Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab has been cutting vinyl from digital since a long, long time ago...

How about "Johnny Tight Tubes"?

 

out of morbid curiosity, what is this great sounding record from 1956?

 

how about deep step

 

I wonder how many have actually claimed to be able to hear digital artifacts in LP playback & separate those from what might be just poor mastering/EQ etc? Likely very very few as a % of those who listen to LPs...but that wouldn't help with the entertainment value some are enjoying at the moment

 

There plenty. Just have a look at the "Living Stereo" series, i.e.

 

RCA Living Stereo on vinyl began in 1958, I believe, though some of the recordings for that series were made a few years before.

 

There are LPs that have what is generally described as a "digital" sound, although they are all almost certainly digitally sourced that is not in itself the reason that they sound "digital" it's poor mastering choices, back in the 1990s the majority of vinyl was cut from 16/44 DAT tapes, yet I don't recall anyone claiming that 1990s vinyl sounded digital so why did this problem arise twenty years later with many of the problem records likely cut from much higher resolution files capable of higher fidelity. It's conjecture, but I believe that back in the 1990s almost all mastering engineers had learned their trade mastering vinyl as the dominant format so when they were given a DAT tape they were able to make the best sounding record they could, by the second decade of this century many of those engineers had cut back on work or retired and the engineers who replaced them were far more familiar with CDs, likewise many of the people recording music didn't really understand vinyl and the way to optimise a master for vinyl, so the files were sent off to the brokers and then the plants and often cut as they were with no real effort to make them sound as good on vinyl as they could. So the "digital" sounding vinyl is mostly a problem of ignorance among artists and studio engineers and a lack of instruction to those doing the cut at pressing plants, hopefully lessons have been learned and as we go forward new vinyl whether sourced from digital or analogue will play to the format's strengths and sound like good vinyl should.

 

"Introducing Johnny Griffin" is one of many great sounding records from 1956, no idea which one queter is thinking of, though.

 

Says you. Give it 12 to 18 months, then the market will tell you what it is really worth.

 

Still waiting for that rumored 'Thriller' promo video showing the whole "One Step" process at work. If MOFI can show us that they handled the Original Master Tapes and did the A/D conversion to 4xDSD rather than Bernie Grundman doing the work then I may consider purchasing the SACD if the reviews are positive.

 

"The most loving thing you can do is to share your tapes with someone." - Michael Jackson.

 

Exactly!

 

Blue Note Japan Releases: Toshiba Era Part 3 (1989-) (microgroove.jp)
go to :
Mar. 24, 2004 “Blue Note 65th Anniversary” Series, Limited Edition, by Toshiba EMI

 

The wreck is going down, get out before you drown!

 

Since they were already working on Thriller when this scandal blew up, unless they proactively wanted to create such a video, it would not exist so I wouldn't hold my breath. They would have the opportunity to do so next time, though.

 

If you step back and critically analyze vinyl record playback, it is incredibly complex. That complexity introduces variables that will affect playback at every point from manufacture to playback.

1. If you read and understand the article RCA Engineer Magazine, 1976, Issue 02-03, Development of Compound for Quadradiscs, by G.A. Bogantz S.K. Khanna 1976-02-03.pdf (worldradiohistory.com) and the patent - RCA Patent 3,960,790, June 1, 1976, DISC RECORD AND METHOD OF COMPOUNDING DISC RECORD COMPOSITION 1498409551006799538-03960790 (storage.googleapis.com) you get a pretty good glimpse of what is likely the modern record compound. Of note is that the stabilizer 1.6% of a sulfur-free organotin salt containing about 16% tin was once a lead-based compound (which could be the source of toxic compound discussion). The heat stabilizer is critical to all PVC compounds because during the heated puck and stamping process hydrogen chloride gas is released which the heat stabilizer absorbs. Absent the heat stabilizer (or insufficient). This hydrogen chloride gas triggers a further autocatalytic degradation process, causing rapid embrittlement of the PVC. Now watch this video on the how the hopper is filled with raw material and extruded to a puck that is then placed in the press to make the record. How Are Vinyl Records Made? Inside The United Record Pressing Plant | Reverb Archives - Bing video, Cascade Record Pressing Tour, Milwaukie, Oregon - Bing video (please make note that there is no release agent applied). So, the record 'quality' - its chemical and mechanical properties can easily vary on a daily basis. I would imagine that the best pressing plants are able to control the variables to very high tolerances.

2. If you read and can understand this article - Disc Phonograph Records by Dr. A. M. Max, RCA Engineer Magazine 1966-08-09 - 1966-08-09.pdf (worldradiohistory.com) then you may appreciate the stylus forces (>10,000 psi) that are developed during playback and that the record material is flexing/moving during playback. So, each stylus profile and VTF exerts a difference pressure which then deforms the vinyl differently depending upon its physical properties. You may not notice this on lower frequencies where the vinyl likely deforms very little, but the higher frequency side wall ridges are much more susceptible. I suspect that records with lots of repressed material can have very different physical properties from virgin material.

3. If you read and understand this article Disc cutting in theory, Hugh Finnimore, Studio Sound and Broadcast Engineering, July 1975 - Studio-Sound-1975-07.pdf (worldradiohistory.com) then you may appreciate again the stylus forces that can be >1000-g’s that can be developed during playback and the limits each stylus profile has when tracing the groove modulations. Recording engineers such as our host @Steve Hoffman do audio gymnastics/magic to cut a good record. But again the stylus and VTF can affect record playback.

4. If you read this article - Do Turntable Mats Work? You Bet! Robert Stockton, Audio Magazine June 1979 - Audio-1979-06.pdf (worldradiohistory.com) – you hopefully appreciate some of the affects that vibration damping can have on playback. My own experience I tried a Technics/Panasonic™ mat PN RGS0008 with a 2" Al platter. This is a 3 mm thick relatively soft rubber mat. However, it so affected the acoustic performance that after a while I found myself listening more to my digital sources than my vinyl; and my vinyl source by design is supposed to be better than my digital. The best way to explain the effect was that it softened and homogenized the music. It’s that soft focus that makes everything look (and sound) good; but takes away all the interesting details. So, damping by the record mat can have a profound effect.

So, record playback from my technical perspective is unique - it's not like tape or digital, it is more like a musical instrument; and as such, playback between record batches, between tables between cartridges and tonearms can be different; and of course, this confounds some, but to myself I admire that as a musical instrument it is imperfect and unique.

Now back to the regular scheduled programming.

 

Sorry, I do not tell. Still hunting for a true pristine copy. But it is classical Mozart on an US-pressing.

 

I personally doubt it. Due to the small number of pressings, it will always be rare and as such will always command a high price. Really don't see the point in monitoring those prices as they don't mean anything at all, whatsoever. As I mentioned earlier, it's like the butcher cover. It means nothing, it has nothing to do with the music (or mastering involved); it's purely for rarity's sake.

Unless the MFSL scandal is shown to most or that the digital nature of those records is made to be aware by most, I doubt there will be a decrease in price on the secondary market... which is fine.

I never bought mine as an investment anyway.

 

Buy the SACDs and sidestep the whole problem! They are marvellous. I am envious of those in the US who can easily acquire them.

 

Thank you, Neil.

 

I predict that there will be a new, seismic revelation on this thread when it gets to page 1000!

 

To your first question (“does 4xdsd improve something but rather is it detrimental?”): I think there’s no one answer. For some master tapes that require a lot of help (many on the fly azimuth corrections, pitch issues, extensive EQ work), 4x DSD or more generically digital (including Plangent type digital correction) will not be net detrimental and may arguably lead to a better sounding result than staying all analog where those corrections would either be more crudely executed (engineers rushing to make azimuth optimizations in real time from song to song or even within a song due to tape edits) or uncorrectable (say the original tape machine during recording had some mechanical imperfection that led to very slight pitch variation that some could hear).

But if an analog master was already recorded well and needed little or no help, a pure analog transfer could result in a better outcome if the process of A/D for 4x DSD and later D/A before cutting to vinyl imparted some perceivable coloration. I won’t even call it degradation. Again, perhaps only some small % would hear that coloration and perhaps it’s outweighed by EQ/mastering choices, but it’s still a couple of extra steps for a master tape that doesn’t strictly need help and could be transferred flat or with very minimal EQ changes. Side note: If in fact the Bill Evans Village Vanguard were all analog direct to lathe, could this be because it was a live recording all on the same tape recorder, therefore required no azimuth tweaks and was largely a flat transfer (or set-once EQ adjustment)?

So IMO, it can’t be generalized. A truly transparent company would have revealed what they did and why if they felt the digital route was justified, ideally with even a 30s example of a pure analog transfer vs the digital one. Yes, the sound sample would itself be digital, but you could still provide it (esp for the first several releases where you realized and were making the argument that sometimes accepting digital is better).

For your second question (“does the record sound great inspite of the digital step?”): if the mastering choices were really good, I think most people would say YES to that. Though unless a pure analog version were made with the exact same mastering choices (esp for a master tape that was already good and didn’t benefit from the additional time/options that digital gives you), we’ll never know if without the digital step it could have been incrementally better. Again, I’d say many wouldn’t hear a difference, but some might or argue they could.

To your third question (“is it ultimately the mastering that is the determining factor of whether these Mofi's sound good or not?”), personally I do think that’s the largest and most significant factor because I think most would agree that suboptimal mastering can make a pure analog transfer sound suboptimal and great mastering can result in a great sounding record. Even if some might argue it could have sounded better pure analog, which again would be unanswerable unless done both ways, most wouldn’t argue that a great sounding record sounds great no matter how it got there.

For me, that’s the analog vs digital debate in a nutshell - it depends on the particular situation as to what might lead to the better result. But given what Mofi did, it’s very natural for people not to believe their global generalization that 4x DSD is just better. As others have pointed out, then why ever go analog direct to lathe like they did with some releases if they were doing DSD as far back as 2007 or earlier.

There’s always going to be some marketing spin or positioning/framing coming from a company selling you something or when they need to try and convince you of the merits of something they’ve done that’s controversial or something they plan to do. It’s almost always going to contain some rationalization in their justification.

Even if you can agree that whether analog vs digital is the best path depends on the state of the master tape, outright stating (or implying, leaving out steps, etc to the point where most people can reasonably infer) that something is all analog is the fundamental problem in my opinion is (as many have already pointed out).

Because not just any company can get access to the master tapes, and to whatever degree or for whatever reasons, it’s fair to believe that the master tapes may degrade with time. So if a company truly has access to the master tapes at a given point in time, it’s a special event of sorts because it’s not a given or trivial thing: there’s some implied “specialness” to that access and being able to start with the original/purest/earliest source.

If only a select group of companies has access to a master tape, whether it’s Mofi (which turned out not to be the case), ERC, Craft (for their own owned material), then that select group has the opportunity to do something that not just any company with a standard digital file can do.

If they attempt some additional differentiation (one step, special vinyl formulation, etc) and add a premium to the price because of that, it’s up to people if they want to pay that premium. Also, limitied quantities, whether it’s due to licensing constraints or artificially created FOMO, is another factor to weigh into whether a certain price is worth paying.

But arguably, the biggest factor that makes it a special release is access to the original master tape at that point in time. Access to that same master tape 10 or 20 years down the road may not be as good (which may tie into why some believe OG pressings are generally better). So that’s the special/unique event.

What a company does with that special event is up to them. They could go all analog on vintage equipment, limit to 300, and charge $500 (ERC); or make it a more general, unnumbered release on ordinary vinyl using standard pressing steps and charge $30. What Mofi had us believe they were doing was something between those extremes: limited #’s, sometimes special vinyl, sometime one step, always premium pricing, but supposedly sourced from the analog master (special access, special event).

Once you kind of commoditize that event by supplying a standard digital file, it’s no longer nearly as special an event. The DSD file will not degrade - it will always be exactly the same. If Mofi really has access to the master tape, they can argue (however successfully or not), that their digital file was captured on proprietary equipment on xx/xx/xxxx date using DSD256. I suspect at some point that will be their attempted differentiation - they captured it better and they were able to digitize earlier than some future company who digitizes say 10 or 20 years down the road (though that future company may argue that equipment has advanced and now they’re digitizing better at say DSD512 which overcomes any degradation of the master tape).

But if you’re working with a standard digital file, say a DSD64 file supplied by Sony because that’s all they’ll give anyone. The same digital file that they’ll supply to the next company able to negotiate a license down the road. Then, I’d argue it’s no longer special at all and the source is really commoditized, and all you’re left to try and differentiate with is with:

a) your mastering engineers (but is Britton, LoVerde, and Wunderlich really a competitive advantage over Gray, RKS, BG, Hoffman?)

b) your special vinyl compound (but isn’t Supervinyl really similar to Neotech VR900 and won’t there be an even better vinyl compound down the road)

c) one step (but Craft, Neil Young, Impex, really anyone willing to go down that road can do it)

d) limited numbers (but we all know it’s false scarcity and has limited value since someone down the road can work with that same digital file)

So now you have little to no differentiation vs your competitors and little or no justification to make a compelling case that your customers should purchase now for a premium price vs waiting around to see if a mastering engineer they may like better gets a shot at it down the road.

Aside from the backlash and some customers unwilling to buy from Mofi on general principle, this IMO is Mofi’s challenge going forward: how and why is their product better or special?

I think they’ll have to go to an extra level of transparency and disclose the source and provenance of the DSD file: Who digitized it and when. If they do, the generic digital file that any licensee will get will become the new Silver Label equivalent (in consumers eyes) and they’ll try to make any Mofi-proprietary digitized version their new “Original Master Recording” equivalent - not sure how successful that will be.

All of course, just my opinion after thinking through all this.

 

This has been my approach for a long time. I have dozens of MoFi SACD's that I really enjoy but don't have any of their $$$ pricey digital vinyl records and don't feel the FOMO over it.

 

Great post, I'm in almost total agreement! But I think you better get your flakjacket ready because you just dropped a big cognitive dissonance bunker buster!

 

Careful with those chips