[www.washingtonpost.com]

"Mike Esposito still won’t say who gave him the tip about the records. But on July 14, he went public with an explosive claim. [...] MoFi Records claimed its expensive reissues were purely analog reproductions. It had been deceiving its customer base for years. [...] “It’s the biggest debacle I’ve ever seen in the vinyl realm,” says Kevin Gray, a mastering engineer who has not worked with MoFi but has produced reissues of everyone from John Coltrane to Marvin Gaye."

PS: The Mobile Fidelity studio released a Stones box set. However the article refers to the One-Step series.
[donaldscarinci.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2022-08-07 16:13 by GivenToFly15.

Interesting, MFSL issued a statement that they'd be more transparent on both future and past releases, but haven't yet or really said when they would start.

If it sounds good, who cares? (Well, the audiophiles obviously...)

Quote
StonedRambler
If it sounds good, who cares? (Well, the audiophiles obviously...)

Yes I have a ton of these but prior to the disputed "one-step" process and they do, or should I say did, sound great. Been decades since I've played any of them (I don't even have a working turntable currently) yet I'm hanging on to them anyway (and a huge amount of my vinyl collection), hard to let go of something I spent my youth collecting.

I've found it a huge giggle that people claim with authority that vinyl sounds better than digital and a lot of new vinyl releases are Pro Tools recordings.

“One of the reasons they want to excoriate MoFi is for lying,” Howarth says. “The other part that bothers them is that they’ve been listening to digital all along and they’re highly invested in believing that any digital step will destroy their experience. And they’re wrong.”

Wood says that MoFi decided to add DSD not for convenience but because its engineers felt they could help improve their records. He remembers hearing MoFi’s reissue of Santana’s “Abraxas” in 2016. “My mind was blown when we got the test pressings back,” he said.

The main reason people think that modern digital remasters sound good [or even better than the original] is that most people have crappy turntables with poor information retrieval and no real dynamic range .

I recall an interesting possible explanation of what analog listener miss in digital. A well known engineer put on an LP with nothing recorded in the grooves and pointed outwhat he called "pink noise" generated by the friction of the stylus on the vinyl, which added a subtle dimension/warmth to the sound of LPs.
If youre into that sort of thing- this book is a great read- Perfecting Sound Forever: An Aural History of Recorded Music Paperback. The analog vs. digital, sampling rates, etc discussed with the industry's heavy hitters at length.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-08-12 17:37 by roryfaninva.

At some point you'd have to think the sampling rate is beyond what the human ear can comprehend.

Quote
kovach

At some point you'd have to think the sampling rate is beyond what the human ear can comprehend.

The sampling-rate of HiRes-files is not only about frequencies - HiRes sounds also more detailed, transparent and spacious. And 2.8MHz/1bit DSD has nothing to do with bats ....

Not by MFSL, but: the 2016 RS Mono-Box and the 2018 RS Vinyl-Box 1971-2016 are based on digital HiRes-files - [TheAudiophileMan.com] , [www.AbbeyRoad.com] .

Similar Ultradisc-product also by Analogue Productions / Quality Record - UHQR-Vinyl of Jimi Hendrix' "Are You Experienced" - $125 - [Store.AcousticSounds.com] .

Hi Res Sound "PLAYBACK" compared to standard CD quality only allow to get ultra frequencies that are out of audible range and to feature louder theorical capability (also known as dynamic).

But, again for PLAYBACK, HiRes down to CD quality will sound the same unless you are able to play at full volume something that is encoded with a range over 96 dB - personaly I do not know any recording that reach that level of dynamic.

Quote
Irix

Quote
kovach

At some point you'd have to think the sampling rate is beyond what the human ear can comprehend.

The sampling-rate of HiRes-files is not only about frequencies - HiRes sounds also more detailed, transparent and spacious. And 2.8MHz/1bit DSD has nothing to do with bats ....

Not by MFSL, but: the 2016 RS Mono-Box and the 2018 RS Vinyl-Box 1971-2016 are based on digital HiRes-files - [TheAudiophileMan.com] , [www.AbbeyRoad.com] .

Quote
ds1984

Hi Res Sound "PLAYBACK" compared to standard CD quality only allow to get ultra frequencies that are out of audible range and to feature louder theorical capability (also known as dynamic).

I'm listening since almost 10 years to HiRes-Music via HighEnd-Headphones and cannot confirm this often mentioned 'for bats only' theory.

I've often made A/B-comparisons between CD & HiRes (same mix of the same release) and while frequencies were the same, HiRes sounded more detailed, transparent and spacious. CD sounds more compact.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-08-14 17:25 by Irix.

The CD was foisted on the record buying public. The sound quality was, and remained, woefully inadequate.

Digital recording technology has improved by magnitudes over the last almost 40 years [and may even be getting good enough ]

...but once you've lowered the market's expectations to the level of CD sound , the music industry has no motivation to provide the best possible domestic media.

That is why the best domestic sound available is still probably from old wholly analogue recordings, played back via a high quality record deck.

The problem is not the mix but the mastering.

The only way to ensure you have the same mastering is to perform the down to 16/44.1 or 16/48 Khz from the HiRes source.

And then perform an ABX.

Quote
Irix

Quote
ds1984

Hi Res Sound "PLAYBACK" compared to standard CD quality only allow to get ultra frequencies that are out of audible range and to feature louder theorical capability (also known as dynamic).

I'm listening since almost 10 years to HiRes-Music via HighEnd-Headphones and cannot confirm this often mentioned 'for bats only' theory.

I've often made A/B-comparisons between CD & HiRes (same mix of the same release) and while frequencies were the same, HiRes sounded more detailed, transparent and spacious. CD sounds more compact.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-08-15 18:41 by ds1984.

Quote
ds1984

The problem is not the mix but the mastering.

I don't think record companies do different masterings for 44.1kHz/16bit and HiRes - it's very likely just down-converted.

But I fully agree that it doesn't matter if it's CD or HiRes when the mastering is bad. I also agree that there's no automatism for: 'the higher sampling-rate the better it sounds'. There're recordings who really sound good at 48kHz/24bit and there're recordings who don't although they're in DSD.

Funny was an DSD256 (11.2MHz/1bit) 1950s Jazz-recording where you can clearly hear hum from an ground-loop on stage - the hum is what DSD256 is then needed for ....



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2022-08-15 20:20 by Irix.

I suspect that it's no longer the technology which is the the problem.

The science is getting there...but the industry no longer has any engineers with ears!

There have certainly in recent years been plenty of good sounding digital recordings ...but they remain the exception rather than the rule .

[Over compression for loud impressive playback sound remains a huge issue too]

And it remains the case that most digital remasters of old analogue recordings would be better described as "Digitally Disastered "

[Earlier in the thread Irix mentioned the 1971-2016 boxed set .
The chap who mastered those used the best sounding flat digital transfers and made a point of not brick walling or over compressing them in the mastering . They sound for the most part pretty good ]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-08-16 11:40 by Spud.

MoFi Hit With Lawsuit Over Analog Vinyl Controversy

[www.billboard.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-08-24 14:02 by GivenToFly15.

The analogue zealots [me included ] have to accept that remastering and cutting from original 1960s and 1970s tape stock is increasingly unfeasible as the tapes age.

We have to admit that good flat digital transfers are the only practical way to preserve these masters in the real world.

The quality of the final product is much more dependent on the skills and decision making of the mastering engineer than on whether it's sourced from a digital transfer.

[I just wish they'd still record to tape as well as a computer drive... so that we don't lose for ever the beauty of a well engineered truly analogue recording on vinyl ]


Edited to add

[ Couldn't happen of course , wishful thinking.

Every signal from the microphone back goes through a Digital something or other before it hits any recording device .
You'd have to mirror every device in the signal chain with the analogue equivalent in order to achieve a real analogue recording.

And nobody is going to invest in a whole new analogue recording system...even if there were anybody left with the skills to use it ! ]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-08-26 15:54 by Spud.