MoFi controversy

Hi @sns,

I completely agree with you.

In terms of sound quality vinyl before ~1965 is really special. I don't say it is better than any digital records but nothing gives me similar enjoyment of sound and music.

For example, most records produced from 1965 to 1970 do not sound good and good digital or analogue remastering of same records sound much better. I think in these years the main issue in sound quality was in record pressing production and less in masters itself.

The pressing quality has improved by 70x, but most of the records are not very special except some like for example, Sheffield Labs.

Regards,

Alex.

@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.

To theaudioamp… I didn’t buy a MoFi record because I wanted the best sound possible. I wanted the best ANALOG sound possible. If I wanted the best digital sound possible I would’ve bought an sacd or a download. I wanted the analog experience. I have hundreds of digitally sourced records. The thing I was paying extra for was the analog experience. I wanted to know what the best a team of engineers could do to take analog as far as it could go, warts and all. If you argue that DSD makes a better record, fine. But I didn’t want a DSD record no matter how good it sounded. If I was paying extra for organic produce and I found out it was conventionally grown in another country, I’d be pissed even if the imported produce tasted good. Anyway, it’s clear no explanation or analogy will make you understand that what MoFi did is unacceptable. 

@dconsmack - MoFi corrected the mistake that some have taken issue with. I didn't care. 

I want the best sounding record possible. Your organic produce argument doesn't hold weight - there are no health benefits to pure analogue.

Not sure why you want the best analogue sound possible, don't you care about pressing quality? . Are you trying to judge engineers in a contest for third place (or lower) in terms of SQ? Engineers can do a great job, but if the pressing sucks, what is the point?

@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?