Mobile Fidelity Analog Vinyl Controversy

[scottmckinney67]

For me, the point of choosing to listen to an LP is the knowledge that what I'm listening to has always been all analog. That there's never been digital in the path. I listen to digital (CD, SACD, and downloads). I know that it is digital when I listen to it. Some is good, some is bad. I know it is digital.

When I listen to LPs, I want all analog. I want to know it is all analog, that there was no digital anything in the entire process from master tape to me.

When I listen to tape, I want to know that it has been tape from master tape through the production chain to me.

The point of listening to different formats is to enjoy the differences between them. There are other considerations, such as convenience. But these are not relevant to this discussion.

If there is digital in the path, one will always wonder about the process. What's the bit depth? What's the bit rate? For both the A/D and the D/A paths. Etc...

The same can be said about an all analog remastering path. Poor choices of tape or settings could mess up the copy used for later copies. But it is analog.

I sincerely hope that no matter what the mastering process is, all steps have been made to make copies that are as close to the master as possible given the limitations of the media involved.

I have tons of original LP releases from the 50s, 60s, and 70s that are most definitely all analog. Why should I pay dearly for a new release of a remastered LP of these if I know that there's digital somewhere in the remastering path? I'll just obtain a digital copy. Much more convenient.

Some make the valid point that the remastering process from tape or digital to LP will create the "LP Sound". I agree. Clearly the choices made during mastering need to account for the medium that will be used for the copies. And maybe the LP mastered from this procss "sounds better". This argument misses the point. The large part of my enjoyment of LPs comes from the fact (assumption?) that it does not have digital in it's remastering history.

I hear ya man. Those clicks, pops and rumbling at moderate volumes are much more enjoyable than the music... The only reason anything started out analog is because that was the medium of the time. To me, it's like guys wanting to watch black and white tv's rather than an 8k oled...

 

[Dial]

They still use RTR b&w VCR & 8 track in their cars !

 

[IPunchCholla]

I guess I think of it in terms of the shoutometer. With vinyl I’m listen to two people yelling at me from a meter away. Then there are these other two people perfectly in line with them standing at least 100 meters away, but usually further. Can I hear those two distant people? Probably, if I really focused on it. But I wanted to listen to the two people close, so if I just relax and let my brain do it’s thing, I don’t notice those distant people at all.

With economical digital sources, those distant people are standing in another state. Which is great for those times I want to dissect a song, but matters little for just listening for pleasure.

Also we need to remember that the people shouting are contributing an order of magnitude more distortion than the electronics, so being able to hear source distortion vs speaker distortion becomes an issue to.

 

[IPunchCholla]

What is new with regard to vinyl technology is improved manufacturing processes, and in the case of turntables, CNC machining of bearings, platters, tonearm bearings and such which can be both higher quality and less expensive than could be accomplished in the past. In the case of cartridges, newer materials are now available to achieve better overall performance at less cost.

Newer record presses benefit from automation technologies which were not available in the 50s and 60s when the old presses were made. I could go on with a little research, but it is mistaken to say that there is no 'science' involved just because a technology is 'obsolete'.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"So my stance by owning R2R myself and providing space for people to talk about it, is far more flexible than normally be warranted given our charter."

I hope I'm not taking the above sentence as you are 'tolerating' discussion of older technologies because you happen to have a reel to reel machine. Is the 'charter' really that restrictive? Am I violating some code somewhere by discussing 'obsolete' technologies? Is that really the forum you want, intolerance and all? If something wasn't invented yesterday, is it off limits?

That doesn't sound like the kind of place I would want to devote time to. If your concept of ASR is really that restrictive, please do me the favor of letting me know so I can ride off into the sunset for greener pastures. Seriously.

I hope you don’t. I like your posts and you’re just up the road from me!

 

[IPunchCholla]

I hear ya man. Those clicks, pops and rumbling at moderate volumes are much more enjoyable than the music... The only reason anything started out analog is because that was the medium of the time. To me, it's like guys wanting to watch black and white tv's rather than an 8k oled...

You do know it’s not either/or right. One can do both, if you want. I find it fun to play with old tech, simply to understand its functioning, but also to remind myself just how much pleasure can still be derived from them.

Not everything (in fact almost nothing) is black and white. Even black and white.

 

[scottmckinney67]

You do know it’s not either/or right. One can do both, if you want. I find it fun to play with old tech, simply to understand its functioning, but also to remind myself just how much pleasure can still be derived from them.

Not everything (in fact almost nothing) is black and white. Even black and white

Wow, enlightening! I didn't know guys do it for the fun of it. I thought these cheeseheads actually thought vinyl sounds better.... hehe

 

[Jaxjax]

For me, the point of choosing to listen to an LP is the knowledge that what I'm listening to has always been all analog. That there's never been digital in the path. I listen to digital (CD, SACD, and downloads). I know that it is digital when I listen to it. Some is good, some is bad. I know it is digital.

When I listen to LPs, I want all analog. I want to know it is all analog, that there was no digital anything in the entire process from master tape to me.

When I listen to tape, I want to know that it has been tape from master tape through the production chain to me.

The point of listening to different formats is to enjoy the differences between them. There are other considerations, such as convenience. But these are not relevant to this discussion.

If there is digital in the path, one will always wonder about the process. What's the bit depth? What's the bit rate? For both the A/D and the D/A paths. Etc...

The same can be said about an all analog remastering path. Poor choices of tape or settings could mess up the copy used for later copies. But it is analog.

I sincerely hope that no matter what the mastering process is, all steps have been made to make copies that are as close to the master as possible given the limitations of the media involved.

I have tons of original LP releases from the 50s, 60s, and 70s that are most definitely all analog. Why should I pay dearly for a new release of a remastered LP of these if I know that there's digital somewhere in the remastering path? I'll just obtain a digital copy. Much more convenient.

Some make the valid point that the remastering process from tape or digital to LP will create the "LP Sound". I agree. Clearly the choices made during mastering need to account for the medium that will be used for the copies. And maybe the LP mastered from this procss "sounds better". This argument misses the point. The large part of my enjoyment of LPs comes from the fact (assumption?) that it does not have digital in it's remastering history.

This is a great sensible reply.

 

[amirm]

Let's leave out format battle here and focus on the topic of OP.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

There is a controversy at Mobile Fidelity I've heard. I think its a tempest in a teapot.

 

[Jaxjax]

I hear ya man. Those clicks, pops and rumbling at moderate volumes are much more enjoyable than the music... The only reason anything started out analog is because that was the medium of the time. To me, it's like guys wanting to watch black and white tv's rather than an 8k oled...

I wouldn't give $5.00 for a world class Digital photo print of anything. I would however give a few thousand for a world class B & W print with analog only chain inn SG or Palladium. The digital chain technically superior ? yes... Do i like the results ? NO
How can this be ?
The picture in my moniker is of the Byrds & if it were done in digital or had digital in its chain it would be in garbage or someone else's house.

 

[scottmckinney67]

I wouldn't give $5.00 for a world class Digital photo print of anything. I would however give a few thousand for a world class B & W print with analog only chain inn SG or Palladium. The digital chain technically superior ? yes... Do i like the results ? NO
How can this be ?
The picture in my moniker is of the Byrds & if it were done in digital or had digital in its chain it would be in garbage or someone else's house.

I understand what you're saying but my issue is, sometimes the best source for an original recording is digital now. Imagine a master tape that's been in existence for decades and how it degrades. Personally, I would want something that was digitally remastered on good equipment by a pro prior to the degradation. I just can't see spending thousands upon thousands for something that is inferior sound quality wise. If folks want to be collectors of vintage vinyl, play it occasionally, great. Most of us folks can't afford to go that route. Bang for buck sound quality is what I strive for. It becomes annoying when folks tout analog as better to their ears due to the "sound" of analog. I want it to sound as close to a live performance as possible not on old record player.

 

[kchap]

I wouldn't give $5.00 for a world class Digital photo print of anything. I would however give a few thousand for a world class B & W print with analog only chain inn SG or Palladium. The digital chain technically superior ? yes... Do i like the results ? NO
How can this be ?
The picture in my moniker is of the Byrds & if it were done in digital or had digital in its chain it would be in garbage or someone else's house.

Couldn't agree more. If a book is not hand written on a calfskin vellum in gothic font it's not worth reading.

 

[Godataloss]

The controversy will do nothing but drive Mofi's already bloated prices higher.

 

[Azazello13]

Some make the valid point that the remastering process from tape or digital to LP will create the "LP Sound". I agree. Clearly the choices made during mastering need to account for the medium that will be used for the copies. And maybe the LP mastered from this procss "sounds better". This argument misses the point. The large part of my enjoyment of LPs comes from the fact (assumption?) that it does not have digital in it's remastering history.

I think it's not so much the remastering process, whether all analog or partially digital, that creates the "LP sound", although there are changes an engineer has to make to accommodate the medium (de-essing, reducing bass extension, etc.). I think the vast preponderance of what we consider "LP sound" comes from vinyl playback. Dragging a rock through plastic. These characteristics are degradations in fidelity, but obviously many people really enjoy them. That's fine.

But I'm struggling to understand how and why your enjoyment is impacted by something that you aren't even able to hear. I mean, if you can't tell whether an LP has digital anywhere in its provenance, and all the stuff you love about vinyl comes through either way, why would your enjoyment be impaired?

 

[MattHooper]

I understand what you're saying but my issue is, sometimes the best source for an original recording is digital now. Imagine a master tape that's been in existence for decades and how it degrades. Personally, I would want something that was digitally remastered on good equipment by a pro prior to the degradation. I just can't see spending thousands upon thousands for something that is inferior sound quality wise.

Good reason for you, personally, not to buy vinyl.

If folks want to be collectors of vintage vinyl, play it occasionally, great.

Is it ok if they play it more than occasionally?

I play vinyl very often and very much enjoy doing so.

Most of us folks can't afford to go that route.

Vinyl has become hugely popular with folks of all ages, and many are far from rich.

Bang for buck sound quality is what I strive for. It becomes annoying when folks tout analog as better to their ears due to the "sound" of analog. I want it to sound as close to a live performance as possible not on old record player.

I agree it's silly when some people tout vinyl as "better" in a technical sense. That's usually due to ignorance.

But as far as "sounds better to their ears" that's up to them.

Like you I enjoy when sound has some more life-like qualities. Since none of us are doing controlled blind studies of live vs reproduced, the perception of whether a vinyl or digital version "sounds more real" is going to be up to an individual's tastes, experiences, their memories of live sound (which may or may not be accurate), and what they may be cuing in on in the sound.

As one example, I have both my ripped CD file and a vinyl version of Herbie Hancock's Chameleon. I love the album. The difference I perceive between them is that the CD version sounds like a very clean, excellent recording. But the LP version seems to have a density and textural presence that makes the drums seem a bit more substantial, present and "real" to my ears. If you heard the very same comparison on my system, you may cue in to aspects of the digital version that struck you as more realistic. When it comes to a sense of realism stereo reproduction is full of compromises, so we pick the compromises that work for us. You may value one sonic aspect more, I may value another. Hopefully that's not too annoying

 

[ta240]

If digital is so bad as some claim, the golden ears would have heard the incorrigible sound immediately and started complaining and wanting refunds long before now. Knowing only the sound was awful without knowing why. The fact this didn't happen indicates digital usage during the Mofi process is likely un-hearable by golden or other ears.

An unintentional massive blind test in the heart of subjectivists holiest of holies analog world.

Back to the "if it proves our point of view it doesn't need to be double blind testing" angle.
People would have to have both versions of the same album, one in a completely analog processing chain and one with their digital step. Otherwise the mofi digital step version might be the best version they have but still not as good as it could be, in theory.

If I sell you an amp and tell you its distortion is below 160 db and you pay a premium for it and tell everyone that it is the cleanest amp you've ever heard only to later find out that it is only at 105 db does that prove that anyone that thinks an amp should produce lower distortion is stupid? Or just that it was better than or equal to your prior amps so you didn't notice.

And, as always, if we are doing A/B testing the way it is done in reviews here you would have to tell the listeners which one is the digital and which is the analog version so they know what to listen for. Ironically, the exact way that Paul from PS Audio says comparisons should be done...

 

[ta240]

i got some john denver vinyl disks out of a bargin bin at a store and they had the hiss and pop which is unsurprising since the sleeves etc looks really worn. Maybe if i do a deep clean of them it can clear some of that up. But i got a mint condition mariya takeuchi vinyl disk online and there was none of that and it sounded pretty clean. I don't have some expensive turntable setup I'm using a vintage rega planar 3 with my topping a90 and genelec 8030c lol. I'm sure if i AB test a flac file the flac would sound better but the vinyl not too bad. Also I'm having a lot of fun using a turntable.

Clean, well cared for vinyl just doesn't pop and click like people say. Even my slightly abused old records don't. Besides I can run it through the Paradigm PW-Link (A recommended product here) and get really bad pops between songs that were dismissed as not being an issue.....

 

[killdozzer]

For me, the point of choosing to listen to an LP is the knowledge that what I'm listening to has always been all analog. That there's never been digital in the path. I listen to digital (CD, SACD, and downloads). I know that it is digital when I listen to it. Some is good, some is bad. I know it is digital.

When I listen to LPs, I want all analog. I want to know it is all analog, that there was no digital anything in the entire process from master tape to me.

When I listen to tape, I want to know that it has been tape from master tape through the production chain to me.

The point of listening to different formats is to enjoy the differences between them. There are other considerations, such as convenience. But these are not relevant to this discussion.

If there is digital in the path, one will always wonder about the process. What's the bit depth? What's the bit rate? For both the A/D and the D/A paths. Etc...

The same can be said about an all analog remastering path. Poor choices of tape or settings could mess up the copy used for later copies. But it is analog.

I sincerely hope that no matter what the mastering process is, all steps have been made to make copies that are as close to the master as possible given the limitations of the media involved.

I have tons of original LP releases from the 50s, 60s, and 70s that are most definitely all analog. Why should I pay dearly for a new release of a remastered LP of these if I know that there's digital somewhere in the remastering path? I'll just obtain a digital copy. Much more convenient.

Some make the valid point that the remastering process from tape or digital to LP will create the "LP Sound". I agree. Clearly the choices made during mastering need to account for the medium that will be used for the copies. And maybe the LP mastered from this procss "sounds better". This argument misses the point. The large part of my enjoyment of LPs comes from the fact (assumption?) that it does not have digital in it's remastering history.

You're obsessing about irrelevant things. You don't have to ask yourselves any of those questions. The bit depth/rates are much more than sufficient. Unlike all analog where the record is a narrow frame through which you hear music. It's a bottle-neck.

back on topic, this thread made me realise that some people have problems with digital in itself. Like, no matter how good it sounds, I don't want it because it's digital. I hate to see this as it leads to religious fundamentalist type of mind-set. As in kosher or such, like did it ever touch what is unholy and pagan or "is she a virgin or is she going to hell?". This is the wrong way to look at things. The very fact it had digital in the path shouldn't matter. Whatever improves sound gets priority.

Having said that, if MOFI stated that it's all analogue and it's not something that consumers simply implied, than they DID misinform buyers which I always hate.

 

[killdozzer]

Back to the "if it proves our point of view it doesn't need to be double blind testing" angle.
People would have to have both versions of the same album, one in a completely analog processing chain and one with their digital step. Otherwise the mofi digital step version might be the best version they have but still not as good as it could be, in theory.

If I sell you an amp and tell you its distortion is below 160 db and you pay a premium for it and tell everyone that it is the cleanest amp you've ever heard only to later find out that it is only at 105 db does that prove that anyone that thinks an amp should produce lower distortion is stupid? Or just that it was better than or equal to your prior amps so you didn't notice.

And, as always, if we are doing A/B testing the way it is done in reviews here you would have to tell the listeners which one is the digital and which is the analog version so they know what to listen for. Ironically, the exact way that Paul from PS Audio says comparisons should be done...

I think you're abusing the notion of ab testing. People who claim there's a huge noticeable difference that goes in favor of records, don't need to put a CD before their listening session in order to truly appreciate the record. They never listen it in contrast. They simply say it's a huge difference for them and they don't like some (imaginary) digital harshness which they obviously didn't hear in this case.

 

[KEM]

I think it's not so much the remastering process, whether all analog or partially digital, that creates the "LP sound", although there are changes an engineer has to make to accommodate the medium (de-essing, reducing bass extension, etc.). I think the vast preponderance of what we consider "LP sound" comes from vinyl playback. Dragging a rock through plastic. These characteristics are degradations in fidelity, but obviously many people really enjoy them. That's fine.

But I'm struggling to understand how and why your enjoyment is impacted by something that you aren't even able to hear. I mean, if you can't tell whether an LP has digital anywhere in its provenance, and all the stuff you love about vinyl comes through either way, why would your enjoyment be impaired?

You are correct. My point though was that I would like to have the confidence that an LP is all analog. Sound is not the issue with me. The thought that a company would tout their great LP mastering without telling us that there is a digital step is abhorrent.
Keep LPs analog.
Keep CDs, SACDs, downloads, and streaming digital.
Or tell us.