Definitive Audiophile pressings

[Jbraswell]

If you love an album, and the original has good reviews on its sound, and it's in your budget. It's always worth grabbing!

I didn't get a first press but I got pretty damn close for $20. The lack of info on the cogs release page was making me hesitate.

 

[tvham]

I'll give you the option of skipping all of it but then I'll have to declare you a witch and honestly that comes with a whole other slew of conditions... how are you with sudden intense heat?

Funny you should say that as I just saw this in person on Sunday

The Gates of Hell - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Melt Face Molly Drop]

Why didn't you let people know you changed the meaning of "Original Master Recording"

This is what I'm still confused on. If the top banner on the album said Original Master Recording, then it was from the OG tapes. But if it said Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs, then it could have been digitally sourced. I avoided the latter for that reason, but now it sounds like either could be digitally sourced?

 

[Mather]

Funny you should say that as I just saw this in person on Sunday

The Gates of Hell - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

View attachment 146424

Omg, the doors to the old Mather family cottage. I wondered where those had gotten off to...

 

[LeeVing]

Also...

Does "Gain 2™ Ultra Analog" actually mean "all analog"?


I'm going to say no...because of the Sony/Columbia titles that have this logo.

 

[Joe Mac]

This is what I'm still confused on. If the top banner on the album said Original Master Recording, then it was from the OG tapes. But if it said Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs, then it could have been digitally sourced. I avoided the latter for that reason, but now it sounds like either could be digitally sourced?

I think in practice very little, if any, was from them being presented with a digital copy, when it had MFSL across the top it was more likely that some was from a lower generation tape because the original was not available to them. I know a couple of the Dylan monos were like this because there was a track or two missing so they had to use second generation tape copies of the master.

The fact that they may have made digital copies of those masters, or copies of masters, themselves from which they cut the lacquer is this controversy.

 

[Andy]

Fremer's take

Apologies if I missed it but does anyone have a link to the MoFi confirmation that they are using a digital sources?

The Fremer view as well if you're interested

 

[Hogues]

The best part about this whole "scandal" is the responses in this thread. Very funny, which I needed today. Second best is the responses on the Hoffman thread. Also very funny but for different reasons. As others have mentioned, as long as it sounds good, I'm fine with it no matter the source. But I think that MoFi intentionally let people believe something that was not true at best, intentionally deceived people at worst. I think think that they knew exactly what they were doing with their language choices and exactly what people would think. I don't particular want to support a company like that. Unless they make something that this board says is great and I get a bad case of FOMO. Then, maybe (probably).

 

[snoops]

Lots to unpack with this controversy now that the cat is out of the bag. The thing that I find the most hilarious about this is all the self proclaimed golden ears types that said they could ALWAYS tell if something had digital in the chain. Bull fucking shit.

I understand that even if the SACD and Vinyl start with the same digital source doesn't mean they are going to sound identical. SACD is down sampled from 4x to x1 and also mastering that occurs. It does bring into question the cost vs value proposition and how you like to collect and own your music.

For me vinyl will always be my preferred medium irrespective of if there was digital in the chain or not.

 

[Sebastian]

Giant CDs

 

[Joe Mac]

I understand that even if the SACD and Vinyl start with the same digital source doesn't mean they are going to sound identical. SACD is down sampled from 4x to x1 and also mastering that occurs.

Yeah I think the direct comparison, even jokingly, isn’t fair for those reasons, particularly mastering given the extra work that needs doing to fit within the constraints of the vinyl medium. Also even if they were able to be functionally identical the process of lasers and a DAC is so very different from dropping a needle into a piece of wax and running the low signal through a phono stage.

 

[Hemotep]

Giant CDs

It's a shame we never got the laser disc version for music. That would be where the real audiophiles would have flocked.
Minidisc went the wrong way.

 

[Ghost]

What does this mean for my MoFi Ultradeck? Are you telling me it's actually a CD player?!?!

Sorry, I'll see myself out.

 

[Sebastian]

What does this mean for my MoFi Ultradeck? Are you telling me it's actually a CD player?!?!

Sorry, I'll see myself out.

Let’s not bring that up

 

[Andy]

It's a shame we never got the laser disc version for music. That would be where the real audiophiles would have flocked.
Minidisc went the wrong way.

minidisc was the best

 

[Jbraswell]

All this news before a new pressing plant opening

 

[Portland Sheriff]

The mono cut is AAA for about £20 and sounds great. Having said that apparently the mofi Miles all sound fantastic digital or not. I'm in for the Bitches Brew One Step.

I have the mono Sketches, and it is great. I also have several Mofi Miles Davis and they’re incredible, one after the other. I didn’t give a crap about AAA when I bought them (although I did think they were AAA for all the reasons [almost] everyone else did), and I don’t care now.

That said, with the recent price increases in vinyl, especially at AS, for certain releases, I’d already started going w/ SACDs.

 

[Portland Sheriff]

Next topic: the utter BS of the low number in a numbered set being relevant to anything. I (and many others) don’t buy the idea that they pull the first off the press (or wherever it goes when it’s ready to be sleeved) and have sleeve No. 1 sitting there ready to go.

I’m not saying earlier off the press isn’t relevant. By all accounts it is. Just saying I don’t believe the numbers on the sleeves correlate to the sequence off the press.

 

[Mather]

That said, with the recent price increases in vinyl, especially at AS, for certain releases, I’d already started going w/ SACDs.

For the first time in something like a decade, CD sales increased this past year. They're coming back, book it. I'm willing to bet SACDs become a big thing over the next few years as a large swath of listeners bail on vinyl due to cost, maintenance, space, and just general weariness at how much of a gamble and hassle the medium has become with plants as overworked and backed up as they now are.

And with so many streaming services fracturing the viewer and listener base I think a lot of younger people are starting to realize that maybe renting your media from giant corporations isn't the most sound model to rely on when it comes to the art you love. And they're going to start buying physical media again. And for the most part they don't have the space or the money for vinyl, so CDs it is.

WHAT DID I SAY, ALL OF YOU LAUGHED AT ME, WELL WHOSE LAUGHING NOW HUH? NOT ME, WAIT NO I MEAN ME, I'M LAUGHING NOW, AT EVERYONE WHO WAS LAUGHING AT ME BEFORE

 

[Joe Mac]

Next topic: the utter BS of the low number in a numbered set being relevant to anything. I (and many others) don’t buy the idea that they pull the first off the press (or wherever it goes when it’s ready to be sleeved) and have sleeve No. 1 sitting there ready to go.

I’m not saying earlier off the press isn’t relevant. By all accounts it is. Just saying I don’t believe the numbers on the sleeves correlate to the sequence off the press.

I’ll raise you the bullshit of any numbered limitation being on anything. Print an initial run, if it does well print some more, limitations suck.