Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?

[Mike Lavigne]

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?

are you asking that question rhetorically?

likely i did not have my own quality reference pressing already of some of those to compare. but in other cases i did. hard to know the story for each one. and during some periods i might buy a few dozen records and not listen to them for months, or occasionally never.

i posted about how i felt about the Fleetwood Mac Rumours 45 very strongly a decade ago. i had been really looking forward to that one and was very disappointed. even bought a second 45 copy from an alternate pressing plant to see if it was better (it was not). i had a much loved original pressing of Rumours so i was looking for better then that.

 

[hopkins]

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

One more post - here's an example of a track from that Mosaic box set I was referring to earlier:

https://storage.googleapis.com/cloudplayer/samples/01%20Dialogue.flac

You can download it to play it and compare it to whatever version you want/have and let me know whever it sounds "flat and unemotional". If it does, you may want to revisit your "digital system"..

It is from this album:

https://www.discogs.com/master/92901-Bobby-Hutcherson-Dialogue

Here is a previous CD version on Qobuz (there are obviously many others):

Open Qobuz

open.qobuz.com

 

[Rensselaer]

are you asking that question rhetorically?

likely i did not have my own quality reference pressing already of some of those to compare. but in other cases i did. hard to know the story for each one. and during some periods i might buy a few dozen records and not listen to them for months, or occasionally never.

i posted about how i felt about the Fleetwood Mac Rumours 45 very strongly a decade ago. i had been really looking forward to that one and was very disappointed. even bought a second 45 copy from an alternate pressing plant to see if it was better (it was not). i had a much loved original pressing of Rumours so i was looking for better then that.

No, not Rhetorically.

You are one of the most experienced contributors on this site. You have an amazing system that most of us could only dream about having. Your considered opinion is what I am seeking, sans considerations of any previous postings (by you or those whom you respect).

MoFi have a long history of cutting vinyl and no one could argue that they don’t know how to make the very best-sounding pressings that the master tape is capable of, no?

Add to that recording at 45RPM, using the absolute best vinyl available and of course the “One Step” process, all designed to make the highest-quality pressings that anyone would be capable of producing.

So why does the original pressing sound so much better than the subsequent MoFi pressing?

MoFi use the finest ingredients and apply their best proven processing techniques. They should sound much better (and they think they should too, hence the higher price you pay for their premium product). The only difference I can find is that while the original pressings were mastered from an analogue master tape, MoFi masters theirs from a DSD file made from the master tape, a digital intermediary step.

Your thoughts?

 

[PeterA]

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

Obviously, some people like them because they sold. The deception and the record quality are two separate issues. We don’t need to rehash all of that here.

 

[PeterA]

I think that the point being made is about the sound in absolute terms -- not the actual music, etc.
If I understand correctly, in comparing the overall sonic result of an optimised analogue and an optimised digital sytem -- both playing excellent source material -- the analogue will sound superior.
I.e. according to Bonzo, an excellent analogue recording played through a system optimised for analogue, sounds better than an excellent digital recording played through an optimised digital system...

And this is what Mike tells us his experience is in his system where he reports all formats have been optimized.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

No, not Rhetorically.

ok.

You are one of the most experienced contributors on this site. You have an amazing system that most of us could only dream about having. Your considered opinion is what I am seeking, sans considerations of any previous postings (by you or those whom you respect).

thank you for the kind words.

MoFi have a long history of cutting vinyl and no one could argue that they don’t know how to make the very best-sounding pressings that the master tape is capable of, no?

Add to that recording at 45RPM, using the absolute best vinyl available and of course the “One Step” process, all designed to make the highest-quality pressings that anyone would be capable of producing.
So why does the original pressing sound so much better than the subsequent MoFi pressing?

here is my 2013 post about Rumours. the Rumours 45 was not a MFSL pressing.

but an original pressing is done when the tape is most alive, and also the motivation of the mastering engineer is the highest. they are pressed with the cleanest lacquers, the earliest stampers.

we do find cases where re-issues are remarkable, such as many of the original Classic Records early work, and many of the earliest series AP and Music Matters Blue Note 45's. but still the first pressings have the freshest and earliest master tapes which can be a head start. i give the people involved in those legendary projects much credit that they did achieve some great reissue results. sometimes on the level of the original pressings. sometimes just a bit different.

little things like whether the tapes used Dolby or 'Q' sound, and how was that handled in the re-issue. i think the recent Steely Dan 45's from Chad somewhat suffered from that, although 'Gaucho' was much better. but these were 40+ year old tapes.

MoFi use the finest ingredients and apply their best proven processing techniques. They should sound much better (and they think they should too, hence the higher price you pay for their premium product). The only difference I can find is that while the original pressings were mastered from an analogue master tape, MoFi masters theirs from a DSD file made from the master tape, a digital intermediary step.

Your thoughts?

i have all three major MFSL box sets, and all the MFSL original special UHQR's plus plenty of the original series MFSL pressings, and then the later series too. then also the latest, last 10 year pressings from the 'digital step' era. certainly the earlier MOFI pressings are closer as a group, than more recent one's. the more recent non digital step MOFI's are inconsistent. i don't have all of them.

the digital step really should be a stop sign. once lost the musical essence of the tape cannot be recovered. modern native digital recordings mostly turn out to make better pressings as a group than vintage tape sourced digital transfers then mastered to vinyl......to my ear. could be my lifetime musical reference for how it should sound. might be any number of reasons, but somehow the energy balance of those pressings seems more real.

 

[Ron Resnick]

in comparing the overall sonic result of an optimised analogue and an optimised digital sytem -- both playing excellent source material -- the analogue will sound superior.
I.e. according to Bonzo, an excellent analogue recording played through a system optimised for analogue, sounds better than an excellent digital recording played through an optimised digital system...

Yes. This is easy to agree with -- as long as different recordings of different performances are not used to form a conclusion about the specific comparative sonic characteristics of individual components.

 

[bonzo75]

Yes. This is easy to agree with -- as long as different recordings of different performances are not used to form a conclusion about the specific comparative sonic characteristics of individual components.

Wow this is such a twist in the objective you are not even following the discussion. Why would someone compare individual tables using different recordings, or different amps using different recordings in the same system. That was never the topic.

 

[Lagonda]

Given the cost and rarity of mint versions of some LPs, I think the comparison makes sense, especially for someone who already has a good digital setup.

Mosaic Records, for example, just came out with a CD box set of Bobby Hutcherson's Blue Note recordings, and they state the following:

"The sonic clarity is thrilling. Mastered from hi-res files of the original analog masters by Andreas Meyer. Thanks to current 24 bit/192 hKz technology and dramatic improvement in analog to digital converters, the sound on this set is far superior to any previous CD issues and is astonishingly close to that of audiophile vinyl."

I have the box set, but I don't have the original LPs to compare to. I can say however that the sound quality is high enough that it does not make me want for more. Perhaps I am missing out.

Yes if you listen to vinyl trough ad/da converters you have missed out.

 

[hopkins]

Yes if you listen to vinyl trough ad/da converters you have missed out.

Clearly I must be missing out and should get banned from WBF for even suggesting that it sounds good!

I do find it amusing, however, that when asking someone like "bonzo" to name one CD that sounds good, I get no reply. If the pursuit of "What's Best" means that you can't listen to 90% of the music that's out there, and have to seek the "ultimate pressings" to actually enjoy listening, I find that problematic...if not suspicious.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Yes if you listen to vinyl trough ad/da converters you have missed out.

i have 1000 2xdsd vinyl rips of records i own. they are pretty good and if that is all i had i would still have some great sounding music to enjoy.

sure, the vinyl is better with a good turntable.

Clearly I must be missing out and should get banned from WBF for even suggesting that it sounds good!

i think you are not alone in your approach. we have a member who had done digital transfers of a large first pressing collection that his heirs did not want to deal with and then sold the collection, and is enjoying the files. and he should.

missing something? depends on where you are standing and what your priorities are.

 

[hopkins]

i think you are not alone in your approach. we have a member who had done digital transfers of a large first pressing collection that his heirs did not want to deal with and then sold the collection, and is enjoying the files. and he should.

missing something? depends on where you are standing and what your priorities are.

I don't rip my vinyls (see my previous posts), and have not compared, but I believe, for a number of reasons, that direct playback (ADC direct to DAC) is superior to ripping+ file playback. I only mention all this because I have been honestly really positively surprised by the results.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Why would someone compare individual tables using different recordings, or different amps using different recordings in the same system. That was never the topic.

Okay!

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I don't rip my vinyls (see my previous posts), and have not compared, but I believe, for a number of reasons, that direct playback (ADC direct to DAC) is superior to ripping+ file playback. I only mention all this because I have been honestly really positively surprised by the results.

i will look for your process so i understand it. i can imagine it might reduce the effect of the whole process and reduce it to just the conversion. one way to do it.

 

[hopkins]

i will look for your process so i understand it. i can imagine it might reduce the effect of the whole process and reduce it to just the conversion. one way to do it.

My system is "'all digital" (in a sense) so that's where I'm coming from. The idea of playing back vinyl through digital seems completely counter-intuitive, to the point where it can be (and has been) ridiculed. I'll elaborate in a separate thread (in some time).

 

[Joe Whip]

Is there a point all this guys? I do not see any minds changing. Enjoy what you want.

 

[Lagonda]

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

No, we just stopped buying them because they sounded like shit, most of us thought it was just bad mastering, not knowing they we're lying about a digital step.

 

[PeterA]

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.

People do this all the time at shows. I doubt all best of show lists are being done by one guy with the same recording played in each system? Some of these lists have analog only or digital only systems on them. Judgement is presumably made by listening in absolute terms, with or without some reference.

 

[hopkins]

No, we just stopped buying them because they sounded like shit, most of us thought it was just bad mastering, not knowing they we're lying about a digital step.

I would not know. I've never been tempted by any of them. Did they "sound like shit" because of the digital step? You will never know.

I would still be curious to know if any one of you die-hard analog fans can even come up with an example of a good sounding recording in digital format! Is there really nothing out there that you feel even comes close to the lively/natural sound that you get from vinyl?

 

[Lagonda]

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

I have many digitally sourced LP's that sound great, newer Van Morrison, Emmylou Harris, Leonard Cohen and Willy Nelson to mention a few.