Thread: Your expensive analog vinyl record reissue is actually...digital

Your expensive analog vinyl record reissue is actually... digital -scribe story - Scribe Story

If it spins when the music plays who cares. ...Do you?

Originally Posted by NorthStar

If it spins when the music plays who cares. ...Do you?

notwithstanding the issues around transparency and truthful product representation... yes

i have a nice digital front end that i use for playing files. i see no reason to pay audiophile LP prices for vinyl transfers of computer audio... VINO (vinyl in name only).

YMMV

For me, I really like the added distortion, noise, cost and inconvenience that vinyl brings to the table. Anybody can do digital. It takes a special nutjob to really do vinyl right!

Original article:
Your expensive analog vinyl record reissue is actually...digital | TechRadar

1000 of my 12.000 Lps are digitally sourced or mastered. most were acquired when i purchased a large collection. i enjoy most of those digital Lps just fine, but the pure analog are generally more satisfying to listen to and dependably better. not hard to hear it. happy to demonstrate this for anyone interested.

anyway....for anyone confused about it, don't be. sure; the digital aspect of Lps does not jump out and shout it's there. but in contrast it is clear. but if i play 5 all analog and 5 digitally sourced it hits you in the nose.

i still buy Lps with digital sourced based on the music. no problem with that.

Originally Posted by Mike Lavigne

1000 of my 12.000 Lps are digitally sourced or mastered. most were acquired when i purchased a large collection. i enjoy most of those digital Lps just fine, but the pure analog are generally more satisfying to listen to and dependably better. not hard to hear it. happy to demonstrate this for anyone interested.

anyway....for anyone confused about it, don't be. sure; the digital aspect of Lps does not jump out and shout it's there. but in contrast it is clear. but if i play 5 all analog and 5 digitally sourced it hits you in the nose.

i still buy Lps with digital sourced based on the music. no problem with that.

Same here Mike , enjoy all my digital sourced LP’s even more so than the CD


Regards

The article is not about which sounds best; it's a personal journey experience.
It's about ... just read it.

Slow day today ...

Topic:

"A class-action lawsuit has been filed against record reissue label Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab (Mofi) by a North Carolina resident who claims that the label misrepresented the process used to create its Original Master Recording and Ultradisc One Step releases.

What about those records was misrepresented? According to the lawsuit, the audiophile owners of the best turntables who are buyers of those discs – in this specific case a reissue of the Pretenders’ 1979 debut LP – were expecting them to be produced using a fully analog process, with an original master tape retrieved from a vault used to directly cut a master that would then be sourced to create a very limited run of accordingly high-priced vinyl records.

Instead, Mofi tapped a digital format called DSD (Direct Stream Digital) to create the master used for that Pretenders re-issue, along with many more releases extending back to at least 2011."

Still wish they would make lemonade out of lemons and release the DSD files. They'd sell enough to pay the lawyers.

We certainly could as them. Who is our emissary here?

The DSD files are un-mastered. That's like selling everybody the master. Never gonna happen.

for those following this drama/debacle, this video might be of interest.

despite its 2 hr length, there is a some great information on the mastering process from bernie grundman and ryan smith to be had along the way ...especially, beginning at around the 1' 15" point where there is a good discussion of 1) mastering from tape direct to lathe versus 2) from tape to lathe with an intermediate DSD digital step.

i found it interesting to learn that in order to master from a DSD file it has to first be converted to PCM before it can be manipulated / EQ'd and then converted back into DSD for output to the lathe -- see the discussion starting at 1' 21"

enjoy

Originally Posted by aKnyght

for those following this drama/debacle, this video might be of interest.

despite its 2 hr length, there is a some great information on the mastering process from bernie grundman and ryan smith to be had along the way ...especially, beginning at around the 1' 15" point where there is a good discussion of 1) mastering from tape direct to lathe versus 2) from tape to lathe with an intermediate DSD digital step.

i found it interesting to learn that in order to master from a DSD file it has to first be converted to PCM before it can be manipulated / EQ'd and then converted back into DSD for output to the lathe -- see the discussion starting at 1' 21"

enjoy

Listen carefully to what BG says at 1:21. If you have a DSD file and just want to use it to cut a record without changing the EQ or any other manipulation, then you don't have to convert it to PCM. However, if you want to manipulate the DSD file (EQ, etc) then you do have to convert it to PCM. You can then use the PCM file to cut the lacquer or convert it back to DSD (not sure why you would convert it back). So if you (ala MoFi) are using the analogue master tape and copying it to DSD, if you are doing the EQ changes during the copying from analogue tape to DSD, and then you use the DSD file to cut the lacquer with no further manipulation, then you don't have to reconvert to PCM. However, if you make a direct copy of the master tape to DSD and then need to EQ the DSD file, then you need to convert to PCM. Basically, DSD has extremely limited editing capability, while PCM has much better editing capability. Hope this is clear. Anyone with a comment or correction, please feel free to do so.

Larry

Originally Posted by astrotoy

Listen carefully to what BG says at 1:21. If you have a DSD file and just want to use it to cut a record without changing the EQ or any other manipulation, then you don't have to convert it to PCM. However, if you want to manipulate the DSD file (EQ, etc) then you do have to convert it to PCM. You can then use the PCM file to cut the lacquer or convert it back to DSD (not sure why you would convert it back). So if you (ala MoFi) are using the analogue master tape and copying it to DSD, if you are doing the EQ changes during the copying from analogue tape to DSD, and then you use the DSD file to cut the lacquer with no further manipulation, then you don't have to reconvert to PCM. However, if you make a direct copy of the master tape to DSD and then need to EQ the DSD file, then you need to convert to PCM. Basically, DSD has extremely limited editing capability, while PCM has much better editing capability. Hope this is clear. Anyone with a comment or correction, please feel free to do so.

Larry

Your logic given the peculiarities of DSD is correct. However, in practice (and as MoFi has stated) their eq, level decisions, and other parts of the pre-mastering process are done using their analog setup. I use analog eq and compressors all the time to work on digital files. Their process probably goes something like this: 1. scrupulously align playback 2. playback the tapes and record to DSD - I think they use an EMM converter, not positive. 3. Take files and converter back to the studio where they are most familiar with the monitors. 4. Playback using either the EMM or load the files into a mastering workstation for playback. 5a. Decide if the files stay DSD and do eq and other processing digitally (A Merging Technologies - Pyramix or Sony -Sonoma would be used) 5b. Decide if the sound is better by converting to PCM and using PCM coded digital eq and such. There are a lot of great sounding PCM based processing out there vs. HAVING to use the Merging or Sony processors, which probably convert to PCM and back to DSD, anyway. 5c. Decide if the sound of their analog eq's are best. If 5c is the decision, the songs would be assembled in the computer, notes for analog settings used for each song are made, then finally, each side is cut to the lathe in real time with different settings switched on the fly for each song. This is called an A/B cutting path and not many studios have it at this point. I'm positive MoFi has an A/B setup because its really the only practical way to cut a laqcuer from tape without going down another generation of A/D-D/A.

Good reading stuff above ^ ... last four exchange posts. ...And that video with the pros.

i would also point to the discussion beginning at about 1' 16" where bernie talks about what is lost from the original tape with each sequential digital manipulation -- converting to digital, converting from one form of digital to another, sound leveling, EQ'ing, etc.

according to bernie, the impact of this "loss of information" is particularly apparent with the higher frequencies and for acoustical instruments that generate subtle resonances and the like. the resulting sound is comparatively "less fat" with the flip-side being it may sound clearer. whether or not i or any other non-professional can hear this when listening at home is another issue...

case-in-point: i pulled out my only two mofi pressings for a listen, dire straits | dire straits and communique. these are two titles which which were recorded to tape and where mofi used an intermediary DSD mastering step. and, i must say they sound really, really, really freakin' good!!

so, if the point is to make fantastic sounding music on vinyl then mission accomplished by mofi. OTOH, 16/44 redbook files streamed from qobuz sound almost as good ...and, i would imagine the mofi SACDs of the same mastering sound phenomenal.

so its a nice thing that we can get great SQ from a variety of formats and can, therefore, choose what suits our individual preferences and dogmas.

YMMV but for the most part i will choose all-analog for vinyl and files for digital -- however, i am now wondering if i need an SACD player ;-)
__________________________________________________ _______

oh, and none of this excuses mofi's purposely ambiguous description of their LP mastering.

Originally Posted by aKnyght

...

YMMV but for the most part i will choose all-analog for vinyl and files for digital -- however, i am now wondering if i need an SACD player ;-)
__________________________________________________ _______

oh, and none of this excuses mofi's purposely ambiguous description of their LP mastering.

SACD
It depends; do you like 3-channel and 4-channel and 5.1-channel music listening?
Do you like classical music in natural surround, intelligently recorded?

* On your last paragraph; you are absolutely dead on correcto mondo.

Originally Posted by nicoff

MOFI was running a blind listening test for audiophiles. Specially for those who believed that they could tell a difference between the digital and the analog sound.

Yep, funnier than the ones I ran where they knew they were being tested. These new "I knew all along" claims after finding out, add to the humor. 😉

cheers,

AJ

Originally Posted by AJ Soundfield

Yep, funnier than the ones I ran where they knew they were being tested. These new "I knew all along" claims after finding out, add to the humor.

cheers,

AJ

Good thing some of us have email evidence!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

as they say, you can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time...

interesting 2016 review of the mofi KoB:

Miles on MoFi (45rpm) | Stereophile.com

Originally Posted by aKnyght

as they say, you can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time...
interesting 2016 review of the mofi KoB:
Miles on MoFi (45rpm) | Stereophile.com

And MoFi's other 45rpm reissues of Miles Davis albums from this point on—all of which were cut from the original master tapes (perhaps the crucial difference)—sound terrific. In the wake of head-shaking over the new Kind of Blue, I listened or re-listened to MoFi's pressings of Nefertiti, Sorcerer, Filles de Kilimanjaro, and Miles in the Sky—and, to the extent I could compare them with the original pressings, they are sonically superior. (They're far superior to other reissues by Sony and Mosaic.)

Perfectly consistent with all testing of the Usain Bolts of "hearing".
Just sit back, relax and enjoy...if one can.

cheers,

AJ