 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.166.116.8
In Reply to: RE: Is MoFi and the likes posted by flood2 on April 15, 2025 at 13:48:26
RE : The music will still sound the same
Just to clarify it seems you saying that adjustments made to the analog signal, or any sonic effects of parameters used to cut the vinyl, by the mastering engineer are included in the high resolution digital feed stored for creating other products (analog or digital). I've been thinking mastering a 2LP 45 rpm and a 33 rpm record would be 2 different jobs regardless of the source. One spin of the master, yes but 2 mastering jobs. I don't know but it seems intuitive to me. My first observation with 45 rpm is more bass - not sure if it's because 45 rpm allows more bass so the engineer lets it through or the engineer boosts it a bit.And who knows what kind of tweaking can go on in the digital realm? When I started writing this response my point was going to be that the playback system (the sonic character of the source components) could be the biggest reason they don't sound the same.
I'll agree that over time good analog and good digital tend to sound more similar and it seems that any lossless media format could "sound" the same as any other lossless media format. What's kind of BS though as CD quality and LP quality are only lossless in theory - practically speaking neither are likely to be lossless. I think 48/96 flac files are my best chances of getting lossless quality and an SACD player or a reel to reel tape player would be needed to support an actual lossless physical media in my home. I don't think things are going to sound the same when CDs and vinyl are involved.
Edits: 04/16/25
Yes, I am saying that the digital file is identical in that specific case - AP produced an SACD at the same time as the UHQR. That digital file is the one used by Ume for the standard 33rpm reissue.
"Remastering" doesn't necessarily mean that anything actually changes - take the Classic Records reissue of Kind of Blue by Bernie Grundman. The story goes that apart from pitch correcting the first side, Bernie pretty much did a straight transfer without EQ because the tapes were in such excellent condition and the brief was to give an experience as close to the Master as possible.
AP acquired the metal work from Classic Records when they bought it out so, from Chad's own mouth, the AP 2x45rpm UHQR and 33rpm UHQR are identical to the Classic Records "remastering". Any differences you might hear between the two editions are down to the mechanical anomalies that get transferred during the new 33rpm cut, plating/stamper duplication, QRP pressing quality and playback equipment. Each lacquer cut is in itself a unique sonic experience because the lathe rotation speed stability, the tape wow/flutter are all subtly variable. When you playback a digital file it is reproducing exactly the conditions at the time of the transfer.
The Impex reissue of Getz/Gilberto has the same dropouts and blemishes as the AP version because that it is the state of the master. For me personally, I don't find that acceptable to listen to or pay for if I can enjoy a blemish free version on an earlier edition. I also don't appreciate hearing tape wow. I wish the Plangent process was applied to a digital transfer. To each their own though.
The Tone Poet reissue of John Coltrane Blue Train is the same master for the digital release and the TonePoet vinyl - I compared the two and the dynamic range and frequency response are identical. No additional compression was used for the digital release and the peak level was well below FS. So playing the Tone Poet vinyl edition is just a more troublesome way of playing the CD IMO!
LP is the most lossy - don't forget that as the groove radius decreases, the HF output is rolled off due to the groove wavelengths decreasing. Most styli are oversized and can't trace the inner grooves accurately - the SLC is 7um, the Ortofon Fine Line is 8um, FG/Replicant is 5um, Shibata 6um. You need 5um or less to trace 20kHz on the inner grooves and even finer as the amplitude goes up. So the Ogura PF 3um or MicroLine are the only two that meet that requirement.
That's even before you factor in alignment issues, antiskate problems, azimuth problems, vibrations and everything adding distortion to the signal.
45 rpm would sound better overall partly because of the higher rotational speed improves the HF retrieval with the normal styli in common use and secondly because the higher rotational speed reduces the distortion due to tracking error by a factor of 1.35 which improves phase consistency between channels and therefore better sonic imaging. The subjective improvement in the bass is possibly also related to the bearing rumble shifting up in frequency and potentially being masked more by the signal being played. Interestingly I have read an interview with some (pop) cutting engineers from The Exchange (in an article in HFNRR) who said they preferred the sound of 33 and thought it had a better bottom end. They would cut at both speeds and let the client decide for themselves. I don't take their opinion seriously .....
CDs sound like s@#$ if they have been poorly mastered which many are unfortunately. An incredible number from the 80s, 90s and early 2000s all have clipped waveforms because the morons mastering them set the gain to hit 0dB even before they start compressing the hell out of the master.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
I don't disagree that the analog signal on the tape is identical to a high resolution digital capture derived from it. It's probably an academic exercise given the right software to convert that digital back into an analog signal and compare the 2 to determine if they are identical enough. What I disagree with is that what gets cut into the 33 rpm metal work and the resulting LPs are going to be identical to what is cut into the 45 rpm metal work and the resulting LPs. And even in your response you describe why these differences exist even if everything is done to make them as same as possible. Records pressed off the same stampers can sound different. The idea the a 45 rpm and 33 rpm from the same master tape are going to sound the same doesn't ring true to me in the least even if every effort possible to make it true - and in some ways this might not be the best for either of the cuts. I would think mastering choices would be made to get the most out of the master based on getting the most out of media which would be contrary to making them sound the same. Unless of course there are not real advantages to doing 45 rpm and it's just a marketing gimmick to sell records at higher prices.
We actually agree on the 33rpm, 45rpm thing - 45 rpm definitely sounds better.
Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I meant that when I said:
"Any differences you might hear between the two editions are down to the mechanical anomalies that get transferred during the new 33rpm cut, plating/stamper duplication, QRP pressing quality and playback equipment. Each lacquer cut is in itself a unique sonic experience because the lathe rotation speed stability, the tape wow/flutter are all subtly variable."
The point being that the act of cutting a new lacquer, whether at 33 or 45rpm is itself a unique sonic version. Absolutely we will hear differences.
Also, I commented on how 45rpm would definitely sound better in relation to the immediate 1.35x reduction in distortion and wider bandwidth possible which also means that "real world" styli in common use such as the SLC, Shibata and Fine Line types as well as plain vanilla elliptical tips which are all around the 6 to 8 um range will perform far better with 45rpm.
My point was that the Steely Dan records are fundamentally taken from the same master. For some, knowing that the Ume edition is from a digital source makes it a hard pass, but I'm not such a SD fan that I would buy the UHQR. I am comfortable in knowing that the Ume edition for <1/4 the price would be "most of the way" there in equivalence and I use a Microline or SAS for playback so the differences between 33 and 45 are less significant to me. I am of course at the mercy of the vinyl pressing quality which is often a little noisier than UHQRs and there isn't the same pride of ownership that comes with the UHQR. If the aim is to get as close as possible to the master used to cut the disc, then IMO, 45rpm is the best and I have many. I passed on the 33rpm AP Kind of Blue UHQR and waited for the 2x45rpm UHQR specifically to get "the best" version. 45 rpm does mean that surface noise shifts up in frequency a bit (you hear it in the lead in groove) and the records have to be flat to fully realize the quality.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Yep and I agreed with you on that stuff but I thought somewhere in that response you doubled down on the they will sound the same (or be identical comment) comment. No need for me to go back and try to prove it, if I'm wrong I apologize. At this point it seems we are on the same page.
I really like the 45 rpm versions and am willing to spend more on them than 33 rpm version (from the same label). That said for the Doors LA Woman the 45 rpm was my favorites until I heard the 33 rpm UHQR. The process, vinyl formulations and playback speed are different. I wish I could say the process, special vinyl and playback speed are solely responsible for the differences but I don't really know how much the mastering engineer has to do with it.
It was probably my own fault - by talking about the digital source vs analogue source thing and also the anecdote about the UK cutting engineers saying they preferred 33rpm.
Anyway, we are definitely on the same team I think for appreciating 45 rpm when done well.
The mastering engineer thing is an interesting one that I am on the fence about. Chad is using several different ones to do his products, BernieG, Kevin Gray, Ryan K Smith and someone else I can't remember.
The way I see it is that putting EQ choices aside (if indeed any are applied to the original), you are also basically hearing the recording through the Mastering playback system so it's like taking your favourite record around to a friend's place to hear it through their system.
As a consumer, it is impossible for us to know which mastering system equipment is "best".
Kevin Gray has done a cut for Kind Of Blue apparently - I tried to get a copy but I keep getting sent the wrong pressing so I have given up on that, but I wouldn't be suprised to hear it sounding different to my other versions, although I wouldn't have a clue which is closer to the original master tape particularly as the tape degrades slightly with each play. BG's version is possibly the closest but may or may not "sound" the best depending on so many factors related to the mastering chain. KPG has his reference tube based system which possibly might make the vintage jazz stuff sound better.
As I mentioned before, I am OK with remasters and MoFi reissues and AP reissues - I treat them as just another opinion on the sound. Some I may like and others not so, but that's OK for me. The only problem is I end up with an ever-growing collection!
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
