MOFI Tapestry One-Step Ultradisc - Does the sound quality stack up? Four vinyl versions compared.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ธ.ค. 2024
- Comparing the stunning @Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab One-Step Ultradisc pressing of Carole King's Tapestry with three other vinyl LPs: the UK original first pressing, and two audiophile releases from Classic Records and Absolute Analogue.
I purchased my Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab One-Step Ultradisc from: www.brookaudio...
Tags: #TimdeParavacini #vinyl #turntable #one-step #LP #stereo #hifi #hi-fi #music #record #recording #analog #analogue #soundquality #highend
I have an original Canadian press of Tapestry with custom textured album cover which my mom bought new in 71. She played this album nonstop for years throughout the 70's, sadly however, she passed away four years ago at age 81 R.I.P. The album itself is in good condition with a few light scratches. The sound is still as amazing as I remembered it from my childhood. One of my most personal and cherished records.
Thanks for the comment, that's a very lovely story.
Thanks for the great comparison, Dave. I have the two MoFi versions of this, including the One Step. The “standard” MoFi sounds great but the One Step is definitely quite a bit better in my view.
Thanks Seán, this is very good to know.
Great video Dave, picked up the Mofi in spite of all the debate, as it's my daughter favorite album. Having a shoot-out this Sunday, with original pressing, half speed master, and Mofi. I really like the T-Shirt you got on!
Thanks Subra.
Smackwater Jack on this version sounds amazing! Just got this yesterday, and immediately cleaned and spun it. Fantastic!
Glad you agree A K. Thanks for the comment.
Good review Dave as usual. Keep up the good work.
Thanks, will do!
Hi Dave great video thanks. I’m a big fan of the album - I have a UK original pressing. I was on the fence about picking up the MOFI I had seen some good reviews and also a few folk saying it’s not one of the one steps to get as the recording simply wasn’t up to it. However, I think you’ve convinced me I need to get this as it is one of my favourite - and most played records cheers.
Thanks for your comments, much appreciated!
Good video talking about the quality of sound and music, doesn't matter how it is made the final product is all that matters
Thanks for your comment Mike.
Great video thank you for taking the time to do this
Thanks, my pleasure!
The Carole King Tapestry One-Step was mastered from a DSD file same as you can buy the MoFi SACD of Tapestry. For the SACD $29.99 US$. (might be sold out but secondary market $32.75 Mint Discogs) If you plan to purchase the One-Step vinyl version - then you are paying an exorbitant amount for Digital Vinyl Recording. I buy the MoFi SACD (DSD) disks. They are outstanding recordings (mastering) in 98% of the cases.
According to what the MoFi team said in their recent video, that's not true. (Whether you choose to believe them or not is your business). According to MoFi, the One Step was mastered from a 4x DSD transfer from the original master. That is NOT the same file on the MoFi SACD. It's possible that the MoFi SACD was mastered from a downsampled DSD copy of the 4x DSD fil.e. But it's not hte same thing.
Adding to what D Olstein said, most people that have compared a one-step with the SACD version have all said the One-Step was still superior.
I agree: from my understanding. what's on the SACD and the DSDx4 master copy are not the same thing at all.
You are wrong the One Step and the SACD are NOT! the same, not only the 4X vs the 1X, also the process to put it on a vinyl and on a CD is different, just watch the interview with the engineers, they confirm that, so! is not as simple as say "The SACD is the same as the One Step".
@@tacofiesta4607 yes the One Step is superior.
great comparison Dave, enjoyed this vid.
Glad you enjoyed it
ah nice to run into you. I always wondered who the person was behind the reel to reel ramblings that arrive to my inbox.
Glad you found me here Pete. Hope you enjoy my ramblings...
Great review the Carole king is the only one step I own so great to see a comparison!
Great review dave. Never got round to getting this one yet.
Thanks George.
@@DaveDenyer disappointed to hear they are not aaa.
@@scottspinner1 me too.
You need to be updated about the MOFI debacle
I've heard the news, sadly...
I fully believe and trust your impressions of these records. I've always heard that MoFi makes some of the best sounding records available. But if they do include a digital step in the process, I have to ask, as you ask here in your video, why would we buy the vinyl and not just a digital file or disc? Obviously the vinyl is interesting and fun and I love it, but for the pursuit of best possible sound, why go to the effort of obtaining digital recordings on vinyl?
This is a question I ask myself a lot, even before the MoFi debacle. ie. should I invest more in my digital set up rather than buying records, in certain cases?
@@Leepal1969 Great question. Solely for the sake of discussion, what if it was clear that digital of a certain type, let's say 2X DSD, was the clear pinnacle of audio storage engineering and quality. In theory we could all just buy players that worked on 2X DSD. But what if, in practice, these players were not really capable of doing the playback and D to A conversion without lots of errors and distortion? The theory would be great, and studios with a source of income could easily justify spending enormous amounts of money and the time of paid staff to make these systems work properly, but the average audio or music enthusiast wouldn't have access to that best of the best playback experience, even if mediocre 2X DSD players were for sale at reasonable prices. Wouldn't it then be possible that a vinyl disc that is theoretically not able to reach the same technical accuracy, but worked about as well as any such system could for an acceptable cost be a better choice? This is exactly the argument I used bank when CD came out, but in reverse. I believed for a time that CD was inferior to analog because I didn't really have the numbers to analyze for myself, and I concluded that while vinyl records were theoretically better, extracting the best possible playback from them was beyond the average user's capability. The logic went to; CDs aren't as good in theory, but in practice they're making it easier for the average user to get much better sound than they would in half-baked, poorly maintained turntables.
Now my thinking is reversed. I do believe that lossless, high res digital really is the way to go. But it should be noted that vinyl in almost any kind of mastering chain had long been more than good enough, when made well and played back on decent equipment, to really fully engage people in excellent sound quality. We don't need to excel beyond what we can hear, we only need to go beyond our inability to ignore flaws.
So I think there's still a very good case for the continued use of vinyl. I don't think that case is "best possible accuracy." But I think vinyl is more than good enough to satisfy the quality demands of even very picky audiophiles in many circumstances.
For that reason, if you're thinking about collecting physical media, or even just the full ownership of digital files on your own equipment, I think either format is reasonable. I have both but nothing esoteric or boutique on either format. I'll say one thing for vinyl: the tech is so old that people are still fixing 100 year old record players, but try to get a broken CD player from 1990 fixed. You can't.
@@AndyBHome Yes, my thinking was always that CD would sound better when listening on affordable equipment. I'm not so sure that's actually true anymore as there are a lot of good turntables out there that won't break the bank, but nevertheless a well mastered CD is probably all that most people need.
At home I mostly listen to albums on vinyl as I am a collector/hobbyist, but am open to other options. I need to do more research on what would be the best way to go in terms of digital. At the moment, if an "all analogue" version of an album is too expensive or impossible to find in acceptable condition I often try to find out what is the best CD version.
Hi Andy, Good question: I think the crux of the issue is that, in my opinion, DACs most definitely have a 'sound'. There are only a very few that I like and even the most ardent digital audio fan would probably argue that the Chord Dave sounds better than the Mojo, or that DCS sounds better than whatever... Fact of the matter is DACs do 'sound', they are not at all transparent, and neither are ADCs. Whilst this might seem to be off on a tangent to your question, I believe that's the crux of the problem: I have yet to hear a digital player that can better a reasonable (let's say around £2k's worth) turntable. I don't have an SACD player but can replay DSD, DSDx2 and DSDx4 files. They sound amazing, but I'd still rather play an analogue source. I do have friends with very high end SACD players (DCS, Esoteric, Marantz) and they all agree that they are not anywhere near as good-sounding as their turntables (they all have quite high end turntables too). I can only assume that the ADC and DAC that MOFI use in their production chain is pretty damned good, and excellently employed.
I can answer you question as a person coming from a non hifi background but a person in the audio industry and a mastering engineer myself. In these cases of DSD to vinyl the medium matters. Vinyl sounds different than CD. It has to be mastered different in some cases to be able to be cut. Vinyl does not do well with very sharp and harsh hi end and needs to be tamed by the cutting engineer. Also the bass needs to be controlled in some cases as very wide bass may not do well and cut properly to vinyl. Also the loudness is not the same as cd. Cd the last in the chain of mastering is a limiter which increases the loudness and stops digital clipping. These limiters add compression which can squash the dynamics of music and make music sound lifeless if gone to far. So the difference between vinyl and cd is you get essentially a different mastering process to suit vinyl playback
Softer hi’s and some say better low’s, plus more dynamic range which is the the amount of space between the loudest and quietest notes. Without going into great detail hope that helps
Where was the original USA press? That is my favorite pressing of this and found that it was better than all others including the MoFi
Same here. My mothers original sounds better than the 1 step I gave her
Really enjoyed this one Dave, thank you. Not my favourite album in the past, but you may have told me why. There is a contemporary James Taylor album, ''Mud Slide Slim And The Blue Horizon'', which if you do not know it, will blow you away. It includes his version of the sublime ''You've Got A Friend''. Same problems though. The original vinyl, which I no longer have and the first generation CD's are muddy and have horrible distortion etc. When I finally got the Steve Hoffman 'Audio Fidelity' gold CD, Wow, exactly the same results you are getting with the 'Tapestry' MOFI. I have many 'audiophile' CD's including about a dozen by Mobile Fidelity. You touched on this towards the end of your presentation: care, love, skill, attention to detail and a little bit of magic, always works; whatever the format. Steve :0)
Thanks for your comment Steve, much appreciated.
Mike Fremer and his German counterpart would most certainly disagree!
I absolutely agree with you on the quality of tapestry.
Spin on you crazy diamonds.
Haha! Thanks Gregory.
I have the CBS MasterSound half-speed mastered LP from 1980 and it’s the best I’ve heard. I’ve got the 7 1/2” per second reel to reel tape coming in the mail soon, so that should be an interesting comparison.
That will be interesting. I’ve not heard the tape, but it sounds wonderful.
Hello again Dave! You say the UK original year Carole King's Tapestry does not sound good and it is the brown A^M label that I have heard others say it was a great time when A^M made high quality records .Do you reckon that The UK versions can vary compared to US version since it is a US mastered recording much like the issue in comparison about The Beatles UK original versions are better than US Capitol versions ?
Hiya Nice Dawg! Generally I do tend to prefer records cut / pressed in the country of origin. So, whilst with the Beatles I'd go for UK originals, and Miles Davis I'd go for US originals, there are exceptions: Miles Davis - Ascenseur pour L'echafaud for example, which was recorded in France and so in that instance the one I sought after was the French original on Fontana.
As far as original US pressings of Tapestry go there seem to have been many: Pitman, Santa Maria, Terre Haute and Monarch... It would be an interesting exercise to compare a pressing from each of these first batches... However even then you have to be aware that you might have the first copy off of the first stamper from one pressing plant and the 3,000th pressing from the now worn out first stamper from another so it's impossible to be sure about any of this. All you can do really is listen... Personally, I find that half the fun...
@@DaveDenyer It goes back and forth and back. .I just looked at a vid about Eagles /ONTheBorder and the man stated their first 3 are the best from the UK and they recorded the first two in London with Glyn Johns-producer , 3rd album ON The Border ,,they left over disagreements and finished it in LA ..This guy says On The Border from the UK is way better than the US , only two of the songs recorded in London are on the album , so it seems like the issue is the quality control ,vinyl quality ,stampers ,did the workers have a bad weekend with heavy drinking and Monday suks ,, etc etc .......,..Stampers ,yes they are the end game and if they are in bad shape ,it all will be degraded on the product finish.. Thanks DAVE.
Fantastic comparison,out of interest now you know how the MOFIs are produced would you still buy the releases as your first choice of upgrading your originals if you went down that road
What is Carole King’s second best album and how close is it to Tapestry. I only have tapestry on mobile fidelity and her follow up album. Forget the title. Picture of her face up close with her distinct nose. Phases and or something?
Is thoroughbread good? Like the sleeve.
@@eirikrdberg1161 I only really know Tapestry. I have one other of her LPs (can't remember what it's called) but never really got into it.
I'd like to offer an observation from "the cheap seats".
I picked up an SACD of Tapestry "early" in the SACD rollout. Played it on a Kindle PLS-A "line source" speaker - not particularly "high rez" or detailed - with (16) 1-inch domes and (6) "poly" mid-woofers from late-80s.
I used the lowest-end Sony SACD player - cost $400.
Anyway, despite the midfi character of the system, I got the distinct impression of "hearing through to the master". And it sounded very much "of its time" - similar to other early-70s pop/rock/R&B.
BY this I mean a clear step down from simply-miked jazz from ca. 1958-1966.
I suppose the "vintage" of the album (2003-04) made it 1x DSD?
Thanks for sharing Jahn. I agree with you: I don't think anything quite hits the spot like simply-miked jazz from ca. 1958-66. For me, Rudy van Gelder is a bit of hero.
Nice comparison.
Your standard CD Vinyl vs. Vinyl debate!
where do you buy that shirt? very cool
I bought this about ten years ago in Primark of all places. It was really really cheap, I would LOVE to find another one.
The Albums released by Abbey Road on disc vinyl and Blu-ray would make an interesting comparison too.
If you watch Michael from The In Groove interview they specifically say that anytime they cannot verify 100% the source they label it MFSL, not MOFI. Other than that they do not answer any of his questions directly which means that they dodged the questions
they wound up admitting even if every track they source and transfer is verified original master, the original would be too hard to work with and thus they do DSD---soooo---both MFSL and MOFI are 99.9% of the time DSD.
Hi Reemus, yes, I saw Michael's interview video. I might do a follow-up video, when I've recovered from the shock!
This video inspired me to dig out my very ordinary CBS Epic pressing of Tapestry, which was clearly cut using a very stretched master tape, or a lathe with spectacularly poor speed control! Still, it's in most respects better than the CD. Vinyl Adventure have a special offer on the MoFi Tapestry, so I've treated myself!
Hi Hugo, I'm so pleased that I inspired you to buy a MOFI One-Step Tapestry. Look forward to hearing what you think of it.
Look up plangent process. It’s being used to rescue many older recordings.
Mastered or mixed? Surely there’s only one or two master copies on 30” tape that are then mixed to smaller tapes.
Hi, I'm not quite sure I understand your question, but: there'd generally be one "original" master and that would've been copied to produce safety masters (in case something happens to the original), and production masters for when it needs to be used to produce a run of LPs, CDs, cassettes or whatever. These sometimes have different names but are essentially the same thing. A production master might have extra compression and eq built in, depending on its intended use. The "original" master being essentially the final chosen mix with any additional eq and compression added. It's the source for all that comes next. Terminology varies depending on who you speak to but that's my understanding of the situation.
Is it Analog or is it MoFi?
I am disappointed with my MoFi Linda Ronstadt albums for muffled / veiled voice. I hope One Step versions are done.
Thanks for your comment.
People really didn’t understand the Mo FI issue as it related to sound quality since it had to do with MARKETING and what people were actually paying for. Wether it was reproduced off of the original
tapes and what if anything was digitally reproduced. This all came about when MOFI said they were going to make 5,000 copies of MJ THRILLER an album that was released in 1982. So obviously if you tried to make that many copies from a 50 year old tape then it would simply disintegrate. So they copied the tape and where it had disintegrated the sound engineers inserted seconds of DIGITALLY enhanced music. So then people started claiming that they could hear the digital from the rest of the recording which was and is total BS. As an example Dire Staits Brothers IN Arms is ALL digital and is probably the best recording of that album ever done.If I played it for somebody and didn’t tell them it was digital sonically they would not know.
These MOFI reissues are some of the BEST sounding albums out there period. I have never seen a MO FI shoot out that lost out to another album. The people who say these reissues are not worth the money fall into 3 categories One they don’t understand the advances in audio technology since these albums were originally released; they have never heard them or their systems are not advanced enough to hear the difference
Wasn't Brothers in Arms digitally recorded but mixed in analogue, and mastered to both analogue and digital? I'm not too sure that digital mixing had been developed in 1985.
I have many MOFI albums ranging from the earliest (which are all analogue, made from the 'Original Master Recording' as the name would suggest, and several of the newer issues. I do think they have a 'house sound' generally the bass is more extended, partly because this was often cut for regular non-audiophile turntable playback.
I think one of the most overlooked factors in the digital vs analogue debate is the sound of different D to A (and A to D) convertors. Surely you've heard some that are better than others? And digital filters is another major factor. The fact that these have an effect means without doubt that the D to A conversion, and the A to D conversion processes are not transparent, and therefore there is 'good' and bad' digital. Frankly, if the original recording was done well (as was typical in the 50s and 60s) then I'd rather stick to AAA.
@
I’m not talking about the original release for BIA 1985 but the MO FI reissue that was done digitally. 2015. (which was all digital) As I said the issue with the MJ Mo Fi was an extremely small digital segment often seconds were inserted into the music to account for the tape degradation and there is no way you can hear the difference between the two simply because MO FI has some of the BEST sound engineers in the world. Do you think that SONY would lend their original tapes to a bunch of amateurs they are priceless. These is no such thing as non audiophile turntable playback the record is either 180 gram or it’s not audio phile just means manufactured to the highest audio standard. I have absolutely no clue what “house sound means and it definitely doesn’t apply to Mo Fi recordings finally. The issue with MO FI in terms of transparency had to do with the MARKETING department not acknowledging the insertion of the digital aspects it had nothing to do with the sound engineers trying to produce the best sounding copies of an album which they do.
@@robertbyington7715 I've not heard anything about the Thriller master tape being damaged such that segments have needed digital repair (cut and pasting)... I'd be interested to know where you got this info...
Either way, the MOFI / digital 'scandal' broke because they announced they were doing such a massive run of the Thriller One-Step, (if memory is correct wasn't it 30,000?) which as you rightly say, would require playing the original master tape very many times... Regarding Sony lending out the tape to MOFI, this is where I think the DSD issue stems from: Sony, and some other labels, decided against lending MOFI (or indeed most other mastering studios / reissue labels) the original master tapes, and so made MOFI a DSD copy of the master to use instead. Once this became known, further investigation revealed that MOFI had been doing this for several years...
Of course the MOFI engineers are trying to make the best version of all their releases, whether they succeed is, of course, subjective...
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "there's no such thing as non audiophile turntable playback " etc. I personally don't think the record weight has much to do with anything: that is, in my opinion, marketing... Some 'audiophile labels' now make 200g vinyl records. Are they better than 180g? Are 180g records better than 160g records? I don't necessarily think so. FWIW, I would describe any label that attempts to make high quality reissues that sound better than the original, for example, Mobile Fidelity, as an audiophile label. So, MOFI, Analogue Productions, etc. These are all what I'd call 'audiophile labels'.
@
Of course you have to have the master tape to start with that’s why it says ORIGINAL MASTER tape and even when you make a copy you run the risk of damaging the original; especially when it’s 50 years old. So again Mo Fi admitted to the insertion of very small amounts of digital that’s where people then tried to say they could hear the difference between the two which again was BS. MO FI paid a 25M fine not because the product was inferior but because of a lack of transparency in adverting what the customer bought. Customers were allowed to return the album for refund or keep the album and get a 10% cash rebate. As far as the sound quality being subjective that’s generally true with anything except people have done hundreds and hundreds of album comparisons and MO Fi reissue can be scientifically proven that they are SO much better than the original which they are because of the skill of the engineers and the equipment used as well as the pressing process. These are ALL facts. People who say they are not better one never heard them two there equipment isn’t good enough to pick up the difference or their hearing has degraded.
Finally record weight impacts the record in the following way durability how long it will last and stability how flat it is as it plays. These are all established facts there is no opinion you can find the information yourself it’s part of the public record.
@@robertbyington7715 Yes, the MOFI fine was for misleading marketing / labelling of the product. What you're saying here is incorrect though: the issue was not that "MOFI inserted small amounts of digital". It was that entire albums (not only Thriller, but most of MOFI's output for around ten years or so) were cut from digital, not direct from the original master tapes as they once were... Since the lawsuit MOFI specify their sources on their website, for example: the source for Michael Jackson's Thriller is "1/2" / 30 IPS analog master to DSD 256 to analog console to lathe". That is not "small amounts of digital" it is using a digital source (in this case a DSD 256 file), of course that digital source ultimately came from the original master tape. But then ultimately everything does.
There are companies out there: Analogue Productions being just one of them, that make a point of producing LPs in the same manner as MOFI used to do: ie. get the original master tape and cut the lacquer from that. There are still some trusted mastering engineers, that still can get hold of original master tapes from the record companies.
In fact a friend of mine, Tim de Paravicini, who sadly passed away a few years ago, developed a specifically modified Studer A80 master recorder for MOFI, along with a whole suite of bespoke mastering electronics. Back in those days MOFI used to do it in a similar way that Analogue Productions (and a handful of others) still do. I have may MOFI LPs from this era and would not get rid of them.
Finally, a record's weight has nothing to do with its longevity nor how flat it is. In fact I have had a higher incidence of warped discs from the MOFI One-Step series than with any other type of LP, regardless of the LP weight.
However, MOFI have very recently moved away from RTI and now have their own pressing plant 'Fidelity Record Pressing'. I have so far only got one LP pressed at FRP and I do have to say, it is perfectly flat. Let's hope this is a sign of what's to come.
In every case it’s the master copy to your print, which ever it is, and the maintenance of analog vs digital steps. Charting provenance is a critical step that MQA attempts to address (shhhh).
Mofi sounds fantastic. But why spend the extra money for something that is from the same source as a CD?
A lot of them don’t sound fantastic.
CD (redbook) is vastly less detailed than the DSD sourced from the master tape. as such it's less 'flawed' than an analogue-to-analogue transfer but to compare to CD is disingenuous.
SACDs are always hit or miss. Those Doors AP 45s sound beautiful, while the SACDs sound like garbage. Same with MFSL’s “Breakfast in America,” the record sounds absolutely brilliant, but the CD sounds awful
Why not just get CDs to begin with. You know some of my Hi-Fi friends as I call them, we're quite similar to the Justice League, rag on me about my preference for digital audio but I don't offer a sympathetic ear when they're constantly complaining to me about having to replace their cartridge or that pressing they bought has more surface noise than they'd like. No I just sit back and chuckle to myself
@@thomascars1 Exactly, I start to hate to see people now thinking the Mofi SACsD is the same as the Vinyl, they are totally WRONG!
I wonder if they ever considered marketing their stuff as Three-Step? And the controversy here is that it seems from what their engineers said they have managed to reduce three steps into four.
Hahaha all the "audiophiles" who could hear the difference before and how pure mofi sounded are now backtracking and saying they've been crap for years. Too funny stop pretending you hear differently than other humans.
Why does it seem so funny that people hear differently. A thing commonly understood is the idea that we taste differently right. I have a penchant for spicy food and I love the aromas and the sensation and the flavors involved. Not everybody taste the same obviously. Nor does everybody smell the same My sense of smell is terrible which is probably why I love spicy food. By extension hearing is no different, I'm 33 and my current upper frequency range that I can hear is about 17 and a half thousand Hz so not everybody can hear that.
I would suggest next time before you make silly arguments that you apply you're supposed self evident logic to that argument
@@Audiorevue It's funny because if you look at all the posts about the mofi controversy, the same people who praised their records as analog purity are now, as I said, backtracking and saying they knew all along. Proving you can market anything to people who want to feel superior to others by appealing to their vanity.
@@Audiorevue in that case nobody should review sound quality of albums, as they will hear things differently?
@Hipoint 45, well I certainly didn't know all along and am genuinely surprised, and to be honest, disappointed. The records still sound good though.
yeah each of us hear different that is why you don't have the same equipment in your house as I have ... not sure why that is hard to understand, on the top of it each of us have different take on what good sound is and many more things that would affect it, if the same record was cut by mofi from the tape they used to make dsd copy it would probably sound even better than digital record, digital copy cannot be better than source
Lawsuit = th-cam.com/video/CmQF2pkWn7w/w-d-xo.html
Mo-=Fi, or Less-Fi, famously botched the Beatles records in the '80s.
.
Thanks for your comment Bill. I've got a few dozen MOFIs, and I've sold on a few too. They're not all 'keepers', in my opinion.
So basically you like digital better than analog then since the MOFI lie has been exposed? Or, will you go back to your old videos and remake them to downgrade the MOFI?
Good question Dom, no, I wouldn't say I like digital better than analogue, I'm 100% sure that if they cut directly from the original source it would sound even better, and suspect that if they made an intermediary tape copy (a "production master") rather than using this DSD copy, the LPs could sound even better. I'd put the great sound of these down to other factors: using the best original source, and the best cutting system, and the One-Step pressing system, and very good vinyl etc.
Mofi do nothing new