Back in 2020, Analogue Productions had the Thriller DSD 64 download available. After, they took it down. Bought it before it was removed from sale. Sounds very dynamic and uncompressed. Wonder how it would compare to the MoFi releases?
Just one comment on the One Step. You are getting more on the SACD than you are on the One Step vinyl. Simple as. Vinyl does not have the physical characteristics to benefit from 4x DSD. A wasted step. A waste of money. The SACD is better.
I don't think the point of the MoFi vinyl is to get anything from DSD. DSD is simply MoFi's way of making a copy of the original tape from which they then master and cut to vinyl.
But now that we know what we now know, it actually is the point. Everything is sourced from the DSD which was sourced from the master. My point is you have a DSD processor in your SACD player. Why get the vinyl when you have that? The vinyl step is the weak link.
I don't think you understand the reason why MoFi went with DSD. These days, many if not most, major labels are hesitant to physically lend out original master tapes. They don't want them to physically leave their premises. Now, you need to go to the record label physically to access them. MoFi take an analogue tape machine to playback and equipment to transfer to DSD. It is not practical to take a disc cutting lathe to a storage vault. To transfer the original master to another analogue machine then degrades the sound too much by adding another layer of analogue distortion. While DSD is technically also a transfer, it doesn't add another layer of analogue distortion. MoFi made a decision that this is the best option given the practicality of the situation. Unfortunately, they were not upfront about it.
As somebody else told me "wanna be startin' somethin'" For what it's worth, I agree with you. I understand what motownboy and other are saying, but for me from now on an SACD will do when it comes to MoFi titles.
Well, y'all done talked me into it. Just ordered the Thriller SACD from MoFi and the Alan Parsons Project Eye in the Sky, so Thriller wouldn't be lonely. It's 1982 all over again!
Well, my crappy One Step has been updated to delivery tomorrow. Looking forward to it. I've read tons on the SACD here, has anybody reviewed the LP yet?
So I had interesting accident today. I thought I have the US 99 SACD, the MFSL SACD, the 35 8P-11, the 2001 se, the 25th, the 40th, UK 82 LP and the eK38112, I might as well download the DSD from HD Tracks as I can in the UK, what's one more at this point. HDtracks Upon downloading, I checked the copy right on the page and notice 2007. I mention this because upon inspection, it sounds almost identical to the MFSL SACD but the MFSL is a few DB louder The entire sound is identical but mastered a bit louder on the MFSL. Anyone else have this to backup my claim? Also found a page discussing the HDTracks download from 9 years ago. Michael Jackson's Thriller released on HDtracks
Well, I have UD1S #578 here. It looks great and plays pretty quietly. What I’ve played so far sounds promising. I hesitate to comment extensively on sound because it’s so busy around here with the Thanksgiving holiday that I have little time and access to my system. I haven’t been able to play the whole UD1S let alone compare with my minty OG. Also my U/S cleaner is on the fritz so I’m playing everything without cleaning. To top it all off I have a hissing tube in my right channel somewhere that I need to identify and replace. I’m afraid I’m not much help at this point.
Definitely not. I cannot imagine this is what’s happened at all. I have the original HDTracks download from before the site remodel, I’ll let you guys know
What exactly do you prefer on the 99 SACD? I have a copy of the 2003 SACD but I'm not familiar with the 99.
99, 2003 whatever I have the US edition. I know the Japan edition is different Im just stating the original release date for reference, as far as I know all the US sacds are the same.
I got my SACD today and I didn't need to even break out the original Sony SACD.....the MOFI sounds like a remix? Or there are little things I've never heard before. It's definitely softer than the Sony. But then again I liked the Sony SACD. I'm hearing more echo on the MOFI SACD with the vocals. I think ultimately I will like the SONY sacd better.
Of course, I understand why they did it. Obviously, you can't make 40,000 analogue copies from a single master. But using DSD256 to make a vinyl master over DSD64 as if this justifies the 3x price of the vinyl compared to the SACD puzzles me. Throwing DSD256 at vinyl is not going to make it any better than if they used DSD64. Maybe as a selling point it blinds people who don't know any better. If you are an audiophile, you will prefer the SACD over the vinyl. Or even the red book layer of the SACD over the vinyl.
Hey Gav, Sounds good. I think I'll stick with my original Thriller SACD rip and save up for the Van Halen albums.
Why choose? I bought Thriller, Hotel California, Whitney (by Houston), and plan on getting 1983 as well
You still don't quite get it. The DSD transfer is about the quality of the transfer itself and doing the best transfer for archival purposes and regardless of whether it ends up on vinyl or SACD. It makes perfect sense that they would do a 256 over a 64.
Regarding the One Step lp... Its interesting the Thriller Mofi is more flat across the spectrum, yet its also less dynamic than the original.
