|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Aug 13, 2022 18:22:08 GMT -5
Your rant is noted, seems you protest too much. It’s only your opinion and counts for ‘not’ to me.
FinisNope - it's NOT just my opinion. It's Mobile Fidelity's. Feel free to ignore me. But I think that Mobile Fidelity deserves a bit more attention and credibility. They specifically said that they tried analog tape (multiple types, widths, and speeds) to copy the original masters for their stampings, and that the wow, flutter, and hiss were too severe. They then used DSD technology (SACD) and got much closer to the original master tapes. Understand? DIGITAL (not analog) recording got them much closer to the source. That is also to say that DIGITAL (not analog) reproduction of their recordings got them much closer to the source. This isn't rocket science. I could list (again) the shortcomings of phonograph records, but why bother? Those who want to listen to records, want to listen to records. I get that. I'll also admit that in the mid 1980s when digital first came out, the sound SUUUUUUCKED. It took another 15 years before digital equalled the sound of vinyl, and another 5 years before digital exceeded vinyl. But we're now 40 years beyond the advent of digital, and both digital recording and digital playback have thoroughly eclipsed vinyl. This is not only a measurable superiority, it is an audible one. Yes, a lot of digital recordings and digital playback systems are still underperformers. But the best of digital reproduction is now better sounding (and less expensive) than the best of phonograph records and turntables. If you want to hear good digital systems, go to some audio shows (or to my audio amigo, Russell's place), and you'll agree. OTOH, if you're pleased with the phonograph system you're using then I'm happy for you. It's a free country. |
|
|
|
Post by jbrunwa on Aug 13, 2022 20:14:19 GMT -5
I don't own any Mobile Fidelity reissues, but I think they take great care to process the master faithfully and I may buy a few of the SACD's. I don't doubt that a vinyl pressing will differ from the DSD256, but I think that the quality of the EQ and processing is just as important as the medium. To illustrate, I came across an analysis of the different issues Michael Jackson "Dangerous". In particular, I find most objectionable the so-called "lossless" streaming services that have clipping due to normalization/compression, either by sourcing bad CD versions, or perhaps applied by the streaming services to level the volume across tracks and albums. I contrast, I think I would enjoy any or all of the good vinyl or digital issues. magicvinyldigital.net/2022/07/16/michael-jackson-dangerous-review-lp-cd-streaming-dat-1991-to-2021/ |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Aug 13, 2022 22:10:58 GMT -5
Your rant is noted, seems you protest too much. It’s only your opinion and counts for ‘not’ to me.
FinisNope - it's NOT just my opinion. It's Mobile Fidelity's. Feel free to ignore me. But I think that Mobile Fidelity deserves a bit more attention and credibility. They specifically said that they tried analog tape (multiple types, widths, and speeds) to copy the original masters for their stampings, and that the wow, flutter, and hiss were too severe. They then used DSD technology (SACD) and got much closer to the original master tapes. Understand? DIGITAL (not analog) recording got them much closer to the source. That is also to say that DIGITAL (not analog) reproduction of their recordings got them much closer to the source. This isn't rocket science. I could list (again) the shortcomings of phonograph records, but why bother? Those who want to listen to records, want to listen to records. I get that. I'll also admit that in the mid 1980s when digital first came out, the sound SUUUUUUCKED. It took another 15 years before digital equalled the sound of vinyl, and another 5 years before digital exceeded vinyl. But we're now 40 years beyond the advent of digital, and both digital recording and digital playback have thoroughly eclipsed vinyl. This is not only a measurable superiority, it is an audible one. Yes, a lot of digital recordings and digital playback systems are still underperformers. But the best of digital reproduction is now better sounding (and less expensive) than the best of phonograph records and turntables. If you want to hear good digital systems, go to some audio shows (or to my audio amigo, Russell's place), and you'll agree. OTOH, if you're pleased with the phonograph system you're using then I'm happy for you. It's a free country. OK my friend, MoFi is selling records and they want to do so with what they can do. Many others disagree and I will also. Seems your audio god has and knows it all, cool. Love what ya like. Drink up  and now I’m done with “The Never Ending Battle”. Cheers |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Aug 13, 2022 23:35:58 GMT -5
I don't own any Mobile Fidelity reissues, but I think they take great care to process the master faithfully and I may buy a few of the SACD's. I don't doubt that a vinyl pressing will differ from the DSD256, but I think that the quality of the EQ and processing is just as important as the medium. To illustrate, I came across an analysis of the different issues Michael Jackson "Dangerous". In particular, I find most objectionable the so-called "lossless" streaming services that have clipping due to normalization/compression, either by sourcing bad CD versions, or perhaps applied by the streaming services to level the volume across tracks and albums. I contrast, I think I would enjoy any or all of the good vinyl or digital issues. magicvinyldigital.net/2022/07/16/michael-jackson-dangerous-review-lp-cd-streaming-dat-1991-to-2021/Absolutely, the engineers take great pains in what they do. Plenty of test master-cuts then one would think. They are artists in and of themselves. No doubt about it. There are great sounding digital issues. Absolutely! Do they have the body and soul of great vinyl pressings? Few do but they do exist. It takes a mastery of the arts to do either properly. Perhaps more talent to produce the digital version. It seems that the more I learn about each process the less I know about them. There are huge and vast amounts of knowledge only privy to those that have the skills or are an apprentice to a master. I have enjoyed both art forms but prefer (my ears my system) vinyl. If I want something unavailable on vinyl or in 5.1 sound (I rarely care for 5.1) I’ll reach for the one of a few dozen I own. One can measure this and that but one can not measure what I like on a given day. Do you like big dogs or small ones? Love dogs or cats? Both equally or one over another? Thats about the same argument as vinyl or digital. I bet those of us that like one or the other often reach for the remote and streamer which isn’t the same quality sound as either of the fore mentioned IMO. Like what you like, Love ya just the same. |
|
