MoFi controversy

@aberyclark , neither Philips nor SONY invented DSD. Philips was the first to work on applying it to modern audio. Sony jumped on and they created the SACD standard.

We are audiophiles. If we never bought anything from companies that use deceptive marketing practices, we would be listening on Gramophones.

I love a good controversy!

I did not know that Mofi claimed to use only first generation master tapes. Are you sure? That sounds like a bad practice. Common sense would be to use the generation that has degraded the least. Some of those 2nd generation master probably got less use over the years.

I own some Mofi. I never even considered whether they were AAA ADA, or whatever. I bought them for how they sound. If using a digital intermediary step is what got them there, then I am glad they did!  I got them to listen to, not as an investment. Whatever happened to "If it sounds good, it is good."?  Removing two plating steps is a far bigger improvement than any loss converting to digital and back. Their alternative was to create their own 2nd or whatever gen analog tape copy. That would be even worse and it would degrade a little every time played. Progress is hard to swallow people.

They do appear to have shot themselves in the foot with that Ultra Analog marketing stuff. I could see them getting fined for that, but good luck as the end consumer seeing any of that money. To prove damages, you would need to prove it sounds worse than if they didn't do that. Good luck with that. Forced to accept returns? Perhaps, but they likely go bankrupt first.

@moonwatcher, what engineers do you know who believe that PCM does not even come close and that DSD256 and better is perfect?  You have been listening to Paul's spiel at PS Audio a bit too much. I don't think he is an engineer in any sense of the word. 24/96 is the vast majority of what is done digital today during recording. Why? 24/192 only creates more data but does not sound any better. Even if someone was to record in DSD, practically no one mixes or masters in DSD. They convert to PCM, work in PCM, and then convert back to DSD. Even Sony's DSD editing system isn't pure single bit DSD at high data rate. It is converted to 8 bits. With PCM, all the tools are, or have moved to 64 bit processing internally.  If it makes you feel any better, all those 24 bit ADCs are sigma-delta converters so essentially start as DSD, then just convert down to PCM.

Audiophile companies make stuff that audiophiles will buy. That does not mean it is better or best. Somehow DSD got a reputation within the community, not because it sounds better, but probably because the recordings were better. If you are working purely in DSD, out of necessity, you are probably doing less tinkering. Philes still like physical media too. Not many have SACD players any more, but even fewer philes have something that can play a physical high resolution digital disc on their audio system that is not SACD.

@moonwatcher it is probably best to learn from people who understand how this technology works and people who think they do. There are too many philes that fall into the latter camp.

DSD samples more often, but its sample size is much larger. It needs to apply sophisticated noise shaping to move the noise out of the audio band to higher frequencies. Guess what, virtually every PCM ADC and most PCM DACs do exactly the same thing as their interior structure is a sigma-delta converter. Most PCM converters on playback upsample to a higher frequency as well. This allows simpler analog filter. Interpolation happens in the digital domain but it is a mathematical process and effectively perfect. In the analog domain there is no interpolation. It is simply a low pass filter. That low pass filter makes sure all the steps connect into as perfect an analog waveform as possible. Feeding in a DSD signal does not result in any better analog waveform on the output.

Here is the crazy thing about the phile world. They will believe many things are are inherently at conflict. For instance they talk about the superiority of DSD, while shunning sigma-delta ADCs. Sigma delta DACs are PCM mathematically converted to something that is effectively like DSD but using multiple bits to improve performance. They could do single bit, but the results would be worse.

Why not use DSD in computers? Because speed or not, it is a poor mathematical description of a signal to work with. 24/96 already represents everything perfectly up to past 40KHz. 24/192 already represents everything perfectly past 80KHz. It is already very hard, some argue well impossible, to tell the difference between 16\44.1 and 24\96 if you do the testing properly. Using TIDAL/ Qoboz as a comparison would not be considered an adequate test. Under no conditions will anyone be able to tell the difference between 24/96 and 24/192 data (note use of the word data). We aren't bats.  So absolutely it can be argued that a higher resolution file cannot sound better. We are simply not equipped to hear the difference.

There is a whole lot of phile beliefs that were perhaps one time true as well, but no longer are if they ever were. Whole product categories have rised out of these misconceptions. DSD is in many ways no different.

@budlite22 , coffee? I think you mean a good laugh: https://www.atrtape.com/sound-of-tape I don’t know what they were smoking when they wrote that, but they should have been reading instead. Tape does not sound more life like. It sounds like tape.

You got it @secretguy , I am new and have not been brainwashed yet. Better ask me questions quick before my brain is sullied.

@budlite22 a wise old salesman once told me. It is our job to tell the customer what is better about our product. It is our competitors job to tell the customer what is wrong about your product. You don't lie to the customer and you never sell them something that will not work for them, but other than that, you just tell them the good stuff.

I will play the competitor to magnetic tape:

• While it is true that there is a high density of tape particles, our competitor left out a few key points.
• The storage and recording is affected by magnetic particle density. It is impossible to keep the magnetic particle density perfectly consistent along the tape causing distortion.
• In addition to manufacturing inconsistency, the tape moves left/right changing what the tape head is exposed to independent of the audio signal causing distortion.
• Our competitor did not give an accurate description of the process of magnetism of the particles. There is both orientation and strength of magetization. It is the strength that is the signal level. That strength needs to be communicated to the tape and taken off the tape. It is true there are lots of fine particles, but the signal levels are low, which contributes to analog noise.
• Magnetic materials are not linear. As the field gets stronger, they will store less and less magnetism. This causes compression which is a harmonic distortion.
• The tape does not move perfectly linearly by the tape head. It shifts left, it shifts right, it stretches, it rebounds, it even bounces on the head a little. This causes wow, flutter and signal distortion.
• Every time you play a tape, the tape head become partially magnetized. This slightly demagnetizes the tape every time you play it.
• The layers above and below can also cause magnetic changes in the tape.

Oh Mr. customer, I forgot one thing. While it is true the number of magnetic particles per second is high, it is a poor analogy to compare to digital. A tape head does not read single particles, It reads all particles under the tape head at once, and when the tape moves, it is not exposed to a single new particle, but a whole row of particles. All the particles in a line act as one particle no matter how many of them.

Our competitor makes a good product, but the technology has fundamental flaws that cannot be overcome without starting from scratch and redesigning everything rendering everything you have already obsolete. Even then, many of those fundamental flaws will exist. I applaud their pushing their technology to its practical limits, however, if the benefits they claim existed, they would be able to easily able to demonstrate their advantages, not just write about them. Any time you wish to compare the two technologies side by side, whether using measurements or with a listening test, we will provide our equipment to participate in that testing at the venue of your choice. Other customers of ours have attempted to do a similar head to head test, but our competitor has not participated as of yet.

@budlite22 , be happy they used a DSD4x digital transfer. It ensured you got the best quality possible. If they used analog tape, there would have been a loss of quality, especially with their process where they make the limited use stamper from the laquer which I believe means they need to play the tape lots of times.

@sns

I feel for the average audiophile. They are not technical. The are bombarded day in and day out by advertising, media articles by audio personalities, and comments by other audiophiles that are filled with a litany of incorrect information if not outright lies about supposed deficiencies of digital or superiority of analog. Critical thinking and analysis is not only not encouraged, it is actively discouraged and the few people who possess the background to speak knowledgeably on the topic are treated like a pariah.

I have absolutely no doubt that MoFi used a DSD transfer because it was if not the absolute best option sonically for them, it was close enough and superior to any analog format they could have chosen. Their process of going to the studios and accessing 1st generation tapes is the right one. Others using all analog processes will not be using first generation studio masters to run their lathes. In most cases the 1st gen would not even be allowed to leave the studio necessitating use of an inferior 2nd or 3rd gen which will still be called a master, and then they may need to make a generational copy, not to mention the inherent generational copies in the a most complex vinyl stamping process which MoFi avoids with their 1-step process.

So while I feel for audiophiles, I have no sympathy for them in this matter. They are totally responsible for the conditions that resulted in MoFi feeling it was advantageous to without information about a digital processing step as opposed to being honest that by any measure, their use of a digital step resulted in a far superior end product.

Thank you for the post @moonwatcher.   I hope all the people who hold analog and tape up as some holy grail will hone in on one sentence,

And besides, as a tape lover myself, finding new tape that sounds good is a problem. After Ampex/Quantegy went out of business, I had questions whether I could tolerate the sound of new tape... some of it sounds worse than PCM recording - just my opinion.

I will repeat it again for those that do not want to believe,

sound of ... tape

If tape has a sound, then obviously it is far from perfect.

I don't think it was because the reviewers and vinyl\analog promoters did not want to know, or didn't want to ask an uncomfortable, for them, question. No, for all their bluster as being the experts, they simply did not know and it they didn't ask because it never occurred to them to ask. Nothing nefarious except not holding nearly the expertise they claimed.

Unfortunately, people want to hold onto their truths, so some companies are getting accolades because they are "pure analog", working all analog from the masters to the stamp. From the article above and as I stated.  It will not be the original, 1st master, driving the cutting heads. It will be a 2nd gen, maybe 3rd gen (but still called a master). Do you see all those pure analog companies telling you how many steps removed from the 1st master the tape driving their cutting heads are? Nope.

If their customers are audiophiles with the stated goal of the best sound possible, then what is more contemptuous, providing the best sound possible but not clearly defining how, or using an inferior all analog process and then claiming it is the best when it quite clearly is not the best possible and they know it is not the best possible?

To my ears, most of the new reissues, including the most famous audiophile brands, sound like digital.

Which means exactly what? No one knew. No one was screaming for the last many years that they sounded digital (whatever that means). A big difference in modern audiophile vinyl is how much quieter they are. They may have a wider frequency response due to superior equipment. Does that mean they sound digital? Digital does not sound like anything except flat frequency response without noise.

The only thing the DSD transfer will do is remove a generational loss. If they added another analog tape step, there would be more noise, more compression of high level transients, etc.  It is as close to the 1st gen master as possible. Then again, that 1st gen master is possibly quite old now.  Do you associate more realistic high level transients as "digital"? Perhaps.  You may associate softening of those transients as more natural as it is what you are used to, even if it is less natural.  Many analog records were pressed by 2nd and 3rd gen tapes, so more of the above noise and softening of high level peaks. The 1 step process may also preserve more transient detail. It may not even be the digital step.

@sns with the fragility of older tape, I expect most tapes used to cut the vinyl were a few steps away from the 1st master out of caution and necessity. I have to assume the people who were making the master to the vinyl knew this and may have accounted for generational changes in the sound and compensated. I am guessing though. Are there any 90 year old mastering engineers in the house?  Perhaps the goal of being pristine to the 1st master is flawed?

@sokogear that is just Philelore talking.  I can run a DAC off a laptop with an isolator, spend $1,000 on a DAC, and get far more resolution and accuracy then vinyl could ever dream of. That would be true of a $100 DAC too. Yes, true. There is absolutely no point on which vinyl can stand though many will try. Run a Pi off a linear supply instead. Same result. A Bluesound Node with an external DAC, same result. Almost no one uses a transport today, most streamers are purely to extract money, and the present day cost of 50 years of streaming at what I am paying would suffice for but a small record collection. No shipping, no driving to find things, etc. All there. I have about 10,000 songs in my permanent library. If my ISP is down, I have 30 days before the license expires.

@alexberger I don't discount the "synergy" between who knows what the frequency response is of vinyl setup and the rest of a system, the euphonics of high distortion, and other artifacts programmed over decades.

@dconsmack you know what the best analog sound sounds like? It sounds exactly the same as digital. That is a fact that audiophiles would be best to accept. Now if what you really want is a bunch of stacked artifacts just saw so.

Turntable setups are finicky beasts that are rarely perfect. Frequency response issues, high distortion, crosstalk, all kinds of nasties. An SACD will never sound like your turntable even if the two recordings are mastered for as close to the same result as possible. There are too many artifacts and non fixed variables in vinyl.
 

I am defending the result of MoFi not business practices. If your organic produce was grown on overused old cotton fields, do you think the result is better than non organic?

@rauliruegas ,

I am not sure I have seen a woofer that does not have some breakup at higher frequencies, at least to some degree and this is especially true when you look at the off-axis response. The problem with only using the inductor is that the impedance of the woofer goes up with frequencies. Hence that single inductor is not going to attenuate that breakup very much. You may end up with something that sounds lively with some music, but pretty bad with other music. You need to capacitor to turn the woofer off before it starts creating problems. If you don’t want the cap, perhaps an active crossover would be a better path.

Sorry @atmasphere I hadn't refreshed this tab and didn't see your reply.