me. I am predisposed, because of my age (70), to like the sound of vinyl. This is how I heard music in my formative years. On the digital side I have CD, HDCD, XRCD, SACD, SHM-CD, SHM-SACD and hires files. They all have their advantages. However, IMHO, it is the tools and how they are used that produces a product that interests me. In the end, we all have a sound in our mind that hits our buttons. How those buttons get pushed is immaterial to me and I suspect to many others as well.
Good points!
Good points. I personally really enjoy vinyl and analog recordings precisely because it is less resolving and transparent. It sounds more pleasing to my ears for many styles of music. But cannot deny that digital has always been superior for hi res.
Great information! Thanks
@indiemichael @soundstagenetwork Define "high res". When CD came out, it was supposed to be "perfect" sound and "lossless" sound with 16 bits. Then after most audiophiles called out this nonsense, they had to bring out SACD and 24 bits to digital a little bit more of a leg to stand on, and yet Vinyl is still agreed to be superior. Vinyl is not limited in terms of resolution, anything Digital is. Analog is tangible reproduction. Digital is pure speculation reproduction. Case closed.
@@Pete-eb3vo Vinyl is limited more, in literally every way, than CD. Cutting limitations means the top end can`t be too high, this is why the cutting console has an accel limiter such as the bsb-74 that begins working at 3-5khz. Vinyl has problems with wide stereo image + wide dynamics. This is because the cutter can either bottom out and go through the lacquer, damaging the cutter, or skip and leap. So the low end in vinyl is treated quite seriously. For a start it goes through the RIAA curve at cut, as vinyl cannot take the full frequency range flat, then at playback the RIAA curve will be reversed. So that`s 2 levels of EQ/Filtering before you hear it. Extra to that the low end below certain frequencies, anywhere from 30hz up to 150 or higher, will be put into mono via an elliptical filter. Sometimes this means information is lost. Luckily these days in the digital realm we have a way of resolving the bass mono issue without losing the stereo information, as there is technology now that will fold the antiphase back into the path without cancelation.
Vinyl doesn`t have an even response across the whole disc. As you reach the inner side of the vinyl, towards the centre, the curve gets tighter. This causes cramping of the waveform at the cut, and can lead to distortion (usually this manifests in the top end) which is why the quieter, less dynamic tracks tend to be the last few tracks on each side of an LP. There is more that I can go in to (I master music, for vinyl and digital), but suffice to say, none of these restrictions are present in the digital domain in any way.
Digital = full range
Vinyl = restricted range, dynamically + frequency but pleasing harmonic distortion and softer transients which are pleasing.
Michael 45RPM has repeatedly compared MoFi and often Analaogue Production editions and confirmed on several occasions that the differences between them are big. I think that in a direct comparison, Analogue Production releases always won. In any case, it was a "blind test". Don't forget that in most cases people can't directly compare MoFi with other editions.
Thank you! Somebody talking sense! No "additive in the world is going to make LPs sound as good as they do! It's the "unbroken "analogue chain!
LP is a format that is a analog version of MP3. In that sense that it is a lossy format. We can NEVER go backwards from LP and digitize it back to the DSD source, hence lossy.
When LP is a lossy format then the upside is that it is also indirectly a (analog) physical copy protection.
That has many record labels understood and therefore providing better source material "SQ" wize for production of a LP than a digital format production gets from them.
Think LOGICAL about this.
We have let say a DSD source that we:
X cut a lacquer (does that induce SQ or most probably will lose SQ when we can only at BEST preserve SQ in this step..)
X then plating the lacquer (does that induce SQ or most probably will lose SQ when we can only at BEST preserve SQ in this step..)
X then I'm some cases making plating copies father, mother and son's. (does that induce SQ or most probably will lose SQ when we can only at BEST preserve SQ in this step..)
X pressing when the stampers getting physical worn, so the first pressed LP is not the same as the last pressed LP before the stampers is discarded. (Does that induce SQ or most probably will lose SQ when we can only at BEST preserve SQ in this step..)
X what vinyl formula is used. And how much are they grinding down in % and reuse. Some pressing plants reuse mix in and re-melt up to 10% so it is only 90% that is virgin vinyl compound. And other pressing plants are making some records with 100% reused material and call it eco vinyl. (does that induce SQ or most probably will lose SQ when we can only at BEST preserve SQ in this step..)
All those production steps and others that are a part of making a LP will and can only reduce by losing SQ.
Some won't be glad that I call LP for a analog variant of MP3. But we can ALSO see that a nice way to put it because MP3 do not ADD random click and pops..
In reality and in practice I have seen new pressed LPs fresh from the press. Going into quality control department in the pressing plant and showing deviation between what signal was feed to the cutting head for producing the lacquer and what the stylus picked up from the groove on the finished LP in the QC department.
Yes, there were already clicks and pops. And remember that is fresh and only some minutes old LP. In other words it is not dirt or wear or ANYTHING of that sort of issues!
The issues of the click and pops that the QC department finding in that stage is coming from somewhere in the production in the pressing plant. And not something Vivaldi, AC/DC or Shakira has in their songs. 😉
Anyway with all that said I primarily listening to LPs. But it is not because of its superior SQ when I don't fool myself to think that is the reason. It is for other reasons..
..like the format has no skip >> forward button to next track. And that indirectly "forces" me to listening to a whole side in one go of a LP. And I may wind down and enjoy the music..
But with a remote/phone I can listen to a song and it is great and all is super but my brain tells me "the next song is MAYBE better.." and I skip to the next song.
That keeps my stress levels elevated and I can't relax and enjoy with that skipping around.
But that is my own problem/issue. 🤣
Thanks for the clearest comparison between digital and vinyl, especially the inverse process of recording vinyl to digital. Vinyl has a sound, and its fine to like it more.
In the end it's the mastering that's more important for the enjoyably of a piece of vinyl.
Setting the analog versus digital debate aside. I feel Mo-Fi should reap what they sowed. They first duped many of us to believe that "All Analog" (Which I never fully bought into, despite enjoying listening to records the most.) is the only thing that offers the ultimate listening experience, over charged its disciples for them, then failed to deliver. You do not make a fool out of your costumer and expect to get out of it by simply saying oops our bad, but hey ours pressing are still something special, give us !!!$125.00!!! for one. If they want to establish a little good will. I suggest they give something back. Like a 2 for 1 deal on any record that uses the DSD files in the mixing and mastering chain. If not, I hope the current lawsuit hits them hard for the B.S. they been trying to pull. For me, it is not simply about offering good sounding releases, but dealing with me straight.
Very good points. The way people were misled seems to be the biggest problem.
In the early days of digital releases one of the classical music magazines-- I believe it was FANFARE-- published a technical article about the physical effect of digitally recorded L.P.s on turntables. The article included microphotographs to prove that playing digitally recorded music caused cracks in the turntable spindle. I never figured out if the article was an anti-digital hoax (why microphotograph a turntable spindle?) or legitimate science.
Interesting. That must have been very early 1980s?
It was a badly done study by someone from an unrelated field. Pretty much nobody took it seriously.
Still today there is no modern record I‘m aware of with a more pleasing sound than Ray Charles „Modern Sounds…“ or Oliver Nelsons „Abstract Truth …“ I‘ m talking of 16/44 red book cd for moderate money.
Reading that doesn't surprise me. There are many outstanding-sounding CDs that are better than vinyl counterparts.
@@dougschneider8243 By every measurable metric the compact disk is the superior medium. There are badly mastered CDs but there are also badly pressed records (mostly new pressings designed to cash in on the "vinyl revival").
If DSD was so good, why didn't they just come out and say it instead going through the scandal and settlement that ensued? Plenty of labels have done wonderful work with analog tapes, so the 'need' of MoFi to have an infinite amount of time to master a digital scan of a master tape is a double gimmick. And I understand the quality digital can be and all that lovely technology, but to me, vinyl is the end-point of a system built on the analog process. Digital is great for CD's, analog is great for vinyl.
The only trouble with that is that analog tapes deteriorate. It's not always practical or even possible to reliably create records from analog tapes. There's also the very real possibility that record companies won't let others have them -- and a digital copy is all that's really available.
@@dougschneider8243 I've been seeing labels doing 'direct tape transfers', aka safety masters, and that seems to be a good substitute for having to work with the original tape... even an 'ultra hqr' version of John Coltrane was done from one of these, and the upcoming Waylon Jennings box from Vinyl Me Please... I think folks like Kevin Gray have the correct gear in place to run a tape the minimal amount of times to get the best sound... folks like MoFi have it out to tweak things to a rate that running the original tape will definitely destroy it...
Some of the commonly used logic here used has never made sense to me. People are saying things like “See! Many of the MFSL records are digital but you didn’t hear it and you thought they sounded great”
Here’s why I think this is poor logic: just because people liked the sound of MFSL’s DSD records doesn’t mean they wouldn’t hear the difference between analog and DSD versions of the same record. What needs to happen is this: have MFSL press a Lp that’s DSD and press the same title all analog. THEN ask people if they hear differences.
Note: when many people thought digital MFSL titles were all analog, they preferred other pressings that actually ARE all analog like Analog Productions over the MFSL pressing. Explain this when saying people can’t hear a difference. Of course the mastering, etc is different but maybe some of the differences people are hearing is digital vs analog when they prefer something like the analog UHQR Kind Of Blue to the DSD MFSL pressing?
People have also preferred (among others) the analog Muddy Waters Folk Singer over the MFSL DSD version
Those reviewing vinyl pressings didn’t say they disliked records because they heard digital? Again, this is poor logic. A reviewer probably won’t flat out say “I hear digital” however if they say things like “I thought the pressing had strident higher frequencies and dry presentation with a smaller soundstage” they inadvertently could very well be saying that the aforementioned misgivings they hear are in fact shortcomings that can often be associated with digital playback
Re: “Myth number 2 that was busted”
You mention digital retrieves more musical information plus has better resolution and detail than vinyl.
Doesn’t this depend on the mastering? Not to mention: retrieval of information, low noise floor and amount of detail aren’t the only aspects of recorded music. Other aspects include ear fatigue and soundstage/imaging. Digital can cause ear fatigue. Vinyl usually does not. Virtually anyone reviewing for arguments sake…speakers…talks about how a vinyl recording on a great turntable “began to show how well the speakers throw a deep & wide soundstage when compared to playing a CD” - Why? What measurements explain that. Or the ear fatigue often found with digital playback and it’s better measurements?
There’s clearly more to music than measurements? Let’s take a solid state guitar amp that measures better than a tube guitar amp. Virtually any musician will say they prefer a overdriven tube amp to the sound of a overdriven solid state amp and it’s better measurements.
Regarding “you can hear vinyl when ripped to digital because of pop, clicks and surface noise” - C’mon…Using this logic, can we say that when a CD skips, we’re hearing the digital? No. We’re hearing what happens when there’s a defect in digital playback. Just as pops/clicks and surface noice are defects of vinyl playback. Vinyl CAN be quiet without those issues…provided that the cartridge, etc can track past any surface noise, the pressing isn’t defective with noise issues to begin with…and the vinyl is good quality plus clean/well cared for. I have vinyl I’ve bought new and owned 40 years that’s still dead quiet.
In the end, both analog and digital have virtues. Let’s not lose sight of that because people didn’t know records they liked were DSD
Thanks for reading
I am a vinyl enthusiast and prefer the sound of vinyl when all else is equal. But I know high res digital is audibly transparent while vinyl is always audibly colored.
Good attitude!
Agreed. I'll go one step(get the joke?) further, that recording a record to digital, when done right and not playing through a system, can in some ways improve upon the record itself. Frankly, I have heard enough demonstrations to prove this.
the Hi Res part of the industry owes MoFi a big thanks because I'm all in on digital now :)
We were wondering if the could happen
The RIAA curve is a nearly 70 year old technology that only serves to eradicate some of the flaws of vinyl
The RIAA curve is necessary to get all the frequency information on the vinyl. While cutting, the bass is attenuated and the highs increased. On playback, the phono stage basically does the opposite.
@@dougschneider8243 it was also designed to eliminate as much of the high frequency surface noise by attenuating high frequencies that were boosted while cutting. They had to choose the noise or sibilance so they picked the later which can be a problem for mastering engineers.
In order to actually hear the difference you must have something to compare it to. So you would need to compare the original analog tape to the DSD file, double blind, to see if you can hear the difference. The problem of course is that the individuals with high-end systems are still caught in a logic loop, because to compare the two on an analog system the DSD file must be decoded. That means any perceived difference could be simply due to the decoder chip algorithm, or any other number of factors that interfere with a pure translation to analog. Perhaps a truer test of audio file ears would be to compare analogue with five digital formats and see if the listener can pick out the analog source from the other options including flac24192, dsd64, dsd128, dsd256, & dsd512.
To be fair though the audiophiles almost always considered old analog vinyl's as better sounding than the old digital formats, I guess their ears preferred vinyls, but was that due to hearing the difference between analog and digital or was it bias, who knows, but I think most people are pissed off because Mofi lied and misrepresented their premium products, myself included.
The misrepresentation seems to be the real thing
The difference is not in the format, the difference is in the sound engineering techniques: the ample headroom of the old analog days vs no headroom and compression in the digital realm at the end of the century and a somewhat return to the analog approach with lots of headroom brought about by 24-bit. Random Access Memories were pressed from the digital originals but they sound amazing. Why? Two words: Bob Ludwig.
I don’t mind what they do as long as it sounds good
The sound quality of records did improve with digital recording in the studio, but vinyl is too flawed a medium for distribution. I can see the why some prefer analog recording in the studio. Some of the best audio I've ever heard has been well-mastered digital from analog sources. The Harry James CD's ripped from vinyl by Sheffield Labs, and some of the early stereo classical recordings from Mercury and RCA on SACD, are my particular favorites. But I see no advantage, at this point, for analog to ever again become the primary medium for distribution. If sound quality were the goal, why vinyl and not reel-to-reel?
Of course if we ever get to a situation where there was no more electricity, we could still play records.
Great post!
"The Harry James CD's ripped from vinyl by Sheffield Labs"
No Sheffield Lab CDs were ripped from vinyl. Doug Sax mastered the CDs from the backup analog tapes that were recorded at the same time the lacquers were cut. If you compare the original LPs to the CD versions it's no comparison, the LPs win every time.
@@BB.......... I'm glad they didn't master from vinyl! But if they did, back in those days you would've definitely heard it as they wouldn't have been able to get the noise out.
@@BB.......... They certainly do and why wouldn't they. Its one less noisy analogue step in the way of the music. Mind you they were still fantastic sounding CD's. A lot to do with the actual recording quality/techniques. The Sheffield crew knew what they were doing!
@@andrewhutchison3712 They certainly DID NOT! All you have to do is read the liner notes of the CDs, read some articles about Doug Sax re-issuing the albums on CD, and maybe even watch a video or two of Bill Schnee talking about it. Don't be stupid.
Well done. Thank you. I agree with you 110%.
Thanks for watching!
Thumbs up bro!
Facts spoken!
I love all formats!
Used to think vinyl was superior!
I now wish Blu ray audio was a common thing .
Great feedback!
Funny how the self-proclaimed audiophiles could not hear the "digital coldness" they claim to be able to perceive. It's no different to those who spend hundreds of pounds on their oxygen-free, gold-plated HDMI cables.
From what I understand, DSD is a far superior digital format, so I wouldn’t be too concerned about records being cut from a DSD master. They should have been more transparent (pun intended) about their process, though.
The merits of the various digital formats can be debated, but it's safe to say that what almost everyone agrees on is that Mobile Fidelity should've been, as you said, "more transparent" in their marketing.
DSD is superior, but the MoFi fiasco has convinced people that PCM is audibly transparent because they dont understand that these are completely different formats.
Fantastic video and take on this. Love your videos, Doug!
Great to hear.
All good points. But . . . one of the problems with digital is that the physical medium (CDs) doesn't always hold up due to flaws in the disc manufacturing process. And CD players themselves can introduce mechanical problems with skipping, transport break downs etc. In addition, streaming can be problematic due to limitations of bluetooth and such services as Tidal (ever have the volume drop off at the end of your Tidal file? Quite annoying.) These problems led me back to vinyl, not the supposed sonic superiority of analog bc digital recording is, as you stated, a perfectly fine process. Indeed, it was the poor quality of early digital remastering (reissues) that fed the vinyl resurgence. The strength of digital recording could easily be heard on Brothers in Arms and other digital recordings. I listen to all these formats equally, primarily based on convenience---I still own thousands of CDs and purchase new ones regularly
You didn't mention one thing... computer-based playback. None of the issues and streaming.
I have to agree with what our @soundstagenetwork brought up - computer-based playback from local storage fixes all that.
You will probably not believe me. I commented on an hifi forum maybe 2 years ago that I found some MOFI lps sounding a bit digital. It’s the case for Dire Straits first album, Santana/ Abraxas, and Jeff Beck/ Wired and Blow by Blow. I wrote at that time that even if they sound very good, dynamic and open, clean and quiet, something is missing vs the originals I have too. A certain kind of authenticity, life, naturalness. Most disagreed with me. You will certainly laugh, but I tried at least to share.
That could be! I've also criticized Mobile Fidelity recordings as sounding like nothing special, but that was in the 1990s and early 2000s. But truthfully, not ever reissue sounds that good.
Great video, but what about that Powell collection?? Need to hear about it
People love the boards -- and always recognize Powell. I have others, but Powells get the attention. I love skateboarding. I did some of it on this hi-fi trip. ua-cam.com/video/arxrv6OGJFQ/v-deo.htmlsi=TEkofqnvrw2YEYLH
in case of Kind of Blue, the Analogue Production’s UHQR version destroys the MFSL but I still
prefer the DSD due
to it’s dynamic and ZERO SURFACE NOISE. You are left only with the music
The Analogue Prods KOB was cut from the same Bernie Grundman master used for the Classic Records reissues of that album. Better mastering overall.
Bardia - Telling us *how* the UHQR “destroys” the MFSL would be more constructive. Hopefully you’ll see this and take a moment to share
When cds came out, everybody loved the sound of cds as they were clearer with less rumble. UA-cam led to the vinyl revival because it's easier to market a product that is 12 inches than one that is 5 inches.
Not all of us. Although I got onto CDs pretty quickly in the 1980s, I was underwhelmed at first. Over time, however, I found many spectacular-sounding CDs.
@@dougschneider8243 The transfers weren't always the best and there were speed issues on some of the transfers (ie Motown)
@@DorianPaige00 I don't blame digital that much. The technology had to evolve -- and so too did the people using it. Great improvements were made from the early days.
I was surprised that I didn't love the CD sound after buying my first decent CD player, a Kenwood to put in my system
Yes look how long analogue has had to get it's improvements
What people are falsely equating is
(A) Digital vinyl, as in an album that was recorded and mastered for digital but pressed to vinyl
With
(B) An album that is recorded all analog, mastered for analog and has used a digital transfer to cut to vinyl.
You could technically say both are digital
But you can't equate the two, they are not the same.
So be careful when you say people can't hear digital when cut to vinyl, because I can absolutely hear (A)
Thank you for bringing some common sense to all the vinyl heads. I am glad I did not go through this rabbit hole.
MoFi have product in the top class. They have a system that makes excellent products and is repeatable. They could make that into the mass market standard for all record manufacture but use it ironically for limited editions. They kept the price high by not disclosing the mastering and archiving being digital. Lots of people are forgetting to celebrate the quality because they want to be angry and, I guess at the price they pay for copies of MoFi albums, the notion that limited editions are a MoFi choice when they can make huge runs from DSD files with no degradation and sell them cheaper or, license their system to general record manufacturers to raise the general quality of vinyl replay.
We are lucky to have such good quality available even if MoFi secretly resorted to DSD to achieve it.
As tape degrades over time, DSD was intented to create a digital "analog master" for archival purposes. Did MSFL create a DSD master straight from he master tapes, or did they take the PCM route because you can't EQ DSD. I hope they will someday offer the DSD files for sale.
Great points. These are things we have been wondering as well
There's no surprise at all with MoFi. When you look at the pressing runs, there's no way that the master tape would be used. It would simply get worn out!
Exactly.
Only with their 1-step process, with normal process you just make new stampers from the mother.
I thank you for you video. you nailed the main points,
but there are more points which I would like to share with you::
1) The MOFI one step vinyl is cut from a DSD copy of the original analog master.
The cutting process is a chain of "analogue copying steps" which MOFI has been able to reduce from 6 steps (2 Laquer --> 3 father --> 4 mother --> 5 stamper --> 6 vinyl pressing) into 4 steps by cutting from a DSD file (2--> Lacquer, 3 Stamper, 4 Vinyl pressing ). Each step is an analogue generation, so a Vinyl pressing (which starts from original master) is a 6th generation copy of original master, and a Mofi one cut is a 4th generation copy of the DSD of the original master (or 4th generation of the original master if we assume that DSD is almost 1:1 copy of original master)
Here is the what I refer to as "The elephant in the room": The process begins with a 2nd generation digital copy of the original master, which by definition is superior to it's 4th (or 6th) generation analogue vinyl pressing. Any Audiophile who prefers a genuine copy of the original master would or should prefer a hi resolution digital copy of original master than a 4th to 6th generation analogue copy
2) Can a master recording be fully restored from a vinyl recording or from a CD recording? the surprising answer is answer is yes from a Vinyl, no from a CD!
Here is the information based on my technical knowledge and many years of professional experience I have 25 years of expert for original master restoration and remastering from vinyl recordings (as well as from original master tapes).
On rare occasions I get results which are sometimes better than original master.
I share below my knowledge experience and explanation:
2a) Vinyl ability: Vinyl pressing is like a time capsule capture of original master. you can find many examples on my UA-cam channel. i.e here : ua-cam.com/video/BhxnVT6Vs3U/v-deo.html
2b) Vinyl can capture the full analogue information which is contained on the original master. it has a frequency response capability from 10Hz to up to 50KHz
Vinyl has a Dynamic range limitation which typically is limited to 18 dB (i measured also 20dB LPs ), however modern CD and digital streaming are typically using a 16 dB dynamic range or less. The lightly compressed dynamics of vinyl can be easily restored to full dynamics.
Vinyl has limitation of low frequency amplitude due to grove limitation there for the range below 50Hz is lightly attenuated ( Apx. 6 dB via Low shelf equalization) but is present in the recording
Vinyl has limitation of High frequency tracking due to needle tracking ability there for the high frequency range has some compression together with light high shelf attenuation of the above 5KHz range, all this can be easily restored.
I find on many vinyl recording high frequency information above 35KHz and many that reaches the 45KHz.
Vinyl Adds surface noise and clicks and pops to the recording, this is unavoidable. however this added noise do not erase the audio information it only may mask some of it for our ears. I am specialized in removal of any Vinyl "fingerprint" on the audio information without any "sonic effect" on the original audio.
2c) A Standard Digital recording is limited to 22 KHz and for that applies a "brick wall" low pass filter of ~20KHz which has a critical phase effects on the audible mid frequency range phase. Digital recording can reach up to 0Hz at low frequency, however practical CD masters have a low frequency cut at below 30Hz which are lost and cannot be recovered. Most CD and now streaming production are adjusted for hand held devices performance this why they sound inferior to vinyl when are listened to on a high quality audiophile system. This is why the Digital reputation is so poor (this is before mentioning the MP3 additional effect )
2d) from the above reasons I prefer to use a vinyl recording as a source for Master recording restoration rather then a CD quality source.
3) Here is a link to a measurements I have performed on Vinyl ability
3a) ua-cam.com/video/yjEYNbAc3y4/v-deo.html
3B) ua-cam.com/video/ZQGWP0E_ioo/v-deo.html
Huhh???
@@SPAZZOID100
Thank you for your comment. instead of going into (too lengthy) discussion I ask you to please check the following UA-cam links. All are remastered versions from original Vinyl LP recording which I have made. hope you'll like the result and get a better idea to what are the capability of a vinyl recording to fully preserve the original master musical information and details.
1)
Santana - Se A Cabo - Vinyl remaster
ua-cam.com/video/Ad36oIw9GFM/v-deo.html
2)
Genesis - Squonk -Vinyl Remastered
ua-cam.com/video/xAHV0ylR6ig/v-deo.html
3)
Steely dan - Black Cow - High Dynamics MFSL Vinyl Remastered
ua-cam.com/video/32aZZi80yV8/v-deo.html
4)
Paul McCartney - Only Love Remains
ua-cam.com/video/CDCM4z0RaXI/v-deo.html
5)
Chick Corea - Central Park
ua-cam.com/video/NDqtfEEwNys/v-deo.html
6)
Quincy Jones - What's Going On - Vinyl Remaster
ua-cam.com/video/O3EeTDTdMXk/v-deo.html
7)
Supertramp - Goodbye Stranger - Original Vinyl Remaster
ua-cam.com/video/8ZKxAy9YqU4/v-deo.html
8)
Michael Jackson - Billie Jean - Vinyl Remaster
ua-cam.com/video/nUgJzoRua2M/v-deo.html
9)
Santana - Singing winds crying beasts / Black magic Woman Gypsy Queen - Vinyl Remaster
ua-cam.com/video/9aAoSJBHATc/v-deo.html
10)
ELO - Concerto for a rainy Day (4 Parts)
ua-cam.com/video/4aXuc0lKB_Y/v-deo.html
Some people prefer the sound vinyl for the same reason some people prefer the sound of valve amps - they like the "warmth" distortion adds to the signal. I'm surprised no one adds a "vinyl sound" setting to their DACs!
Yes agree with the vinyl to digital rip. I hear that vinyl heads are now ripping LP s to digital and sticking them on kickass torrents. A joke who wants to hear all that surface noise? Yes I do laugh because I have been sick of those who have been saying for years they hear the difference between digital and vinyl. 😂 don’t they look stupid. The Audiophiliac “Steve” is one that comes to mind. Reckons he can hear the difference between everything. He is full of it. Great video.
We need to thank Mobile Fidelity for embarrassing all the so-called vinyl “gurus” with their claims that vinyl is the superior format. MoFi has managed to prove that a good digital master is as good, if not better, than a vinyl master. In any case, most newer recordings do not exist on analogue masters, hence the only source would be digital. So what happens then?
It seems so!
There are artists that still like to record to tape, it’s not mainstream by any means, but artists still use it. I compare this to movies that are now recorded digitally, and not to film. Whether you like it or not, film adds a grainy appearance to movies, some people like it, some don’t even notice. I have never liked the cd, always buy records, and I like the way they sound, and having a physical product in my hand. Streaming is great for work, I stream music all day, while I work. I grew up in the 60’s-70’s, so I feel a connection to records, and nothing to a cd. I will still buy Mofi records because they sound great. Good news is, we have enough formats to please everyone. I will say that when Digital came out, it was the beginning of the end for artists, because people stole their work. Artists make very little money from the music, they have to tour, and sell ticket to make money.
@@jeffl915 I have a great fondness for vinyl myself, and have for the last 55 years. Even though I stopped playing records for almost 10 years, it did not stop me from buying records, and aptly described by you, purely because of the intimacy of fondling these lovelies with the tenderness and care they rightly deserve. Many vinyl lovers may not care to admit that why records sound good to them is it's inherent coloration which stems primarily from turntable arm/cartridge alignment and a host of other adjustments that make it a tweaker's paradise. These fine adjustments can make some impact on the musical presentation but more so, a feeling of intense personal satisfaction that one has attained the best sound possible from your record after tinkering with the multitude of adjustments.
The CD killed this and removed an element of "tweakability" and left them dead in the water. This started a new revolution of cable and Digital-to-Analog converter manufacturers to be born who used various designs and scientific theories to recreate a return to the aforementioned tinkering. This has remained an ongoing process until today and will remain as long as product marketing exists. With the advent of high resolution streaming (either PCM or DSD), this has only bolstered the effect and brought the entire industry to new heights, or for some, depths.
The greatest victims in this scenario are the artists themselves who have no control over this industry, and to them I can only offer my sincerest sympathy for the losses sustained due to this evolution of technology.
However I will still continue buying and listening to records, MoFi or any other reputable manufacturer that cares about quality and good vinyl formulation in their product, immaterial of it's source. It is in my blood, as probable as it in yours, because of the relationship we have had with this media over the many years that we have cared to listen to it.
To summarize this as eloquently as I can, analog is human and digital is mechanization.
@@garyproctor1032 Fie upon those who have "golden ears"; my music's all digitized and I listen to it via my laptop's stock DAC and a pair of mid-priced headphones. Sounds fine. One reaches a point of diminishing returns very quickly.
The reason so many original analogue tape mastered recordings were "archived" to 1 bit digital in DSD64 is simply cos that was all that was available at the time, 128/256 and above came later. The record labels needed a secure and reliable archiving method to store the recordings and tape was not the answer so they turned to digital, it was not perfect but simply the best solution at the time. The question concerning what media is best, analogue v digital or vinyl over a computer file is not simple to answer cos it depends on the equipment used (hardware & software) and the engineers, all have a significant influence over the final result. What makes vinyl different, the warmth the harmonics the tape/valve saturation can all be accurately emulated with software to the extent you cannot tell the difference !! That is what makes JRiver Media Centre so special, you can add in your own flavour of plugins like CrystalClear64 or Fabfilter Saturn 2/Pro EQ3 or a full channel strip allowing you to do your own remastering to suit your own taste. I like to start with the original reel to reel master tape digitised as my source where and when possible, its the closest you can get to the original analogue master tape recordings before they were butchered by digital
Your exactly right
The rest of the video is great btw
Love the powell peralta decks behind you
Absolutely the best video on this whole subject. Love that these superior audiophiles now eat crow because they couldn't tell the mofis were digital! I'll stick with my og copies.....
Why do you love that?
And do you think there is essentially no sonic difference between redbook CD and DSD256? That all digital has a common sound signature?
Terrible inaccurate information!
@@EskWIRED you can't convince them of anything, so no need trying!
@@analoguecity3454 Who am I trying to convince? And what is the issue?
Do folks really think that crappy 1980s CDs sound similar to DSD?
@@EskWIRED Nobody's talking about CDs. Quit trying to reframe the subject. Lee Herbert made an excellent point and it's also hilarious. Your reply was part of the hilarity actually.
Great video! Digital done right is acoustically transparent beyond the limits of human hearing.
It seems so!
Agreed.
Then nobody has done it right, because every set of digital converters sound different.
@@chipsnmydip do a double bilnd test. Your claim is baseless and talk is cheap.
@@AbsoluteFidelity I've done countless blind tests working in the audio industry.. Nobody in audio does double blinds because it is an elaborate and ridiculous waste of time and more appropriate for a prescription drug trial than a listening test. To a trained ear, on an accurate system, the difference between almost any converter, as well as any sample rate and bit depth should be apparent. This is EASY stuff if you actually experiment in person instead of relying on a textbook or some poorly executed study. The only people I've encountered that make claims about the amazing transparency of modern digital audio are people who have never actually done comparisons with their own ears.
Since nobody in the real world can be bothered to prove the obvious, the knowledge base of people who don't have experience is dominated by less than a handful of shoddy studies and screw loose ideologues. The common thread is always people asking me to waste my time, essentially get a PhD and run a million dollar lab test, to prove to them something they could easily discern for themselves on their own time if they were serious about the truth.
I think comparing digital and analog source components has a greater effect, that the difference between comparing digital and analog in the recording process.
Since 1979 many albums were recorded digitally on 3M digital tape machines . Alan Parsons made Eye in the Sky 1982 an Analog multitrack recording mixed to Sony 1610 digital format for the master...
I enjoyed the video. I choose not to listen to the digital media because I like and I'm used to the sound and the hands on that vinyl gives. At the end of the day a good recording is a good recording.
Why buy digitally sourced overpriced records if you can buy dirt cheap old records on second hand stores? Rich people who has money is their milking cow not us true music lovers.
I think most of the collectors of this new reissue vinyl from Mobile Fidelity might be taking your lead.
I think it's hilarious that the so called audiophiles couldn't hear the difference and now their crying into their beer! When Brothers In Arms was released they raved about the sound but it was a full digital recording. To me if it's sound good, that's all that matters no matter what the source.
Lex Peters - So called audiophiles listened to DSD records and liked them. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t hear a difference if they compared a DSD Lp from MFSL to a all analog version by MFSL of the same title.
I recorded a couple of vinyl disc to CD. All the vinyl noises went to the CD. I only did it so I could play the music on my portables.
A good enough reason to record them.
Once I got a denon HD cd recorder and a musical fidelity dac and mapleshade cable you need atleast an. Ortifon blue cartridge and needle to somewhat equal the cd
I don't think its fair to conclude the MoFi "scandal" proves there is no difference between digital and analog because nobody reviewed a MoFi pressing and said they "heard the digital". I don't think "digital" adds a "signature" that the human ear can pick out. Audiophiles who claim pure analog sounds better when there is no digital in the production chain are simply claiming "it sounds better" - not that they can hear that there's "digital". "better" is relative not absolute. Given two recordings that are otherwise identical, one pressed with no digital processing and the other with a DSP - some folks may legitimately conclude pure analog sounds better. This may sound like I'm in the "pure analog sounds better" camp. I'm not. I personally do not have ears tuned to where I can reliably discern a difference between pure analog and digital all else being equal. Maybe I hear a difference, maybe I don't. The point of this comment is the MoFi scandal doesn't prove there is no difference.
You`re absolutely right.
But i don`t think the likes of Michael Fremer would agree with you, ever.
Just because vinyl is their religion and you can`t fall from that.
Btw. this is one the debullshitting the discussion about mofi you can watch.
Please excuse my ignorance but did Mobile Fidelity advertise that they used all analog and sold products advertised as being all analog but instead contained some digital? If not how were people led to believe otherwise?
Yes, the company mislead and there was a judgment against them. You can read about it here. www.soundstagexperience.com/index.php/features-menu/pulse-menu/1112-the-mobile-fidelity-settlement-an-update
I don't have a problem with respect to sound quality if DSD 256 or DSD 512 recordings are made from the original analog masters and then used to cut a record. As someone who loves vinyl and frequently buys records, both old and new, I admit it is tough to beat DSD. Vendors should just be honest if they are using DSD as an intermediary between analog tape and a record lathe. As a rule of thumb, I prefer listening to good LP over a CD because of the sound, but to my ears can DSD outshine both. However, the rub with DSD is the limited number of recordings and cost. For example, try finding Frank Zappa's catalog on DSD or SACD - good luck with that. It is easier to locate and purchase well preserved used records for a reasonable price and you have the subjective experience of some really great album covers and inserts. Let's face it, part of the enjoyment of record is the album cover, especially those that fold open or have inserts. You won't get that from a digital file.
I agree none of them notice nothing wrong with mofi these people need to move with the time vinyl itself has a sound
Its really weird to me that a lot of folks are more interrested in some kind of gotcha than the fraud and false advertising.
What speaker is in your video?
Paradigm Founder 100F
I got back into vinyl when I purchased a new Pioneer PDR-609 real time analog to digital CD burner back in 2000. made many recordings of my Lp's to CD I would say many of them sound better than a often overly loud store bought CD.
All the analog magic (musical color and tone if you will) starts with the cutting head on the lathe hitting the shellac and ends with what comes out of your speakers. If what happens before any of that is poorly done all the pixie dust in the cosmos won't fix it. In ten or fifteen years, what digital can do will make all of this sound like tin cans on a string. If you can imagine an audio mastering A.I. that "knows" how any instrument sounds, has an encyclopedic knowledge of how any individual player does things, which brand and model of instrument was played, what kind of recording equipment was used in what studio that the recording was made in and can take a half dozen copies of the same record, "listen" to all of them where the snaps, crackles and pops are all in different places, recreate that battered 78 RPM record performance the way it would have sounded if you had actually been there. We ain't heard nothing yet.
Apply the ‘improvement to technology’ curve to analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) and digital-to-analog converters (DACs) since digital audio became a thing. In the early days of CDs there were definitely bad ADCs and DACs in use. Today bad ADCs and DACs are far more rare. Most of the differences in specs between the most common ones wouldn’t be revealed in listening tests. IOW they are far below the threshold of the human ears ability.
Vinyl records are not some holy gift that God bestowed upon us like some audiophiles believe. They are a flawed medium that delivered acceptable results at a low cost to achieve profits. I don’t hate vinyl but when I see what they are charging for a vinyl record with another re-release of classic album it’s just another niche collectors market designed to suck as much money as possible from the small base of consumers.
In fairness it's not all profiteering (although that's certainly a factor!). Manufacturing vinyl records is necessarily going to be expensive now than it was 40 years ago because the economies of scale that made them cheap to produce back then no longer apply. It's a niche medium and that means niche prices.
Enjoy it or use it as a Frisbee. And apparently there cheaper to buy at the moment.
There is a big difference within "digital". DSD and PCM are both digital but very different. A lot of players play DSD by converting the signal to PCM.
Kudos to PS Audio for promoting (pure) DSD all the way. Too bad there are so few recordings in DSD (SACD).
Actually, the pioneer of DSD in hi-fi is Ed Meitner of Meitner Audio and EMM Labs. In terms of tech, the PS Audio DSD-type DACs look an awful lot Meitner's DACs have for many years. Also, Ed was who helped Sony with the 1-bit DAC architecture for the DSD project.
It's the "low resolution " digital is what you can hear 44.1k/16 bit or lower, not 96k/24bit or higher! Vinyl does have more information in the grooves! The vinyl is only playing back the quality of the source weather low or high! If you cut a record from analog tape , it will sound better than than the same record cut from 44.1k! Hogwash, vinyl has much higher resolution than digital, and it has a wider dynamic range (measured below the noise floor)! And not all people couldn't hear a difference, there's a lot of us who knew it ! But DSD is so close TO TAPE that's tough to hear the difference! So this scandal didn't prove shit!
"Vinyl does have more information in the grooves!"
If it has more information than what it was cut with, where did it come from?
Well, the price of the MoFi lps will not change. If anything, they will charge more. Trust me. If some folks are unwilling to pay, that's ok. There will be others who will buy like me. Regardless of whether it is analog or a digital file, MoFi has total control and can limit production and create scarcity....just like Swiss watchmakers.
All music is subjective, no matter the format. There is no better or worse. Listen through the playback system that brings you joy.
...consumers are not upset about what they hear.
The're upset about what they THOUGHT they paid for.
True!
The best analog record is the one made before the digital area. So by used records made before 1979. If you want the sound digital, stream digital music.
Yep, all my records are used, second-hand, first pressings.
Incorrect.
People upset that their ears aren’t so golden after all.
Most of the youtube videos that I have seen totally disregard the fact that many of the ORIGINAL MASTER RECORDINGS from the studio are digital originals. Where do these fit in the scheme of things?
That's a really good question - that might get addressed.
That would be great. Also, do you think that the golden ear crowd could hear the digital reverb and delay used in most recordings since the 80’s.
They are still original master recordings. They don't have to be analog to be original or master.
@@emilspec1227 100% agree. In fact, most today aren't analog. But his point is a good one -- what about those digital recordings, which are more than likely to be PCM.
@@dougschneider8243 nothing wrong with PCM. Just have a listen to Cowboy Junkies "The Trinity Sessions".
Terrific video. I think it frees us to just enjoy the music, regardless.
Exactly.
Common Sense AT LAST Thank God 👏
Glad to hear.
Glad to hear you think so!
"Nobody actually heard the digital" you claim. Nobody? R U sure? Did you talk to everyone who purchased MFSL vinyl? I purchased a few MFSL vinyl titles and they remain sealed. I'm quite certain MANY Mo-Fi buyers do this. Hard to "Hear" digital when you don't LISTEN, won't you agree? Also, did MFSL offer the same pressing all analog and DSD?
They did not, so unless you can compare them side by side, is it not almost impossible to "Hear the digital"?
Myth #2. Are you now arguing that digital recording is NOT sampled? Or are you arguing sampled waveform (most of it, but not all) is every bit as good as the entire waveform? Either argument is idiotic. Is 95% of a pie as good as 100% of a pie? Is an airline flight that gets you 98% of the way to your destination as good as all the way?
Digital audio does have advantages. It also has disadvantages.
My daughters fiancee once told her "Your dad probably can't hear the difference between an MP3 and a wave file. I'm a recording engineer. It's my friggin JOB to hear that.
I asked him if he'd like to wager on that. He foolishly agreed. He recorded a single piano recording at 128, 192, 256 and 320 mp3 and uncompressed wav.
I asked him to play each, tell me which was which, then play any file randomly, and I would not only tell him if it was wav or MP3, but what BIT RATE it was. He bet me $50.00 I was wrong. After 17 consecutive "Lucky guesses" he gave up.
So don't tell me no one can "hear digital". Maybe YOU can't,. but that doesn't mean others can't.
Digital is superior in measurements? Care to point me to those please? That pre signal "ringing" on digital devices is superior? How exactly?
I'll leave you with this: My Martin D28 is an analog instrument. Acoustic piano's analog. Horns, strings, analog, voices, analog. Acoustic drums are analog. Microphones are analog. Speakers are analog. Even CD players and DACS convert back to...............wait for it...............ANALOG.
If digital recording, those wonderful musical ones and zero's are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO superior, why do we not have digital speakers? Digital headphones? Digital ears? Digital BRAINS?
Starts analog, finishes analog. I'm NOT going to argue with the Nyquist idiots about this. I'm simply stating FACTS.
One final FACT. MFSL LIED to it's customers. They LIED to their dealers (I used to be one)
The whole digital vs analog debate is dumb. It's all a matter of opinion. Some people prefer one over the other. Some people like digital sound. Some like analog. Who cares which one is superior. Just listen to music and enjoy it.
I think U are missing the point. If U take a digital recording and release on CD & LP I still think the LP sound better and it is the vinyl that make the difference. Just my opinion.
@Rik ster Love that one and will keep it in mind. No wonder the taste was a bit off
@Rik ster
I just thumbsed you up on that one. Hilarious
The vinyl gurus shot their own feet with their rants ... you know what those rants are
Oh yes -- and a number of those were well past their reviewing expiry dates. I wouldn't be surprised to see them simply fade to obscurity now.
Is that Paradigm Founder speaker next to you?
Yes.
"Digital" is not specific enough. What resolution?
Duh. Nature is analogous. You can't reduce nature to a binary signal. That requires translation into a code that only machines can process. You don't listen to binary code; the machine has to translate it back into an analog signal for your ears to hear it. The entire process is an artificial attempt to reproduce nature. It took decades from the time that the concept of using digital as a storage medium for digital audio became a reality. When I took a Music Appreciation class circa 1970, one lecture was presented by the state of digital music which was the production of simple frequencies such as those in a child's digital piano. When I was in the Navy in 1976, operating a mainframe computer dedicated to basically word processing, nobody I asked thought it possible that computers would process sound. Meanwhile, analog sound production had reached a level in the 1960s such that recordings made at that time are still regarded as some of the best ever made. Digital will always and ever be an attempt to mimic analog.
So we are looking at the convergence of two different timelines, and although the history of digital, from whatever application realm we consider, is one of exponential development, analog has maintained a level of perfection achieved before digital took it's first baby steps. Eventually, the engineers were able to provide enough data processing and storage to reproduce sound at an audiophile level, although the fact remains that the goal is to approximate nature. The way they did this was to chop the signal into small enough bits to "deceive" the ear into thinking one was listening to something natural. Early digital was to music as Minecraft is to real world.
Ok, fine, the industry succeeded in fooling the public into believing what it was hearing is what came out of the strings, horns, and vocal chords. But what comes out of a computer has an inherent flaw, and that is the stored information is susceptible to degradation every time it is processed or reproduced. This is why analog copies, which have been analogously reproduced from beginning to finished product, are so important to preserve.
Archivists have a problem with access to information stored on previous generations of formats. Is there any guarantee that complex sound recording and reproduction equipment, along with the complex software used to develop it, will still be available to make it come alive? By come alive we mean something that the senses can recognize. Here's a floppy disc. Try and find a computer that can show you what information has been stored there. Any vinyl record can be brought to life with the simplest reproduction device such as a folded piece of cardboard with a post to manually spin the record, and a needle attached to the bottom corner of a folded flat side of the player. Such a simple device was actually designed to bring audio to remote parts of Africa. All that was needed was to unfold the device, snap the tabs into place, set the needle and spin the disc. A million years in the future, any culture with the ability to fashion simple tools would be able to figure out how to play records. You cannot say the same for CDs or DVDs.
Cuneiform tablets survived better and longer than any other means of storage. They will survive longer than digital or vinyl. Perhaps the next generation of analog recording will come up with some silicon-based medium that is more durable than clay, stone, or vinyl. It will still be infinitely more useable and decipherable regardless of the level of sophistication of the culture than any digital medium, which requires development of optical readers, determining the purpose of the artifact, reproducing the encode/decode steps, and all the hardware and software developments necessary to resurrect the sound, let alone share it with anyone.
I would never try to convince anyone who wants to listen to a digital source to change. If everyone would employ streaming, I could find original LPs in great condition at low prices. Vinyl playback simply sounds better to me and many others. Pointless to debate.
I agree
Very odd that this was considered a scandal in the first place. Mofi has released plenty of contemporary records which must have been digital recordings before creating the analogue master.
They know that you can create a perfect copy without the degradation of cloning an analogue master or hassle of mastering from the original tapes by working from a digital master.
Why would you not seek to create new digital masters for everything you want to press in that case. Especially if all new releases are digital anyway. If sound quality is the goal it's obvious why Mofi uses the technically best way of preserving it.
Any sound characteristics you prefer about vinyl over digital are entirely down to the mixing (some mixes intended for vinyl are different from digital presentations due to the nature of reproducing stereo on wax) and the equipment you have. Many of these characteristics can be replicated in the digital space with EQ.
Edit:
There's a reason audiophiles are enthusiasts and audio engineer's are professionals :)
The reason is was considered a scandal is because Mobile Fidelity misled consumers -- and that was demonstrated in court. That was really the issue. Frankly, when I first found out about it, I thought, "Of course they're using digital, what else?" But then it was shown to me that for many albums, Mobile Fidelity was actually claiming they were mastering direct from master tapes, not a digital intermediary. So that was really the issue.
@@dougschneider8243 absolutely fair enough if they were claiming to use an all analogue process. Thanks :)
@@sundae-bb And I had to look that up -- and they were claiming that. People were finding video interviews highlighting that they said just that.
The problem is the price and the number ! Original master ,2000 pices 100 dollar ???
If ypu write ,original master converted in dsd ,no limit album 30 dollars is more correctly. Saluti dall'Italia
Very good point! The market will probably tell us soon.
to be honest, at least one prominent vinyl person now claims they heard things on several of mofi's albums and decided not to say anything at the time, for whatever reason. take that with a grain of salt.
Hi. I take that with a grain of salt because, as I mentioned in the video, there are some trying to save face now by claiming they heard something and were going to say something, etc. But never did. The fact of the matter is that no one called out digital -- but the same vinyl gurus praised many of the releases as the best sounding ever.
@@dougschneider8243 agreed.
If you rip a vinyl with fs=>192khz ,yes it starts to be audioble and accurate compare to vinyl. Less than that nope
I'd like you to explain why you think that a little more -- but I fear the response, too.
@@dougschneider8243 First of you should not consider MoFi quality as top. You should first compare an original first "full analog"release and a MoFi release.
Then we can talk about sampling rate , phase shift , frequency response etc.
When a CD quality (fs=44.1kHz) have 2 samples 20kHz , do you considers this accurate in sound recording?? 4.8 samples @20kHz sound when fs=96kHz? Or even better 9.6 samples @20kHz sound when fs=192kHz?
@@Bandit400VC Do you understand how sampling theory works and reconstruction filters? It can help to explain what's happening at 20kHz.
@@dougschneider8243 happened to study them at the University
@@Bandit400VC So it's long been established that with a proper reconstruction filter, the time resolution of even CD-resolution playback exceeds human hearing. So are you saying that's not true?
Excellent
You picked a bad example. The Miles Davis kind of blue sounds dead compared to the analogue productions version.
The Miles Davis record is simply up there to show a Mobile Fidelity release. The video is about Mobile Fidelity in general. But the point I made about it was that no one called it out as being digitally sourced. If there are problems with the sound, no one pointed to that.
Sorry Mate but I've got both the MOFI and the UHQR Miles Davis and there is a big difference the UHQR is better in every respect.
I can believe that. But no one called the MoFi out for being "digital." Not all remaster/reissues sound the same -- for myriad reasons.
When people talk about "digital" audio, 99.99% of the time they are talking about PCM audio which does change the sound compared to analog. MoFi uses DSD, which actually sounds like analog, but it functions and sounds fundamentally different from PCM and should the two should not be conflated as the same thing under the umbrella "digital". In reality, DSD is an exotic and prohibitive format that does not represent what all but the tiniest fraction of digital audio, which has the same issues as ever.
I'm not sure that anything has shown that PCM changes the sound. All of the tests that have been done that I've seen that have inserted digital into a playback chain to check for transparency have been done with PCM.
Regarding DSD being "exotic." Not really. DSD is pulse density modulation. The DSD origins could arguably be the bitstream DACs that Phillips came out with in the late 1980s. People can pretend that DSD isn't digital -- but it's digital. But what might be true is that it is "prohibitive" -- from an editing point of view. Any substantial editing has to be done in PCM.
@@dougschneider8243 I can say that I have inserted a PCM ADC/DAC into an analog signal chain hundreds, if not thousands of times with around 15 different professional converters in tracking, mix and mastering environments. It is obvious every single time, with every converter, at every bit depth and sample rate. The first time I ever heard playback that sounded almost exactly like the tape machine output was DSD. No contest. The idea that any PCM ADC/DAC on earth is perfectly transparent is a myth held together by a small number of flawed studies. In fact, no recording medium or signal path is, even DSD, but DSD is transparent to a satisfying degree.
DSD IS exotic because it is rare, supported by only one current workstation, and can't be natively processed at all (it's more like a tape machine), and thus doesn't fit in the workflow of most modern recordings. These are the reasons it never replaced PCM and remains fringe.
DSD64 is waaaaay better than pcm 24 bit 96k, and better than 16 bit cd's, and better than mp3. Do an a-b comparison of the same exact mastering job, one AAA and one AAD and then you'll get answers. Not sure this video or the MoFi thing busts any myths. There's all kinds of idiots who say they can hear things -- doesn't mean shit without a proper, unflawed a-b comparison
DSD may be a superior digital medium, but a well mastered cd sounds great too.
Fremer has transformed into Nathan Thurm. Martin Short would be proud.
For us, if it sounds good, we’re satisfied. However, we do not care for Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs lack of transparency or anyone else for that mater.🎧
That seems to be the consensus.