Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 35

Thread: Mobile Fidelity using Digital Files

  1. #1
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    7,850

    Mobile Fidelity using Digital Files

    Anyone else see this?? I don't get it there very well may not be an analog master tape been recording in digital since the 80's

    Rob


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/music...gital-scandal/
    "I could be arguing in my spare time"

  2. #2
    Senior Member Ducatista47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Peoria, Illinois
    Posts
    1,878
    The article is typical of the Washington Post; thorough, well researched, and well written. The only error I spotted came early; Michael Fremer is not "the dean of audiophile writing". He is the most prominent cheerleader for vinyl, but that's about it. I have always tried to keep any conversations with him brief. He is not a bad guy but I don't share many if any views with him, and I would not enjoy needlessly aggravating him. I do wish his frame of reference was that vinyl sounds great to him, rather than endlessly claiming it to be technically superior to digital.

    As For Mobile Fidelity, the only issue I (and many other) listeners had with it was that for years and years they remixed everything they released and those remasters sounded not only very different but aesthetically (not technically) a step or two down from the original masters. As an example, Mobile's initial releases of Patricia Barber titles did the brilliant Jim Anderson's work no favors.

    And as for the core issues with this dust-up, I long ago decided to just nod in agreement or refrain from comment when faced in person with the usual audiophile preference for euphonic music reproduction. An industry having to hide that it employs DSD to keep its customers does not say great things about the decisions audiophiles make.
    Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
    Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears


  3. #3
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Robh3606 View Post
    Anyone else see this?? I don't get it there very well may not be an analog master tape been recording in digital since the 80's

    Rob


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/music...gital-scandal/
    Yep, a friend sent me the link yesterday. Interesting.

    I am not really a fan of MoFi. I have a few of their vinyl discs that I bought back in the '70s, but wasn't that thrilled with the Stan Ricker EQ curve. I was blown away by how good the original UHQR discs were, but couldn't afford them at the time. When they started selling CDs, I really didn't see the point.

    I have mentioned this before, but for anyone who is interested in another person's opinions; in recent years as my system (both the analog and digital portions) has gotten better and better, I have found it very interesting to compare digital files, digital remasters, various pressings, etc. For the albums that I really enjoy, I have found I prefer this digital file of album A and that analog pressing of album B. Until I had a super digital front end, I generally preferred vinyl in spite of the inherent short comings. I also thought most early CDs sounded worse than the original vinyl albums. I no longer feel that those blanket statements are correct.


    Widget

  4. #4
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Ducatista47 View Post
    The article is typical of the Washington Post; thorough, well researched, and well written. The only error I spotted came early; Michael Fremer is not "the dean of audiophile writing". He is the most prominent cheerleader for vinyl, but that's about it. I have always tried to keep any conversations with him brief. He is not a bad guy but I don't share many if any views with him, and I would not enjoy needlessly aggravating him. I do wish his frame of reference was that vinyl sounds great to him, rather than endlessly claiming it to be technically superior to digital.
    +1

    I have only met him once years ago at a trade show. We spent some time together in a side room and I was struck by how wide the gulf was between his beliefs and my own. I had thought that his public written stances may have been just that, but no, he really drinks the Kool-Aid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ducatista47 View Post
    ...long ago decided to just nod in agreement or refrain from comment when faced in person with the usual audiophile preference for euphonic music reproduction. An industry having to hide that it employs DSD to keep its customers does not say great things about the decisions audiophiles make.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ducatista47 View Post
    Then I could not deny that the former were fun but in comparison not really good. But the fun was real.
    I think I agree with you here when you are applauding the fun in listening rather than the quote above where you are against the desire for euphonic reproduction.

    Fun and joy are always good. If a twelve foot tower of PA speakers brings you joy, right on... if a simple amp with headphones brings you joy, right on as well.

    Adding to the “fun is right” stance and referencing back to my earlier comment on the wide range of sound quality found on different discs or digital streams. I have a number of copies of the Dire Straits album, Brothers in Arms. I have a very early CD that I bought in the mid-80s, a remastered CD from some point in the 90s, as well as a couple of “audiophile ” vinyl pressings of the album.

    This album was originally digitally recorded so the only reasons to listen to an analog version are curiosity or your digital playback chain isn’t as good as your analog playback or your analog playback colors the sound in a pleasing way. In my system there is no longer very much difference between the analog and the original CD, however the remastered CD from the ‘90s has significantly more compression and sounds much louder and more powerful. Sometimes I prefer it and other times I don’t.


    Widget

  5. #5
    Senior Member Don C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Santa Rosa CA
    Posts
    1,717
    As far as I can tell, nobody complained about the digital files until the Mobile Fidelity guys told us about them.

  6. #6
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Don C View Post
    As far as I can tell, nobody complained about the digital files until the Mobile Fidelity guys told us about them.
    Excellent point. Assuming the digital masters were well made and the analog transfer made well, I doubt any of us could hear the difference if they had made a 100% analog version to compare with the digital intermediary version.


    Widget

  7. #7
    Senior Member Ducatista47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Peoria, Illinois
    Posts
    1,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Widget View Post

    I think I agree with you here when you are applauding the fun in listening rather than the quote above where you are against the desire for euphonic reproduction.

    Fun and joy are always good. If a twelve foot tower of PA speakers brings you joy, right on... if a simple amp with headphones brings you joy, right on as well.

    Widget
    I am always happy when music brings joy to any listener. Perhaps I am being nostalgic about what the word audiophile means, and I realize everyone seems to have their favorite distortion when it comes to playback, but if one is going to call themselves or consider themselves an audiophile, seeking veritas of some sort vis a vis the original recording is surely implied. You might say it's all in a name. When someone tells me they want some tubes in the chain to "settle it down" or "take the sharp edges off" or similar remarks (not that it would, but that is the popular perception), telling me they want the Kodachrome not the Ektachrome version, I get it. But you're no audiophile, Bud. It's like tube mikes. They are used because the version of the music they deliver pleases someone, sounds better to them. Better and accurate are not the same words.

    I said nostalgic because today the term audiophile to many means music lovers who engage in a form of idiocy, not truth seeker. Going to shows is not the fun it used to be. So many Michael Fremers, so few Todd Garfinkles.
    Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
    Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears


  8. #8
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    7,850
    I'm a dinosaur I still believe in Hi-Fi definitely not into euphoric sound. I want what's on the recording and I know my system is correct when every track is different. When I can hear the track to track changes or changes in the same track it's all good.

    Rob
    "I could be arguing in my spare time"

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,496
    If you have a read of the time line below is quite revealing as to how such controversy can live inside the recording process.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_recording

  10. #10
    Senior Member Ducatista47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Peoria, Illinois
    Posts
    1,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Robh3606 View Post
    I'm a dinosaur I still believe in Hi-Fi definitely not into euphoric sound. I want what's on the recording and I know my system is correct when every track is different. When I can hear the track to track changes or changes in the same track it's all good.

    Rob
    Well that makes two of us anyway. So many talk that talk but rarely do they walk that walk. The maker of the World's most accurate in-ear monitors has had to offer models that add more base or enhance specific frequency ranges.
    Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
    Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears


  11. #11
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Ducatista47 View Post
    Well that makes two of us anyway.
    You can count me in as a fellow dinosaur.

    For over 50 years I have gone to great lengths to try to recreate what the engineer put down on the record or CD. I've given up on trying to accurately recreate what the musician(s) created in a live space as I no longer think that is achievable, but I do want to try to hear what they intended the record to sound like.

    But I do have to keep reminding myself that that is my personal goal. I regret that a number of years ago I ridiculed a fellow forum member for loving his "terribly flawed" Altec A7-500s. At the time I didn't realize how foolish it was for me to suggest there was something inherently "wrong" with them. Today I realize that if the sound makes your feet tap and your heart race, then it doesn't matter if it is a 4.5" "full-range" speaker or a 1940's theater speaker with a roller coaster frequency response plot, or anything else.


    Widget

  12. #12
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie View Post
    If you have a read of the time line below is quite revealing as to how such controversy can live inside the recording process.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_recording
    Interesting timeline!


    Widget

  13. #13
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Robh3606 View Post
    I'm a dinosaur I still believe in Hi-Fi definitely not into euphoric sound.
    Remember hi-fi stores demo-ing graphic EQs back in the day? Just look at that curve!

    Widget
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,496
    Remember Soundcraftsman Graphic Equalisers? That was back when Crown had one page advertisements for the DC300A.

    Fun times.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,496
    Quote Originally Posted by Ducatista47 View Post
    I am always happy when music brings joy to any listener. Perhaps I am being nostalgic about what the word audiophile means, and I realize everyone seems to have their favorite distortion when it comes to playback, but if one is going to call themselves or consider themselves an audiophile, seeking veritas of some sort vis a vis the original recording is surely implied. You might say it's all in a name. When someone tells me they want some tubes in the chain to "settle it down" or "take the sharp edges off" or similar remarks (not that it would, but that is the popular perception), telling me they want the Kodachrome not the Ektachrome version, I get it. But you're no audiophile, Bud. It's like tube mikes. They are used because the version of the music they deliver pleases someone, sounds better to them. Better and accurate are not the same words.

    I said nostalgic because today the term audiophile to many means music lovers who engage in a form of idiocy, not truth seeker. Going to shows is not the fun it used to be. So many Michael Fremers, so few Todd Garfinkles.
    Hi Clark,

    This is a long post so grab a coffee.

    I think taking a word like audiophile needs some sensitivity and best not to generalise too much.

    A puritan on sound reproduction can still be an audiophile by definition. See below.

    From a Google search blah blah 😑
    What is considered an audiophile?
    Audiophiles are an exceptional breed of people who are fascinated by pure audio, motivated by sound quality and addicted to audio gadgets. Audiophiles take their passion for music one step further. They're curious about how songs are recorded and the science behind how sounds are reproduced.

    https://www.sony.ca/en/electronics/f...-an-audiophile

    From the Oxford dictionary
    audiophile
    /ˈɔːdɪə(ʊ)fʌɪl/
    Learn to pronounce
    nounINFORMAL
    a hi-fi enthusiast.
    "it puts professional studio sound within the reach of the audiophile"

    If l was asked was l an audiophile l would say Yes and more or less be describing one of the above definitions. I donít see any reference to distortion in any of those definitions. Glad we got that out of the wayÖ.Lol.

    On the topic of equipment letís be pragmatic.

    Sometimes when you mix up different brands of hifi equipment some components like loudspeakers might be very clinical, sterile and dry. Thatís a fact. So to make it liveable and enjoyable to listen to the advice given by the hifi shop and rightfully so is try a warmer sounding amplifier or Dac. Thatís common sense. Not all valve equipment has a valve sound either. Interesting. I think itís a smart thing do. I advise on the capacitors in some loudspeaker crossover networks because if the multi way loudspeakers are clinical it can be a problem subjectively. Fact.

    When people talk about this stuff itís really a problem solving exercise. At the end of the day you have got to be able to live it. Otherwise how can you enjoy it. The human Ear is the final arbiter. It always has been and it always will be. We all interpret sounds differently too which is another topic in its own right.

    Incidentally there is now a whole category of headfi with a-z of headphones types that all have their own take on sound quality and tonal balance. Some people have several sets of headphones and head amps. Why is this so? Perhaps there is no one right answer. Nothing is perfect. ApparentlyÖLol.

    In the pro sound recording space mastering engineers often use equipment like in the link below.

    https://abbeyroadinstitute.nl/blog/d...he-pultec/amp/

    They love Rupert Neve equipment because it has the Neve Sound. Are they all idiots ? No they are not. Thatís an industry standard. Everything the signal path runs through is going to put its footprint on the sound in someway. Thatís a Fact. A Midas desk is going to sound different from an API desk. Itís how it is.

    In summary if most commercial recordings werenít given such careful treatment itís possible you would be less satisfied with your listening experience than you are.

    But why is it necessary? Technically the problem is this. As an example l used to listen to quartet at my father in laws Christmas parties and go wow 🤩. It was pretty amazing. But the problem arises when you try and record it. Yup you have to use limiters, compression and EQ on everything to fit in the capabilities of the recording process and the equipment and the acoustics. Thatís a Fact. Then the recording has to be suitable to be played back through consumer audio equipment without blowing it up. Thatís the role of the mastering engineer.

    This is normal no matter what your listening to unless itís a private recording. I have listened to private recordings without treatment and more often than not itís very disappointing! The notion that a recording exists that is a pure and untouched is just nonsense.

    In the end as long as your happy with what you hear thatís all that matters and thatís what the whole scene is all about. When you take a deeper dive into things thereís no mystic or ambiguity about it at all. Itís just the way things work.

    Not everyone will agree with the means but that does not mean someone or everyone else is wrong.

    As long as no one gets hurt thatís the important thing.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. ABX test(s) for your digital files
    By Titanium Dome in forum General Audio Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-07-2012, 05:15 PM
  2. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-13-2008, 12:15 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-07-2007, 02:48 PM
  4. JBL mobile audio
    By hector.murray in forum Lansing Product General Information
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-26-2005, 03:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •