Mofi even admitted their 2008 release of Santana – Abraxas was from a DSD file.
no wonder almost anything that Burnie Grundman, Chris Bellman or Kevin Gray sound stunning, even when they don't get access to the master tape - they certainly would not convert it to DSD to make it easier to work with.
Bernie Grundman has done a ton of releases from digital files. He has made videos explaining how there are times that using a digital workstation is required to properly master a recording.
This video is a conversation with Fremer discussing this very topic.
Bernie Grundman has done a ton of releases from digital files. He has made videos explaining how there are times that using a digital workstation is required to properly master a recording.
This video is a conversation with Fremer discussing this very topic.
I realise that. The point I was making is BG would not take an original master 2 track and copy it to DSD just because it's easier when mastering to vinyl.
Btw - the Blue note digital transfers he is talking about was a paid gig from Don Was to digitise for Blue Note archives.
To use these files for vinyl was an afterthought from Don. Assume this was for the Blue Note 75 series.
Don Was thankfully realised his mistake of digital files for vinyl releases and subsequently changed it to using the original analog tapes.
Which we have the Tone Poet and 80 years series. Infinitely better sounding than the 75 year series.
If the original recording is digital than lacquer can be cut from digital. That’s understandable but in that case I probably prefer CD version or stream it instead of buying the record.
If the original recording is analog than lacquer must be cut from best possible analog source IMHO. Adding a digital process to the mastering chain and claiming that lacquers cut from dsd transfers are sounding better is pure none sense.
There is a common belief as dsd is superior to pcm but since dsd can not be editable most of the dsd files on stream services or on sacds are converted to pcm while mixing/mastering at least once. Same thing different color.
I’m not against digital and listening a lot of digital but neither dsd nor pcm shouldn’t be used if master tape exists.
Some say even if lacquers were cut from dsd mofi records still sound great. What if they were cut directly from original master tapes? I’m sure they would sound better.
And more importantly whether it’s cut from tape or dsd whole mastering chain should be clarified.
But this is not new news. The Clapton Unplugged recording has long been known to have been digital. This is different than the issue at hand here where there are original analog recordings subsequently getting transferred to digital formats and used in otherwise analog manufacturing chains.
Looking on the bright side having master tapes and a digital master could allow the mastering engineer to cut from the tape and use the digital file to run the preview.
I'd call in to question all audiophile re-issue labels. Because without running several lacquers from the master tapes (probably forbidden by the original labels), unless they are OK with generational quality degradation to stamper copies then they'll be fairly limited in production quantity and many of them don't number their releases - so we can't even know how many were produced. It's all highly questionable to me. Always has been. I once tried to determine if the Bill Evans AP box set (Riverside Recordings) was AAA, and it was a fools errand.
LOS ANGELES, May 16, 2022 /PRNewswire/ — Sony Music and the Estate of Michael Jackson today announced that it will celebrate the 40th anniversary of Michael Jackson’s Thriller, the biggest selling album of all time, with the November 18 release of Michael Jackson Thriller 40, a double CD set...
www.analogplanet.com
"Mastered from the original analog master tapes, Mobile Fidelity will also make available the original Thriller album as a One-Step 180g 33RPM LP, pressed at RTI and strictly limited to 40,000 numbered copies as well as a hybrid SACD. (An UltraDisc One-Step 180g 45RPM 2LP set of Thriller will be released at a future date.)"
CLARIFICATION UPDATE!: The above quote is 100% accurate and true and contains no ambiguities, though it might appears to. Upon my return from High End Munich next week I will post a further clarification with additional information that will satisfy you, me, Mobile Fidelity and The Estate of Michael Jackson.
Did Michael ever post the clarification referred to in this May 16 announcement?
I'd call in to question all audiophile re-issue labels. Because without running several lacquers from the master tapes (probably forbidden by the original labels), unless they are OK with generational quality degradation to stamper copies then they'll be fairly limited in production quantity and many of them don't number their releases - so we can't even know how many were produced. It's all highly questionable to me. Always has been. I once tried to determine if the Bill Evans AP box set (Riverside Recordings) was AAA, and it was a fools errand.
I agree with you except for some re-issue labels which have gone out of their way to say that their releases are AAA (except in rare instances when the master is digital). I tend to believe them. Included in this batch are Music Matters Jazz and Speakers Corner.
I agree with you except for some re-issue labels which have gone out of their way to say that their releases are AAA (except in rare instances when the master is digital). I tend to believe them. Included in this batch are Music Matters Jazz and Speakers Corner.
Sure. And honestly, I've always assumed if there is no explicit AAA proclamation, then there's a good reason why. I just don't buy "Kevin Gray, Bernie, et al would never!'
If the original recording is digital than lacquer can be cut from digital. That’s understandable but in that case I probably prefer CD version or stream it instead of buying the record.
mostly agree. but sometimes it's a digital recording mixed to tape. if the master is then tape, mostly the analog will have ultimate advantages. but not always.
If the original recording is analog than lacquer must be cut from best possible analog source IMHO. Adding a digital process to the mastering chain and claiming that lacquers cut from dsd transfers are sounding better is pure none sense.
what we want as end users is the best sound. we rely on the mastering engineer to deliver that.
i agree that in a perfect world we get an all analog chain. but a digital step is not the kiss of death.
the issues are when the choice is to do a digital transfer, why did they do that? was it because they had no choice due to circumstances? or was it just easier all around? how would Bernie Grundman, or Kevin Grey, do it, compared to MoFi? and as these are subjective choices based on all sorts of issues, hard to judge other than if we could listen to both.
OTOH whatever method they do use, if they represent the process one way, then that has to be true for there to be trust.
There is a common belief as dsd is superior to pcm but since dsd can not be editable most of the dsd files on stream services or on sacds are converted to pcm while mixing/mastering at least once. Same thing different color.
I’m not against digital and listening a lot of digital but neither dsd nor pcm shouldn’t be used if master tape exists.
Some say even if lacquers were cut from dsd mofi records still sound great. What if they were cut directly from original master tapes? I’m sure they would sound better.
unless we are there in the process.....we cannot know that. too many variables. we are talking about 40-70 year old tape masters. made by hundreds of different people and different gear.
OTOH we can avoid any Lp's not cut from pure analog, if we want to do that. many go that route and avoid any modern pressings. my personal perspective is that they are missing out on lots of excellent sounding vinyl. but agree we have to push for the best sound.
"MFSL engineers begin with the original master tapes and meticulously cut a set of lacquers."
While this statement is technically not a flat out lie, it strongly implies the lacquers are cut from the original tapes but we now seem to know they are not. Lie vs omission of critical information in the description of their process ... splitting hairs.
I would never expect the lacquers to be cut from the original tapes. Articles I have read about using old master tapes refer that they must be equalized to compensate for the losses due to age. In fact, it a real point for people preferring original LPs - they were cut from fresh masters.
If the original recording is digital than lacquer can be cut from digital. That’s understandable but in that case I probably prefer CD version or stream it instead of buying the record.
If the original recording is analog than lacquer must be cut from best possible analog source IMHO. Adding a digital process to the mastering chain and claiming that lacquers cut from dsd transfers are sounding better is pure none sense.
Well, many tapes need mastering or the people making them want something different from previous versions. Re-issues is not simply playing the existing master at the cutter - they involve a an intermediate form of storage. It seems some people prefer a DSDx4 to another tape stage. I do not seen any non sense in it, just a preference.
There is a common belief as dsd is superior to pcm but since dsd can not be editable most of the dsd files on stream services or on sacds are converted to pcm while mixing/mastering at least once. Same thing different color.
I’m not against digital and listening a lot of digital but neither dsd nor pcm shouldn’t be used if master tape exists.
Some say even if lacquers were cut from dsd mofi records still sound great. What if they were cut directly from original master tapes? I’m sure they would sound better.
And more importantly whether it’s cut from tape or dsd whole mastering chain should be clarified.
IMHO It would be important to clarify what we are exactly addressing by "master tapes" and "original mastering tapes". As far as I see there are several kinds of "master tapes". We had a great thread about such aspects and the importance of mastering by our member Bruce B in the past, but I could not find it.
I would never expect the lacquers to be cut from the original tapes. Articles I have read about using old master tapes refer that they must be equalized to compensate for the losses due to age.
On a side note, one of the main benefits of using a digital workstation is to correct for variations in tape speed which are not uncommon with all these old tapes. The majority of Grateful Dead issues use the Plangent Process which corrects for this.
I have no idea if this one of the reasons MoFi uses a digital transfer for mastering and it doesn't excuse the lack of full disclosure, but people seem to be talking about analog vs digital mastering.
There are have been a number of Blue Note Tone Poet releases which have suffered from speed warble. Unless the master is digital, everything they do is AAA. Maybe some of these issues could have been mitigated by using a digital step.
Well, many tapes need mastering or the people making them want something different from previous versions. Re-issues is not simply playing the existing master at the cutter - they involve a an intermediate form of storage. It seems some people prefer a DSDx4 to another tape stage. I do not seen any non sense in it, just a preference.
Almost all tapes need mastering and it can be done on the fly while cutting the lacquer if the tape is in good shape. There is nothing wrong about it.
IMHO If original master tape can not be brought to the place where lacquers are cut then a copy of OMT should be used.
IMHO for a premium vinyl with 125USD price tag involving a dsd step can not be excused when original-analog-master-tapes can be reached and in good shape if the original recording was analog. IMHO for a 20USD price tag it's ok.
IMHO If a dsd transfer is preferred to original-analog-master-tape or a copy of it (it's a possibility) then it's better to listen that dsd file as a stream or sacd. I prefer to listen that dsd file instead of vinyl which is cut from that file, cause vinyl is one generation later.
That's probably true. I think "original master tape" doesn't differentiate between 1a and 1b, 1c, 1d, etc dubs. And I know there are situations now where there may not be any usable versions remaining. In some sense, if DSD existed 70 years ago, we would probably be happy now that such archives were created when the time was right.
www.analogplanet.com
