Latest on MJJC

New MoFi 'Off The Wall' Master One-Step Pressing Announced

R1chard said:
Like, this is the biggest MJ news of the whole year, I can't bear to see it fall off the first page.
Click to expand...
If it was so important, it would have been made a sticky. šŸ¤£ Also some people on this site say Off The Wall is Mike's worst album. Probably younger ones who don't dig disco era music. 3rd, most folks aren't going to buy a record that costs $120, when many used copies (record, tape, or CD) can be bought for $2. The rest can stream it. It's not like this is some rare out of print album like most of Jermaine's solo stuff or the original mix of Off The Wall.
 
jpc.de have the cheapest price so far here in europe. With 8% Discount at the moment, and free shipping (at least to Austria and Germany). 185 Euro for both items.
8% Discount with Code: me1684084

www.jpc.de

Michael Jackson: Off The Wall (UltraDisc One-Step) (180g) (Limited Numbered Edition) (45 RPM) (2 LPs)

Die LP Michael Jackson: Off The Wall (UltraDisc One-Step) (Limited Numbered Edition) (45 RPM) jetzt portofrei kaufen. Mehr von Michael Jackson gibt es im Shop.
www.jpc.de www.jpc.de
www.jpc.de

Michael Jackson: Off The Wall (Limited Numbered Edition) (Hybrid-SACD) (Super Audio CD)

Die SACD Michael Jackson: Off The Wall (Limited Numbered Edition) (Hybrid-SACD) jetzt portofrei kaufen. Mehr von Michael Jackson gibt es im Shop.
www.jpc.de www.jpc.de
 
Falcon said:
Well.. so Off The Wall get`s a double 45RPM release, but they skipped that on the Thriller one? I really enjoy the audio quality on my MoFi Thriller since it sounds so pristine.. but I was a bit bummed by the fact that they didn`t go for a 45RPM release to reach the maximum potential of vinyl.
Click to expand...
They said they were going to release a double set for Thriller in the future. Whether that is still going to happen is anyone's guess.
 
DuranDuran said:
If it was so important, it would have been made a sticky. šŸ¤£ Also some people on this site say Off The Wall is Mike's worst album. Probably younger ones who don't dig disco era music. 3rd, most folks aren't going to buy a record that costs $120, when many used copies (record, tape, or CD) can be bought for $2. The rest can stream it. It's not like this is some rare out of print album like most of Jermaine's solo stuff or the original mix of Off The Wall.
Click to expand...
Yeh i gotta admit disco music not my thing that why ''off the wall'' isnt my fave mj album
 
8701girl said:
Interesting im such a music enthusiast im surprised ive never heard of that term before
Click to expand...

Probably means you're not nerdy enough. ;-)

I have to warn you, if you train you ears the audiophile way, you will become sensitive to the quality of what you ear and won't enjoy some of your records as much and will want to re-purchase well-masters releases (often these are old releases) for most of them.
 
Why was it at Thriller Mofi Step 1 Lp and off the Wall 2 don't understand the meaning
 
^ and also means you have to keep turning records over and swapping them every couple of songs...

8701girl said:
Interesting im such a music enthusiast im surprised ive never heard of that term before
Click to expand...
Don't worry, it's just a label people use to distance themselves from other people.

MoFi = Mobile Fidelity. They're a record company that make albums that sound a lot better than the crap Sony produce.

This is more important when artists take more care over their recordings, like MJ did. Basically you'll hear more detail, the instruments will be more vivid, you'll be able to distinguish all the different tracks of backing vocals, etc.
 
R1chard said:
Basically you'll hear more detail, the instruments will be more vivid, you'll be able to distinguish all the different tracks of backing vocals, etc.
Click to expand...
You're just wrong here. What you've described relates to mastering, which is not exclusively a vinyl thing. The SACD version will have the same mastering as the double LP.

The difference in the LP per se between the single 33 and the double 45 is just to provide more precise tracking for the needle that translates into better sound quality on the media.
 
Last edited:
MJbr2 said:
You're just wrong here. What you've described relates to mastering, which is not exclusively a vinyl thing. The SACD version will have the same mastering as the double LP.
Click to expand...
Oh, I know that. I was talking in general about what MoFi do. They make recordings that sound better. I didn't actually mention the format in my reply above (other than my first comment about keep having to turn records over). MoFi release albums on vinyl, double vinyl, CD, and more recently, SACD. And they all sound great when compared to the equivalent release from Sony or whatever.

MJbr2 said:
The difference in the LP per se between the single 33 and the double 45 is just to provide more precise tracking for the needle that translates into better sound quality on the media.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

My issues with vinyl are:
  1. It's much less convenient than CD to skip tracks, etc
  2. It's not portable
  3. It's environmentally damaging
  4. It doesn't actually sound as good as a CD
  5. It gets worse every time you play it.
But record labels love vinyl because they're able to sell an album for $50, lol.

The order of quality has always been

SACD > CD > uncompressed download > vinyl > cassette

That's why I'll be getting this SACD but I have no interest in the vinyl (even though it will have the same great mastering). I wouldn't get it even if it was a sensible price.
 
R1chard said:
My issues with vinyl are:
  1. It's much less convenient than CD to skip tracks, etc
  2. It's not portable
  3. It's environmentally damaging
  4. It doesn't actually sound as good as a CD
  5. It gets worse every time you play it
Click to expand...
A CD is plastic in a plastic case, unless it is in one of those cardboard LP style covers. But the disc is still plastic. The CD also is also packaged in plastic wrap that has to be removed. Many people leave the plastic on the record cover unless it is has a gatefold cover. Way more plastic water/soda bottles, grocery bags, drinking straws from fast food restaurants, food packaging, etc. are thrown away than records or CDs. People tend to keep those. Or if they don't want it anymore give them to Goodwill or a used record store. Also, US Navy ships throw lots of trash overboard every day while in transit. Probably the navy of other countries & cruise ships too.
 
R1chard said:
Oh, I know that. I was talking in general about what MoFi do. They make recordings that sound better. I didn't actually mention the format in my reply above (other than my first comment about keep having to turn records over). MoFi release albums on vinyl, double vinyl, CD, and more recently, SACD. And they all sound great when compared to the equivalent release from Sony or whatever.


Indeed.

My issues with vinyl are:
  1. It's much less convenient than CD to skip tracks, etc
  2. It's not portable
  3. It's environmentally damaging
  4. It doesn't actually sound as good as a CD
  5. It gets worse every time you play it.
But record labels love vinyl because they're able to sell an album for $50, lol.

The order of quality has always been

SACD > CD > uncompressed download > vinyl > cassette

That's why I'll be getting this SACD but I have no interest in the vinyl (even though it will have the same great mastering). I wouldn't get it even if it was a sensible price.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with the claim of CD sounding better than vinyl. It should, theoretically, but vinyl is analog and retains "full quality". It's just like comparing a DVD to 16mm film. DVD is stuck at 480p, while 16mm holds information equivalent up to 1080p. CD is stuck at 44/16, while you can rip vinyl into really high res files.

Also, I can assure you the OG vinyl pressings of either OTW, Thriller and Bad knock their respective 1st pressing CDs right out of the park. The CDs just lack the punch and overall thickness of the original records.

I respect your opinion about not liking vinyl and agree with the fact that it doesn't last long like most analog media formats, but analog is limitless in terms of storage, whereas digital isn't. We're in the age of high res audio files and CD is a pisstake in comparison to them.
 
MJbr2 said:

I don't agree with the claim of CD sounding better than vinyl. It should, theoretically, but vinyl is analog and retains "full quality". It's just like comparing a DVD to 16mm film. DVD is stuck at 480p, while 16mm holds information equivalent up to 1080p. CD is stuck at 44/16, while you can rip vinyl into really high res files.

Also, I can assure you the OG vinyl pressings of either OTW, Thriller and Bad knock their respective 1st pressing CDs right out of the park. The CDs just lack the punch and overall thickness of the original records.

I respect your opinion about not liking vinyl and agree with the fact that it doesn't last long like most analog media formats, but analog is limitless in terms of storage, whereas digital isn't. We're in the age of high res audio files and CD is a pisstake in comparison to them.
Click to expand...
OTW and Thriller have golden disks tho
 
MJbr2 said:
I don't agree with the claim of CD sounding better than vinyl. It should, theoretically, but vinyl is analog and retains "full quality". CD is stuck at 44/16, while you can rip vinyl into really high res files.
Click to expand...
Vinyl has a signal/noise ratio of 60-70 dB, CD is about 100 dB and SACD is 120 dB.
Vinyl can produce low frequency sounds down to about 7 Hz, CD is 2 Hz.
Vinyl can produce high frequency sounds up to about 20 kHz, CD is 22 kHz, and SACD is over 50 kHz. This is the main point people get confused on. Just because vinyl is analog does NOT mean it has unlimited or "full quality". There is very much a limit to vinyl, it's just that it's not clearly defined.

Ripping has nothing to do with it. You could rip vinyl to 192 kHz/32-bit, but it won't sound better if the information on the vinyl is limited to a sampling rate equivalent to 40 kHz/11-bit and if there's so much crosstalk that the two channels are virtually the same.

MJbr2 said:
I respect your opinion about not liking vinyl and agree with the fact that it doesn't last long like most analog media formats
Click to expand...
Technically, that's not a digital/analog thing. The durability of CD is due to it being optical.

MJbr2 said:
but analog is limitless in terms of storage, whereas digital isn't.
Click to expand...
Again, no. Just because something is thought of as continuous does NOT mean it has infinite resolution.
 
R1chard said:
Vinyl has a signal/noise ratio of 60-70 dB, CD is about 100 dB and SACD is 120 dB.
Vinyl can produce low frequency sounds down to about 7 Hz, CD is 2 Hz.
Vinyl can produce high frequency sounds up to about 20 kHz, CD is 22 kHz, and SACD is over 50 kHz. This is the main point people get confused on. Just because vinyl is analog does NOT mean it has unlimited or "full quality". There is very much a limit to vinyl, it's just that it's not clearly defined.

Ripping has nothing to do with it. You could rip vinyl to 192 kHz/32-bit, but it won't sound better if the information on the vinyl is limited to a sampling rate equivalent to 40 kHz/11-bit and if there's so much crosstalk that the two channels are virtually the same.


Technically, that's not a digital/analog thing. The durability of CD is due to it being optical.


Again, no. Just because something is thought of as continuous does NOT mean it has infinite resolution.
Click to expand...
Yep, CD is technically superior to vinyl in a lot of ways. Like I said before, the main reason a lot of cds sound like crap is due to excessive compression mandated by record labels. Even a lot of vinyl these days contain these same masters and sound exactly the same as a result.
 
R1chard said:
Vinyl has a signal/noise ratio of 60-70 dB, CD is about 100 dB and SACD is 120 dB.
Vinyl can produce low frequency sounds down to about 7 Hz, CD is 2 Hz.
Vinyl can produce high frequency sounds up to about 20 kHz, CD is 22 kHz, and SACD is over 50 kHz. This is the main point people get confused on. Just because vinyl is analog does NOT mean it has unlimited or "full quality". There is very much a limit to vinyl, it's just that it's not clearly defined.

Ripping has nothing to do with it. You could rip vinyl to 192 kHz/32-bit, but it won't sound better if the information on the vinyl is limited to a sampling rate equivalent to 40 kHz/11-bit and if there's so much crosstalk that the two channels are virtually the same.


Technically, that's not a digital/analog thing. The durability of CD is due to it being optical.


Again, no. Just because something is thought of as continuous does NOT mean it has infinite resolution.
Click to expand...
As I said, stick to CD then. No one's telling you not to. Just don't act like it's the second coming of Jesus when, in fact, it's just as outdated. CD was introduced in 1982, for crying out loud.

Although I'm a vinyl enthusiast and collector myself, I'm very aware it's a flawed format in many aspects and bound to wear off.

Listen to your CDs, guys.
 
MJbr2 said:
As I said, stick to CD then. No one's telling you not to. Just don't act like it's the second coming of Jesus when, in fact, it's just as outdated. CD was introduced in 1982, for crying out loud.

Although I'm a vinyl enthusiast and collector myself, I'm very aware it's a flawed format in many aspects and bound to wear off.

Listen to your CDs, guys.
Click to expand...
I love saying incorrect things and then acting like people responding to what I've said are being unreasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top