- Joined
- Jan 15, 2022
- Messages
- 1,116
- Likes
- 1,400
It's updated. There is a link to the original version upthread. No mention of DSD.So is this sheet new or has it been out for some time and people just didn't pay attention?
It's updated. There is a link to the original version upthread. No mention of DSD.So is this sheet new or has it been out for some time and people just didn't pay attention?
Oh i didn't buy the remaster, I was talking about the actual first print vinyl from 40 years ago that is possibly 'all analog'. I have one of those.It’s not in my Top 10, but there is no arguing that it is an album of massive historical significance in pop music. As a 54 year old it seemed to dominate the airwaves when it was released for a good year or more with hit after hit. I’m curious of your impressions of the $100 MoFi vinyl remaster? Are you able to hear differences vs other vinyl or CD?
As much as I wish that was the way these things worked, it is going to be: "I purchased a speculative commodity at price X based on information Y. The defendants were clearly lying about information Y. After their lies were revealed, the value of the commodity fell by Z amount. The defendents owe me the difference between Z and X."I still wonder about the court case .
“Sir we lost an imagined intangible thing , but the recording sounds identical to how it had sound if it where there”
The poor judge would have a head scratcher for sure
The bit of feedback I have seen elsewhere goes along the lines of "I didn't care much for MoFi releases anyway...."Has any of the analog only purists realised the importance of this blind test yet, or are they all doubling down?
I'd say sales at elevated pricing indicates those people are lying.The bit of feedback I have seen elsewhere goes along the lines of "I didn't care much for MoFi releases anyway...."
That will be the day when someone sues the homeopaths , i bought nothing and nothing happened with my illnessAs much as I wish that was the way these things worked, it is going to be: "I purchased a speculative commodity at price X based on information Y. The defendants were clearly lying about information Y. After their lies were revealed, the value of the commodity fell by Z amount. The defendents owe me the difference between Z and X."
The actual philosophical difference between the 2 might be zero, but the market is God.
I don't think so. The seller of a product is not responsible to the buyer for its secondary value. That's precisely because the market is god and therefore outside the control of the seller.As much as I wish that was the way these things worked, it is going to be: "I purchased a speculative commodity at price X based on information Y. The defendants were clearly lying about information Y. After their lies were revealed, the value of the commodity fell by Z amount. The defendents owe me the difference between Z and X."
The actual philosophical difference between the 2 might be zero, but the market is God.
Too perceptive to have been fooled, those golden ears. But when it comes to ex post facto auditory perception, nobody is as expert as those golden ears.The bit of feedback I have seen elsewhere goes along the lines of "I didn't care much for MoFi releases anyway...."
LOL,this is audiofoolia 101,enjoy the useless rabbit hole you've dug for yourself...I don’t own many LP’s pressed in the digital era. I have been disappointed in the quality of most of them. I find that clean vintage vinyl if you can find it is superior to most of what is being pressed today. That said, there are a few company’s doing a good job. I find the whole idea of making and LP from a digital file a bit silly. Adding a pressing plant and a turntable to a digital playback chain is hardly going to increase fidelity although I have been given nonsense arguments by two professional audio on why it does. Unless one has an interest in music recorded more than 50 years ago, I don’t think vinyl is worth the bother or expense.
On the other hand, recordings from late 40’s on into the 60’s were made when magnetic tape recording was pretty new and those tapes don’t last forever. The S/N and frequency response degrades and fairly quickly. A clean vinyl record made from a new master tape in 1950 is going to sound better than any digital transfer done when the tape was 40 to 70 years old. The problem is that the hunt for that clean LP is frustrating. One might have to buy many copies from vendors who always lie about the condition in order to find a good one. You have to find a record that was owned by an audiophile that didn’t like it and hardly played it.
The main things I notice buying older vinyl (which is presumably AAA), is that 1) The master is usually superior for the most part to a lot of digital loudness war brick-walled crap with zero dynamic range, and 2) The pressings are much, much better. These two things alone sometimes cause me to spend a bit extra for some older music on vinyl.I don’t own many LP’s pressed in the digital era. I have been disappointed in the quality of most of them. I find that clean vintage vinyl if you can find it is superior to most of what is being pressed today. That said, there are a few company’s doing a good job. I find the whole idea of making and LP from a digital file a bit silly. Adding a pressing plant and a turntable to a digital playback chain is hardly going to increase fidelity although I have been given nonsense arguments by two professional audio on why it does. Unless one has an interest in music recorded more than 50 years ago, I don’t think vinyl is worth the bother or expense.
On the other hand, recordings from late 40’s on into the 60’s were made when magnetic tape recording was pretty new and those tapes don’t last forever. The S/N and frequency response degrades and fairly quickly. A clean vinyl record made from a new master tape in 1950 is going to sound better than any digital transfer done when the tape was 40 to 70 years old. The problem is that the hunt for that clean LP is frustrating. One might have to buy many copies from vendors who always lie about the condition in order to find a good one. You have to find a record that was owned by an audiophile that didn’t like it and hardly played it.
There is some process where the Master tape is the source for cutting the lacquer.
Make a copy of that in DSD and then use the DSD as if it were a tape machine. Again one could do it other ways, but this way no edits or processing of the DSD file is needed. Seems pretty simple. Of course hearing a blow by blow description of what they do would be nice.
At least they used DSD. That's like using IBM's Deep Blue supercomputer to add 2+2.
I don’t own many LP’s pressed in the digital era. I have been disappointed in the quality of most of them. I find that clean vintage vinyl if you can find it is superior to most of what is being pressed today. That said, there are a few company’s doing a good job. I find the whole idea of making and LP from a digital file a bit silly.
Adding a pressing plant and a turntable to a digital playback chain is hardly going to increase fidelity although I have been given nonsense arguments by two professional audio on why it does. Unless one has an interest in music recorded more than 50 years ago, I don’t think vinyl is worth the bother or expense.
On the other hand, recordings from late 40’s on into the 60’s were made when magnetic tape recording was pretty new and those tapes don’t last forever. The S/N and frequency response degrades and fairly quickly. A clean vinyl record made from a new master tape in 1950 is going to sound better than any digital transfer done when the tape was 40 to 70 years old.
The bit of feedback I have seen elsewhere goes along the lines of "I didn't care much for MoFi releases anyway...."
shame, it could have honestly been a good eye opener to some about cognitive and internal biases, but i digress.The bit of feedback I have seen elsewhere goes along the lines of "I didn't care much for MoFi releases anyway...."