But in both case they still are the using the original MASTER tapes. Just masters from different mixes.
Mobile Fidelity - the digital step in MFSL vinyl debacle
- Thread starter windhoek
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
Not sure what you mean, the EQ of the MFSL LPs seemed to be flatter than the originals, so the record would sound more like the original tape. We see the same thing with "audiophile" CDs, they sound flatter than other releases. I'm not saying that's necessarily better. The main attraction to those records was the high quality vinyl and yes the half speed mastering. Other "audiophile" labels did the same thing.
I do agree that often the original pressings would've sounded just as good. I believe that generally Canadian pressings were better (quieter) than US pressings, that might be due to smaller pressing runs. European pressings generally were better still and then the Japanese pressings were the best, but there have always exceptions to that rule.
Today I have lost most of my interest in "Audiophile" LPs. Virtually all of the MFSL titles have since been released in Hi-rez digital format(s). What is the point of an "Audiophile" release that has been sourced from digital. Don't know about MFSL but often those 180 gram vinyl releases have been sourced from masters which have been brickwalled (the same as the digital release). You are getting the worst of both worlds!
I do love vintage vinyl. Records generally have much greater dynamic range than CD and other digital sources. That is a pity as the invention of the CD promised us greater dynamic range, but that promise of great sound has been pushed aside by the poor mastering of the loudness wars!
This is Snood's dilemma and think it is evident - watch through the end for them bald facing lying
Last edited:
windhoek
The Phoolosopher
I watched that video the other day and the guy does some great Colombo work for sure, especially the brief clip at the end with MoFi talking about their cutting process and how it's all-analogue.
IMHO, Much ado about nothing.
The entire vinyl - analog revival thing is built on a mountain of lies and mis-marketing. The attitude of "analog is the gold standard" is yet another example of an industry that was built on snake-oil BS.
The best possible end result for the handling of all our old classic analog recordings that exist would be to have them digitized to something along the lines of a 24-96 file and delivered to us in that manner.
Anything else will just be lessened in the possible sound quality for home audio reproduction.
Vinyl LP's may be enjoyable for some to play with from a nostalgic point of view but they haven't been relevant as a SOTA audio medium for something like 50 years now.
Yeah was just about to come on and mention to watch it til the end. I am sure Mofi knew they were misleading people and being untruthful. All the apologies does not make up for all the years of lying to customers. Hoping for a nice class action suit......put them out of business or close to it.
Stil in for the SACDs though lol
windhoek
The Phoolosopher
Vinyl doesn't have to be state of the art to sound good or more importantly, to be enjoyed. I'm very fortunate in that I've got two very enjoyable systems. The system in my living room does big sound quite well while the system in my bedroom does modest volume really well but more than that, it boogies like hell. In some ways, it boogies even better than my living room system, despite costing much less and being farther away from anything remotely resembling state of the art. Plus, in both systems, vinyl just happens to be the best option in most cases as records just boogie along in a more enjoyable way than does digital playback in my two systems, according to my ears. In most cases, not all.
There's obviously not a contest as each of us can choose the formats we want as well as the equipment we want (cost notwithstanding) so I'm happy to live in a world where vinyl co-exists alongside digital - I'm even quite happy to buy records that have been made from digital masters
JediJoker
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
And I almost forgot: The Beach Boys' Pet Sounds is from the modern stereo remix, not the original mono master tape.
uselessoldman
datebest.net - visit website and win smartphone!
When you look at the majority of those who promote Mofi on YouTube you realise they are in the main owners of record shops, they are themselves in the business of selling records. A lot of the above comments are spot on, people who watch YouTube reviews are conditioned into what to listen for what to expect, the con and brainwashing. Mofi target a specific audience, the rich, collectors and the odd listener who probably owns a sound system worth more than most peoples cars !! THe major record labels make and press vinyl for everyone no matter what your sound system costs so their pressings are conservative, restricted for the masses. Mofi use original master recordings, those also include a level of mastering so all they do is remaster old masters. Its not like they get the recording stems and mix then master their own version, they use the same source every other remaster uses. SO say you use JRiver media centre and you add a few nice plugins to enhance the EQ, broaden the stereo image and add some saturation (tape or valve emulation) you can even make those horrible CDs start to sound good. you can in effect remaster yourself without wasting your money. AS for the quality of DACS today, yes they are superb, even cheap ones, but you still need to add harmonics for a warm rich and lush sound and all to often albums are EQd and compressed to death butchered so adding some depth and dynamics can only be a good thing
Hey, that reminds me...It's time for the annual replacement of the stylus on my Oppo disc player. Oh wait, I play about 99.9 % of my stuff from the USB ports, so I guess I can wait a bit longer. And I need more Discwasher fluid.
Like I asked earlier, Sal, if people really prefer the sound of vinyl to digital, why don't these mastering engineers make a 96/24 PCM (or SACD) product that sounds like the vinyl? It is absurd to think that it can't be done.
The argument for vinyl being superior to digital is as absurd as me saying something along the order that no modern speaker out there can outdo my rebuilt and reworked 45-year old AR9 speakers. I keep using those big old dogs because I like the circa 1980 AR sound. (Plus I'm too cheap to replace all 12 speakers of my Atmos / Auro3D rig with new ones!)
vengeance for all the years of Quadblocking..?Yeah was just about to come on and mention to watch it til the end. I am sure Mofi knew they were misleading people and being untruthful. All the apologies does not make up for all the years of lying to customers. Hoping for a nice class action suit......put them out of business or close to it.
Stil in for the SACDs though lol
Vinyl playback errors may also masquerade as ambience. Pivoted tonearms, even properly set up, only provide two points on the LP where the stylus is tangential to the groove. Everywhere else, the slight angular offset introduces phase shifts, especially at high frequencies. You can see this on an oscilloscope. Also, channel separation in phono cartriges can be all over the map, depending on the quality of the cartridge and the care in setup. Right channel bleeds to left, left to right. Combined with the phase shift, you get "ambience" that may not exist in the LP itself. I can sound great, though.
jimfisheye
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 3,061
Just an addendum to my comments on MFSL vinyl.
I still think they had high ambition and quality initially. However, every single MFSL vinyl title I have that I've since been able to grab a legitimate* 24/96 HD master of, the 24/96 master is the cleaner copy. The vinyl sounds like still a great effort that was done from the very same copy at best. I'm listening from better seats now to lower generation.
* 24/96 file format is meaningless by itself. There are plenty of volume war masters presented in 24/96 with the destruction baked in. You need to vet everything! Collecting for the best, apparently lowest generation copy (I say "apparently" because you can't know for certain unless you have the actual master copy yourself) leave one with a collection of formats. I have a couple mp3 files that are the best available copy of something. There are vinyl titles that have never been released digitally (or have been but in substandard fidelity). Those vinyl copies for all their flaws are the best copies available. I have a picture disc or two that ended up being a better pressing than the original black vinyl. There are plenty of lowly CDs that have a better (ie cleaner, lower generation) copy than some of the allegedly HD copies even though they're in 24/96.
Chasing vinyl when the digital systems available for a tiny fraction of the cost and effort that capture audio much more accurately are available is foolish IMHO.
Degraded digital copies usually don't come about from difficulty or accidents. (Although mistakes happen.) This is a modern form of copy protection and marketing format. "Copy protection gone wild" as I call it. If the consumer doesn't have the real copy, then they can't pirate or share it! They, um, also can't listen to it in full quality themselves... but that's apparently not the priority. Or there's the marketing angle. Release a substandard copy today and you have the opportunity to release an improved copy tomorrow. When your engineer tells you "This is already the cleanest master possible.", you have to get creative! There are honest screwups too, of course. But do you really think the widespread release of compromised masters is a mistake that keeps happening over and over?
I think some people don't realize just how good modern digital audio formats are. If 320k mp3 was the best format available, the above rant wouldn't change. The biggest fidelity flaws and screwups would still be mistakes or 'copy protection gone' wild damage.
I still think they had high ambition and quality initially. However, every single MFSL vinyl title I have that I've since been able to grab a legitimate* 24/96 HD master of, the 24/96 master is the cleaner copy. The vinyl sounds like still a great effort that was done from the very same copy at best. I'm listening from better seats now to lower generation.
* 24/96 file format is meaningless by itself. There are plenty of volume war masters presented in 24/96 with the destruction baked in. You need to vet everything! Collecting for the best, apparently lowest generation copy (I say "apparently" because you can't know for certain unless you have the actual master copy yourself) leave one with a collection of formats. I have a couple mp3 files that are the best available copy of something. There are vinyl titles that have never been released digitally (or have been but in substandard fidelity). Those vinyl copies for all their flaws are the best copies available. I have a picture disc or two that ended up being a better pressing than the original black vinyl. There are plenty of lowly CDs that have a better (ie cleaner, lower generation) copy than some of the allegedly HD copies even though they're in 24/96.
Chasing vinyl when the digital systems available for a tiny fraction of the cost and effort that capture audio much more accurately are available is foolish IMHO.
Degraded digital copies usually don't come about from difficulty or accidents. (Although mistakes happen.) This is a modern form of copy protection and marketing format. "Copy protection gone wild" as I call it. If the consumer doesn't have the real copy, then they can't pirate or share it! They, um, also can't listen to it in full quality themselves... but that's apparently not the priority. Or there's the marketing angle. Release a substandard copy today and you have the opportunity to release an improved copy tomorrow. When your engineer tells you "This is already the cleanest master possible.", you have to get creative! There are honest screwups too, of course. But do you really think the widespread release of compromised masters is a mistake that keeps happening over and over?
I think some people don't realize just how good modern digital audio formats are. If 320k mp3 was the best format available, the above rant wouldn't change. The biggest fidelity flaws and screwups would still be mistakes or 'copy protection gone' wild damage.
NYMo
Senior Member
( What ??....somebody in the Record Business actually lied ....who woulda thunk it !!)
As usual, I can only give my own perspective.
When I did my first album for EMI in 1985, the recording was all analogue ( 2 x 24 track Studer A80s locked together via smpte time code) . It was then mastered to Studer 1/2" tape running at 30ips and then that master was transferred to a DIGITAL Sony PCM 1630 2 track and then I was there for the cutting of the album onto a lathe for the final pressing from the Sony.
The album was only released on vinyl....so this practice of going to digital before cutting the record was obviously industry wide in 1985 !
Later in life I spent about 10 years doing mastering myself, so watching these MO FI videos, I can completely understand why those mastering engineers would use 4 x DSD.....it is way easier to manipulate and master digital files than a hands on analog system. They would have used their analogue Gain 11 Studer A80 mastering system in house ( if they were given the original master tapes) but as that guy says..they fly around the world with their A to D's and record to 4x DSD on hard drive and then bring it back to their mastering room to edit and tweak.
The controversy lies with Music Direct and not with their mastering engineers as they just trying to get the job done the easiest way and retain the most fidelity.
As I said.. What ?? Somebody in the music industry lied ?? Who woulda thunk it !!
As usual, I can only give my own perspective.
When I did my first album for EMI in 1985, the recording was all analogue ( 2 x 24 track Studer A80s locked together via smpte time code) . It was then mastered to Studer 1/2" tape running at 30ips and then that master was transferred to a DIGITAL Sony PCM 1630 2 track and then I was there for the cutting of the album onto a lathe for the final pressing from the Sony.
The album was only released on vinyl....so this practice of going to digital before cutting the record was obviously industry wide in 1985 !
Later in life I spent about 10 years doing mastering myself, so watching these MO FI videos, I can completely understand why those mastering engineers would use 4 x DSD.....it is way easier to manipulate and master digital files than a hands on analog system. They would have used their analogue Gain 11 Studer A80 mastering system in house ( if they were given the original master tapes) but as that guy says..they fly around the world with their A to D's and record to 4x DSD on hard drive and then bring it back to their mastering room to edit and tweak.
The controversy lies with Music Direct and not with their mastering engineers as they just trying to get the job done the easiest way and retain the most fidelity.
As I said.. What ?? Somebody in the music industry lied ?? Who woulda thunk it !!
Last edited:
windhoek
The Phoolosopher
It's a false argument either way. Great mastering trumps format as does bad mastering.
As a practical matter, MoFi had limited options - make an analog copy (probably w/analog NR) of the original master recording and use that until it is worn out, then make another analog copy...
or
make a digital copy as close to lossless as possible with the tech available at the time and use that.
Kirk Bayne
or
make a digital copy as close to lossless as possible with the tech available at the time and use that.
Kirk Bayne
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,523
An APT term, Adam, created by QQ Posters to incriminate MOFi for their exclusive 5 year [or so] licensing rights to [at the time] prevent Audio Fidelity from releasing a Multi~CH 5.1 or 4.0 SACD from Music Direct's clutches on choice music releases which previously had a surround remix!vengeance for all the years of Quadblocking..?
And how often that happened ....I'd rather NOT count the ways!
And then there was that BRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATER fiasco whereby SONY Japan canceled their Multi~CH SACD to accomodate MoFi's 1 step vinyl release.
Last edited:
JediJoker
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
No. Sony owns Columbia, so they are first party to the Simon & Garfunkel catalogue, whereas Mobile Fidelity is a third party to every catalogue. Sony can release a Columbia album at any time—artist contract limitations notwithstanding—even if a title is currently licensed out to a reissue label like MoFi. Whatever stopped that release, MoFi had nothing to do with it. Speculation is that Simon himself put the kibosh on it, having no love for the quad mixes of his material.
uselessoldman
datebest.net - visit website and win smartphone!
When you watch videos on YouTube of people who promote and review Mofi they usually fall into two categories, they personally own record shops so in the business of selling records or suffer from compulsive collectors syndrome, mentally retarded. Why would anyone buy an album they never play oh cos its an investment? WHat so someone else will pay even more and they to will probably never play it, just need to as part of their own personal private collection. Mofi have targeted the deluded delusional created a conspiracy theory they are better than everyone else, even the originals and the fools bought into it, what a surprise. They potentially even claim something is more original than the original itself. This whole thing kicked off cos of Thriller and a 40k run, people smelt a rat. Stupid thing is this has nothing to do with the numbers it should have been about the album itself cos it was never 100% analogue in the first place. Bruce Swedien mixed drums in digital even QJones commented on how they used digital to get the big sounding drums and that was in 1982
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,523
We'll probably NEVER know the true story, JJ .... but I know CDJapan received a lot of pre~orders for BOTW and then had to cancel! Ironically, all those Q8 and SQ vinyl copies are in the hands of many collectors and SONY/Paul Simon did sign a more lucrative deal with MoFi for their 1 step vinyl version and we may never hear what SONY Japan might've accomplished with their QUAD SACD remaster in special 7" packaging ... nor for that matter BOOKENDS which I understand was likewise fully remixed into QUAD!
https://www.vinylpussycat.com/product/simon-and-garfunkel-bridge-over-troubled-water-quad/
Last edited:
