Tuttle et al v Audiophile Music Direct

[firedog]

1 minute ago, JoshM said:

Don’t think that buying a bunch of (often pricey) ‘80s Dark Side CDs for the upcoming TBVO wasn’t part of my motivation to create Club TBVO!

Doesn't surprise me in the least.  Looking  forward to it.

Just don't buy all 500 listed at Discogs....Anyway, THAT article would be way too long. 

[Iving]

Streamed live <24 hrs ago ... masterclass on making the perfect vinyl record

- Bernie Grundman

- Ryan K. Smith

- Chad Kassem

- Michael 45

covering several topics recently discussed on this thread.

 

If you don’t have time for 2:25:29 … suggest "taster" watch from 1:12:10 for at least 15 minutes … starting with CK talking about “No copy as good as the original” … RKS talking about master tapes … unmissable BG at 1:16:45 talking about conversions - especially digital … which gets really interesting on DSD at c. 1:21 – with BG at 1:23:25 saying you can’t manipulate [digital] without losing quality – ambience and naturalness at the top end … then talking about HD downloads … etc etc

 

 

On 8/20/2022 at 3:04 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

its all about the people. 

 

On 8/14/2022 at 5:32 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

The view from the top is always best.

[PYP]

5 hours ago, Iving said:

Streamed live <24 hrs ago ... masterclass on making the perfect vinyl record

- Bernie Grundman

- Ryan K. Smith

- Chad Kassem

- Michael 45

covering several topics recently discussed on this thread.

 

If you don’t have time for 2:25:29 … suggest "taster" watch from 1:12:10 for at least 15 minutes … starting with CK talking about “No copy as good as the original” … RKS talking about master tapes … unmissable BG at 1:16:45 talking about conversions - especially digital … which gets really interesting on DSD at c. 1:21 – with BG at 1:23:25 saying you can’t manipulate [digital] without losing quality – ambience and naturalness at the top end … then talking about HD downloads … etc etc

 

Thanks.  As someone with a digital-only setup, I found the opinion about the difference in how high frequencies sound in digital/analog very interesting and believable.  There are always tradeoffs and one question is whether individuals enjoy the musical experience with digital.  For me, the answer is an emphatic yes, but I can understand how that isn't true for some folks.   And as far as sheer volume of content, having digital access in your setup is a plus.  

 

Since I don't have their ears and the master tapes, I'm comparing music at home vs. a memory of live music with my non-musician ears.  At home, it is just as enjoyable and often more enjoyable because I'm in a comfortable setting with control of the volume.  Sure, you miss the excitement of a crowd responding to the music (we are herd animals after all) but there are other compensating factors (and I can always put a porta potty in the backyard for more realism).  

 

One point stands out:  any copy is less than the original.  And these experts are not purist to the point that they won't use EQ if their ears tell them that is the best path.  So, what does the consumer ultimately get?  A copy (possibly several copies removed from the original) that experts try to keep as faithful to the original (or their idea of what balanced sound is) as possible.   MoFi should simply embrace their approach and be honest about it.  

[Iving]

9 hours ago, Iving said:

 

 

 

This video is getting a lot of chatter online. Posting my own notes in case anyone would like to dip in. Language my own, from my own notes - I think it's on beam - Captures gist anyway - Apologies any minor deviations / Timings approx.

00.00.00 BG: Trust your ears / Music is a complex signal (defies bench measurement) / Everything matters [later says we [mastering engineers] listen to wire when he laments AES/EBU for D-D transmission as it carries both channels AND clock] / At work BG needs a neutral system but at home has something more "hypey" / Talks about emotion and connection and how mastering facilitates those aspects

00:10:40 Importance of earliest generation (tape source) / Difference between accurate and "clean" being tied to first/early generation and EQ to make something you could like more / No perfect digital copy / RKS says the earlier the generation the closer to how the artist intended (because that is what was passed)

00:13:15 BG: Likes that he stays in audiophile market (doing reissues) / Doesn't like Loudness and pandering to customers for Loudness / Loudness irritates

00:14:40 CK talking about DR / BG talking about discs i.e. vinyl records: complex signal + obstacle course for stylus + loud enough to get above noise floor for vinyl + speed at rim vs. speed at label therefore "clearer" at edge

00:23:10 BG: Younger people listening to vinyl - demands attention - involvement - listen and do nothing else at same time

00:24:00 Prefer analogue copy of tape or digital copy to work with? BG answers firmly that *analogue* tape has greater longevity / Careful storage important / Tapes get wear by repeated play / Many 50s tapes are in great condition

00:28:25 BG can repair analogue tapes with alt. CD material

00:32:00 Labels have not been looking after tapes / Not thinking of posterity

00:35:40 Quality of press in recent years - Vinyl sellers seeing returns as acceptable price of volume business

00:36:20 Controversy BG involvement in analogue reissue of 'Thriller'

00:39:30 Discussion about getting hold of original tapes

00:45:35 Extraordinary condition of KOB tape [in mid-1990s] - no splices

00:55:45 Mastering mojo variable - one day sounds great - the next maybe not - not always understanding why

01:04:00 Talking about "Original Master Recording" and what that means / BG repeats generational copies will never be as "clean" / VMP copying an analogue tape still leaves possibility of AAA

01:10:00 CK talking about comparing AP issues with originals [analogue-era 1st issues]

01:13:26 CK: "There's only one original ... a tape copy - or worse - a *digital* tape copy"

01:19:00 BG on digital - low level - how ambience is lost / digital permeates / makes everything sound the same / "disease" [gets smile from CK]

01:21:45 RKS: Working with PCM not DSD / CK: We're on 4 DSD / BG: With DSD things go bad / 44.1 16 bits good / It is [iterative] *processing* that does the damage with digital / Repeats digital problem of revealing ambience and high end info / Questions credentials of 192 downloads

01:27:20 BG: A straight [flat] digital copy will not sound as good / Here is where BG talks about AES/EBU wrt jitter etc inc. re-clocking

01:35:00 Discussion quality pf press / CK "shitty pressing plant" [btw heard CK use f word twice in whole broadcast] / deleterious effect of polishing or de-horning on SQ / Quieter but inferior

01:39:20 SRX / Quiet vinyl

01:40:35 Led Zeppelin on Classic Records from original tapes / BG: Not much to do / "Very good recordings"

01:47:50 CK is coming out with big announcements in 2 weeks then another one after a month - "not Beatles"

01:59:10 DSD audible on a home stereo - generations can be heard [implicit that one generation is a delta]

My own minor remarks

Michael 45 was pretty quiet - good "Chair"
RKS didn't get a lot of air time - respectful to BG
BG spoke a lot - but you wanted to listen - pure experience
CK loudmouth somewhat off-putting - over-passionate - sales guy

[fas42]

Had a quick listen around 1:16 on - BG is completely wrong on the "problems" of digital; he's making the typical mistake of laying the blame on why digital doesn't "sound fat", has poor ambience, etc, on the nature of the medium, rather than the true cause which is listening to what you're getting on a substandard playback chain. It's equivalent to not liking vinyl records, because you always use a mediocre cartridge with a badly shaped, worn out needle to listen to them ...

[DuckToller]

2 hours ago, Iving said:

 

 

This video is getting a lot of chatter online. Posting my own notes in case anyone would like to dip in. Language my own, from my own notes - I think it's on beam - Captures gist anyway - Apologies any minor deviations / Timings approx.

00.00.00 BG: Trust your ears / Music is a complex signal (defies bench measurement) / Everything matters [later says we [mastering engineers] listen to wire when he laments AES/EBU for D-D transmission as it carries both channels AND clock] / At work BG needs a neutral system but at home has something more "hypey" / Talks about emotion and connection and how mastering facilitates those aspects

00:10:40 Importance of earliest generation (tape source) / Difference between accurate and "clean" being tied to first/early generation and EQ to make something you could like more / No perfect digital copy / RKS says the earlier the generation the closer to how the artist intended (because that is what was passed)

00:13:15 BG: Likes that he stays in audiophile market (doing reissues) / Doesn't like Loudness and pandering to customers for Loudness / Loudness irritates

00:14:40 CK talking about DR / BG talking about discs i.e. vinyl records: complex signal + obstacle course for stylus + loud enough to get above noise floor for vinyl + speed at rim vs. speed at label therefore "clearer" at edge

00:23:10 BG: Younger people listening to vinyl - demands attention - involvement - listen and do nothing else at same time

00:24:00 Prefer analogue copy of tape or digital copy to work with? BG answers firmly that *analogue* tape has greater longevity / Careful storage important / Tapes get wear by repeated play / Many 50s tapes are in great condition

00:28:25 BG can repair analogue tapes with alt. CD material

00:32:00 Labels have not been looking after tapes / Not thinking of posterity

00:35:40 Quality of press in recent years - Vinyl sellers seeing returns as acceptable price of volume business

00:36:20 Controversy BG involvement in analogue reissue of 'Thriller'

00:39:30 Discussion about getting hold of original tapes

00:45:35 Extraordinary condition of KOB tape [in mid-1990s] - no splices

00:55:45 Mastering mojo variable - one day sounds great - the next maybe not - not always understanding why

01:04:00 Talking about "Original Master Recording" and what that means / BG repeats generational copies will never be as "clean" / VMP copying an analogue tape still leaves possibility of AAA

01:10:00 CK talking about comparing AP issues with originals [analogue-era 1st issues]

01:13:26 CK: "There's only one original ... a tape copy - or worse - a *digital* tape copy"

01:19:00 BG on digital - low level - how ambience is lost / digital permeates / makes everything sound the same / "disease" [gets smile from CK]

01:21:45 RKS: Working with PCM not DSD / CK: We're on 4 DSD / BG: With DSD things go bad / 44.1 16 bits good / It is [iterative] *processing* that does the damage with digital / Repeats digital problem of revealing ambience and high end info / Questions credentials of 192 downloads

01:27:20 BG: A straight [flat] digital copy will not sound as good / Here is where BG talks about AES/EBU wrt jitter etc inc. re-clocking

01:35:00 Discussion quality pf press / CK "shitty pressing plant" [btw heard CK use f word twice in whole broadcast] / deleterious effect of polishing or de-horning on SQ / Quieter but inferior

01:39:20 SRX / Quiet vinyl

01:40:35 Led Zeppelin on Classic Records from original tapes / BG: Not much to do / "Very good recordings"

01:47:50 CK is coming out with big announcements in 2 weeks then another one after a month - "not Beatles"

01:59:10 DSD audible on a home stereo - generations can be heard [implicit that one generation is a delta]

My own minor remarks

Michael 45 was pretty quiet - good "Chair"
RKS didn't get a lot of air time - respectful to BG
BG spoke a lot - but you wanted to listen - pure experience
CK loudmouth somewhat off-putting - over-passionate - sales guy

Thanks, Iving, tried to listen to the video, falling asleep at minute 45 or so ... heavy hitter for non-natives .. 

[Jud]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/music/2022/08/05/mofi-records-analog-digital-scandal/

[Mike Rubin]

46 minutes ago, Jud said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/music/2022/08/05/mofi-records-analog-digital-scandal/

I just noticed something that didn't register when I read the WaPo article for the first time, a few weeks ago:  Bernie Grundman is 78 years old! 

 

The proof of the pudding is in his remastering work, of course, but I still marvel.  Being a gent of a certain age, myself, and whose pretty substantial hearing loss has been described as "absolutely normal for age, but you still should be wearing hearing aids," I marvel that a man that age can discern anything audio-related, let alone explain how digital copies always are a degredation from the original analog.  If he says he hears that, I have no reason to disbelieve him other than a skepticism born of my own experience. 

[fas42]

44 minutes ago, Jud said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/music/2022/08/05/mofi-records-analog-digital-scandal/

 

The core of it,

 

Quote

“The other part that bothers them (analogue enthusiasts) 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.”

 

 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

The core of it,

 

The core of it is a company being dishonest about its products. Yes, their customers may have been wrong in some of their beliefs, but that does not give the company a pass. 

 

Audiophiles are easily fooled and taken advantage of, and it has nothing to do with digital or analog. In fact, ironically, many manufacturers of digital audio products claim that they provide "analog" sound. Here is an example:

"The May DAC is here! over 3 years waiting and tremendous R&D to achieve a new level of performance and sound quality that sets a new standard. Ultimate endgame DAC. Natural Analog sound with no compromise.Having the best measurements of NOS R2R Dacs. And delivering our intoxicating sound signature that HoloAudio is known for."

There is nothing to be learned about digital versus analog in the MoFi story. Both analog and digital have issues, and the MoFi debate does nothing to help us understand them. 

 

[Confused]

5 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

The core of it is a company being dishonest about its products. Yes, their customers may have been wrong in some of their beliefs, but that does not give the company a pass. 

 

Audiophiles are easily fooled and taken advantage of, and it has nothing to do with digital or analog. In fact, ironically, many manufacturers of digital audio products claim that they provide "analog" sound. Here is an example:

"The May DAC is here! over 3 years waiting and tremendous R&D to achieve a new level of performance and sound quality that sets a new standard. Ultimate endgame DAC. Natural Analog sound with no compromise.Having the best measurements of NOS R2R Dacs. And delivering our intoxicating sound signature that HoloAudio is known for."

There is nothing to be learned about digital versus analog in the MoFi story. Both analog and digital have issues, and the MoFi debate does nothing to help us understand them. 

 

I guess that from a technical perspectives, all DACs have an analogue sound. (or at least they do when amplified and connected to speakers)

 

It is just that in the subjective world "sounds digital" is typically a negative comment, and "sounds analogue" is a more positive.

 

I do agree in so far that a better understanding of why things sound natural ("analogue") or not so natural ("digital") would be a very good thing.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

10 minutes ago, Confused said:

 

I do agree in so far that a better understanding of why things sound natural ("analogue") or not so natural ("digital") would be a very good thing.

 

Yes. Analog and digital "sound" are thrown around constantly and as a result have become meaningless. You can see it in this very thread. It's a popular opinion here, and elsewhere, that vinyl sounds pleasant because it adds lots of distortion. But then when DAC manufacturers and many of their customers praise "analog" sounding DACs does it mean that those DACs are adding distortion too ? 

 

 

 

 

[JoeWhip]

I prefer it sounds natural, not analog or digital. I have heard too many poor sounding analog recordings in my lifetime.

[Iving]

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

BG is completely wrong on the "problems" of digital ... the true cause which is ... substandard playback chain.

 

10 hours ago, Mike Rubin said:

Bernie Grundman is 78 years old! ... I marvel that a man that age can discern anything audio-related, let alone explain how digital copies always are a degredation from the original analog.

 

He's speaking not as a domestic consumer (although he is one), but as a mastering engineer with decades' experience in mastering studios - and ears more attuned (to both analogue and digital) than most of ours - in all likelihood.

 

6 hours ago, hopkins said:

The core of it is a company being dishonest about its products ... Both analog and digital have issues, and the MoFi debate does nothing to help us understand them.

 

Agree

 

In this video, digital draws a short straw, and I wonder whether the tide is turning. Not so much vinyl resurgence per se, but the way that people who like to own vinyl records will think about them.

- Scraping digits off plastic mechanically is nonsense - why not just send digits (whether DSD or stepped derivatives) to a DAC.

- Some analogue tapes are in great condition. Others less so. DSD is not necessarily a bad Archive medium given all the alternatives. Archiving needs to be done now: https://www.richardhess.com/tape/history/HESS_Tape_Degradation_ARSC_Journal_39-2.pdf
 

- The vinyl resurgence beginning 2007 was and still is a gravy train. Some demand couldn't care less the provenance of what they buy. Some buyers extol DSD based on subjective SQ (although cognitive dissonance/expectation bias likely in play). Many vinyl record enthusiasts value AAA and began buying MFSL LPs in the late 1970s.

- MoFi's DSD vinyl records date to as early as 2007 according to some reports. As demand for alternative titles burgeoned, the likelihood of analogue tapes in good condition must have diminished rapidly.

- Why did MoFi continue to market DSD vinyl without declaring (or even dissimulating regarding) its provenance? If it sounds better (according to Jim Davis) why not promote DSD?

- Could pronouncing DSD have diluted interest in vinyl and provoked interest in digital products - where the premium for scarcity and collectability could not have been justified?

- Are newer/younger vinyl enthusiasts now beginning to appreciate provenance more? Such that AAA vinyl will once again be appreciated, and DSD or other digital vinyl scorned for what it is?

- In forthcoming years will there be an injection of buyer cash into the vintage vinyl market at the expense of the modern vinyl gravy train?

- We know that most vinyl records are worth little. But the spread of value of vinyl records will increase further. Vinyl records have always performed as an investment better than money in the bank - and we can expect further dividends.

- That said, any serious collector needs a plan. Not just for the foundations of their dwellings - but for the relief of their indifferent beneficiaries.

[Confused]

2 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

Yes. Analog and digital "sound" are thrown around constantly and as a result have become meaningless. You can see it in this very thread. It's a popular opinion here, and elsewhere, that vinyl sounds pleasant because it adds lots of distortion. But then when DAC manufacturers and many of their customers praise "analog" sounding DACs does it mean that those DACs are adding distortion too ? 

 

 

All forms of musical reproduction add distortion.

 

I think the problem is that a lot of terms are "weaponised" in some audio / forum discussions.

 

Anyone who states that that vinyl sounds pleasant because it adds "lots of distortion" is almost certainly trying to wind up someone who likes vinyl reproduction. The fact is, those that like the sound of vinyl like it because they find it natural, which implies that vinyl reproduction is largely arcuate, albeit with some distortion.

 

All DACs have some distortion, and yes, I have seen cases where on line discussions have been along the lines of "you only like the sound of R2R DACs because of the distortion they add." Again, this is usually in the context of someone who does not like R2R DACs winding up someone who does.

 

Even the term "accurate" is weaponised by some, take any form or reproduction that might include some form of distortion, and someone can come in with "well you might like this kind of distortion, I prefer accurate myself."

 

I could go on.

 

Personally, I am more with @JoeWhipon this one, I prefer it if it sounds natural.

 

The question is, what sounds natural? If we can take away the weaponising of terns and discuss more sensibly, we might find that some types of distortion can actually make audio reproduction sound "natural".

 

I have heard theories that digital reproduction can sound unnatural because it is so accurate. As an example, I know someone who has a theory that highly accurate digital reproduction can more easily invoke comb filtering effects, which to a degree fail to manifest with vinyl reproduction. 

 

I know someone who placed his turntable in a small room adjacent to his listening area, to remove the TT from environmental feedback effects. He found that it actually sounded better in the listening room, so he moved it back. He was quite honest about why the TT might sound better back in the listening room, but to him it did indeed sound more natural.

 

Can vinyl sound better sometimes because it adds a touch of crosstalk? To me, subjectively, I believe this to be true. I would count this in the "euphonic distortion" category. Of course, it is a distortion, euphonic or not, and many would come back with the "if you like the sound of distortion, etc, I prefer accurate."

 

What I would say is that you can typically judge how such terms are used are used on forums and elsewhere in order to gauge if the poster is trying to say something useful, or is just winding folk up.

 

I think a more open debate regarding what does actually sound natural and why, without the typical digital / analogue type infighting  would be very welcome.

 

Just to be clear, this post is a kind of general observation of the nature of the debate on forums, it is not aimed specifically at yourself or anyone else posting in this thread.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

46 minutes ago, Confused said:

I think a more open debate regarding what does actually sound natural and why, without the typical digital / analogue type infighting  would be very welcome

 

Agreed, but the chance of this type of discussion leading anywhere on an on-line forum is pretty slim, IMO. I guess a starting point would be to simply state that a natural system is one that gives the greatest illusion of hearing real instruments.

 

But there are several aspects to sound reproduction, for example, the localization of sounds, the frequency balance, the quality of individual sounds (extension, decay, etc..). You could argue that they are all linked, under the caption of "accuracy". But no system is perfect, and there are tradeoffs, and each and every one of us prioritizes different aspects of sound. 

 

It is also difficult to assess individual components, and how they contribute or not to each of these sound qualities, because we are always listening to combinations of equipment (in a given room, on a given day).

 

Then we get into the usual arguments about not knowing what's on the recording, and some take it even further stating, correctly, that every instrument sounds different (refer to some of @bluesman's posts). How that relates to our ability to distinguish between a recording and a live session remains a bit of a mystery to me, but it is something to consider. 

 

So it's a complex issue. 

 

The alternative approach is to look at it from a technical standpoint, and try to correlate the technical aspects with listening. This is what (most) designers are doing. My feeling is that a lot of the technical aspects of sound reproduction are not yet completly understood. And experts have different opinions as well..

 

 

 

 

 

[PYP]

3 hours ago, Confused said:

I think a more open debate regarding what does actually sound natural and why, without the typical digital / analogue type infighting  would be very welcome.

That would be very welcome indeed.  

 

One thing that strikes me about the MoFi issue is that no one heard the difference when MoFi changed their process to include digital.  Unless I misunderstood, the whistle wasn't blown by someone who listened to the digital-based album and said, "What a second!  I hear the telltale thinning upper frequencies that can only mean digital processing was used!"  Even a famous audio demigod didn't hear it.  I'm not mentioning this, btw, to wind up anyone.  It just makes me think that digital processing has made significant advances and that digital can be enjoyable to listen to.  Clearly, the MoFi product was a hybrid, but seemed to get the best of both worlds for those who enjoy vinyl.  

 

I'm still waiting for the customer quote that says:  "I purchased these albums because they were supposed to sound great and they do.  I'm happy and won't be part of the class action.  Life is too short."

 

The other interesting aspect of this story is that the MoFi staff don't come across as a bunch of evil corporate guys who are doing whatever it takes to wring every last penny out of the production run.  They were laughably incompetent when it came time to "cover up" their "mistake" and just made it worse.  

 

I would be interested to know why they started using digital processing to produce a record and whether they had long ago used digital to archive the master tape just in case the tape became damaged.   At some point, did they find that digital processing was nearly undetectable to even a trained ear?  

 

 

[fas42]

10 hours ago, Confused said:

I have heard theories that digital reproduction can sound unnatural because it is so accurate. As an example, I know someone who has a theory that highly accurate digital reproduction can more easily invoke comb filtering effects, which to a degree fail to manifest with vinyl reproduction. 

 

 

Accurate digital reproduction is very, very special - as far away from being "unnatural" as you can get. It happens when there is an absence of the really disturbing anomalies that a very high percentage of digitally sourced reproduction chains always seem to have attendant to them; hanging on like leaches, making the experience less than completely comfortable, fully immersive - it's when the very last distortion issue is finally resolved that it suddenly snaps into shape; and the presentation becomes completely convincing.

 

Of course there is always distortion. But the ear/brain has a very definite, very distinctive switch - for tolerance to cues to the sound being produced by loudspeakers, versus live music making. One works towards eliminating, or attenuating those cues to that critical standard - one knows that "you're there" when the speakers completely disappear, for one. Comb filtering effects? Nahhh!! The mind just compensates, beautifully - it's quite amazing how it becomes impossible to 'force' the conscious mind to acknowledge that the sound is actually coming from a driver right in front of you; the illusion is that powerful ... 

[fas42]

10 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

Then we get into the usual arguments about not knowing what's on the recording, and some take it even further stating, correctly, that every instrument sounds different (refer to some of @bluesman's posts). How that relates to our ability to distinguish between a recording and a live session remains a bit of a mystery to me, but it is something to consider. 

 

 

It's all about fooling the mind as to what's going on ... a very simple visual equivalent is right besides me, now; I can turn my head to the right, and look through a french door to the landscape beyond. Now, it happens to have a flyscreen on it, which is quite dense - reason being, we had a pussy cat who loved to attract our attention by ripping the netting to shreds; when replaced, we got the heaviest duty material going. Obvious downside, it's in your face, visually! So, when looking at the vista beyond it's easy to always be aware that you're staring through a mesh; if you focus on how dense the material is, it fills your vision, the country beyond is chopped up to blurriness. But, you change your focus, and the trees and hills spring to life; you are almost able to "not see" the screen. The obvious full strength remedy? Make the strands of the screen ever finer, and you will get to the point where the flyscreen "vanishes" - it's always still there; but your eye/brain makes it invisible to your consciousness.

 

And this is exactly how high accuracy sound reproduction can perform "a miracle!"

[Archimago]

8 hours ago, PYP said:

That would be very welcome indeed.  

 

One thing that strikes me about the MoFi issue is that no one heard the difference when MoFi changed their process to include digital.  Unless I misunderstood, the whistle wasn't blown by someone who listened to the digital-based album and said, "What a second!  I hear the telltale thinning upper frequencies that can only mean digital processing was used!"  Even a famous audio demigod didn't hear it.  I'm not mentioning this, btw, to wind up anyone.  It just makes me think that digital processing has made significant advances and that digital can be enjoyable to listen to.  Clearly, the MoFi product was a hybrid, but seemed to get the best of both worlds for those who enjoy vinyl.  

 

     ...

 

I would be interested to know why they started using digital processing to produce a record and whether they had long ago used digital to archive the master tape just in case the tape became damaged.   At some point, did they find that digital processing was nearly undetectable to even a trained ear?  

 

Maybe it's OK to realize that digital - especially hi-res whether it be DSD or PCM these days IS simply transparent already using a decent ADC for the audio transfer and judicious 24+-bits processing thereafter.

 

Maybe it's time for audiophiles to let go of whatever myths are still being held about digital somehow sounding inferior to pure analog because this never made sense beyond some of the earliest digital albums. Keeping audio in the digital domain until the final cut to lacquer seems like the most logical path to best quality sound.

 

This whole MoFi controversy I think provides much-needed soul-searching for certain analogue audiophiles.

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 minutes ago, Archimago said:

This whole MoFi controversy I think provides much-needed soul-searching for certain analogue audiophiles.

That is my hope as well. 

[fas42]

BTW, I could probably mention now that the main TV is usually on, when playing CDs, . We like following current news - which means that when some album is going for it, there are also, say, talking heads, between the speakers! How does this work?!! Well, there are two acoustic spaces in front of one, the TV sound which is in line with the rig speakers, and the CD playback presentation, which is beyond the TV - they exist in different 'layers', and it's easy to switch focus from one to the other. Similar to how you can listen to a person talking across the dining table, while some feet away a string quartet, playing live, adds some "dinner music" - one's brain doesn't explode handling this; and this is what accurate playback delivers ...

[firedog]

9 hours ago, PYP said:

I would be interested to know why they started using digital processing to produce a record and whether they had long ago used digital to archive the master tape just in case the tape became damaged.   At some point, did they find that digital processing was nearly undetectable to even a trained ear?  

There is an issue that didn't exist years ago: labels don't release the old tapes to outfits like MOFI so they can't take the tape home and make an AAA version. MOFI tested all sorts of methods, including tape, and decided that the most accurate copy of these old master tapes came from DSD.  And yes, they did find it was basically undetectable, as the controversy shows. 
 

[botrytis]

This is why it is 'Much Ado About Nothing'.

[StephenJK]

11 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That is my hope as well. 

If you think of MoFi Ultradisc One-Step LPs more as luxury goods than an audiophile item, then it makes more sense.  Some people like the cachet and bling factor of a Gucci handbag or a designer outfit.  Having a $150 LP in a schmancy box with a nice certificate is just another way of doing that.  Does that LP really sound that much better than whatever other copies are available?  For some people, the answer is obviously yes. 

 

It doesn't have much appeal for me, I tend to buy music that I don't already have with my budget - it's rare that I buy a title of something I already have.  The recent series on this site with "Which Version is the Best" doesn't have much interest for me.  If I have a recording of music that I like that is less than stellar, I can still play it and enjoy it with the realization that it is what it is.   I certainly appreciate a great recording, but won't play something based on that alone.

 

We've heard the comment many times that selling a 24/192 highres file made from a master tape is much like selling the farm - denying yourself the opportunity to sell that music over and over again.  If you consider that might be true, then MoFi don't really have any options other than to do what they're doing - pressing LPs from a digital file supposedly made from a master tape or a safety copy.  They certainly couldn't make a business case for selling the digital file as they likely wouldn't have that option.

 

Now, with that recent video posted here of Bernie Grundman, Chad Kassem etc. the point was made that "nothing is better than the original".  Intellectually, I think we would all agree with that, but never having heard a master tape whistling along at 30 IPS I have no idea how much better that could be.  Transcendental, magical?  Or just a bit better?

 

At the same time, some people believe that it can be difficult to hear the difference between a 24/96 and a 24/192 file of the same material.  If that is the case, then once again we need to consider the other factors that are involved with purchasing decisions.  It is a well known fact that people perceive the more expensive item to have greater value, whether that's with French wines, dress shoes or music files.  

 

Today, we see a music business run by dinosaurs that just can't seem to realize there's another way of selling and distributing music.  One where they can still make money and with a very low processing cost and next to nothing for a distribution cost.  Then again, the people buying the $150 LP help to reinforce the status quo.