Awesome Audiophile Snake Oil

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

I think shaming people over their records is stupid, partly because the issues aren't unique to vinyl records, but the overall point isn't wrong either. It's all part of a much greater problem with plastic and other petrol products, and to be fair, there have been improvements in addressing that (with plastics in general if not vinyl production itself).

Liner notes to Frank Zappa's Joe's Garage trilogy, 1979 (yeah, yeah, I know, I know, I'm just saying):

Desperate nerds in high offices all over the world have been known to enact the most disgusting pieces of legislation in order to win votes (or, in places where they don't get to vote, to control unwanted forms of mass behavior)

Environmental laws were not passed to protect our air and water ... they were passed to get votes. Seasonal anti-smut campaigns are not conducted to rid our communities of moral rot ... they are conducted to give an aura of saintliness to the office-seekers who demand them. If a few key phrases are thrown into any speech (as the expert advisors explain to these various heads of state) votes will roll in, bucks will roll in, and, most importantly, power will be maintained by the groovy guy (or gal) who gets the most media coverage for his sleaze. Naturally, his friends in various businesses will do okay too

All governments perpetuate themselves through the daily commission of acts which a rational person might find to be stupid or dangerous (or both). Naturally, our government is no exception ... for instance, if the President (any one of them) went on TV and sat there with the flag in the background (or maybe a rustic scene on a little backdrop, plus the flag) and stared sincerely into the camera and told everybody that all energy problems and all inflationary problems had been traced to and could be solved by the abolition of MUSIC, chances are that most people would believe him and think that the illegalization of this obnoxious form of noise pollution would be a small price to pay for the chance to buy gas like the good ol' days. No way? Never happen? Records are made out of oil. All those big rock shows go from town to town in fuel-gobbling 45 foot trucks ... and when they get there, they use up enormous amounts of electrical energy with their lights, their amplifiers, their PA systems ... their smoke machines. And all those synthesizers...look at all the plastic they got in 'em ... and the guitar picks ... you name it ...

JOE'S GARAGE is a stupid story about how the government is going to try to do away with music (a prime cause of unwanted mass behavior)! It's sort of like a really cheap kind of high school play ... the way it might have been done 20 years ago, with all the sets made out of cardboard boxes and poster paint. It's also like those lectures that local narks used to give (where they show you a display of all the different ways you can get wasted, with the pills leading to the weed leading to the needle, etc., etc.). If the plot of the story seems just a little bit preposterous, and if the idea of The Central Scrutinizer enforcing laws that haven't been passed yet makes you giggle, just be glad you don't live in one of the cheerful little countries where, at this very moment, music is either severely restricted ... or, as it is in Iran, totally illegal

LOL, yeah point taken. I'm not advocating for banning records - for starters, I still buy plenty of physical media - and again it's part of a bigger problem that I usually talk about without singling out a particular product, except maybe automobiles (which use far more petroleum).

Audiophiles don't like this, but recycling vinyl was a common practice, especially in the U.S., and there's a lot more vinyl out there than what's being produced, so to me, if this suddenly became a pressing issue for some reason (pun not intended), a realistically helpful solution already exists.

I don't know if these numbers check out, but FWIW:

In a 2019 article for the Conversation, (Sharon) George and co-author Deirdre McKay calculated that if you listen to an album more than 27 times, it makes better environmental sense to buy that album on CD rather than to stream it. Speaking to the New Statesman in October 2021, George said she had revised that calculation, using updated numbers on carbon reporting figures for plastic (used for both a CD and its case) and for media streaming. Her conclusion? Listening to an album via a streaming platform for just five hours is equal in terms of carbon to the plastic of a physical CD. The comparative time for a vinyl record is 17 hours.

https://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2021/11/how-environmentally-damaging-is-music-streaming

Thanks bulb. It's easy for me because it already made sense for financial reasons and for convenience, but I've always preferred used CD's. They're cheap, they're already out there (nothing new is being produced), and at least it keeps them from going into a landfill since CD's themselves aren't easily recyclable. That wasn't the reason I originally got into used CD buying - I was a kid who had to save his money - but it's supported the reasoning to keep doing it.

I am all for reducing waste and environmental impact wherever I can - and I do, pretty much everything I own is secondhand apart from music and some clothes - but making the general public feel like their individual actions are the driver of climate change is a classic gaslighting power move adapted from big tobacco. Buying a CD doesn’t matter shit compared to the environment waivers they got through in the asshole’s term in office. Although if it matters, vinyl is one of the few plastics which can be genuinely recycled, whereas the polycarbonate of CDs and their packaging can only be ground up and used as fill in composite materials I think.

I remember watching this a couple of years ago and wondering how much the immediate environmental impact (ie air quality in your home) actually mattered. I live in the middle of an eastern-state sized concrete pad with 7 million people driving on it, concrete plants, a coal or natural-gas fired power plant like three miles away and I used to smoke 1-1.5 packs of cigarettes a day so it was tough for me to take seriously as a health risk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ2czFuIYmQ

Re: "making the general public feel like their individual actions are the driver of climate change is a classic gaslighting power" - if we're talking about the way we live in a broad sense, I'm not sure how to answer this because climate change is generally caused by the excess greenhouse gases created by human activity. There's no getting around that it's rooted in our individual actions collectively.

I guess the keyword is probably gaslighting because shaming and taking responsibility aren't the same thing, and what comes out of that isn't the same thing. The core issue is reducing greenhouse gases from energy use, which is a lot of things, but the main course of action has been renewable sources, one that doesn't aim to alter people's day-to-day activities in a major behavioral way but seeks to power those activities in a way that isn't worsening the problem.

In short, ideally, you don't want people to feel ashamed or terrible about themselves, but you also don't want people to blow off what's a major crisis that's going to need widespread support and engagement.

What I meant was the next bit in the post - corporations and manufacturers using political clout to dodge any kind of consequence for environmentally shitty practices, governments propping up fossil fuel economies, etc., are the real problem, not whether I buy an LP or 300 LPs. I know our way of life is the driver; it's being lulled by cheap sparkly things while the 1% pursue individual wealth without heed of the consequences, that makes the problem endemic.

fwiw the idea plastics are getting more environmentally friendly or that vinyl records could be recycled into other records are both false, afaict

the consensus is generally that we're stuck with plastic, though. the largest oil companies have glowing documentation about how they see the market for plastics expanding almost exponentially over the next few decades and they doubled down on that as soon as the market started signaling fossil fuel use might possibly diminish

as for recycling, plastics degrade and you're going to end up with a material inferior to what you started with every time

you could see the process as collecting and keeping vinyl records as keeping plastic that's going to get produced anyway out of landfills and the ocean, I guess

xp Got it, and you're absolutely right a thousand times over, and that ties in with mh's post. (more on that in a sec) Pruitt's short time as the EPA head was a disgusting display of the corrupt and self-entitled mentality at work - like "how dare you people put your health over our wealth?" They actually defined it as "picking the winners and losers" - JFC, trying not to poison or give people cancer and protecting nature's health and continued survival is a universal necessity, not some fucking prize in a competition.

mh is right though - I didn't want to load too much environmental discussion into this thread (apologies if it's too off topic), but plastic quality diminishes much more than metal or glass with recycling. Paper too though they have paper products that accommodate that (paper on its last legs is perfect for tissue) and regardless paper can ultimately be composted. With plastic, it will likely end up as microscopic plastic particles because it doesn't really break down completely even as it gets weaker - plastic pollution is so prevalent now that it's virtually impossible to eat fish without ingesting some microscopic plastic. The oil companies aren't going to stop producing plastic though - as mentioned, they are actually ramping up production because they're facing decreasing petrol use (electric cars, renewable energy) and they have no intention of letting their revenue slide. It's become an inherently sociopathic business.

Behind the scenes of MoFiGate!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/music/2022/08/05/mofi-records-analog-digital-scandal/

MoFi’s executive vice president: “I regret everything, man.”

Jesus, it's bizarre seeing something that's usually isolated in some weird corner of the internet make its way into the Post.

Then again I guess that pretty much sums up the last six years.

That's actually a good article about the whole thing, I liked this quote:

“The other part that bothers them is that they’ve been listening to digital all along and they’re highly invested in believing that any digital step will destroy their experience. And they’re wrong.”

i dunno i think that article generates more heat than light. a pertinent question for the mofi folks might have been why they used a sampling method that far exceeds anything a consumer can get via even hi-res digital. might they also (gasp) think the more common sampling techniques are subpar? at least for their purposes?

i mean, if the point is to mock audiophiles, i get it. but if the point is to actually explore the world of sound reproduction, they did not do that.

I’m with thus sang Freud here, there are more interesting angles to explore here besides “lol at audiophiles”.

it's so funny to me that this made the news

that in groove guy has an interesting backstory.

probably more interesting than the article, honestly!

Being able to try different cuts is a very persuasive and reasonable argument for using files. It's also understandable that they would have had trouble finding a way to sell it, given the brand, and just let it slide.

This brings to mind George Lucas's response to Martin Scorsese re: whether or not digital was truly inferior to film/analog - "If it had a DI, it's already digital." The point being, right before 35mm prints were most phased out, and even now when the occasional film tries to strike 35mm prints, anything shot on film will still get transferred to digital for the grading and color correction. There's no way anyone's not doing that because then they have to forfeit a LOT of tools that have become standard in grading, which has become a completely different and far more complicated stage of work than before. Even vintage films will probably get a DI in order to take advantage of digital restoration tools, which can handle a lot of things photochemical restoration won't. It's all in that YouTube interview, which is indeed a slog to get through, but as they explain, going to DSD gives them a huge advantage. I'd say it's kind of like working with a 6K scan (if you think of 2K being redbook PCM and and 4K being DSD), it would be extremely difficult to ask someone to ditch that and stay in the analog world when the benefits vastly outweighs the disadvantages to most discerning people.