MoFi controversy

Optimize, you cannot possibly still be arguing that even RBCD, played on a home CDP, is superior to high quality vinyl reproduction. Can you?

My Mo-Fi LPs don't sound so engaging my Mo-Fi CDs do what a world.

@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. 🙏💕🎶🎼🎵

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.

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.