I agree that it is a good idea Paul, however that is a different issue from the controversy, which I personally do not care about. As I understand it, at issue are two terms: the meanings of “One Step” and “all analog mastering chain”.
Please define “zero loss”. This does not fit with my reality in this context. If you are going from an analog master to digital (and back) there is loss.
Well, that’s a good point. “No loss” is such a relative term. Let’s put it this way. On even there best equipment I (and others I trust) can hear zero difference between the output of a microphone or (even easier) the output of a tape machine as captured by DSD256. Go back and forth and I challenge anyone here to tell me which is the live version and which is through the A/D as we have it set up (Pyramix which is what MoFi uses).
And I agree. I don’t care about the controversy.
They could call it “less loss” or “preferred preservation” or however they want to spin it. Just seems the issue is around words that sound like something very specific turning out to mean something else. All three of the terms we’re discussing sound unequivocal and seem pretty straighforward. But apparently not.
Sadly, like so much lately, honesty and it’s importance, can be relative.
I have no good explanation Paul, but I suspect studio live feed comparisons partly might cover a different, maybe even reduced range of qualities and characteristics reviewed, than a home listen to e.g. an (artificially created) holographic soundstage in the final mix/mastering. I’m not sure if in the studio you listen to everything you’d review in a home session, or if you are able to by the circumstances. It’s possible to name a lot of scenarios where to hear no difference between things. That doesn’t yet prove they are lossless, nor that a different concept doesn’t do things better in some respects.
I think it’s important to verify claims that DSD is lossless (this was told to us of every digital format since the 80’s), also with comparisons of final digital vs. analog media produced, and/or to (in a studio session) really listen for everything you’d do in your listening room.
IMO if you want to judge how lossless or not concepts are from a home listening perspective, you either 1. have to make a recording on tape and DSD in parallel and produce the respective media throughout and listen to that.
Or 2. you have to transfer a very good analog recording to SACD and compare it with the tape or vinyl.
In both cases (1. and 2.), I have never heard analog not beating digital. But I’m sure, if I sat with you in the studio, I’d hear practically no difference between the live feed and DSD. Maybe it’s important to explore the gap between such experiences.
I’ll admit being confused. Was there supposed to be a “not” in there?
I think that like any format, if your system is optimized for it, you can get anything to sound very, very good. You can get DSD, analog and DxD/PCM to sound great. Certain brands are better at one or the other than the next. If you put a similar amount of money and effort into one or the other - it can all be near as dammit.
However - then we might get into preferences as well as biases based on the pluses and minuses of one format or the other. If you really like the “live” aspect of playing back an analog format with a needle wiggling in a groove or a tape passing over heads (each playback being unique, it can change with surface cleaning/destaticing/etc.) - digital can sound flattish by comparison no matter how “perfect” and repeatable it is.
I haven’t been commenting very much on the subject, as I’d rather it just reach a conclusion. I hear quite a bit of back and forth on what side of the situation people are on and I can only see the tragedy of it all. On one hand, it appears MoFi made some grave mistakes and I believe they’ll answer for it in one way or another. On the other hand, I see a current deep-seated (and rightful) resentment for their transgressions in the hi-fidelity community. I’m hearing of people cancelling orders, demanding refunds, considering legal action and making countless videos of their newfound distaste for and disappointment in the brand.
The tragedy, however, is in the loss for both sides. MoFi has lost the trust and respect of so many of its fans and customers and at the same time, those who have chosen to abandon the brand are robbing themselves of music many have already admitted sounds the best they’ve heard. The point in all of what we’re doing is getting the best sound we’ve heard, no? There is less outrage for child/forced labor (one of numerous evils almost never discussed) in the manufacture of many hi-fi components, than what I’m currently witnessing for MoFi. While not drawing parallels to a degree that suggests I’m dismissing MoFi’s behavior, in one if these situations feelings are hurt. In the other situation actual human beings are mentally and physically harmed. I suppose I’m outwardly checking the privilege in my selective level of outrage.
FINALLY, an intelligent discussion on this subject.
Go to DeVore Fidelity’s YT channel. There John DeVore, manufacturer of top notch speakers gives his views.
I haven’t included a link because I would expect it to be censored as John fires a couple “f-bombs”.
Quite interesting and I agree with a large part of this. If we’re going to get outraged about lying. . .there are far bigger and bigger picture influencing and destructive lies to get outraged about! (I am!)
Yes I am a terrible typist. I will correct it.
I apologize I am a terrible typist I added the not.
I not only agree, that both can sound great but also that both do sound great! They do in my setup.
But two of the typical arguments you mentioned, which might apply to many, don’t apply in my case.
“Optimization towards a source”
My chain is not optimized for vinyl, it’s optimized for digital. Simply because I can only make all the measurements for overall frequency response, sub integration, speaker positioning, for the digital source. Only there I have the test tones and frequency response measurement options.
“It’s all just preference”
When I say “better” in my post, I don’t mean better in terms of any kind of preferences or tonality differences, which might apply if in someone’s chain analog and digital sound generally different (the one more pleasant, bright, bass heavy etc. than the other). Not in my case. When I say better here (and we speak of a comparison of the best analog sourced recordings on both and the topic losslessness of digital or not), I mean better in terms of characteristics I’m convinced everyone would prefer, as they are independent of taste and preference. Those characteristics are more 3D, airy, lively, dynamic, open, realistic. Those characteristics are not related to the general difference between my digital and analog HW to this extent, as with digitally sourced recordings compared on both, differences are clearly smaller or sometimes even not present.
But analog recordings played back all analog simply have especially a more realistic 3D ambiance and clearly more air around everything (to mention the most obvious and the kind of information that seems to get lost on the final digital media in my perception). It can hardly be “added artifacts” as it’s usually preferred by all with a digital focus, too, as soon as digital gear improves into this direction (which it already did to a great extent). And analog certainly has its losses, they are different and there bigger…but seemingly not more relevant to many.
The better both get, the closer they sound in my experience, but depending on the chosen gear, one can certainly also cultivate the realizable differences.
All this said for DSD64 max. I’d love to hear an analog sourced album via DSD256. By the potential I heard from the Mofi LP’s (so far for me the only obvious advantage of compared AAA records seems to be the still slightly more open and airy top end), it could be much closer. And I’m aware that all those differences can vanish or turn around with lower level gear, but I’m sure they increase with higher level.
That’s right…there are much more relevant lies than those.
I think the community is just somehow shocked, as this was the first example of an intentional kind of “fraud” within that community of manufacturers and customers. Many use digital sources and tell so and have no exceptional but nice releases (e.g. Newvelle), others never told about their sources and are assumed digital…but no one so far claimed to release AAA and didn’t. That was the slight shock I guess.
Te digital step itself as a quality topic is not the problem imo.
That’s exactly it, very well summurised.
The quality has never been the issue, digital vs analogue has never been the issue, it’s purely that they’ve expressly and intentionally stated that they were pure analogue cuts.
There is a secondary argument that a true analoge cut inherently costs an awful lot more due to time constraints and equipment required. People were paying the premium entirely on the understanding that they were full analogue cuts.
Yes, I suspect DSD256 transfers will be the vinyl future (and not too bad) and as soon as the owners of the big AAA labels die out, an AAA will be a luxury product as from ERC. Used prices might rise even more for AAA.
This might initiate the end of high end vinyl aside of the used market, as I think DSD256 played back on a DAC will be not worse than the same on vinyl. Actually a DSD transfer to a 1step still is much better sounding than the SACD based on DSD64.
understood and apology not needed.
They’re getting ever closer to the digital warmth replicating what a good analogue system can achieve. More and more high end amps and sources are hitting the market making headlines for their “smooth analogue” sound.
But currently it’s still very much at the higher echelons, and still very much unreachable for the masses, but perhaps fine audio like fine anything will always be more of a niche persuit.
But currently what I can achieve with my £5000 analogue system sounds lightyears “smoother and more tubey” than what I could manage on a digital setup.
I have no doubt that will change, and probably quite rapidly, especially when we enter into quantum computing in a decade or two.
The future looks rather wonderful for Audio me thinks.
No worries - we have all been there. Good to have that sorted🤠
Well that shocks the crap out of me!
I didn’t exactly say that. I think I said that after making all things equal, (making a system from manufacturers who make the best this or that, money, setup, etc.) preferences can then tend to influence things.