Latest on MJJC

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

AUDIO: How can you really improve the sound of an ancient analogue or an old digital master and which tools can help?
Grundman: In order to improve old recordings, the primary area to accomplish this is through better equipment and signal path during the mastering process. To begin with, there is no way of improving the actual quality of the original. It is what it is, but if everything in the mastering signal path preserves the highest resolution, it is possible to bring the listener more of what is actually on the master tape. That doesn't always mean the "latest and greatest" or anything for that matter. We spend our lives testing & creating custom equipment that best preserves the resolution of the master source. Additionally, judicious EQ can enhance many recordings that were not balanced well, giving the listener an experience and impression that is better. Many of the older discs were mastered with hi and low pass filters to avoid any problems with the limited tracing ability of inexpensive cartridges and power restrictions of early cutting amplifiers. This is further evidence that what was on the master tape never got to the disc. Now we have vastly improved cartridges and higher-powered cutting amps making it possible to hear what was actually always there. Digitally better clocking and improved converters have resulted in similar improvements.
AUDIO: Do you think that the loudness war means the death of dynamics in pop music?
Grundman: Surely the loudness war has decreased the dynamics of pop music, but some mastering techniques do retain still a good sense of dynamics in spite of having a high average level. The problem is poor judgment: choosing loud for loudness sake, thus subordinating musicality. We should all remember that serving the music is primary. As soon as the original intention of the music is in jeopardy, you have gone as far as you can go. That point will vary depending on the skill of the mastering engineer. Truth of the matter is that I would prefer not to do much dynamic reduction at all, but in all the years I've been in the business of mastering clients believe that loudness makes their recording more competitive.

Interview mit Bernie Grundman

Aktuelle Infos.
www.connect.de www.connect.de
 
MJbr2 said:
Nope.
Click to expand...
I guess even on CD this is still worth it. With Thriller my listening has been about 70:30, more often I've been listening to it in the car, rather than at home.

MJbr2 said:
Bernie Grundman's work was further compressed for the CDs.
Click to expand...
Makes you wonder what's the point of remastering when the end result (ie the version that sold 90% of the copies) is hot garbage.

Fuzball said:
That's the extensive use of the limiter (compression/level maximization).
Click to expand...
I'm a firm believer of calling out poor work, and naming/shaming the individuals.

They deliberately made the album sound worse. These are the people that have (unfairly) given CD a bad name, and ultimately killed off the only way I will buy music.

Fuzball said:
Unfortunately, it's the record labels that demand that "punchy" sound since late 90s/early 2000s.
Click to expand...
Excuses excuses.

Ultimately, the engineer is working for ME, not the label. I don't care what the executive wants, and I'm not interested in a recording that's more "competitive". I want what's best for me as a listener.
 
Last edited:
R1chard said:
Ultimately, the engineer is working for ME, not the label. I don't care what the executive wants, and I'm not interested in a recording that's more "competitive". I want what's best for me as a listener.
Click to expand...
Ultimately the engineer does what the label says and doesn't consider what you want over whether or not they have a job.
 
MJbr2 said:
Wouldn't say punchy. More like loud as hell to compete with all the noises on the outside after music became portable.
Click to expand...
That's a different way of thinking about it (I'd always read it was to stand out on the radio).

Not too sure I believe it, actually. Music has been portable since the Walkman in 1979. In fact, the first time I ever listened to the song Thriller (as opposed to overhearing it), was via headphones on a bus sitting next to some kid who'd just bought it.

SmoothGangsta said:
Ultimately the engineer does what the label says and doesn't consider what you want over whether or not they have a job.
Click to expand...
And that's why they don't get any of my money.
 
R1chard said:
That's a different way of thinking about it (I'd always read it was to stand out on the radio).

Not too sure I believe it, actually. Music has been portable since the Walkman in 1979. In fact, the first time I ever listened to the song Thriller (as opposed to overhearing it), was via headphones on a bus sitting next to some kid who'd just bought it.
Click to expand...
It wasn't instant, more like something they realized after a while.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
What's stopping them from uploading this to Spotify and calling it a day?
Click to expand...
1. They're focused on audiophiles aka people who prefer physical media.
2. Imagine putting a properly mastered, audiophile reissue on the only dumb platform to still use a lossy codec. It's offensive.
 
I just received a SMS from DHL to pay import tax for a parcell from MOBILE FIDELITY. Means they have shipped and it's arriving to Europe. (Order from directly MoFi US.)
 
MJbr2 said:
1. They're focused on audiophiles aka people who prefer physical media.
2. Imagine putting a properly mastered, audiophile reissue on the only dumb platform to still use a lossy codec. It's offensive.
Click to expand...
Imagine thinking proper masters should be gatekept lol.
 
SmoothGangsta said:
This would be ideal but then they wouldn't be able to charge a lot of money for it.

Would be great for these better masters to be more widely available.
Click to expand...
Fuzball said:
would be cool if these were also available on qobuz or hdtracks as dsd64 downloads (or its pcm equivalent)
Click to expand...
Well, MFSL is innocent in this case. They license the material for their own product. Know who should do it? Sony/Estate.
 
MJbr2 said:
1. They're focused on audiophiles aka people who prefer physical media.
2. Imagine putting a properly mastered, audiophile reissue on the only dumb platform to still use a lossy codec. It's offensive.
Click to expand...
You do have a point actually. Spotify is definitely stagnant.

Once they actually, add lossless, maybe eventually they will digitize it.
 
I'm really struggling to understand what Spotify being lossy has to do with the better masters being available to the people who use the service tbh.
 
Last edited:
SmoothGangsta said:
I'm really struggling to understand what Spotify being lossy has to do with the better masters being on there or not lol.
Click to expand...
Allow me to explain then.

From an objective point of view, it wouldn't make sense. It's like rescanning the original negatives of an old movie in 4K to put it on a VHS, a complete waste of resources. Now, if our fellow user said "Spotify" to refer to streaming services in general, that would be nice. All of them but Spotify offer lossless, some hi-res. You can even find a 192/24 PCM version of the 1999 Thriller SACD on Qobuz, for example.

And that brings us to the second topic which I think you don't see yet.

MFSL license the use of any given album with the record label so they can reissue them and also have access to the original masters (a digital transfer provided by the label themselves at MFSL's request since no master tapes can leave the archive/vault). Given MFSL's business model, it's probably the case their contracts only grant them rights to reissues on physical media exclusively, with a specific number of copies. They're not a record label, so they don't really own the rights to any album they've ever reissued. If they ever decide to put that on streaming, royalties would go to Sony and the Estate (considering these two would even let them do it in the first place).

So, it's not MFSL you should be barking at. Sony and Branca are the only ones who have the rights to put the proper masters on streaming, like Thriller is on Qobuz.
 
MJbr2 said:
Allow me to explain then.

From an objective point of view, it wouldn't make sense. It's like rescanning the original negatives of an old movie in 4K to put it on a VHS, a complete waste of resources. Now, if our fellow user said "Spotify" to refer to streaming services in general, that would be nice. All of them but Spotify offer lossless, some hi-res. You can even find a 192/24 PCM version of the 1999 Thriller SACD on Qobuz, for example.

And that brings us to the second topic which I think you don't see yet.

MFSL license the use of any given album with the record label so they can reissue them and also have access to the original masters (a digital transfer provided by the label themselves at MFSL's request since no master tapes can leave the archive/vault). Given MFSL's business model, it's probably the case their contracts only grant them rights to reissues on physical media exclusively, with a specific number of copies. They're not a record label, so they don't really own the rights to any album they've ever reissued. If they ever decide to put that on streaming, royalties would go to Sony and the Estate (considering these two would even let them do it in the first place).

So, it's not MFSL you should be barking at. Sony and Branca are the only ones who have the rights to put the proper masters on streaming, like Thriller is on Qobuz.
Click to expand...

It seems you're coming at this from the perspective of lossy audio is bad, so we're not gonna agree here and I think as many people getting to hear these new masters as possible would be a great thing.

Of course it is indeed unlikely for the reasons you have pointed out.
 
SmoothGangsta said:
It seems you're coming at this from the perspective of lossy audio is bad, so we're not gonna agree here and I think as many people getting to hear these new masters as possible would be a great thing.
Click to expand...
Imagine a person seeing the Mona Lisa for the first time on a 240p picture. Yeah, people have to hear these as they're intended to be listened to.
 
MJbr2 said:
Imagine a person seeing the Mona Lisa for the first time on a 240p picture. Yeah, people have to hear these as they're intended to be listened to.
Click to expand...
Absolute snobbery and like I said earlier, gatekeeping.

Also the whole 240p picture comparison is incredibly ridiculous.
 
Yeah, I meant streaming services in general.

Spotify has its flaws but I still use it. Better masters posted still sound better even if the quality is lossy.
 
Anyway, it does seem like us in the UK will have to wait until the 7th of Feb before we start receiving copies. I emailed the store and received a response implying it was decided by the label.
 
Last edited:
MJbr2 said:
1. They're focused on audiophiles aka people who prefer physical media.
Click to expand...
Following on from this, it was against Michael's wishes for any of his music to be online. He was a firm believer in physical-only.

MJbr2 said:
2. Imagine putting a properly mastered, audiophile reissue on the only dumb platform to still use a lossy codec. It's offensive.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you're not gonna hear the difference by the time it's been garbled. It would be like asking for good quality wine to be served in a styrofoam cup. Total waste of time.

And again, the streaming people have brought it upon themselves. They're the ones who have created a world where good sound is the exception, rather than the norm.

Maxym said:
I just received a SMS from DHL to pay import tax for a parcell from MOBILE FIDELITY. Means they have shipped and it's arriving to Europe. (Order from directly MoFi US.)
Click to expand...
Where to? In the UK I'm being told 31st. I've been quoted with VAT/GST - it would be pretty poor from the website if it was held to ransom until I'd paid even more. I've bought plenty from MoFi stuff going back many years, but this blatant recent price gouging will probably make it the last thing I ever buy from them.

MJbr2 said:
Well, MFSL is innocent in this case. They license the material for their own product. Know who should do it? Sony/Estate.
Click to expand...
This.

Every album should be made to these high standards. MoFi only exists because Sony do such a bad ****** job.

SmoothGangsta said:
Yup! No reason for them not be on there other than audio snobbery and people doing weird gatekeeping.
Click to expand...
Simple solution. You wanna listen? Buy a copy. I've heard it's really good.
 
R1chard said:
Following on from this, it was against Michael's wishes for any of his music to be online. He was a firm believer in physical-only.


Yeah, you're not gonna hear the difference by the time it's been garbled. It would be like asking for good quality wine to be served in a styrofoam cup. Total waste of time.

And again, the streaming people have brought it upon themselves. They're the ones who have created a world where good sound is the exception, rather than the norm.


Where to? In the UK I'm being told 31st. I've been quoted with VAT/GST - it would be pretty poor from the website if it was held to ransom until I'd paid even more. I've bought plenty from MoFi stuff going back many years, but this blatant recent price gouging will probably make it the last thing I ever buy from them.


This.

Every album should be made to these high standards. MoFi only exists because Sony do such a bad ****** job.


Simple solution. You wanna listen? Buy a copy. I've heard it's really good.
Click to expand...
I bought a copy, which you'd know if you read two posts up. I find it pretty sad that there are people on here who actively want worse masters out there because they want to justify their purchase or don't like or understand lossy streaming. Talk about being part of the problem!
 
Last edited:
SmoothGangsta said:
I bought a copy, which you'd know if you read two posts up
Click to expand...
I saw that after I'd typed a reply. Doesn't matter. When I say "you" it doesn't have to be you. Could be anyone.

SmoothGangsta said:
I find it pretty sad that there are people on here who actively want worse masters out there because they want to justify their purchase or don't like or understand lossy streaming. Talk about being part of the problem!
Click to expand...
Well, lossy streaming is only part of the problem.

But again, the streaming people need to get over themselves. I honestly guarantee them 100% that when they run a streaming app on their mono Alexa speaker, they will simply not hear the mastering differences when the most obvious improvement seems to be the wide channel separation. Or that when they're carrying their mobile phone, they will not appreciate the refined and accurate bass. It seems the irony is lost on these people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top