Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?

[Ron Resnick]

Why would you compare a recording made in the analog era to one made from that oldmaster tape to digital in the digital era - or, why would you take a digitally sourced LP and compare it to a digital file? If you do either, you are compromising one of the formats.

Because it is the same underlying recording. If you are not using the same underlying recording, or a derivative of the same underlying recording, and you are comparing systems or components with different recordings of different performances, then you are untethered from comparability.

 

[bonzo75]

Because it is the same underlying recording. If you are not using the same underlying recording, or a derivative of the same underlying recording, and you are comparing systems or components with different recordings of different performances, then you are untethered from comparability.

No you are incorrect. You have zero clue then of recording impact. And are using fallacious logic to show comparability, no different from comparing digital to analog in the same system

 

[bonzo75]

Because it is the same underlying recording.

This is laughable on many levels that a decca original LP made in their prime era is the same recording as the digital file made a few decades later. Who is untethered?

 

[Ron Resnick]

So the answer to my question is, "yes"? You are using different recordings of different performances to compare systems.

PS: Insults do not add weight or persuasiveness to your argument.

 

[bonzo75]

So the answer to my question is, "yes"? You are using different recordings of different performances to compare systems.

Having done your NL level of compares, and dismissed them, I graduated to comparing systems by using the best analog recordings in analog systems and best digital recordings in digital systems. After that I post graduated to trying not to use any digital for evaluation of a system.

Question. Would you compare apogee scintilla with a SET and Krell? By your logic, Krell and the SET have to be compared in the same system, and not across systems. Or would you listen to a SET amp for the speakers it is optimised on?

 

[Ron Resnick]

Having done your NL level of compares, and dismissed them, I graduated to comparing systems by using the best analog recordings in analog systems and best digital recordings in digital systems. After that I post graduated to trying not to use any digital for evaluation of a system.

Question. Would you compare apogee scintilla with a SET and Krell? By your logic, Krell and the SET have to be compared in the same system, and not across systems. Or would you listen to a SET amp for the speakers it is optimised on?

So the answer to my question is, "yes"? You are using different recordings of different performances to compare systems.

 

[PeterA]

This is laughable on many levels that a decca original LP made in their prime era is the same recording as the digital file made a few decades later. Who is untethered?

Ron seems unburdened by what has been.

 

[bonzo75]

So the answer to my question is, "yes"? You are using different recordings of different performances to compare systems.

 

[Al M.]

View attachment 134248

Look in the mirror my friend.

BTW, you have posted this before, Ked. You do it when you run out of arguments against opponents who point out the fallacy of yours.

 

[hopkins]

I have held blind listening tests at my house using the MoFi UHQR 45-RPM super vinyl, one step UD1S 2-008, Marvin Gaye “What’s going on” to represent the current state of the art DSD-to-vinyl. I compared that to a Supersense Master cut (on lacquer) 33.3 RPM of Martin doing what’s going on, in order to represent a supposedly state of the art analogue-tape-to-vinyl (acrylic).

The sampling is too small to be indicative of anything, only 7 persons have done it, however all but one preferred the sound of the Supersense analogue-sourced disc to the DSD to analogue MoFi one-step Ultradisc and nobody hearing the MoFi disc mistook it for analogue-sourced.

Lol. Were audiophiles saying that the Mofi records sounded "digital" before the "scandal" erupted?

 

[bonzo75]

Lol. Were audiophiles saying that the Mofi records sounded "digital" before the "scandal" erupted?

Not the audiophiles you hung out with or read. But yes, I and people I know never liked a single Mofi. In fact I seldom like any reissue except a few select classic records, a few odd speakers corner, and buy reissues only where original is not affordable.

 

[hopkins]

Not the audiophiles you hung out with or read. But yes, I and people I know never liked a single Mofi. In fact I seldom like any reissue except a few select classic records, a few odd speakers corner, and buy reissues only where original is not affordable.

Me, me, me... Did I not make it clear before that I really don't care about your point of view?

 

[bonzo75]

I have held blind listening tests at my house using the MoFi UHQR 45-RPM super vinyl, one step UD1S 2-008, Marvin Gaye “What’s going on” to represent the current state of the art DSD-to-vinyl. I compared that to a Supersense Master cut (on lacquer) 33.3 RPM of Martin doing what’s going on, in order to represent a supposedly state of the art analogue-tape-to-vinyl (acrylic).

The sampling is too small to be indicative of anything, only 7 persons have done it, however all but one preferred the sound of the Supersense analogue-sourced disc to the DSD to analogue MoFi one-step Ultradisc and nobody hearing the MoFi disc mistook it for analogue-sourced.

I think it is wortt mentioning that neither the supersense nor the Mofi sounded anything like good analog recordings.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Not the audiophiles you hung out with or read. But yes, I and people I know never liked a single Mofi. In fact I seldom like any reissue except a few select classic records, a few odd speakers corner, and buy reissues only where original is not affordable.

i had a bunch (a dozen or so) later MOFI reissues that later turned out to be revealed as having a digital step. no; it was not evident that they obviously had that digital step. but in a number of cases i did not really care for them and had stopped acquiring them after for years always buying all the 45's. in specific cases, such as the Santana 45, and the Dylan 45's, i very much preferred my earlier 33's and never played the 45 MOFI's. they were flat sounding. i specifically had been excited about the Dylan 45's and then only bought a few since i did not like them.

there had been other cases previously where 45's had sucked (Fleetwood Mac Rumors) and it was not particularly because of a digital step. some are good, and some are very good. a few not good.

during this time i had evolved away from rock/pop into classical/jazz mostly so that is part of my picture. so i was not focused on those pressings at all.

some of those MOFI 45's with digital steps did sound ok. but none became regulars in my listening even though the music had attraction.

 

[PeterA]

Lol. Were audiophiles saying that the Mofi records sounded "digital" before the "scandal" erupted?

This has been discussed in the other thread. It’s true people didn’t say they sounded digital, but many simply didn’t like the way they sounded and couldn’t identify the reasons.

 

[hopkins]

This has been discussed in the other thread. It’s true people didn’t say they sounded digital, but many simply didn’t like the way they sounded and couldn’t identify the reasons.

If everyone agreed that those pressings sucked no one would have cared about the MoFi deception...

 

[Rensselaer]

Lol. Were audiophiles saying that the Mofi records sounded "digital" before the "scandal" erupted?

Did you mean to write “were”, or do you mean “where were” the audiophiles…”?

I am afraid you are going to have to believe me on this, but I have always been able to discern digitally-sourced vinyl records, they sound flat and unemotional. The first DSD-LP that MoFi released, a limited release 45RPM cut of Santana Abraxis that sells on Discogs for £thousands, I bought and was seriously underwhelmed when I first played it. In fact, I have played only one side of one record twice, that’s it. Thinking it might have been a poor master, I took a chance twice more (Marvin Gaye and Crosby Stills and Nash) and both are a big disappointment. Make me an offer.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

If everyone agreed that those pressings sucked no one would have cared about the MoFi deception...

it does not work that way. not everyone has references to have a sense of that equally. we all have different levels of awareness and degrees of expectations. and we are all at different points on the learning curve. many of us collect stuff but might not listen to those much. and if we buy a record and don't like it much, it's a data point, not a reason to complain.

so it's not like we are all buying sour milk. and we drink it every day and our reference is fully alive.

 

[hopkins]

Did you mean to write “were”, or do you mean “where were” the audiophiles…”?

I am afraid you are going to have to believe me on this, but I have always been able to discern digitally-sourced vinyl records, they sound flat and unemotional. The first DSD-LP that MoFi released, a limited release 45RPM cut of Santana Abraxis that sells on Discogs for £thousands, I bought and was seriously underwhelmed when I first played it. In fact, I have played only one side of one record twice, that’s it. Thinking it might have been a poor master, I took a chance twice more (Marvin Gaye and Crosby Stills and Nash) and both are a big disappointment. Make me an offer.

Many digital recordings sound "flat and unemotional" and many don't... I'll leave it at that.

 

[Rensselaer]

i had a bunch (a dozen or so) later MOFI reissues that later turned out to be revealed as having a digital step. no; it was not evident that they obviously had that digital step. but in a number of cases i did not really care for them and had stopped acquiring them after for years always buying all the 45's. in specific cases, such as the Santana 45, and the Dylan 45's, i very much preferred my earlier 33's and never played the 45 MOFI's. they were flat sounding. i specifically had been excited about the Dylan 45's and then only bought a few since i did not like them.

there had been other cases previously where 45's had sucked (Fleetwood Mac Rumors) and it was not particularly because of a digital step. some are good, and some are very good. a few not good.

during this time i had evolved away from rock/pop into classical/jazz mostly so that is part of my picture. so i was not focused on those pressings at all.

some of those MOFI 45's with digital steps did sound ok. but none became regulars in my listening even though the music had attraction.

None of the digitally-sourced MoFi 45RPM Ultradiscs that I ever listened to sounded good. They all sound flat, like elevator musak, no life at all.

You admit here that in a number of cases you didn’t like them. You say Fleetwood Mac Rumors “sucked”. Why don’t you just take a chance here and speculate as to why so many of these expensive state of the art MoFi releases suck?