MoFi's Rob Lo Verde Talks About Mastering for SACD Reissue

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Hmmm...
First I read he started his career in 1999 followed by mastering credits for albums released in the 1960's and 1970's.
Then the concept of presenting what an original mix sounded like was presented as a mystery or suggesting subjectiveness. (There is subjectiveness in this arena of course but an original mix sounds like what the recording sounds like for good or bad. No mystery there.)
Then we get into the apples/oranges arguments for DSD that compare DSD to lo-def 16/44.1 PCM instead of 24/96 PCM.
And that's where I stopped reading.
 
I thought it was pretty hysterical when Kal Rubinson [in the 'comment' section] inquired as to the importance of mentioning the monitor speakers utilized in MoFi's mastering chain only to be reprimanded by another poster that the article was written for Inner Fidelity, a headphone website.

I was also under the impression that SACD and DVD~A 96/24 exceeded the resolution of Analogue Tape.
 
Both 24/96 (and above) PCM and DSD are excellent HD formats that very much do exceed the resolution of analog tape. Further, they can be converted back and forth with almost no loss. (There would technically be digital conversion generation loss so you wouldn't want to go back and forth more than once ideally but a single conversion is basically lossless in the long and short of things compared to HD to SD conversions or SD to SD conversions.) The only issue with DSD is purely the reinventing the wheel aspect that requires you to purchase an expensive DA converter all over again (along with a drive that supports the backwards spinning disc).

I wasn't looking for an excuse to rip on DSD today. But this is at best really sloppy telephone game writing by an author that doesn't understand anything about the subject. Those mastering credits to begin with! I would have been interested in an actual mastering discussion. I've never had a problem with DSD fidelity. It's fully just as HD perfect as HD PCM. (Still subject to "garbage in - garbage out" with the recording you put to it as anything is.) I only rip on the reinventing the wheel part.
 
Hmm, a standard sacd player, can it handle both dsd64 as well as 256? Is it more likely the limitations of the receiver/dac that decide whether 256 is playable?
 
Both 24/96 (and above) PCM and DSD are excellent HD formats that very much do exceed the resolution of analog tape.

I guess I need to be schooled on this, so please explain if you can.

In my mind, the resolution of a digital format is a measure of how closely it can approximate an analog signal. The analog signal would have more or less infinite resolution. Apparently that is incorrect. Or is it something to do with the degradation an analog sound undergoes via the taping process?
 
The noise floor in analog formats could be said to be infinite whereas in digital you need to define the range that is used for the noise floor which then has a finite bit depth.* The resolution of the audio band is gigantic in HD digital compared to analog tape.

If you saw one of those youtube videos where someone tries to claim that you hear "stair step" audio with missing holes in it with digital... That's truly a gross misunderstanding of the system. It does not work that way at all. If it did, it would be garish crunchy distortion and just mutilated. Even SD digital delivers smooth continuous waveforms at the DAC output. You can resolve half the frequency of your sampling frequency. That's the bottom line in the physics. Further, HD digital is NOT interested in any data above the range of hearing. The point is having a wide margin between the top of the audio band and the sampling frequency to eliminate said sampling frequency bleeding or aliasing into the audio. The physical circuitry is easier to build to run cleaner at HD.

* More...
The bit depth in digital is finite (24 bits or 16 bits). As you put a lower and lower volume signal into it, there are less bits left to define the volume steps and they get coarser. A simplified example in 16 bit: Take a signal that is half full level. It only gets the bottom 8 bits. (The top 8 are all zero.) So you suddenly have an 8 bit recording for that element. Call the bottom 8 - 12 bits the "noise floor" and then the lowest signal recorded to the system is still 12 - 16 bits in a 24 bit system. 16 bit CAN still hold a very dynamic signal but you DO have to be careful not to waste any bit depth anywhere! And now you know one of the reasons CD's started being peak limited and boosted. Better to lop off a few of the loudest peaks than loose the depth and 'meat' of the sound. Of course the volume war thing went WAY beyond any shortcomings of the 16 bit format! But it actually started innocently with that.
 
Last edited:
Too bad he wasn't speaking about remastering classic recordings with QUADRAPHONIC TRACKS for issuing on SACD! :mad:

Jon, rather than beat that dead horse to death, how about a 'Brief History of QUADBLOCKING' which MoFi is infamous for?

As Rob Lo Verde would surmise: :ROFLMAO:Stereo is for PURISTS and QUAD's for SODS!
 
Last edited:
Did MFSL put out ANY multichannel SACD ever? Sooo many missed opportunities.
 
Did MFSL put out ANY multichannel SACD ever? Sooo many missed opportunities.

Yes, they put out 8 Surround Sound SACDs from the Vox/Turnabout catalog of 4 Channel Classical releases.
Those were mastered by Paul Stubblebine in San Francisco.

They also released a decoded UHJ Soundfield Microphone recording by the Cowboy Junkies on Surround Sound SACD.
Decoded and mastered by the recording engineer working with the group.

Mobile Fidelity's mastering studios are Stereo. So any Surround Sound SACD work has to be sent out to other studios.
http://sa-cd.net/titles/0/60/date/5/1
 
Back
Top