Awesome Audiophile Snake Oil

https://mixmag.net/read/analogue-disc-ionic-originals-burnett-cd-vinyl-tech?fbclid=IwAR1fj__3pwPlSFkvgVRc0uMGbEViSzjrX_eUcCCnPv-x-HJ48VUNzKp8iNA

"It is archival quality. It is future proof. It is one of one."

... it is laser-targeted at separating audiophiles from their live savings, kudos.

Pretty stupid, but I think the bigger point (if not the main one Burnett's trying to make) is that they're creating a one-of-a-kind item. As he's said elsewhere, it's like the musical recording equivalent of a painting, where there's one and only one and hence incredibly valuable. Basically taking a mass produced work of art and making it singular. I can dig that idea more than the concept of creating some stupid ultra-high-quality audiophile format that happens to allow only one copy.

y'all are kinda burying the lede that one of these things already sold for 1.7 million dollars or so the other day: https://www.stereogum.com/2192458/bob-dylans-ionic-original-re-recording-of-blowin-in-the-wind-sells-for-1-7m/news/

A cross between vinyl and NFT is really a stroke of terrible marketing genius.

to be fair, unlike an NFT, this is an actual physical object

its also boooooring:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LNjEdPfj1Y

its like an NFT in the sense that the object itself is completely unremarkable aside from its rarity. if this recording had come out in 2008 on a charity album or some comp like "Music From & Inspired by The Gilmore Girls: Volume 3" no one would give a shit about it. there would at least be a rational argument for its price if there were anything unique or interesting about it - an original song, an interesting collaboration, an unheard historic recording from the vault, SOMETHING.

that makes sense! good parsing.

and yes obv this is garbage, musically/aesthetically

T-Bone still pissed CODE didn't become a thing.

You could have bought the Newport festival Stratocaster for less than that stupid vinyl NFT.

I bet it'd fetch rather more today, but sheesh!

Lot of pearl clutching in the audiophile world over the "revelation" that MFSL has been cutting a lot of titles on vinyl from DSD transfers (albeit from the first generation master), so much that this video was just released:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shg0780YgAE

I've only purchased SACD's from them anyway, which is actually my ideal format (and it's not outrageously expensive either), but I'm surprised this is news. I thought it was clear that quite a few labels didn't want their master tapes leaving their facilities, especially after the Universal fire, so making a copy was usually the only option (with a DSD transfer being the best way of doing that). The other reasons they give for doing so make sense, especially with The Pretenders.

if you look at how MFSL describes its own process, it's difficult not to conclude that they have been deliberately misleading their customers. i don't own any of their pressings, nor do i care whether any of the records in my collection are "all" or "purely" analogue. but i can see how this would be super frustrating if you were somebody for whom this was an important aspect of the hobby / listening experience.

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0192/6322/5922/files/MoFi_UD1S_Tech_Sheet_SuperVinyl_Update_1024x1024.jpg?v=1616771397

Yeah definitely. Those One-Steps cost an assload of money, so you can see how someone would be upset, but honestly, I would never pay anything near that amount for one single record.

if you look at how MFSL describes its own process, it's difficult not to conclude that they have been deliberately misleading their customers. i don't own any of their pressings, nor do i care whether any of the records in my collection are "all" or "purely" analogue. but i can see how this would be super frustrating if you were somebody for whom this was an important aspect of the hobby / listening experience.

to me this seems like the equivalent of getting mad about digital special effects in movies. if it looks good and you enjoy the overall experience, who cares if it's not a real explosion?

(that's just me tho — no shade at anyone)

haha holy shit 172 pages in less than a week on this

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/mobile-fidelity-cutting-vinyl-from-digital-since-a-long-time-ago.1150351/

because they market their products as if they are sourced without digital technology. moreover they heavily imply that this makes their pressings sound better, and indeed closer / closest to the "original." and finally they have counted on this being a meaningful distinction, and one worth paying significantly more for.

I'm pro anything that scams people who are deeply concerned about the "one-step process" tbh.

Look, they have One-Steps of Eric Clapton's Unplugged.

Jesus, I wouldn't play that shit if you paid me $100+....

There used to be a dealer that came to the local record shows who literally had six+ tables of all new MFSL/Half-Speeds/45 RPM Mastered stuff, and it was all albums like that. Can't believe the money they had to put up just to stock those things in the first place, much less how many are actually sold.

Next you're gonna tell me that "hot stampers" are 100% self-delusion based on people desperately convincing themselves that spending $500 on a Cat Stevens album was worth it...

LMAO

At prices like that, the music has to be great!

that's a wild story

some of those MoFi releases sound pretty good

my philosophy re pricey audiophile vinyl has been that for the $$$ i could almost certainly pick up a really nice copy of an OG release, and doing that feels like i am more properly honouring whatever dumb urge has me still buying records in 2022

(i don’t really give a toss about source as long as it sounds good, but i do automatically assume that all contemporary reissues are sourced from digital unless explicitly stated otherwise)

I once had a friend with an incredible audiophile system, one of the best I've ever listened to

he had this Mofi version of Bringing It All Back Home, a record I am quite familiar with
https://www.discogs.com/release/9486656-Bob-Dylan-Bringing-It-All-Back-Home
and I swear I was hearing things I had never heard before when he put it on

but I was also stoned at the time so not really a scientific observation

That moment when you can hear the engineer all the way in the control room coughing after lighting the wrong end of the cigarette - that was special. That’s what makes it worth $157.

man these hi-fi people are delusional (big shock I know) about how the world works

afaik there are almost no examples of AAA vinyl in recent years aside from a 7" I did that was cut directly from tape & probably some Jack White stuff because that dude is hardcore about that kinda thing

oh wait Loveless. but there's lists online claiming recent Joni Mitchell issues are cut from tape, I'm super skeptical about that

fuck sorry for post storm maybe there's a bunch of people going for this now? the thing I did was 10 years ago and people were "ok well we'll hunt down somebody who'll do it but only for a limited run" and the word was Jack White was into it

i was reading a bit about Loveless before I picked it up. Didn't seem like anyone who shelled out for both versions could tell any difference whatsoever. Shields seemed to be doing it just because?

Did the people upset about this take for granted that anything advertised as "from the original analog tapes!" didn't involve a digital step... or they thought MoFi "one steppers" were the One True Path in this world of lies?

Cuz I can kinda understand the latter... they didn't count going digital as a step cuz they are confident it's lossless or whatever? It's kinda seedy. But uh.. lol

this is like the record collecting version of the Bernie Madoff situation, fraudsters scamming people who both deserve it & can well afford it, no sympathy for either side

I mean the thing is, going direct from tape is a gesture, a flex, whatever. 24/192 files on wax will not sound different to any ears on the planet than an actual AAA transfer. it's my understanding that the waveforms physically actually WILL be a little different, which is fascinating, but I don't believe anybody could A/B two pressings, one from AAA and one from the highest res digital master, and know the difference. so yeah - one does it just because, to be doing a neat thing, to be doing something different, to make one's record have its own thing. but some Hoffman forums type guys think they have freak-of-nature ears

doesn’t a vinyl pressing require remastering? so not actually “direct from tape”?

I would assume they’re monitoring at the cutting head as they apply RIAA-EQ or whatever, as they run the tape. And I guess you have to do that again and again to get the best result, and then send off for a test pressing and then do it over.

So it makes so much more sense to do all that from a digital “clone” running out of a hard drive that having to run the precious first-gen tape over and over again. And it makes even more sense to do a digital capture on site if you have to visit the label archives and can’t have the master for long. And if, like that Pretenders LP, every track requires different treatment, live from tape becomes almost impossible.

But I guess this is not what their literature says they do?

their literature is loosy-goosy. it mentions the analog tapes, doesn't mention the digital step. doesn't explicitly deny it either. if i were a connoisseur paying big bucks for the best possible sound, i could see feeling disgruntled. if they just said what they did and why (like they do on that video) i don't think any reasonable person would be put off. there are always going to be fringe elements who fall in love with words like "analog" and "lossless."

In the interview with the MFSL people they talk about the difference between labeling a release “Original Master Recording” as opposed to “Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab.” The former means they were able to verify that they were using the original master for the whole album; the latter is used when some tracks, but not all, are from the original master.

One of two MFSL CDs I have is Tommy, which is emblazoned with “Original Master Recording.” The song “Eyesight To The Blind” has an alternate vocal from the original release, so…???

they made a mistake?

that beatles mono box was analog straight through and is sort of seen as the gold standard for this kind of thing. so some people think you *have* to do it that way to get that kind of result. which is faulty logic but logicians are in short supply these days.

Ha, I just looked it up. The alternate vocal was from a master of a different mix than the one we all know and love, and said different mix was previously used for one or more ‘70s pressings of Tommy. Also, the tapes were personally handed to the MFSL folks by Pete Townshend, who may have a somewhat sloppy memory, but is very protective of that work/album.

maybe he liked that mix better!

new video getting attention on Hoffman forum now... see the last couple minutes for the engineers outright lying about being fully analog

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6kFRQ9NTDw

the In Groove interview was some real fanboy junk

this shit is hilarious

"it's an honor to be able to work on a system of that capability." "indeed."

its just so funny hearing these guys trying to make peace with the fact that they've sunk thousands & thousands of dollars into this stuff all saying "i dont care if theres digital in the process as long as it sounds good, its the DISHONESTY thats bad." which is obv the correct & healthy attitude to have, but ofc is something they never ever would have said until a week ago

Nerrrrrrrds

Can’t believe I’ve sunk thousands of dollars into finding the best sounding copy of the most basic-ass records

Beyond the dishonesty, I'm still trying to understand how the smaller album art/dumb calculator looking font strip on the top records are worth a premium to anyone.

Last year I picked up a copy of Mingus's Black Saint and the Sinner Lady for the equivalent of 28 US dollars.. very fancy heavy jacket and inner sleeve, all around premium. It was part of the "Acoustic Sounds" line... they're owned by "Analogue Productions" (or maybe it's the other way around). It's promoted as "from the original analog tapes"! ...not sure Mingus got to work in digital anyhow so OK. Sounds great. It seems muddy online as to whether people think this would've had a digital step in it. But I see how they're eager to let your mind go in that direction, if you're so inclined.

Anyways why are a lot of MoFi releases $100? Is that just the ones that are cut in one step... while most records, no matter the source, are some three step pressing process? That's how some people might keep ponying up for these? Even though it should be clear enough now that the $30 CD is from the exact same transfer of masters.

Apparently what made a lot of people suspicious is that they started advertising a "one step" of Thriller in an edition of 40,000. Surely they would not be allowed to play the master tapes however many times it would take to make lacquers enough for 40,000 vinyls! Sure enough, they needn't.

It's too funny.

The whole analog vs. digital mentality isn't worth the headache and that even applies to the movie world. I like to go to 35mm film screenings, but I also concede that most film prints these days have a digital intermediate now, and that's true for older films that need to be restored. It's ridiculous how people get worked up over an analog purity doctrine when there's a shit ton of problems that are more important in the world. Hell, I'm not even that crazy about vinyl due to the environmental impact of creating that plastic alone.

FWIW, here's what I mean on that last point.

i feel like shaming people about the environmental impact of their record collecting hobby is arguably a worse look than getting distressed about your audiophile records having been sourced from digital