Record Label Honesty In the Download Era

[acousticsguru]

never tried that compare. but never liked a single MoFi record.

There’s a handful I like, but more pertinent to the discussion here is that the MoFi case was, legally speaking, about false advertisement, whereas repackaging / relabeling / selling an identical product (e.g. PCM downloads) at multiple price levels is fraud.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[bonzo75]

There’s a handful I like, but more pertinent to the discussion here is that the MoFi case was, legally speaking, about false advertisement, whereas repackaging / relabeling / selling an identical product (e.g. PCM downloads) at multiple price levels is fraud.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

does someone’s CD player, repackaging it and selling it at a higher price become fraud? What if this is done with the other company’s consent, and without?

 

[acousticsguru]

does someone’s CD player, repackaging it and selling it at a higher price become fraud? What if this is done with the other company’s consent, and without?

Does your CD player charge something extra for doing it?

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[bonzo75]

Does your CD player charge something extra for doing it?

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

this was done by Goldmund, and one more -
Thread 'Barclay Digital - the biggest scam of the 90s ?'
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/barclay-digital-the-biggest-scam-of-the-90s.26999/

 

[acousticsguru]

this was done by Goldmund, and one more, i cannot recall.

Using a parking meter slot where one had to insert money for an option?

(Fail to see a legal issue comparable to the topic of this thread?)

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[acousticsguru]

does someone’s CD player, repackaging it and selling it at a higher price become fraud? What if this is done with the other company’s consent, and without?

See above I mention “Mastered for iTunes” as an example of dynamic compression across multiple release formats with consent by the respective labels. To me clearly a grey zone legally speaking (although this would be about international laws).

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[acousticsguru]

this was done by Goldmund, and one more -
Thread 'Barclay Digital - the biggest scam of the 90s ?'
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/barclay-digital-the-biggest-scam-of-the-90s.26999/

Like it or not, there have probably been thousands of so-called audiophile products like the Barclay.

Whether or not this was fraudulent is partly a matter of advertisement: to put a turntable into a different frame is considered added value (regardless of its actual quality), is it not?

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[pleroma]

If it really does sound different, there’s a chance it isn’t just a resampling, but that some sort of equalization or processing was applied. If so, this might be considered added value. One could for example improve on the sound of lesser quality RBCD files running them through e.g. Daniel Hertz Masterclass, tastefully using the five-band equalizer and applying A+ (similarity to Burwen Bobcat). There are countless tools out there, Audacity which I’m assuming you used to have a look at your file being one of them. One would need to do a so-called null test (Audacity includes that function: invert / combine / render into a new file) if in this instance you have the original CD ripped.

I believe this may be the case with the numerous Praga Digitals releases on Qobuz, as many sound better to me than prior releases, though they seem to have a heavy hand on the reverb.

Years ago there was an uproar against HDtracks offering resampling files, forcing them to have a second look at their catalogue. Some of their (later) competition such as HiResAudio will check all and flat out refuse files from labels when they find them to different from advertised, possibly because in Germany the legal situation is different (I know in Switzerland repackaging / renaming / relabeling for profit is a criminal offense).

Good outcome.

In the case of HDtracks, it was early on as far as retail hi-res download sites, and they also provided availability of ripped DSD64 music from a small sound lab as a 24/176 download, though one wouldn't readily know the source of the SACD rips. Even today the practice of downsampling DSD continues by the large labels, but having a downsampled SACD in PCM is not necessarily a bad thing. Where it is frustrating, is when the label has access to a higher resolution PCM master from which the DSD was upsampled (24/192 in the case of Universal), yet chooses the easy, lossy route of 24-192->DSD64 (SACD)->24-96/44/88/176 instead of using the 24-192 master directly.

I'd like to see full disclosure of source material and mastering lab, as well as a standardized definition of remastering.

 

[acousticsguru]

I believe this may be the case with the numerous Praga Digitals releases on Qobuz, as many sound better to me than prior releases, though they seem to have a heavy hand on the reverb.



Good outcome.

In the case of HDtracks, it was early on as far as retail hi-res download sites, and they also provided availability of ripped DSD64 music from a small sound lab as a 24/176 download, though one wouldn't readily know the source of the SACD rips. Even today the practice of downsampling DSD continues by the large labels, but having a downsampled SACD in PCM is not necessarily a bad thing. Where it is frustrating, is when the label has access to a higher resolution PCM master from which the DSD was upsampled (24/192 in the case of Universal), yet chooses the easy, lossy route of 24-192->DSD64 (SACD)->24-96/44/88/176 instead of using the 24-192 master directly.

I'd like to see full disclosure of source material and mastering lab, as well as a standardized definition of remastering.

Regardless, in a consideration whether or not a product or offer is a bogus, the most important aspect is not which we think of as a good or bad thing (leave the decision to the customer), but transparency that would allow said customer to make an informed buying decision.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[pleroma]

Regardless, in a consideration whether or not a product or offer is a bogus, the most important aspect is not which we think of as a good or bad thing (leave the decision to the customer), but transparency that would allow said customer to make an informed buying decision.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

Okay, we made our point. Let's hope consumers can push back on this and demand better.

The following companies are welcome to provide an explanation:

Universal Music Australia, Pty Ltd.

Alexander Bak Reference Recordings

Praga Digitals

 

[mtemur]

I doubt you or anyone else can hear the difference between Quad DSD as a source and the analog tape…So with respect to the first article you linked to, I think Robert Harley is on solid ground on sonics.

You’re wrong, there is a noticeable difference between an analog tape and DSD transfer of that tape. It’s not really hard to detect differences. I always suspected that MOFI does not cut from the master tape and written my concerns somewhere in this forum before MOFI debate.

On 29 Dec 2021 here is what I’ve written about MOFI 45rpm Kind Of Blue;
“I believe one step process records are sourced from one step later tapes or digital in worse case scenario”
Post in thread 'Supersense Mastercut Edition Lacquers'
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/supersense-mastercut-edition-lacquers.33964/post-769482

Anybody can detect it I’m no exception.

 

[Lee]

You’re wrong, there is a noticeable difference between an analog tape and DSD transfer of that tape. It’s not really hard to detect differences. I always suspected that MOFI does not cut from the master tape and written my concerns somewhere in this forum before MOFI debate.

On 29 Dec 2021 here is what I’ve written about MOFI 45rpm Kind Of Blue;
“I believe one step process records are sourced from one step later tapes or digital in worse case scenario”
Post in thread 'Supersense Mastercut Edition Lacquers'
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/supersense-mastercut-edition-lacquers.33964/post-769482

Anybody can detect it I’m no exception.

What was your process for evaluating Quad DSD files and the master tape? Were you comparing a tape from one of the reel outlets like The Tape Project of Analogue Productions? And how did you procure the Quad DSD file?

 

[mtemur]

What was your process for evaluating Quad DSD files and the master tape? Were you comparing a tape from one of the reel outlets like The Tape Project of Analogue Productions? And how did you procure the Quad DSD file?

I didn't. The case here is MOFI's using DSD as the source. Subject derived from that.

@bonzo75 said;
"like MoFi with advertised on TAS and TAS defended it"

and you responded him with;
"I doubt you or anyone else can hear the difference between Quad DSD as a source and the analog tape…So with respect to the first article you linked to, I think Robert Harley is on solid ground on sonics."

and I said that a record cut from master tape clearly sounds different (in a good way) than the same record cut from a DSD transfer of the master tape and it's noticable. I'm not arguing whether a DSD or analog tape sounds closer to the original if a performance recorded both DSD and tape parallel at the same time.

 

[Lee]

I didn't. The case here is MOFI's using DSD as the source. Subject derived from that.

@bonzo75 said;
"like MoFi with advertised on TAS and TAS defended it"

and you responded him with;
"I doubt you or anyone else can hear the difference between Quad DSD as a source and the analog tape…So with respect to the first article you linked to, I think Robert Harley is on solid ground on sonics."

and I said that a record cut from master tape clearly sounds different (in a good way) than the same record cut from a DSD transfer of the master tape. I'm not arguing whether a DSD or analog tape sounds closer to the original if a performance recorded both DSD and tape parallel at the same time.

So you are asserting an easily heard sonic difference without conducting an actual test for yourself? That’s not a reliable observation.

I have heard Quad DSD versus a master tape and it‘s very, very close. And I believe that’s in part why the Mofi One Steps sound so good with a couple of exceptions.

 

[mtemur]

So you are asserting an easily heard sonic difference without conducting an actual test for yourself? That’s not a reliable observation.

That's an extremely reliable test, one is MOFI 45rpm cut from DSD and the others are; AP reissue and original 33rpm cut from master tape. MOFI sounds dull and lifeless, like plastic. I said it before the MOFI debate and sold my MOFI reissues.

I have heard Quad DSD versus a master tape and it‘s very, very close.

Very close doesn't mean the same. Depending on your point of view there may be a huge difference between very close and same. A record can sound plastic when it's not cut from the original master tape but from a DSD transfer of the master tape. I know this because I used to do audio restoration professionally. For this purpose I used to transfer records to digital IOT clean and remaster them. After that the file is sent for cutting. The more you use digital processing the more you end up with plastic sound.

 

[Lee]

That's an extremely reliable test, one is MOFI 45rpm cut from DSD and the others are; AP reissue and original 33rpm cut from master tape. MOFI sounds dull and lifeless, like plastic. I said it before the MOFI debate and sold my MOFI reissues.


Very close doesn't mean the same. Depending on your point of view there may be a huge difference between very close and same. A record can sound plastic when it's not cut from the original master tape but from a DSD transfer of the master tape. I know this because I used to do audio restoration professionally. For this purpose I used to transfer records to digital IOT clean and remaster them. After that the file is sent for cutting. The more you use digital processing the more you end up with plastic sound.

I am not claiming the sound is the same, but based on my work in pro audio, it's incredibly hard to tell the difference when done well. I've done live to two track recordings into quad DSD and the sound capture is highly accurate to the live event.

It would be interesting for Nick and I to bring a Revox tape deck to a live event and compare that to the Korg DSD output on a highly resolving system.

I think we have an honest disagreement on the MoFi reissues. On my latest turntable rig, they really sound outstanding!

Perhaps the issue some are having with the MoFi sound is more around mastering preferences rather than resolution...

 

[bonzo75]

I think we have an honest disagreement on the MoFi reissues. On my latest turntable rig, they really sound outstanding!

lol. your MoFi advertising never stops

 

[acousticsguru]

You’re wrong, there is a noticeable difference between an analog tape and DSD transfer of that tape. It’s not really hard to detect differences. I always suspected that MOFI does not cut from the master tape and written my concerns somewhere in this forum before MOFI debate.

On 29 Dec 2021 here is what I’ve written about MOFI 45rpm Kind Of Blue;
“I believe one step process records are sourced from one step later tapes or digital in worse case scenario”
Post in thread 'Supersense Mastercut Edition Lacquers'
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/supersense-mastercut-edition-lacquers.33964/post-769482

Anybody can detect it I’m no exception.

Ever since I first heard the term "One Step" I was under the impression that audiophiles / the buyers are delusional in their assumptions what "original" means in the context of unnecessarily playing back fragile, decades old tapes multiple times - not going to happen (whatever "original master" means in the first place - please everybody, be sure to ask a few mastering engineers for their opinion, you'll be surprised!).

Advertising slogan / product blurb aside, step one is a copy, which henceforth may be referred to as the "master", for two obvious reasons: spliced master, not to mention session tapes don't travel (i.e. if one know anything about archive vaults, that's the first thing to learn: nothing ever leaves the premises, and for the handful times it's ever happened, the reported extra cost for e.g. insurance was astronomical), and secondly, whatever is being used to cut records needs to be played back multiple times without deterioration. In the old days, a so-called "production master" (analogue reel-to-reel tape, equalized, and using noise reduction) would be sent out. In the modern world, 24/96 PCM flat transfers were being sent to remastering engineers, more recently (roughly the last ten plus years) 24/192 flat transfers have become the norm. Even if, say, the remastering engineer got an analogue copy to work with, to use a Quad DSD capture of the remastering (usually on the fly via a console, regardless of what the source format may be) would seem a smart move, as there's clearly a tradeoff in taking reel-to-reel copying yet another generation further. Besides, whatever differences we audiophiles hear between formats aren't the same played through a cutting lathe. I've heard worse digital than Quad DSD (i.e. DAT) used and remember being surprised how much of an equalizing effect a cutting lathe has with PCM, that plus the ability to use a Quad DSD master thousands of times without degradation, one would need to be able and compare the end result (as in the comparison of lacquers, which is what I heard, better yet, the finished product), to reach a conclusion. My impression is that MoFi have their reasons, and regardless of what audiophiles may think of them, they are primarily (from a legal perspective exclusively) guilty of false advertizing.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[bonzo75]

Also Ked, please include my entire quote on “other more thoughtful audiophiles” so readers and I can see the full context of that post and judge whether it was reasonable or not.

i have done that multiple times. Here is an example

"Long-Term Equipment Loans: A Win-Win for Everyone" by Robert Harley, The Absolute Sound

That’s not accurate. We had several high level discussions about Mobile Fidelity and the greater concern was doing the right thing over advertising dollars. this is where you called "MoFi haters" thoughtless, by referring to others as thoughtful...

www.whatsbestforum.com

 

[acousticsguru]

My posts here are very clear. I have repeatedly condemned Mofi for lying about the sourcing of the masters. However that has not prevented them from making good masterings and I have expressed sincere doubt that people could hear differences between Quad DSD playback and the analog tape used.

I'd be curious to hear an actual comparison, as mentioned in a post further above, cutting a record (the whole process, in particular the lathe being a mechanical device) acting as an equalizer sonically. Given how close lacquers cut from comparatively primitive (backup) DAT versus analogue master sounded that I heard years ago, I doubt the difference in the finished product is anywhere near listening to e.g. an LP versus an SACD. Even if one does hear a difference, I highly doubt that in a double blind test, without knowing what the comparison is about, one would be able to attribute the difference to be due to the use of a Quad DSD master. Such LPs may still sound (marginally) different, but I'm skeptical as to the outcome of such a double blind test. And I'd be surprised if the engineers at MoFi hadn't actually done such a comparison themselves.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.