When we are talking about the human ear as the final arbiter, it doesn't matter one iota whether it's 64 or 256, but if they have the equipment already purchased, go for it, I say. There were people here claiming that the one step LP was going to be far superior in sound to the SACD because of the DSD256 step. Do you claim this as well?
I will be really disappointed if the Mofi sounds just like the HDTracks download because I think the HDTracks download could use some relief from the high frequencies. Btw, In 2018 the HDTracks DSD download was the same as the SACD. I doubt it has changed if the date is older. I don't remember which was which but one year was louder than the other, 99 vs 03. DSD is supposed to peak at or below -6db but they all vary because it was done by ear by the engineer.
Not really. DSD256 should have 1/4 of the dither noise to deal with so in theory should follow the analog waveform better than the DSD64. I think the differences in sound from a 1S to the SACD is probably more the two formats having different mastering engineers within Mofi.
The original THRILLER master is "mid-vanished" as we used to say in mastering. A giant hole in the midband that needs filling to sound like anything good and not so "hollow". Depending on how radically that hole is filled is I guess the mark of one type of mastering engineer over another. Fill the hole with care, not overdoing it and the album can sound really fantastic. My "version of choice"(original SACD release, single layer,) has the hold filled up about 65%. I would have done just a bit more but nonetheless, the album is tricky to master.. And so on.. My Epic LP and first press CD match almost exactly, sonically. Hole is about 45% filled..
I don't think the MFSL sacd sounds bad at all. It's just that I'm use to the japanese cd and the SONY SACD being very similar and sounding excellent.
I got impatient, cancelled my order with Amazon, and paid $10 more on discogs. I’ll kick myself if Amazon starts shipping these soon lol
I was talking about MoFi and the process itself for transferring a master tape to DSD. I was not talking about any final result whether it be One-step or SACD.
I listened to the new SACD tonight. Just a quick, casual read on it. I have the 35·8P and the first US SACD, which I probably play about equally. The new MFSL seems quite different to me. I’m mostly pleased with how it seems more detailed and revealing, which is especially nice on the slower numbers. The one track that really jumped out on my first listen was “Billie Jean.” It seems too laid back, lacking the urgency that I hear on earlier discs. Different, interesting, and not bad at all, but less gutsy.
My vinyl copy is due today but with the industrial action within Royal Mail this might be yet further delayed. As for the unhelpful SACD vs vinyl commentary - depends on your source to some extent doesn't it. I have a decent enough digital side but it's a country mile from what my analogue set up can reproduce. YMMV etc.
Just ordered MoFi SACD from Townsend UK, they have it on stock, and wonder how many copies are SACD's. Vinyls are 40K
Sorry, but that comparison is not fair. I was also f***d by the mofigate, but do you have an DSD processor d/A converter in studio quality? a friend of mine has a small (!) studio and his converter alone costs 60.000 euros. so SACD replay has nothing to do with the dsd step to copy the mastertapes. To the Thriller: i have no og to compare but this record sounds very, very good to my ears (and my system etc.).
His point is that a DSD master is pointless for a record because it goes through a layer of analog noise where an SACD doesn’t. You can have a great playback system for vinyl but it will never be better than the DSD master they put into it, whereas the SACD will sound nearly identical in every player you put it in (within reason), has no step that adds noticeable noise, and is 3x cheaper and doesn’t deteriorate upon playback.
People are always saying they can hear the difference between 64 and 256 and then they always fail the unexpected blind test. A few years back, there was a file that you could download that was a continuous track at DSD256 but it was intermixed with up sampled DSD64 of the same master at certain intervals. Nobody could tell when the up sampled DSD64 was kicking in even using the best DACs.
Obviously DAC matters, but diminishing returns on equipment is most definitely a thing. It also accentuates what’s already there, not making it sound inherently different.
The ability of forum members to turn virtually any thread into an analog-digital debate never ceases to amaze me.
It is an analog-digital debate. The title of the thread is: Michael Jackson Thriller Upcoming MFSL SACD One Step Seems logical to talk about both. What else is there to talk about without going off topic?
Can anyone recommend a European store to buy the one step from? Ireland have an AWFUL postal system now whereby anything outside of the EU is returned unless you affix the fourth secret of Fatima to the label. I've the SACD ordered off North End Haarlem in the Netherlands, still hasn't arrived though but that's standard.