Bob Dylan LP remasters by Mobile Fidelity starting w/Freewheelin' & Another Side...

They both worked on it. I have posted the question to MoFi. We will see if they can clear it up

Bob Dylan Remastered | Bob Dylan ISIS Magazine

 

A few points:

1. MoFi still uses the "original master recording" banner for remixes, presumably because the tapes used are the same generational distance from the multi-tracks as the true original mixdown masters would be. (In other words, they are the "original master tapes" with respect to those mixes, even though they are not the original mixes.) Witness their stereo Bringing It All Back Home, Blonde On Blonde, Another Side, Pet Sounds, their John Lennon releases, etc.

2. For Sony's The Original Mono Recordings, besides remixing from the 3-track for Times, Berkowitz and Wilder also used copy tapes for Highway 61 Revisited and Blonde On Blonde because original mixdown masters could not be located and/or were in inferior condition (SOURCE). No mention of any other such cases, but it may not be outside the realm of possibility that BIABH could also have used a copy tape.

3. I'd still love to know what if anything Bob Irwin has said about the source used for Sundazed's 2001 mono vinyl reissue of Times. In the interview I linked to in (2) above, Berkowitz says: "there was no mono tape anywhere that we could find, period. We tried all over the world, we tried collectors, we tried bootleggers, we tried everything" (thus the remix). And yet, I've never heard mention of the Sundazed having been remixed or folded, etc.

4. While much of the information in that Isis link posted by Joey may very well be accurate, I would be wary of taking any of it as gospel without looking into the original sources, as at least some of what's stated there is incorrect. (Specifically, that the standard stereo layers of the 2003 Columbia SACDs of Blood On The Tracks, Slow Train Coming, and "Love And Theft" were remixed, as opposed to merely the 5.1 mixes.)

 

Thanks for this. How does the remix of Times sound? I have 2 original monos in great shape. Maybe I should forget about the MFSL.

 

Question for the group, I'm tweaking my TTs alignments. On the mono (mofi) John Wesley Harding, do you get some extra distortion towards the end of Pity the Poor Immigrant when the high harmonica notes kick in?

 

Ordered the JWH vinyl. Really looking forward to it, as I've yet to really hear it in mono, though I've always loved the stereo presentation enough to not really seek out my own copy previously. I'm so happy with the others, that I don't think I'll opt for the mono, except the first few acoustic albums.

 

No, not on my setup.

 

I have never heard an original, but the MFSL sounds really great. I think it beats the Sony mono. The vocals are clearer and to me it sounds as if the recording has a bit more air. They are both fantastic though.

 

I can't believe that Sony lend actual tapes anymore and therefore I assume MFSL are working from a digital file for their vinyl and sacd hybrid releases. I wonder if MFSL will do all the Dylan albums in time. Surprised they did not do SP as the only recent vinyl release of that was by Sundazed. Then there are the 1980s albums - I wonder?

 

I agree in as much as I also have a hard time believing anyone works from actual magnetic tapes anymore. Studios, in the main, seem to be almost entirely setup for digital these days and have been for a very long time. There is something oddly romantic about the notion of people actually handling and working with the original tape masters which were produced way back when but the cynic in me can't help thinking that a lot of this is just pure hype to sell the end product to us, the consumers, who feed on that same hype as we feel we are getting something purer and better than before. I reckon most master tapes are locked up for posterity and only the digital files are 'loaned out'.

Nevertheless, digital or analogue, the MFSL team always seem to work their magic and get a great result.

 

No need to speculate, the information about the source is right on the jacket.

If MFSL has the master tape, it says "ORIGINAL MASTER RECORDING" right across the top banner.

If it's not from the master tape (not all tapes are still usable, or can be located, so those made from copies will say "MOBILE FIDELITY SOUND LAB" on the jacket banner.

 

Believe it. Lots of companies do, it's the reason why they exist.

This is a very odd conversation to have in the MOFI thread, who are bread and butter, built their business model on reissuing from mastertapes!

Music Matters, Speakers Corner, Analogue Productions, Pure Pleasure, Intervention Records,
Analog Spark, there are lots of vinyl specialty companies who exclusively remaster from tape.

 

No disrespect intended but where else do you suggest people question this, if not right here in a thread about their releases?

 

No disrespect intended, but this is page 80 of the thread, have you read previous posts?
I assumed that people here on this forum knew that MOFI is all about tape.
That's what they do, that's why people buy them.

Perhaps instead of posting "i can't believe anyone works from tape", you could have
actually asked a question, like; "does MOFI work with tape?".

 

I don't have a lot of MFSL LPs. Maybe under ten? But until recently, I never really liked them. Don't know how to describe my dislike, but they all seemed heavy handed. I know that is not a technical audiophile term but maybe bloated or unnatural is better?

Going way back to my first re issues from them with the Big Beatles Box. As a collector I kept mine, but I thought they never sounded very good. Recently though the Love Forever Changes and last two Jefferson Airplane albums are stunning. I have heard that John Wesley Harding is amazing but I try to start away from 45s whenever possible and I already have the Columbia Mono Dylan box which sounds fantastic already. . The Airplane and Love albums were an exception for me to buy 45s.

Since the MSFL sound seems to have improved immensely, I am vey interested in the three Ry Cooder Records coming later this year.

It's great they are doing these Dylan alone right and everyone is loving them.

 

I don't like old MOFI either, but the newer stuff is practically (and perhaps literally?) from another company. The Miles Davis and Bob Dylan titles are outstanding. More or less every title I've heard since the late oughts has been worthy.

 

Good to hear!

 

There is some other Dylan from MOFI to work around the 2x45 issue a bit, and also compliment the Mono Box.

I started with the later Stereo versions, some are 1x33, (New Morning, Blood on the Tracks)
and some of the titles with more tracks if it has to be 2x45. John Wesley Harding has 12 tracks,
so there are 3 on each side at least!

Desire is 2x45 but also long run time, totals over 50 minutes, that makes sense for two discs.

 

Michael Fremer suggests all MFSL reissues of tapes in the Sony vault are from dupes:

(Sony/BMG does not allow original masters off the east coast so Mo-Fi probably lugged its superb Tim DeParavicini designed R2R deck to Battery and made a copy)
Read more at Mo-Fi's "KOB": Kind of Blah? (Updated 10/28/15)

De Paravicini is indeed credited in my MFSL Times (stereo) 45rpm.

 

Dupes from what? That is the key point.
This has been discussed many times in various threads.
It comes down to the definition of what a "Master Tape" is.
If MOFI's "copy" is no more generations away from what tape was used to produce the original vinyl
they call it a Master Tape. Many original records were made from a "cutting master"
which is a copy produced for the mastering houses by the original studio.

 

Interesting point. I always thought that 'Original Master Recording' means 'cut from the mastertape' not 'cut from a copy of the mastertape'.:

SH Spotlight - What sounds just like the master tape: CD, Vinyl, SACD or a 1:1 analog Reel tape copy?

 

That would be pretty straight forward if there was a common definition of what a master tape was in practice.
Not in every case did the multi-track session tapes end up with a single pair of reels of a 1st generation "THE master tape"
that all records were pressed from. There is a lot of grey area in reality.

 

I suppose Fremer knows a lot more about these things than I do, but why would they make a dub vs. book some place on the east coast and do their thing there? I am sure they could lug certain gear they wanted; and while ideally they would want to use their own studio, but I suppose if this was their only crack at those tapes that would be a better compromise than a dub tape.

Regarding the original master recording banner vs. MFSL banner as it relates to Dylan, I think that for the albums that were remixed, my guess is Sony will only release those now. I think it was determined those remixes were done to analog tape; so MFSL could use those, so while not the original master recording it is the only possibility by Sony’s dictate. Since Highway 61 Mono was pictured with the MFSL banner, while I think not a remix I understand the 2010 mono box for that album is from a France tape found in Germany, so again not original I suppose.

 

I have no inside information, but I find Fremer's assertion in relation to Kind Of Blue extremely dubious. Doesn't that use a remix—like a few of the Dylan titles—and carry the "Original Master Recording" banner accordingly? (I don't have it and haven't heard it, to be clear. I'm going by photos and what I've read on here.) As for their stereo Times, that has the "Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab" banner, which is appropriate if it comes from a copy tape, whereas their mono version has "Original Master Recording" because (I presume) it is the 2010 remix.

 

Fremer's suggestion isn't out of the blue. I've heard similar things about licensed Sony albums before. I don't know anything specific about the MFSL situation.

 

Can anyone point to a single example where it has been conclusively determined that MoFi made their own analogue copy of a master tape to work from and then released the resulting product under the "Original Master Recording" banner? Same question for the scenario of mastering from a digital transfer provided to them by the home label. I think that would be a BIG deal to people—from a marketing perspective, not necessarily with respect to actual sound quality—and we'd have heard a lot more about it around these parts, if true...