I am somewhat confused: if they have great ears and 10K-100K etc system how come they didn't hear the digital "pollution"/limitations in those recordings?
Mobile Fidelity Settlement Update
- ...
- 73 posts total
You're the first person I've heard claim that the records were plagued with "digital pollution." Which titles do you own, @grislybutter? |
@cleeds there were quotes around it, and it was meant as a joke mostly. I don't own any "titles". |
Y'all need to deal with facts of this controversy. After 1980 there was digital manipulation of every mix transferred to a Master Tape. So an analog master tape from after 1980 transferred directly to vinyl today is not 100% analog. Before 1980 you can find 100% analog tape masters that may or may not be in good condition. If you have only 1 analog master tape and you perform a 100% analog transfer to vinyl, that master tape has to be used each time a single LP is produced. 1,000 LPs means 1,000 times the master tape is played, resulting in wear and degradation of something that could initially be fragile. Good way to destroy a precious single copy of an all analog master tape from the 50s. You analog enthusiasts should be well aware of that fact. But I guess it is more important for you to get your own "analog" LP now without concern about degrading or destroying the original master tape. Screw anybody else today, tomorrow, or in another 50 years having the opportunity to enjoy a slice of history. Unless, of course, you part with an LP from your "analog" collection for a tidy profit. MoFi made a technical choice to produce the best quality LP without destroying master tapes. Plenty of information has been around for a long time about MoFi, their mission statement, and other claimed analog direct to LP producers. A little homework is required to educate oneself and understand the entire context. Too bad there has been little of that in this situation.
|
- 73 posts total