Dismiss Notice
We are making some updates and reconfigurations to our server. Apologies for any downtime or slow forum loading now or within the next week or so. Thanks!

Dire Straits Brothers in Arms MOFI 45rpm

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by irwin69, Feb 23, 2015.

  1. carrolls

    carrolls Forum Resident

    Location:
    Dublin
    Re-mixes rarely sound better. They sound different and weird. Especially if your canvas is very limited to begin with.
     
  2. AnalogJ

    AnalogJ CMO (Chief Musical Officer)

    Location:
    Salem, MA
    It has little, but some to do with ultrasonics. I have never heard a modern recording, recorded analog but digitally mastered, that has sounded better than its fully analog counterpart.
     
  3. vinylvark

    vinylvark Forum Resident

    Well that shuts the door.
     
  4. carrolls

    carrolls Forum Resident

    Location:
    Dublin
    But if people want to spend $60 on something that sounds inferior to a $3 CD, it's their money.
    Shame though.:cry:
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2015
  5. trumpetplayer

    trumpetplayer Forum Resident

    Location:
    michigan
    It's not a remix, it's a remaster.
     
  6. carrolls

    carrolls Forum Resident

    Location:
    Dublin
    If you are screwing around with the 24 tracks to get a "better" sound, it's actually a remix.
    Somebody mentioned here that it was done in this case. If it was, it's a remix. If not, it's not a remix.
    If only the 2 track masters were used for this release, it's pointless anyway. Probably it's pointless regardless of what they did.
     
  7. Chooke

    Chooke Forum Resident

    Location:
    Perth, Australia
    I would be keen to see any evidence that ultrasonics do matter. It goes against the accumulated knowledge of our ears and brain. More importantly, the peer reviewed Meyer and Moran paper of eight years ago (which demonstrated people cannot detect differences between 22khz, 48khz and 96khz) still has not been refuted. As for your point about a recording not recorded analog but digitally mastered, not sounding better than its fully analog counterpart, well I agree that may be the case of "modern" recordings, if you mean those that have been brick walled, or if the analogue recording was poor to begin with as the more transparent format would magnify the flaws. However, there is no technical reason why a good analogue recording should not sound better on well implemented digital format as it would be sonically closer to the master tape source (in any event finding a modern full analogue recording/mix is pretty rare). A remix may change the sound of the music, and that may or may not be a good thing, but that is a separate issue. I have a lot of well mastered and produced analogue to digital recordings that are clearer and more detailed than their fully analogue counterparts, just as I have several which are the opposite.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2015
    vinylvark and Hail Vinyl! like this.
  8. Chooke

    Chooke Forum Resident

    Location:
    Perth, Australia
    I recall an interview done some years back with Mark and the producer (forgot his name) of BIA - probably still available in the google world. In their view the CD release was the best sounding of any of their albums up to that point. They claimed that for the first time, their commercial release matched the sound they heard in the studio, something they could not achieve previously. When asked what they did differently, they said it was more of what they did not do - not compressing the sound and not eq'ing for a vinyl format.

    Of course, what sound is pleasing to any individual is a subjective matter, but I prefer the opinion of the band and its producer over Fremer - I've read some of his posts in other forums and they are very biased and one-eyed opinions being made as (unsupported) facts.
     
    vinylvark likes this.
  9. Chooke

    Chooke Forum Resident

    Location:
    Perth, Australia
    I can understand that if there is modern technique that can improve the actual sound quality then that would be great, but what we are talking about here is essentially a change in the mix. The changed mix on the MOFI is a departure of the sound which the band and producer intended. It may sound better to some ears but that is subjective. Me personally, I would rather listen to a flat transfer of what the original band/producer intended (ie the original CD) and if I wanted to Eq it, then do it during playback rather than having a particular Eq forever and a day on the format.
     
  10. trumpetplayer

    trumpetplayer Forum Resident

    Location:
    michigan
    This is only a remaster. The multi tracks were not used. There are quite a few posts in this thread that are quite positive about the sound quality of the 45 rpm. People who have actually heard it. I have the MFSL SACD and it that sounds better than the original cd.
     
  11. Chooke

    Chooke Forum Resident

    Location:
    Perth, Australia
    "in my opinion"... I know several people who have a different opinion. We are getting into subjective territory here as it is not a objective sonic improvement.
     
  12. FashionBoy

    FashionBoy Forum Resident

    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Objective sonic improvement? Care to explain this idea? :) Not sure if you are understanding the very nature of mastering. But keep in mind that a digital (or analog) recording can be "sweetened" in the mastering — it often NEEDS to be mastered to sound great. MoFi currently has an unbelievably good sounding signal path with Tim DiParavicini electronics and also good engineers that can, and have done wonders with a variety of sources (especially recently).

    And yes the 45RPM MoFi BiA vinyl sounds gorgeous despite the digital source material. So I suggest listening to it before making conclusions based on flawed assumptions.
     
    PteroDon likes this.
  13. Chooke

    Chooke Forum Resident

    Location:
    Perth, Australia
    Despite the digital source... I detect some confirmation bias there and that has been demonstrated by the science to influence one's perception of the music. As for sweetening the music, that is getting into subjective territory when you sweeten a recording which the original band and producer were very happy unsweetened. Your mileage will vary... Having said that, I haven't yet heard the 45" Mofi version and I am sceptical of how a lower quality medium can make a great digital recording sound better (perhaps expectation bias on my part, but I do have the science behind me), though the different mix and playback characteristics may sound more pleasing to some. A friend has ordered the Mofi and I'll have a listen then.
     
  14. teag

    teag Forum Resident

    Location:
    Colorado
    Get with the real world please!
     
  15. AnalogJ

    AnalogJ CMO (Chief Musical Officer)

    Location:
    Salem, MA
    I can't agree here.

    1) That report has been refuted. Michael Fremer had a blog post with another piece of research which refuted that study you speak of. The new research DOES suggest that ultrasonics are perceived by and affect the brain.

    2) Detail and resolution does not always make for better sounding modern records. I'm but talking about poorly recorded ones. I have an original UK "All Things Must Pass" set in vinyl as well as a digital remastering in vinyl. The latter is more detailed, but the former sounds more fluid, more musical.
     
  16. Chooke

    Chooke Forum Resident

    Location:
    Perth, Australia
    1. No he hasn't. He was criticised in another forum over this. The earlier study (late 1990s? )by Oohashi and his team in Japan purported to demonstrate that people can detect ultrasound tones. That was a peer reviewed paper. Unfortunately it was never able to be replicated and later reviews demonstrated flaws in his methodology. This has been accepted by Oohashi. If the Oohashi paper did stack up it would have challenged all the accumulated scientific knowledge in that and related fields, hence the major interest at that time. On the other hand, the later peer reviewed paper by Meyer and Moran has not been refuted even after eight years of being out there. It confirms all the accumulated knowledge on this subject. If there was any evidence that showed otherwise I am sure the peak audio engineering body would be very interested.

    2. I agree with you here. This is a point I made earlier. It is the same in video, if you get a poorly recorded analogue film, it will look better on an analogue television set.
     
  17. carrolls

    carrolls Forum Resident

    Location:
    Dublin
    Do you mean in the 01000101 to 01001100 range or in the 00100111 to 10011001 range? That’s awesome!! :D
    Seriously though, it is a scientific impossibility that it sounds any better than the original CD.
     
  18. vinylvark

    vinylvark Forum Resident

    No it's not, that is complete nonsense.
     
  19. vinylvark

    vinylvark Forum Resident

    Yeah, I agree. I would never say the CD sounded bad, not even after hearing and preferring the MFSL LP. It is so subjective and it all comes down to personal preference. But, people should listen to something in all seriousness before passing judgement. Some overthink too much - they should let their ears do the judging and not their brain.

    Personally though, I don't really care what the band, a musician or a producer says about how their music sounds or should sound.

    Hypothetically, imagine an album that sounds really nice, good dynamic range - you really like it. Then they do a remaster with the band and they claim they finally managed to make it sound exactly like they want it to - but it horribly compressed with a DR4 or 5 and just over EQ'd. It's what the band claims they want though, so would you listen to that instead of the other one simply because that's how it should sound according to the band?

    May sound harsh, but I don't live in a studio and I don't have their equipment and room treatment - nor is it my job to to listen to it! You know, I think what people are forgetting is that a producer or musician does not listen to their own music the way we listeners do in our living room - this is a fundamental difference!

    The only thing I care about, is what I like better in my living room, from my couch, on my equipment. And if that is an MFSL LP from a digital source, then so be it. For other albums its an original pressing from the '70s and not the $60 MFSL released 30 years later. I don't care whether the engineer did his thing digitally, analogue or both, or even if he pee'd on the tapes because he believed that makes it sound better - if I prefer the end result over another version than that's good enough for me - it's all I care about. I let my ears do the judgement - not my brain.
     
    VinyLen and PteroDon like this.
  20. kingrommel

    kingrommel Forum Resident

    Location:
    UK
    No worries, I did scratch my head a little wondering how Brothers in arms would go down on the dance floor! :D
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2015
    moon unit likes this.
  21. carrolls

    carrolls Forum Resident

    Location:
    Dublin
    Why is it nonsense? Back at you sir.
    1: You cannot put back what already has been lost in the 2 track master. To give you an extreme example, if you rip a 44.1k CD, down-sample it to 8K, then up-sample it again to 44.1k, you won't get back what you lost and it won't sound the same as the original. It will sound CRAP. Nothing you can do to bring back any lost data. The same applies to up-sampling. No EXTRA audio that was generated by Dire Straits can be produced by this process.
    2: Any ultra-sonics in either the MOFI vinyl or SACD are just noise artefacts. What else can they be?. The cut-off in the original 2 track master is 22k. I assume the 2 track master in on DAT. There is no extra information on these tapes above 22k.
    3: What can a mastering engineer do to improve the 2 track master. Make it brighter? :sigh: Change the eq. curve. :sigh: Add compression/volume maximisation? :sigh:
    What was wrong with the original eq. curve anyway? ;)
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2015
  22. Chooke

    Chooke Forum Resident

    Location:
    Perth, Australia
    That's a bit like saying "do you mean in the range of up and down vibrations and side by side vibrations of a hard rock dragged through soft vinyl? That's just as asinine.
    I'm more than happy to engage in a debate, but this is not the thread to do it in, nor is the standard of your comment a basis to start one.
     
  23. Chooke

    Chooke Forum Resident

    Location:
    Perth, Australia
    I don't necessarily disagree with you. It is just that I think the original CD sounds good as it is and when the producer and the band think so as well, I give it some credence. That's not to say you will hear it exactly as they do because as you say, the home environment and playback equipment is not the studio. But if someone prefers the sound of another version of the material, or a different mix no-one is knocking that, the music should sound as you want it to. What I disagree with, and I'm not directing this comment at you, is when you have different mixes of what is already excellent implemented material then stating that preference as an objective improvement. I shake my head when I hear other comments comparing the format medium when that is of little importance compared to the mastering, the home playback speakers and, particularly, the room acoustics.
     
    vinylvark likes this.
  24. carrolls

    carrolls Forum Resident

    Location:
    Dublin
    It was a joke. Is it not obvious to you that it was a joke?.And In my post #121 I addressed and debunked the claim that the MOFI's could possibly sound better given the evidence.
     
    Chooke likes this.
  25. Chooke

    Chooke Forum Resident

    Location:
    Perth, Australia
    1. Who rips 44.1 CD and down samples it to 8k? That is a bit like using an example of someone recording music from a stereo to a cassette player using a condenser mike in an open room as an extreme example of analogue loss.
    2 I agree, but irrelevant because you cannot hear or perceive them anyway. The digital master is going to superior to analogue one anyway - which is why they are used in nearly all studios these days.
    3. The recording engineer can do all that and more. My argument is that for BIA it is unnecessary.
     

Share This Page

molar-endocrine