|
Fill the same as aberyclark
Once you tell the lie and know that it's going to produce fooled buyers how can we trust MOFI again.
|
A couple of thoughts:
1. This is about misleading marketing practices...not which one sounds the best. A One Step could be made from an 8-track tape dub and may be the best sounding ever. However, the box needs to say the source and signal chain for such expensive pressings.
2. Analog vs Digital. My guess with today's digital converters one would need to hear the original master tape and then a flat transfer(DSD) from that tape. Any sound quality differences at the consumer level probably has more to do with the mastering tweaks and/or format (LP, etc) and it's inherited sound charactoristics.
|
I don't own any of them.
Always so much speculation on this discussion board. I can tell you with certainty that mine don't sound any worse after getting this "news". You may not think they are "worth" the asking price, but go try to find a copy of the Nightfly (or most any of them for that matter) and you'll see they are not losing their value.
|
There are any number of great sounding originals and reissues of “Sunday at the VV”, probably because the recording process must have been so well done and the results so superb.
|
I wonder if we will see a lot of mofi UDS1 vynil for sale less than $100 album. I will still buy Bill Evans Sunday at Village vanguard UDS1 for $125 used in good condition, digital or not. I heard this album it’s phenomenal.
|
One-Steps suddenly seem drastically overpriced. I don't own any of them. Though if they were fully analog I would have no problem with their charging that amount. My small collection, 10-ish, MoFi albums are absolutely fabulous values to me. Transparency is key, they need to do drastically better in that regard, and then the market set the new prices. Regardless of their source the "regular" ones I've bought were well worth the $40-45, on average, that I paid. They are all phenomenal sounding.
|
To minimize confusion the compression that I am addressing and is a bigger issue than if MoFi is using digital or not.
The album is done since decades and in some cases the artist is also at this point dead and gone.
Someone (in my book the record labels) is taking those ready and finished songs especially when digital we went to CD (and computers) "The issue garnered renewed attention starting in the 1990s with the introduction of digital signal processing capable of producing further loudness increases."
It is easy to just run over a set of songs in a computer and adding "loudness" at a disired and set level:
Super Trouper diffrent compression levels
So in the above example we see the exactly the same song with different compression levels on different releases.
That is EXACTLY the problem!
We are mislead to think "that is the same mix and THEREFORE the same version that I am comparing between two different formats." (I am guilty of the same mistake in the past.)
Yes, it is true that it is the "closest" we can get but it doesn’t mean it is the same "version" when the song probably is more compressed on one of the formats and we do not know. Only the record labels that has supplied the files to the pressing plants (LP/CD for example).
Now if we understand that.
Then we can proceed with in this example MoFi. When they digitize the master band they are in the computer.
If they offer us THAT copy to us then that would be the best and the closest we would get to the original master tapes EVER.
That is the ultimate version for consumers.
BUT..
Consumers think that they just take that 4xDSD and convert it to DSD (SACD) or CD (PCM). If they would so then we would be happy.
That is NOT happening and that is not what we get when we buy the MoFi SACD. (Besides that they has cleaned up artifacts and other issues from the tape (Ex. tape hiss))
They of course add dynamic range compression (loudness) as we see above to their choosing degree.
That is a bigger issue that record labels DO NOT TELL US LEVEL OF DYNAMIC RANGE COMPRESSION. That they treated/used on the files that they supply/giving the files to the pressing plants (LP/CD).
So it is a far smaller issue if MoFi use digital or not.
This issue has brought down superior formats by the record labels and they indirectly steered and manipulated us towards inferior formats in my humble opinion.
And NOBODY talks about it like nobody talked about about that MoFi used digital in 2015/16 when they started for example one steps.
Maybe it is to complex topic and it is not helping that people talk about normal compression and compressors in the recording studio while creating the mix. That just clouding the water.
When it is after that the song is completely done and sent of to a data storage under labels control.
If that is deliberately or any agenda behind to do that I don’t know. But as we all can see in the link above, it is proof in the pudding that when we can clearly hear AND measure AND see that this is the case. Someone (read labels) add variation degree of compression on different releases and most likely labels don’t want us to focusing on that. That would result in a bigger debacle for all music lovers and not just for them that has bought MoFi pressings.
|
Tonight I brought out my copy of ’Monk’s Dream’ on the ’One Step’. I wanted to hear how the sound of the piano came through, as this instrument has always sounded a little off when sourced from a digital file, at least to my ears. The SQ of the piano was still exceptional, and in no way did i hear what I usually hear with a digital re-creation! This is either not a DSD file transfer of this piece, or MoFi have somehow managed to do something that really no others have managed in this regard. Doesn’t excuse their lack of transparency when it comes to the digital aspect of some (all?) of these releases, but it is interesting nonetheless!
|
The latest in this debacle is that an unnamed (but well known) Mofi executive called a Youtuber to try and get him on Mofi’s side, but ended up blasting Michael Fremer and made implications that it was the buyers fault for misinterpreting!
The original video was quite long and rambling, but I edited down the revelatory bits to a couple of minutes and put a comic spin on it, in case anyone is interested.
Fremer saw it and emailed me and seemed pretty shocked at what Mofi said about him. (there is a link to original Youtuber’s video where talks about the call in full.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17qVmjz_ZkY
Some background - I own about 6 one steps and bought into the hype even though the file of the Paul Simon one step that Fremer posted sounded far inferior to playing the SACD rip, so needless to say I’m no longer an MFSL buyer, and cancelled 4 upcoming pre orders, since I prefer to play digital sources as files/DSD files rather than LP.
|
Thanks @twoleftears . I thought maybe they had put something up about the MoFi story. It will be interesting to see if they have anything to say about it.
|
I have a handful of MOFI LPs. In general, I think they sound great. However, I would have to say that every Tool album I own sounds better than my MOFI albums and the Tool albums are not MOFI. Quality control probably has a lot to do with sound reproduction.
|
@tomcy6 It's in the July/August 2022 Absolute Sound print edition. I don't think it's been posted on line yet. It definitely discusses analog/digital stuff, as well as Tim de Paravicini's contribution.
|
I made the same mistake FWIW...
|
@atmasphere said: "FWIW dept.: the correct term is 'lacquer'."
Thanks Ralph. I guess I always used the terms interchangeably. Not sure where I picked that up. We were still kids, I think, and one of my friends while in high school started engineering at a local studio. It was great fun for me to visit him at night when he got free time. Probably 1972. Old habits.
|
Optimize. You seem to be stuck arguing from your own set of facts. But the omitted fact is that RBCDs suck compared to a high quality LP played on a "very good" system, and any critical listener can hear that. I’d say RBCD is only a cut above MP3. If this were not the case, we wouldn’t be where we are now, and there probably would not even be an Analog Forum. I am not arguing about hi-rez streaming or even SACDs here, but in your original diatribe you managed to leave out all the physical aspects of playing a CD, not to mention the limitations imposed by RBCD standards in and of themselves, whilst harping only on those related to playing an LP.
Now here I go contributing to exactly what I hoped would not become the subject of this thread, digital vs vinyl. Sorry.
|
Glad to hear the One Steps sound so good. I haven't ponied up for one yet -- maybe I should.
If they really sound so much better, it doesn't bother me that there is a digital step in their creation. Is the difference audible? Is it better or worse with a digital step? My ears probably couldn't hear the difference.
|
I haven't read through all the posts, but have people also seen the recent article in Absolute Sound?
@twoleftears I can't find it on their website. Do you have a link?
|
@blisshifi I'm sure they work fine! As with all things, so much in digital depends on execution. I would not expect any greater dynamic range if you are dealing with sources that use compression to begin with. But you might have greater resolution.
|
Whether an uncompressed digital source file was used for the LP mastering is another matter entirely and depends largely on the producer of the project.
Thank you Ralph (@atmasphere) for this very informative post in its entirety and for your particular comment above. Moving on from redbook vs vinyl, do you have any thoughts on the dynamic range of high resolution files (considering they were produced to take advantage of the range) and its performance in a low-noise, caching local server with a stellar clock and architecture? Yes I know that many digital front ends aren't up to the task, but there are a few that I believe are.
|
Anyway, it seems like one of their advantages is process, apart from custom made Tim de Paravicini analog paths (probably preamps, amps and modifications to the lathe?). They are able to cut an acetate, have it plated and pressed and listen to it, as one would a regular LP.
@whart FWIW dept.: the correct term is 'lacquer'. Acetate is the paper material used in early reel to reel tape, as opposed to polyester. It breaks easily but does not stretch and sheds far less that polyester tape. So if you work with such a tape for a remastering project, it typically won't need baking.
|
I haven't read through all the posts, but have people also seen the recent article in Absolute Sound?
|
The rep also stated that they would even occasionally go to the trouble of ’baking’ the master to improve the transfer ( which at the time i thought as odd).
@daveyf Baking the tape is done to chase water molecules out of the polyester tape backing. This is done to prevent shedding of the oxide and is a good practice when handling older tapes from the 1970s and on. Its done at a lower temperature and works best if you are patient. Anecdotally we mastered a reissue of a folk album once and had access to the master tape which was stored in the musician’s attic- which is an ideal place to store tape long term as it tends to be hotter and dryer in attics. The master was made in the early 1970s and was in excellent condition. If you’ve ever wondered how cassettes could hold up over 20 years when stored in a car its a similar process.
That is totally false. CD has greater dynamic range in theory and in practice.
Why many THINK that it is the opposite is just of the reason you told.
When LP is the analog equivalent with the digital MP3 but even worse in some cases. With that I mean that LP is in data terms a lossy format and worse is it adds random click and pops that were not in the source so it is worse than MP3 that do not add those artifacts.
Do some of the mentioned steps add any sound quality:
- Lacquer cutting does it add Sound quality?
- Plating and additional plating (father, mother..) does it add Sound quality?
- Pressing when first LP is different than the last when the stampers is worn out. does it add Sound quality?
- Vinyl compound different is more or less noisy does it add Sound quality?
- Profile of the stampers flat profile does it add Sound quality?
- More or less excentrisy does it add Sound quality?
- Better TT with more or less wow and flutter does it add Sound quality?
- Better tone arm does it add Sound quality?
- Better cartridge does it add Sound quality?
- Using better canteliver does it add Sound quality?
- Better stylus shape does it add Sound quality?
- Uni-din, Löfgren A/B, Bergwall and so on does it add Sound quality?
- Better adjusted SRA, anti scate, VTA, zenith and so on does it add Sound quality?
No NOTHING of the above does add Sound quality!
But what vinyl production and playback does is it just try to do each point with as little harm as possible in other words all steps tries to lose as little sound quality as they possible can so we see all is lossy and add clicks and pops.
With all that said when we hold a LP in our hands it is a physical copy protection when it is not possible to go back by digitalization, to the digital source that the LP were produced from when it is NOT lossless.
So you often have to go back to the label and request such a file.
When label know that above and LP need all they can get when it is lossy. Then often the digital files that are used for lacquer cutting is allowed from the labels that supply a less or not at all compressed digital file.
So many comparisons between CD and LP is not appels to appels when they are two different files one more compressed than the other (but yes it is still the same mastering engineer and so on).
And on the other hand the digital media (CD and the others) there is no problem to do a bit perfect copy so the label don’t want us to have to good sound quality wise copy from them (otherwise also it would be harder to sell a reissue down the road).
So in theory and in PRACTICE CD are better than LP in every possible way. And many comparisons that shows otherwise is flawed when the one that compare thinks that they compared the same version when it were the same mastering engineer.. And not knowing that LP pressing plants are getting a more dynamic copy of that digital file than the CD pressing plants got.
(As a side note regarding LP. Is it is satisfying to get better sound quality when going from spherical stylus to line contact. But most of us thinks naturally that wow we have increased the sound quality, now we have not we are only having and doing LESS losses than we had before. The degraded sound quality were always in the grooves. And we can’t enhance that in any way just to preserve it as good as possible.)
I should address this as this post contains a variety of misconceptions about the LP.
I was correct about dynamic range of the LP. It can be wider than the digital release because the digital release is usually compressed. There’s no need for compression in the LP. Whether an uncompressed digital source file was used for the LP mastering is another matter entirely and depends largely on the producer of the project.
This might come as a surprise but the lacquers cut by the cutter head are dead silent and easily rival Redbook for noise floor. If you play such a lacquer, assuming that the cutter was set up properly the electronics to play it back will be the noise floor. The surface noise of LPs come in during the pressing process, but ticks and pops are usually not a part of that, even if the pressing was done at a less than stellar pressing plant. FWIW Acoustic Sounds has their own pressing plant called QRP in Salinas, KS. They sorted out that by damping vibration in the pressing machines as the vinyl cools that they can cut surface noise. By my measurements it can be up to 20dB which came as a bit of a shock. We did a project through them a few years back and the noise floor was so low we were wondering if the stylus was in the groove when the music burst from the speakers. In a nutshell while obviously not all LPs are this quiet, to assume that because one is noisy that such represents the format isn’t logical.
When you make an LP, typically you have to sign off on a test pressing. Nearly every LP made has a test made to insure the integrity of the stamper. This means ticks and pops can cause rejection of the stamper (which usually means the project has to be remastered) but if the pressing house is any good this is a rarity.
Due to endemic poor phono preamp design during the 1970s and 80s, ticks and pops are often the result of the phono section (due to poor high frequency overload margins) rather than the LPs themselves unless the LP has seen poor treatment (CDs treated poorly don’t fair so well either...). The phono preamp I use has plenty of HF overload margin so as a result I’m very used to playing entire sides without any ticks or pops at all. I’m often asked if I’m playing CDs at shows on this account- people are so used to ticks and pops they just assume its part of the LP experience when its often a symptom of poor phono preamp design.
FWIW since the inception of the stereo LP in the 1950s , its had bandwidth well past 40KHz. Not that there’s anything up there, but just to test this I’ve cut test signals at those frequencies and played them back on the old SL1200 we used to see if a regular pickup could handle what we were cutting. The idea of the LP being a lossy format is simply false. By comparison reel to reel tape of any track width and speed has less bandwidth, higher distortion and reduced noise floor.
My recommendation to anyone thinking otherwise is to spend some time with a mastering lathe and work it out for yourself. Doing so caused a lot of impressions I had about the LP to die a horrible death. Again as I stated earlier, the dynamic range limitations occur in playback, not record. This too is where most of the measured distortion occurs. An LP mastering system typically runs 30dB of feedback at all frequencies so is actually a very low distortion system.
People get such variable results from LPs, since some are good at tonearm setup and have better phono sections and others are terrible at it while others are somewhere in between.
IMO/IME if there is a particular advantage of digital is this latter bit, since generally you can do a plug and play with good digital equipment and get excellent results. That’s a lot harder with analog; with all the misconceptions and outright misinformation surrounding it this should be no surprise.
Now one might think since I’m presenting this information that I’m a particular fan of the LP. I do have to admit that now that I understand the mastering process from hands on that I do have more appreciation for the format. But I’ve got no problem with digital; the big issue for me is the delivery- how do you get it into the home? CDs are fine but if they get in trouble there’s nothing you can do but extract it from the player and play something else. With the LP if a crystal of sugar or other foreign object has caused the stylus to skip you can remove it and proceed.
|
Given that I have now viewed about half of the "interview" on Youtube, and that it is certainly possible that this question gets answered later on, one thing strikes me as also shocking, and it really is not to do with the digital aspect. These guys at MoFi are taking some huge liberties with the work that was vetted by the musicians when they heard the original recording!! It seems almost as if they are changing the artists and the original master engineerings thoughts intent and expectations, as to what the final product should be. One thing that I would question would be would this be accepted by the original artists IF they knew in advance that the final result would/could be so ’modified’?? Better to the guys at MoFi may not be better to the artists! ( this from an ex-studio pro musician)...
Nonetheless, so far I do seem to see a ’justification’ of this DSD "non-disclosure" based upon the fact that MoFi ( well the guys in the video, not necessarily the rest of the company?) seem to believe that their method is the best option for ultimate SQ. Too bad that this ’opinion’ might not be shared or accepted by other listeners/consumers.
|
@lewm why couldn't I?
It is not my fault that people compare compressed source material against uncompressed and they think that they compared appels to apple?
I could say the same
You can't compare lossy LP production to lossless CD?
Ok let's take another angle..
If LP production process steps were lossless why do MoFi need to do several test pressings from their 4xDSD?
They should be able to just EQ and make the DSD as they wanted to sound and send it directly to production, done deal.
No the problem is LP production process steps subtracting sound quality and attenuate some frequency range more than others.
That is ONE reason that they do test pressings. So they can listen and analyze what has been attenuated and then they can boost the DSD file accordingly so the NEXT test pressing will supposedly sound as they would like it to sound from the new adjusted 4xDSD file..
In other words they adjust the 4xDSD file as a tool so they can work around and compensate for the degradation that the LP production process steps introduce.
But I can't understand why it is so hard to understand that?
I am a huge vinyl lover but I do not pretend that it is something else that it isn't. 🙏💕🎶🎼🎵
|
My Mo-Fi LPs don't sound so engaging my Mo-Fi CDs do what a world.
|
Optimize, you cannot possibly still be arguing that even RBCD, played on a home CDP, is superior to high quality vinyl reproduction. Can you?
|
Sorry for error. It's Ultra Deck.
|
I purchased the Yes Fragile MoFi One Step record. I have almost every version of this album from the MoFi Gold cd, to the Blue Ray, the Atlantic cd's and record. None come even close to the One Step. On my MoFi Ulra Deck turntable the sound is second to none by a huge margin. The guitar on Mood for a Day sounds like it's in my room with me. It has more body, texture and realism, that makes every other version sound disappointing. You also need a really good phono stage. I have a CAT preamp.
|
A lot of misinformation regarding digital vs vinyl in this thread.
|
|
The only thing that bothers me is the lie by omission. I prefer forthright behavior.
Exactly! The final buyer must be informed of what he is buying, without omissions.
|
So you often have to go back to the label and request such a file. The reason is simple: digital release files are compressed since there is an expectation they will be played in a car.
For this reason the LP frequently has greater dynamic range than the CD (or other digital format). About the only way you're going to get that is if you get an LP that was mastered without the compression.
For those that argue that digital has greater dynamic range, why would anyone do that, that sort of thing; in theory yes in practice no.
That is totally false. CD has greater dynamic range in theory and in practice.
Why many THINK that it is the opposite is just of the reason you told.
When LP is the analog equivalent with the digital MP3 but even worse in some cases. With that I mean that LP is in data terms a lossy format and worse is it adds random click and pops that were not in the source so it is worse than MP3 that do not add those artifacts.
Do some of the mentioned steps add any sound quality:
- Lacquer cutting does it add Sound quality?
- Plating and additional plating (father, mother..) does it add Sound quality?
- Pressing when first LP is different than the last when the stampers is worn out. does it add Sound quality?
- Vinyl compound different is more or less noisy does it add Sound quality?
- Profile of the stampers flat profile does it add Sound quality?
- More or less excentrisy does it add Sound quality?
- Better TT with more or less wow and flutter does it add Sound quality?
- Better tone arm does it add Sound quality?
- Better cartridge does it add Sound quality?
- Using better canteliver does it add Sound quality?
- Better stylus shape does it add Sound quality?
- Uni-din, Löfgren A/B, Bergwall and so on does it add Sound quality?
- Better adjusted SRA, anti scate, VTA, zenith and so on does it add Sound quality?
No NOTHING of the above does add Sound quality!
But what vinyl production and playback does is it just try to do each point with as little harm as possible in other words all steps tries to lose as little sound quality as they possible can so we see all is lossy and add clicks and pops.
With all that said when we hold a LP in our hands it is a physical copy protection when it is not possible to go back by digitalization, to the digital source that the LP were produced from when it is NOT lossless.
So you often have to go back to the label and request such a file.
When label know that above and LP need all they can get when it is lossy. Then often the digital files that are used for lacquer cutting is allowed from the labels that supply a less or not at all compressed digital file.
So many comparisons between CD and LP is not appels to appels when they are two different files one more compressed than the other (but yes it is still the same mastering engineer and so on).
And on the other hand the digital media (CD and the others) there is no problem to do a bit perfect copy so the label don't want us to have to good sound quality wise copy from them (otherwise also it would be harder to sell a reissue down the road).
So in theory and in PRACTICE CD are better than LP in every possible way. And many comparisons that shows otherwise is flawed when the one that compare thinks that they compared the same version when it were the same mastering engineer.. And not knowing that LP pressing plants are getting a more dynamic copy of that digital file than the CD pressing plants got.
And this is why CD got bad reputation when if we put crap on it then it will still be crap coming out from it. And it doesn't matter if CD can in practice contain more dynamic range if the CONTENT is not having any dynamic range..
(As a side note regarding LP. Is it is satisfying to get better sound quality when going from spherical stylus to line contact. But most of us thinks naturally that wow we have increased the sound quality, now we have not we are only having and doing LESS losses than we had before. The degraded sound quality were always in the grooves. And we can't enhance that in any way just to preserve it as good as possible.)
|
OK. So, go to In Groove Mike’s page on YouTube. Before this controversy, I had not realized how much people rely on Internet videos for guru-ism. In Groove Mike is not a slick guy, and was characterized as a "strip mall record salesman." He’s not. He owns his own building in Phoenix, and knows records- apparently his store is a lot of fun, with all the audiophile warhorses (yawn, but I get it). He loves MoFi and collects it.
He did an expose video on July 14, he flew out to the Mofi mastering lab on July 19, met with the three engineers and video recorded a discussion, which he posted on July 20. (Again, if you go to his YT channel, you’ll find it). This is where the MoFi engineers conceded that they did a lot of the mastering from the 4XDSD. Mike then posted a follow up on July 21--kind of a post-mortem of what went down at the "bunker" session the day before. Mike was crushed since he loves MoFi. Obviously (or not), he and the engineers spent time talking about the landscape of what they would cover before the bright lights glowed at the mastering lab.
MoFi is now providing supplemental information on its sources on line, starting with the recent and soon to be released stuff. They will apparently work backwards into the legacy stuff that is sold out. My understanding was, all the One Steps were based on a 4xDSD file, but don’t take my word for it-- check the interview video. There are over 400 pages and somewhere near 10k posts on another site, but my mission is not to divert traffic. What’s interesting is that the MS Audio M hasn’t said anything yet- a few minions said, "get over it," but they only proved who they were beholden to.
Hope that helps.
|
@whart I’m not sure, is that the video that is in the OP?
That I did view. Is there another video with an "interview"?
One question though, and I do agree with your last two sentences 100%, is this:
MoFi absolutely should have been more transparent and disclosed these issues, if true...BUT what if they knew with 100% certainty that the very best way to make these records sound their absolute best was to go the DSD route, given the anti-digital bias that most of us have ( including myself), would they have been wise to disclose this fact and have to somehow convince the folks that they were right all along (probably impossible); or simply just release the best sounding vinyl that they knew how to make, and let the results speak for themselves? Ethically, like you say...appalling, no question....
|
@daveyf - You've seen the "interview" video right?
|
While all of the posts so far have been interesting, no one seems to know for 100% certainty that ALL of the MoFi "One Steps’ are sourced from digital mastering/ files?
For example, i would be surprised if the recent Muddy Waters ’One Step’ was sourced in this manner...or for that matter the previous Anadisc 200 gram release of the same title!
|
@blisshifi - I’m not Ralph @atmasphere but I posted this to another site as my understanding of MoFi’s work flow:
According to AZ Mike in today’s recap video (this one, the day after the "interview" video posted), once they have the 4XDSD file, they use their analog mastering system. There’s a video a page or so up thread (here), which has 3 minutes of Krieg talking about mastering and shows their set up.
People asked about mixing or working with 4XDSD- my take, more as an analog than digital guy, is that the file gets played back (not sure they told us what digital recorder and playback they use) into the analog mastering set up. There, it looks like Krieg has a pretty full board, can mix (to the extent two tracks allow you to do anything), pan and probably EQ. I know they can use outboard units too- @TLMusic (who I haven’t seen in a while told me George Peckham aka Porky was famous for using those rare Fairchild tube limiter/compressors on his mastering set up, which gave it that beefy, bombastic sound).
Anyway, it seems like one of their advantages is process, apart from custom made Tim de Paravicini analog paths (probably preamps, amps and modifications to the lathe?). They are able to cut an acetate, have it plated and pressed and listen to it, as one would a regular LP. And they claim they did this multiple times, to hear how their "work" actually played. That would be an advantage. Over tape? Maybe if you are worried about a fragile tape, but I think the problem isn’t the condition of the true mixed down master, it’s that the labels won’t let ’em out the door. And if these guys found it easier, faster, better for work flow to just do the 4XDSD (I dunno), we’ll see how many of the recent releases went the DSD route rather than analog tape. Based on the interview, I suspect a fair amount.
Happy to be corrected on any of this."
@blisshifi -I don’t know if that answers your question. The benefit to you (as opposed to MoFi) is that you are playing a digitized file (cut by analog means and processes) through whatever turntable playback system you have; in my case, my vinyl front end is far better than my digital front end, so I benefit from that. Does it have some of the drawbacks of vinyl? Of course-- out of my cold dead hands, right?
I don’t think this is about the superiority of either format or medium. Both can be good or bad. It’s all about MoFi’s integrity, selling based on process for improved sonics. The argument about "well it sounds better so what’s the harm" excuses what I think are some serious efforts to mislead regarding their "steps." I think the fact they hid this to be appalling, but I’m also willing to give them the time to make it right, if that is possible. It is not going to happen overnight.
|
@atmasphere and anyone else who might know. You mentioned when you were cutting LPs:
digital release files are compressed since there is an expectation they will be played in a car
Is this still true today, especially for modern high resolution digital files, for instance those that are offered on hdtracks or on SACD? I know most modern pop music still doesn’t have high dynamic range, even when pressed to vinyl, but there are still a number of productions across genres that strive to preserve the integrity of this range.
If what @mceljo is saying is true about SACDs having greater dynamic range than vinyl (which seems plausible), and say the digital playback chain (clocking, DAC’s digital chip and digital implementation, the DAC’s analog stage, low noise, etc) is of a reference quality, then this would mean that there really is no benefit to playing the vinyl version of same mastering regardless of how great the pressing quality is, unless the listener prefers how their cartridge and phono stage sounds over their DAC or “prefer the distortion characteristics built in to record playback that are pleasing” as @jallan says, right?
Under these specific circumstances, there is really no possible benefit to the vinyl? Or am I missing other variables to consider?
I’m not trying to argue this in a “one is better than the other” manner, but just trying to understand the full picture for consideration. Thanks.
|
Failure to disclose certain information certainly isn't telling the truth. Whether that bothers one or not is for them to decide. I'd be interested in what SPARS code on jacket states.
|
@jdm11 - I think the physical interface with vinyl will always sound different than with a digital source, but the dynamic range of the two forms of media can also have a significant impact on the sound.
The dynamic range on SACD is significantly higher than vinyl, so an analog recording that was mastered for vinyl can be put on SACD, but the opposite is not true. If a recording is mastered for SACD and uses the full dynamic range it must be compressed to be put on vinyl.
Paul from PS Audio had an interesting video on this topic where he explained several of the ways that audio can be compressed to fit on vinyl. If done well it brings the bass levels up and results in a warmer and richer sound that is often associated with vinyl.
|
You make some good points. $125 is a lot of money for a 12-inch album sleeve and the cachet of the vinyl experience. I phrase it that way because:
What other features of this product would benefit the consumer should the sound be comparable (or inferior) to a digital copy, since the source is digital from the get-go?
People like what they like, and can spend their money however they see fit. I’m not sure it is fair to smear MoFi as some dishonest company. Had they explicitly stated their products were purely analog then, sure, this charge would be valid.
It is worth pondering as an audio person the cost/benefit ratio of many vinyl purchases. Analog is great. Sometimes we just want an album on vinyl, and may be fine with a $30 vinyl copy that was sourced from digital. I think it’s fair to say, “my willingness to spend a high premium for a particular album is based on having a purely analog experience.” For me, personally, this is why I pay the big bucks for certain albums because it will be inherently different (and perhaps notably superior) to its digital counterpart.
|
Not to stoke a digital vs analog debate…but I think it’s entirely reasonable to think that in many peoples stereos, especially if they have worked on improving their turntable/arm/cart/preamp front end, that a $100.00 Mofi pressed using a digital master could still sound better than the $30.00 SACD. So many variables.
|
This has apparently been going on since "2015", anything prior your good, after, not so good...
I have Eric Clapton - Unplugged, on both Ultradisc and sacd formats, and both sound excellent.
|
I could care less. They certainly weren't 100% up front about things - taking the route of silence that is perhaps more troubling to some than the issue at hand. But if it sounds good and the price is right, I'll purchase it. If it sounds good and the asking price is too high, to hell with it.
|
the extra HF boost... we are getting what we demanded!)
Love it!
|
|
My older, 80s and 90s, MoFi’s sure do not require treble attenuation. They’re excellent with no EQ, and though my ears are now ancient, they were not so old back when I first heard the LPs for the first time. But I have no rock and roll from that era and never would have invested in an "audiophile" rock and roll LP, owing to the contradiction in terms. Most of that stuff was recorded for 7-inch 45 rpm jukebox disc and sounds it. All I have are jazz LPs from that era, and they are still a treat to listen to. I do have one high end re-issue of Buddy Holly on Classic Records, I think. It’s a very high definition collection of several different low definition recordings, though I loved Buddy Holly.
|
10k+ records here over the past 35 years, some $1 some $1000, none Mofi.
|
Lot of passion in the reactions.
Few observations of mine on my expeirence with the mofi I have (2000s):
*In every case when I have original LP, the original is far superior
*In every case, the mofi is much hotter than theoriginal
*In every case, compensating for EQ (bringing HF down about 4dB) yields a more balanced listening experience. From record to record the experience differs, some are better done than others, for example my MOFI Pink Floyd Wish you were here is quite enjoyable with the HF cut, but the ELP Tarkus is quite castrated, lacks all energy and you wonder how that music ever became popular.
*When you don't have a good condition original then having the mofi is MUCH better than not having anything.
*Sure, we can all enjoy digital recordings in digital format in high quality, but when you already have a high level vinyl rig (and you neglected your digital front end), then an LP with digital master will give you better results than a digital file with a mediocre digital front end.
I suspect the news will create / has already created a dent in the reputation. Yet, those who have been using their ears to actually LISTEN to the Mofi LPs - well, it was not a surprise to me.
Also, I'm not blaming nor shaming them, they need to work with the material available, there's no way around that. I'm sure they are getting the most out of the available sources. Kudos for the effort. (I would personally prefer a more fleshed out EQ than the one they prefer, but that's personal & most audiofiles seem to prefer the extra HF boost... we are getting what we demanded!)
Cheers;
Janos
|
