Mobile Fidelity Analog Vinyl Controversy

[Robert C]

More from 78 shellacs than LP I would venture, just a guess.

I meant LP Production Master tapes, not discs.

 

[Robert C]

I know it happened. But I know of no one who ever actually tabulated a verified number. That would be a difficult thing to do.

It was a common excuse that record companies used for remastering, starting in the late 80s.

Broadly speaking, if an '80s CD of an analogue era recording had an LP PM that the label could access they would use it.

 

[Sal1950]

I meant LP Production Master tapes, not discs.

Ah, I thought you were talking about needle drops.
I'm sure some CD's were released from needle drops due to there being no vialbe tapes but
didn't have any first had knowledge to debate what I thought was your statement.

 

[Robert C]

Ah, I thought you were talking about needle drops.
I'm sure some CD's were released from needle drops due to there being no vialbe tapes but
didn't have any first had knowledge to debate what I thought was your statement.

Yep, I've definitely come across CDs that were needle drops from vinyl. Seemed to happen a fair bit with compilations - still does!

 

[Robin L]

Yep, I've definitely come across CDs that were needle drops from vinyl. Seemed to happen a fair bit with compilations - still does!

I've got a lot of ancient top 40, quite a few transfers being needledrops from 45's, with the sound as good as it's gonna get. I've made needledrops for others, including transfers of 78s. What I have heard of 78s transferred to CD indicates some miracles are possible, but the same sort of squabbling akin to the Mobil Fidelity controversy applies. Example: the Arthur Schnabel Beethoven sonatas for piano, originally EMI, now absorbed with the rest of EMI classical recordings to Warner Brothers. As far as I can tell, the Warner Brothers transfers are recent, made from commercial copies of the discs and given advanced digital treatment to remove surface noise. Previous attempts either had excessive filtering or excessive surface noise and distortion. I think the most recent transfers---I heard them when I streamed via Amazon---have the best sound overall, with clear treble and little surface noise, But the comments I've seen have a lot of complaints. I guess without the surface noise, the transfers seem "dead" to those used to the clicks and pops of the Naxos transfers or to earlier LP issues.

I used Click Repair for my transfers, this goes back to ten years ago. A lot of the transfers were of odd formats, like 78 rpm home recordings, though most were from LPs that have seen better days. Click Repair is not a real-time function, and my understanding is that there are real-time de-clickers now available. In any case, I would first give the file a pass of the de-clicker backwards, then forward for maximum de-clicking. There never was 100% removal of clicks and pops, but the improvement was always noticeable.

Listening to SOTA noise removal, like the centennial reissue of the Robert Johnson recordings, indicates what is possible:

I'm pretty sure that a transfer of a master tape to a high rez format is the way to go. I don't think DSD is the way to go, considering the limits of that format. As long as all the effort goes into getting a transfer as clean as possible, it's a good idea to take advantage of the options of hi-rez by using 24 bit PCM. I am very skeptical of the advantages of sampling rates above 48khz but am very familiar with the advantages of 24 bit encoding in post-production.

 

[Don Hills]

Did you miss "when being cut"?

Yeah, my apologies. I misread it.

 

[Sal1950]

Listening to SOTA noise removal, like the centennial reissue of the Robert Johnson recordings, indicates what is possible:

They do an amazing job on those releases!

I'm pretty sure that a transfer of a master tape to a high rez format is the way to go. I don't think DSD is the way to go, considering the limits of that format.

Agreed! The use of DSD is due to the BS audiophool myth about DSD sounding better than pcm.
Just more of the subjective cults imaginary contributions to our favorite pastime.

 

[anmpr1]

I'm sure some CD's were released from needle drops due to there being no vialbe tapes but

I think you find it more with older material, and odd-ball stuff. Away from the usual outrageous Arkestra sound, just a small ensemble, the quality is not bad; certainly different than what you might expect at the usual Sun Ra 'anything goes' gig.

Original tape couldn't be found, so it was mastered from a record. From 1979, so maybe it's a little surprising that master tapes couldn't be located. Probably someone took them home, and forgot about them. Now in a closet, under a rag pile of clothes no one's worn in forty years.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

So I have a question.

It’s completely clear now that you can make a digital file which is indistinguishable from an analogue master tape.

But it’s also clear that some people ‘prefer the sound of vinyl’.

The inescapable conclusion is that the transfer from either the original master or the high quality digital copy creates distortion which some people like.

So. Could someone take such a high quality source, cut it to vinyl, then digitise the vinyl (okay, yes we already know that part can be done), but then analyse the difference and see exactly what that distortion is, and create a simple digital tweak which can then be made to the original digital file on the fly. Analyse enough vinyl pressings that it becomes clear what vinyl is doing to the sound, and replicate it digitally.

I suppose what I’m suggesting is including a ‘vinyl sound’ button on a DAC.

 

[Sal1950]

I suppose what I’m suggesting is including a ‘vinyl sound’ button on a DAC.

Sure, That's possible enough. Is that really what you want?
To take the pristine sound of the original digital (or analog) master, and add all vinyls distortions, noise, etc???
WHY?

 

[Doodski]

So I have a question.

It’s completely clear now that you can make a digital file which is indistinguishable from an analogue master tape.

But it’s also clear that some people ‘prefer the sound of vinyl’.

The inescapable conclusion is that the transfer from either the original master or the high quality digital copy creates distortion which some people like.

So. Could someone take such a high quality source, cut it to vinyl, then digitise the vinyl (okay, yes we already know that part can be done), but then analyse the difference and see exactly what that distortion is, and create a simple digital tweak which can then be made to the original digital file on the fly. Analyse enough vinyl pressings that it becomes clear what vinyl is doing to the sound, and replicate it digitally.

I suppose what I’m suggesting is including a ‘vinyl sound’ button on a DAC.

I sought after live musicians for years to view and listen to. Never in my mind would I have added clicks and scratches to the sound.

 

[antcollinet]

Sure, That's possible enough. Is that really what you want?
To take the pristine sound of the original digital (or analog) master, and add all vinyls distortions, noise, etc???
WHY?

In any case the folk who might actually be a market for this would never accept it being done digitally.

 

[antcollinet]

That conclusion is not inescapable.
There have been opinions on this forum that the attractive qualities of vinyl involve mastering, mixing, compression and equalization that differ from digital products. I am guessing (and that's all that it is!) that any transfer from either original masters or high-quality digital copies would involve some sort of modification using these techniques. After all, the new-and-improved product must have some way to differentiate itself from the slew of other copies out there, doesn't it?

Like I said .... I'm guessing. Jim

No idea how to decipher that

 

[dougi]

So I have a question.

It’s completely clear now that you can make a digital file which is indistinguishable from an analogue master tape.

But it’s also clear that some people ‘prefer the sound of vinyl’.

The inescapable conclusion is that the transfer from either the original master or the high quality digital copy creates distortion which some people like.

So. Could someone take such a high quality source, cut it to vinyl, then digitise the vinyl (okay, yes we already know that part can be done), but then analyse the difference and see exactly what that distortion is, and create a simple digital tweak which can then be made to the original digital file on the fly. Analyse enough vinyl pressings that it becomes clear what vinyl is doing to the sound, and replicate it digitally.

I suppose what I’m suggesting is including a ‘vinyl sound’ button on a DAC.

This has already been done. See the Weiss DACs . The manual explains what the "vinyl emulator" does in quite some detail.

 

[Somafunk]

Archimago has an excellent write up on the mofi controversy below

Archimago’s musings regarding the mofigate class action lawsuit here

 

[restorer-john]

Archimago has an excellent write up on the mofi controversy below

Archimago’s musings regarding the mofigate class action lawsuit here

He kind of loses the plot IMO. There's decades of loss and decades of deception.

MoFi made out they had a golden goose and charged accordingly for its incredibly rare eggs. They kept their golden goose in a special barn where nobody saw it. Then it was revealed they didn't even own a goose, it was an egg laying machine! It was exposed when they got too greedy and made way more eggs than an actual goose could ever lay.

 

[krabapple]

Frankly, most of what 'needs' to be remastered has already been remastered. Fewer people care about legacy recordings and just accept what's already out there as 'the version'.

I'm only really concerned that everything on master tapes has been properly archived to digital.

Including multitrack masters!

And then the tapes themselves be stored properly in a place that won't burn down.

 

[krabapple]

A vinyl master would have been further EQ'd to insert the RIAA curve if nothing else, when being cut.

The vinyl production master tape (or digital master file) would NOT have the RIAA curve applied. That is always done during every cutting itself.

 

[krabapple]

Yet another ego clash - member who has been here at ASR for a while but posts infrequently - and apparent has some specific relevant experience - pops up suddenly and has difficulty communicating in a civil manner. Loud pontification leads to clashes. The heart of the matter seems to revolve around definitions and perspectives, and component vs final product performance.

Instead of working towards common ground, or agreeing to disagree, verbal combat ensues. Not the first time I've seen this on internet forums.

The guy with experience makes the point that it was not the backing material of the tape-- the mylar, what we would call 'tape' -- that failed, but the oxide binder on top of it. It's a valid point but the argument as usual went on far too long.

 

[krabapple]

Well, do you want to hear the un-tained original or not? LOL

Is the 'un-tained' (?) original properly transferred or not? THis is beyond Wilson's purview, since it's not his responsibility.

Mofi purports to do serious due diligence on this.

A great example is The Yes Album. Mofi claims that all previous remasters (and the one in the Wilson set) were wrong because they used the wrong Dolby A setting. Their version is quite loud but sounds amazing.

Beyond that, as I noted, some master tapes really do need 'help'. IT might be instructions on the tape box that need following, it might be compensating for wacked out mixdown engineers or crappy playback monitors.

No ones perfect, but his globe of work shows him to be the best we currently have for doing multich mixing in popular music

The best? Is there some objective metric of that? Because from my MLP his 'Relayer' is an infuriating abortion, and his Tull remixes are all over the map. He disappoints as often as he delights.

Scheiner, Greg Penney for Elton John...these guys have hit it out of the ballpark every time.