Mobile Fidelity Analog Vinyl Controversy

[MarkS]

I dunno.. I have a handful of CDs from 1983/84 and they sound like absolute tinny crap compared to the vinyl from that era

Curious as to which CDs these are.

Early CDs sometimes used the LP master (with EQ applied to compensate for LP high roll-off that CDs did not need), making the CD sound bad.

But companies that knew what they were doing (eg Telarc classical) produced fantastic CDs that still sound excellent.

 

[JP]

Purportedly early DSOtM is one.

 

[Labjr]

Which is also true if it was mastered from an analog tape with no digital inter-master. The vinyl end product is always objectively 'worse' compared to the mastering source.



Well sure. But why would you rather play an LP that was mastered from the analog tape versus the wholly transparent DSD copy of it? There is no audible difference.

I don't personally prefer vinyl. I think digital technology has come so far and is much more versatile. However, some people enjoy the coloration that vinyl provides and they like the nostalgia and going through the motions of playing vinyl because gives them enjoyment. Most analog recordings are far from perfect, mixed from overdubs using ancient equipment etc. and analog process probably covers some of the blemishes and makes it easier for some people to listen to. That's okay with me.

 

[Labjr]

Curious as to which CDs these are.

Early CDs sometimes used the LP master (with EQ applied to compensate for LP high roll-off that CDs did not need), making the CD sound bad.

But companies that knew what they were doing (eg Telarc classical) produced fantastic CDs that still sound excellent.

A real shame they did that in the beginning. Major labels were cashing in cheaply as possible. Then again when the remasters came in the 90's. Some of the early digital recordings were nice for demoing but I listen to mostly Classic Rock and Pop.

 

[DMill]

Curious as to which CDs these are.

Early CDs sometimes used the LP master (with EQ applied to compensate for LP high roll-off that CDs did not need), making the CD sound bad.

But companies that knew what they were doing (eg Telarc classical) produced fantastic CDs that still sound excellent.

Might have been some Columbia House 12 for a penny deal. I do seem to remember some thin sounding CDs but it was a long time ago and I had no money so I’m sure my gear wasn,t great either. I will say hearing the Nakamichi stuff was my first experience with what I thought was HiFi and opened my eyes. Now 40 years later…

 

[Blumlein 88]

Might have been some Columbia House 12 for a penny deal. I do seem to remember some thin sounding CDs but it was a long time ago and I had no money so I’m sure my gear wasn,t great either. I will say hearing the Nakamichi stuff was my first experience with what I thought was HiFi and opened my eyes. Now 40 years later…

Oh now you have revived a memory. The horrible Columbia House BMG CD club. Those were all remastered and as far as I can remember all were tinny and bad in other ways. I signed up with a friend so we could split choices since it was easy to keep the cheap prices going. They were mailed to his house, and he listened to them when they came in before I got them. I remember him saying once he listened to a Third Eye Blind CD it should have been called Third Ear Deaf or All Ears Deaf because it was so piercing.

I always wondered why did they re-master them. They could have just used the existing master tape and everything would have been better.

Correction : It was the BMG CD club I was thinking about not Columbia House.

 

[Labjr]

Might have been some Columbia House 12 for a penny deal. I do seem to remember some thin sounding CDs but it was a long time ago and I had no money so I’m sure my gear wasn,t great either. I will say hearing the Nakamichi stuff was my first experience with what I thought was HiFi and opened my eyes. Now 40 years later…

CBS which owned Columbia House also owned Columbia Records and Digital Audio Disc Corp. which manufactured CDs in Terre Haute IN. Far as I know, the CDs were made using the same masters as the retail versions.

 

[Blumlein 88]

CBS which owned Columbia House also owned Columbia Records and Digital Audio Disc Corp. which manufactured CDs in Terre Haute IN. Far as I know, the CDs were made using the same masters as the retail versions.

Nope, if you looked in the liner notes, and sometimes on the back cover, in fine print they said they were remastered for the BMG Columbia Record Club release. I'd show a picture of one of mine with that, but they are in storage.

Correction: I was in the BMG CD club. BMG's were remastered and poorly.

 

[Labjr]

Nope, if you looked in the liner notes, and sometimes on the back cover, in fine print they said they were remastered for the Columbia Record Club release. I'd show a picture of one of mine with that, but they are in storage.

During the 80's I compared many and never heard a difference. We also compared CD matrix codes. I can't imagine they'd spend the time and money to remaster them again.

 

[Labjr]

BTW, Columbia House didn't offer albums from labels from the BMG group. And BGM didn't offer anything from Colmbia group of labels.

 

[DMill]

BTW, Columbia House didn't offer albums from labels from the BMG group. And BGM didn't offer anything from Colmbia group of labels.

If you were able to do any real objective comparisons back then I can’t argue. I always seemed to remember those club CDs cutting costs with cases, liner notes etc. As far as the disc itself, I’d really need to compare. I even seem to remember the printing on the front of those CDs being bad. In hindsight, maybe they were just fine. I’ve been meaning to dig out my old Denon SACD player and will let you know my thoughts.

 

[krabapple]

Continuing with my previous post. You hear how early CD's were often cut from masters meant for LP. I don't think there is truth to that.

The claim comes not from listeners...it was the explanation that the record companies themselves offered for why they began releasing remastered versions "now sourced from the original masters". This would the late 1980s/early 90s, and was reported repeatedly in ICE at the time (the go-to newsletter for new CD releases then. I still have most of the entire run of that newsletter, stacked in my closet.)

Whether you believe them or not, is up to you.

The loudness phenomenon unfortunately followed soon on the 'remastered from OMTs' phenomenon, so things got muddled very fast. Whatever supposed benefit came from sourcing from OMTs would pf course be obscured if heavy dynamic range compression or radical EQ was added to the brew.

A CD mastered 'flat' from a LP production tape (versus a mixdown master tape) could be expected to sound not great, since the vinyl-compensatory EQ moves encoded therein -- to make it sound good on LP -- would be *unnecessary* and quite possibly detrimental for CD payback. The CD mastered from such a source would require further EQ to try to 'uncompensate' it, which is not as optimal as simply starting from the actual OMT.

 

[krabapple]

I dunno.. I have a handful of CDs from 1983/84 and they sound like absolute tinny crap compared to the vinyl from that era, or a properly mastered modern CD/file. I bet they sounded worse back then because the CD players had very poor performance.

This is simply false.

 

[krabapple]

I don't personally prefer vinyl. I think digital technology has come so far and is much more versatile. However, some people enjoy the coloration that vinyl provides

Beside the point. I wrote objectively worse. That means, measurable infidelity ('non identity') to the source. It doesn't matter if the source was analog or digital; an LP will be objectively 'worse than' (different from) its analog source, or its digital source.

 

[krabapple]

Nope, if you looked in the liner notes, and sometimes on the back cover, in fine print they said they were remastered for the BMG Columbia Record Club release. I'd show a picture of one of mine with that, but they are in storage.

Correction: I was in the BMG CD club. BMG's were remastered and poorly.

I would not rely on memory. Comparison of ripped CDs would confirm or refute.

 

[Chrispy]

Why would BMG have to remaster them?

 

[MarkS]

They were not remastered. This comes up over and over, it is a myth that will not die.

From 2005:

Ok. here's a test to back up what Steve said. I came across two old Bon Jovi-Slippery When Wet CDs. Both old. Both Made In USA Atomic Label. Identical looking except one is retail and one mfd. by BMG (the barcode thing).

Did EAC function to "compare wav files" ... 100% match of samples. These discs go back to ...err... late 80's I think.

BMG Club CDs Mastering Question

I recently purchased the ZZ Top-Six Pack from Amazon and when I received it I found that it's a BMG Club issue. I was unaware of this when I purchased...

forums.stevehoffman.tv

 

[krabapple]

Why would BMG have to remaster them?

Indeed.

 

[Midwest Blade]

Stunning how this has exploded in the analog world. I worry this is will only serve to expand the gaps in the audio world, both analog/digital and subjective/ objective. Not really what we need to keep the whole thing growing.

 

[formdissolve]

This is simply false.

I had a few old CD players from 83-84 and comparing the analog out to even a cheap $100 Schiit Modi 3 I can definitely hear a difference (although yes, I didn't do it fully blind, just closing eyes and switching inputs until I forgot. One was always clearer, and when I opened my eyes it was always the modern DAC that was cleaner with far less distortion than the older players. Obviously not scientific of course!) Pretty sure one of the Phillips players had a 14-bit DAC. Got rid of all my vintage gear years ago so I can't do a proper A/B test at all.


As for BMG, I do recall there were cases where some albums were censored and unfortunately didn't label it as such, but can't recall exactly which ones. Could have also been an old myth back in the early 90s.