for me, it's not about the dsd in terms of quality - they should've been transparent and priced accordingly. if you are able to basically make unlimited lacquers, that should reflect in a much lower price than a limited run off analogue masters

As I have watched this channel with Paul for quite some time now...I am impressed by Paul's unselfish use of his time vto help people with a barrage of questions, and he does so with humor, patience, and in a humble manner of graciousness. I think Paul has earned a place of honor and deserves any measure of success for all he has done for the audiophile community and for what appears to be a genuine pleasure in helping people over, around, and through the maze of those, who have done quite the opposite. I would imagine that his interaction with his employees is one of respect, a level of high quality expectations to do their very best...but I believe with a fairness and environment that provides an atmosphere of creativeness that nurtures their skills and high professional results. In any case...the questions and answers are certainly interesting, entertaining, and many times quite informative...thanks Paul!

For those old enough to remember: Back in the late 1980's prior to home digital formats; a lot of LP's advertised as DIGITAL, or DIGITALLY RECORDED prominently on the cover art. So what you say makes absolute sense.

I've been waiting for you to cover this since the controversy started about MoFi and what you have just presented is Exactly what I thought you would say. Thank You Thank You THANK YOU!! Much Appreciated Mr. Paul 👍

Thanks Paul for such a clear description of the process and the results. I have a few of the mofi records from dsd that sound terrific and I will continue to enjoy them. I will however not do any further business with them as they told too many porky pies in marketing. Integrity counts for something.

Thanks 🙏 again 👍 Paul for another great educational video! Especially emphasizing 💿 DSD’s numerous outclassing benefits like bandwidth, DR etc. Mega kudos to PS Audio!

You cannot simply compare PCM with DSD without bringing the values to the identical performance. For example, only a comparison that has realistic parameters is possible: 1-bit 2.8224MHz DSD64 SACD is equal to 20-bit 141.12KHz PCM or 24-bit 117.6KHz PCM. And you won't hear any difference anymore. Btw. Processing is not possible in 1Bit files due to the principle. Consequently, for processing, DSD recordings must also be converted in a PCM multibit process. Thus almost all DSD projects have been processed in PCM before being converted to DSD.

Thank you Paul you're the best with the explanation and clarify all around this controversy Excellent video

Was it shady how mofi went about it? Sure, but I personally love the fact that a lot of people got exposed that claim they can spot digital “from a mile away” and that it’s “very easy” 😂😂 because let’s face it ,if they were transparent from the start, then you would have had those same people saying how inferior it sounds because they know before hand there was a digital step involved. I don’t get into that stupid nonsense. I don’t care if it’s analog, digital, whatever. If it sounds good then that’s all I care about. 🤷‍♂️

The problem is not their process, it is how they knowingly deceived their customer base into thinking the records were all analog. As soon as they introduced DSD into their chain, they should have come up with a way to use this to their advantage from a marketing/branding standpoint. One of the ways would be showing their engineers transferring the tapes inside the label vaults. Some of their releases would not have been possible without this process, as most labels do not allow their tapes to be sent out, but it's the way they went about it that people are so upset about.

I appreciate your take, very insightful.

I agree with you. Makes the best of what's possible. Also consider this: They are using what is arguably one of the most carefully setup playback unit (the Tom deParravicini Studer), and they are making azymuth adjustments when needed. The DSD256 transfer is as good as it gets. Also consider one interesting point: the DSD limitation of level adjustment is not an issue here as you're transferring the already-final mix.

Yep, making the best quality infinitely-copyable digital transfer possible of those precious tapes is obviously the right thing to do. The tape can then be preserved until such a day as we might have even better digital technology. Even if it were possible to make a marginally better product from analog copies today, minimizing damage to the master tapes for future generations is far more important.

Excellent Paul! As always...

Thanks Paul. What many forget is that the mastering process takes a digital recording of the analogue tape played back through the best possible pro-tape player and converts the signal into digital without applying and compression or other global changes. I am sure that the ADC used for this recording is set at the highest bit depth and sample rate - one simply does not have access to play master tapes like these famous recordings more than once or twice. The accuracy of the gear used in these processes are incredible.

Always the best Paul. Your bang on again.

Perfect explanation.

Purist discussion. DSD is a way to save those analogue masters for eternity. Make the best copy you can an put the master in a safe place, only to be used when something significantly better than dsd comes along.

Thanks Paul for clearing that up. What I appreciate about you and your channel is that you show the difference between objective reality and subjective perception and you are unafraid to criticize yourself quite harshly. I have learned a phenomenal amount from you and look forward to hearing more.

Thank you for your very clear explanation 😉

Super Cool Video Paul ...Well done !

I wish dsd was more mainstream 😕

What I've always enjoyed about you Paul and PS Audio with Octave Records is you've always been proud and transparent when it comes to using DSD in your music recordings. For as much recognition as the quality of MoFi records has been given by audiophiles, it's really too bad MoFi didn't take the opportunity to talk about the benefits of DSD in the recording chain for vinyl records. Instead of selling a nostalgic "all analog" fairy tale...MoFi could helped the industry along by helping "analog purists" to better understand that producing quality analog vinyl records now depends on digital. Without something like DSD...vinyl record enthusiasts wouldn't have new vinyl records to purchase.

Awesome answer. Yeah I paid more for Music Direct records but they were 180g and well packaged so I was happy.

So glad to finally hear a sober and technically sound opinion on the matter. Thanks Paul.

Thanks Paul!

As a technician, this is the best answer I know of about this whole situation. It's impossible to capture an absolutely transparent cut from the original tape as it's going through more equipment. I'd take a DSD cut any day but then the record shouldn't say "original master tapes" maybe? And shouldn't price shouldn't be so high etc.remastered cd's say Original master recording.

I fully agree with you. I have som e MoFi releases and they all sound awesome. It doesn't matter if there's a DSD link in the process, if that translate in audio awesomeness.

Well, that's good to know. Thanks, Paul.

Concur 1000 percent. For the people screaming about the price. Well that really makes no sense. Oh I guess it does for say your first MOFI purchase. But after that, well it really does not make any sense. The 1st MOFI they were pleased with and so pleased they kept buying them. So what is the issue? They bought their 1st MOFI for what ever price. Loved it enough at that price to buy more. Period. Thinking, playing a master tape 20 times to make a 20 stampers is more expensive .... and thinking this is the cause of the price of the LP? I would say these people never worked in a MFG facility. What work had to be done after the DSD copy was made could have been many days of work ( say the 8 tracks all came for 8 different studios). And be more work then just going all analog with out a DSD copy. Now comes the issue about clarity.. about the process. Again for me a silly concern. Equate this to food. So you go have a very excellent and expensive French dinner. The best dinner you have ever had! You go back for 10 yrs and love everything the chef makes. So one day you ask the chef if all was made from scratch? And if you do and he says... well we do use some canned tomatoes or something you did not expect. Do you think less of the dinner or think, it should be cheaper? OFC not. You just had the best dinner you ever had over and over. IMO. Keep the good work Paul!!

Unfortunately, I cannot get 4xDSD to sound as good as the vinyl I'm recording. I use a RME ADI-2 Pro FS. Last optimization I will try is to use a linear power supply, will it be worth it?

Great take, thanks! The next question becomes once you have this DSD version of the master tape (which is indistinguishable from the original) is the best way of getting this musical information to your speakers by making a vinyl record and playing it? How could it possibly be? Analog purists have been fooling themselves for years, IMHO, and I doubt this will change very many minds but I'll take a SACD or a digital file....

I could not agree more with you when it comes to quality; no one has the ears to distinguish records made from properly made DSD masters and the analog "Master Tape". And it probably costs a lot of money to procure the equipment it take to do this. MoFi could have been more transparent, but look at how butt-hurt all the "audiophiles" are now...

Bravo!!!!!! Perfect way to explain it. That earned a subscription! I still love MoFi.

Thank you, Paul. Clear cut and dry. Too bad we’ve become a society not given to sound reason… today it’s all about ‘how i feel about it’ that makes something right or wrong for many. Subsequently ,your sound reason will definitely fall on deaf ears and result in consternation for many. Anyway, thanks for the sound reason.

I agree with most of what you’re saying Paul but you commented that you did not want to get into the fray is how mobile fidelity presented their vinyl record releases as “Original Master Recording:“ which is called misleading advertising. The real issue is not about the quality of the sound of their recordings, it’s about how much money they could make by charging huge prices based on the statement indicated above. Most of us know that these records sound incredibly good but the cost does not justify value for your dollar. I just think this company is run by arrogant corporate masters. Their customer service with their importation and distribution of certain lines of high fidelity equipment is so bad that it’s a joke. it’s a lot easier to get away with this type of behavior on the Internet now and it’s not only Mobile Fidelity that’s pulling this nonsense. I’ll go with Analog Productions any day head-to-head with Mobile Fidelity because they do get original master tapes which takes a hell of a lot of effort to be trusted with possibly second generation master tapes. Mobile fidelity has not apologized and is trying to weather the storm. Octave’s recording techniques have nothing to do with dishonest marketing and advertising.

Hi Paul, thanks for all the videos, I got in to them during lock down and now they have become part of my daily routine! Due to the sad event yesterday and that the Hifi show at Ascot racecourse has been postponed are you still travelling to the UK this weekend (are you already here?)? I was so looking forward to hearing your equipment, especially the FR30's and perhaps having an audience with the great sage himself!

Well said, Paul!

Deception aside, Mofi can make as many stampers as they want since they record to dsd from the master. Fine. The problem is that their pricing reflects a “limited” amount of records capable of being made available. Analogue productions makes their one stamper from the master tape and that limits production to about 1000 copies. This makes their pricing understandable.

If you transfer a master tape to DSD, unless you are cutting directly from that DSD transfer with no edits, how do you go about editing, applying EQ to the DSD, before cutting in order to keep that transparent 1 to 1 transfer from the master tape without converting to PCM?

I had like 20 DSD discs of data and turned all of them into v0 48khz mp3 files for portable everyday listening. and also the TTAs, Dolby AC3 DVD audios, DTS and most commonly FLACs, all turned into stereo mp3s. downmixing is exciting.. earlier from the get-go I thought having more bass is cool so I included the LFE channel in the downmixing, which is totally wrong...I corrected that after ruining 3 discs...

Funny how alot of the big time mastering engineers completely disagree with his statements 🤔🤔

absolutelly right: objectively AND subjectively !

Paul, Can you make available a sample of a DSD capture and the same on PCM? I'm very curious since you displayed such a negative response to PCM. I appreciate your logic on maintaining the master tape.

The most sensible man on the planet 👏

Yep perfect explanation. Thank You for a common sense take.

Brilliant!

I find SACD to be the superior format for sound quality compared to all.

I would love to see a video discussion between Paul,Bernie Grundman, and Ryan Smith because they have not spoken highly of DSD.

Totally agree 👍😊

Totally agree.

your not wrong, completely agree

Can you not reuse the lacquer disk to make more stampers or can you do the mother father back-and-forth thing so that you can continue to make stampers? I understand how with a one step process you’d have to keep going back to the tape but what about just cutting from tape like they did in the 1970s? Did they have to keep going back to the Master tape or did they do the mother/father back-and-forth thing so they can keep making stampers?

Yep - agree with other people on here: Mofi’s branding has been synonymous with an all analogue chain, reinforced by their ‘detailed’ breakdown of how their vinyl is produced. It probably sounds amazing from DSD - but tell us and we can decide if we still want to purchase them. However, it is nice to hear a defence of DSD to balance things out. Should Mofi reduce their prices? I don’t know - I’ve read a lot about how arduous it still is pressing from DSD, and about the licensing etc…. I cancelled the Thriller order, but am tempted again now the dust has settled. At least we know what we’re buying now!

How is it that Bernie G, Ryan K Smith and Kevin Gray all disagree with this?🤔🤔

Bernie Grundman claims DSD will lose data bits, where analog tape will not.

You only need to cut a new lacquer for each stamper if you’re using a one step process. With more conventional record pressing you can create multiple stampers from a single lacquer

I wonder there is any listening test between DSD64 and 96khz24bit PCM ..being two consumer-ready hi-res formats. I like a 4-minute song stored in rather 96khz AAC encoding of 10MB size than a 200MB DSD wav file...

The crux is in your final words: the way MoFi presented it. MoFi suggested pure analogue with the price tag in excess if 100USD. That is the problem.

But the question is around copying from tape, not a live recording. So, if they made a copy tape of the master tape would that work better than a DSD copy of the master tape?

Apparently DSD would want to scramble the signals that I produce at this point in time. It will take all of my careful work and tear a long frequency hole through my compositions. I have carefully done signal processing, that pushes the harmonics of Carlos Santana at Woodstock, well above the 20kHz threshold that DSD wants to limit. So what is my option, if I am already producing a file that does satisfy my criteria? ..why do I need DSD?

I hear a lot about DSD. How can I buy / download / and play a DSD album via output from my Mac mini? I already have a DAC that can handle DSD. Thanks in advance.

How much would you pay (worth?) for direct download from MoFi these DSD files which were used to press LPs ?

What's unfortunate is that MoFi didn't feel confident enough that people would be ready to pay a premium for the superior re-mastering they did (nobody has disputed the quality of the recordings) and resorted to misleading claims to justify their higher prices

How can a live feed from the microphones captured directly to DSD, then converted to PCM for processing, be better than capturing the live feed directly to PCM?

Thanks to Merging Technologies for providing the best hardware and software to record DSD.

What a wonderful way to put it, yeah I totally agree, nothing wrong with their process but totally wrong on their marketing side, they mislead customers.

I agree that the most responsible thing, in the long run, is to introduce a digital step in the process. The thing is (in my humble, non-expert opinion) once you do introduce a digital step, it makes more since too me to keep the process digital up to the end result. I'd rather listen to a near digital sourced recording from a quality digital source. I really don't see the point in converting it back to an analogue format. The only thing you might gain from this is the tactile and visually more exciting experience that vinyl can provide-which is not trivial and can be just as important as the actual sound quality.

DSD/PCM transfers allow for the 1st generation 1/2” MIXDOWN tapes for each song. Cutting straight from tape means only a 2nd generation production master must be used.

The main thought, why MoFi got screwed comes at 5:47 :) It's perfectly clear that DSD is the only way to go on with stamping records in the future, but this should be told from the very beginning (and come at a lower price, because runs are virtually unlimited again).

Have you ever used a null analyzer to compare DSD with a high-resolution PCM file, so you can hear how much difference there is?

What has been very interestingly telling in all of this is to watch older reviews of various MoFi pressing recorded before the DSD step was known. When the review compared the new MoFi One Step to other relapses they regularly found them to sound inferior. Even actually using the word "analog" to describe the other records in comparison. Or something like "more like what you expect from a record". Reviewers were actually catching that MoFi was using digital even though MoFi was not admitting it. So the reviewers were stuck trying to find ways to describe the inferior digital sound in ways as if expressing more of an analog failure.

That wiping off of metal oxide from each play of tape… is that significant, what’s the life expectancy or acceptable play number of tape?

What you're saying re live vs playback is true however I have had the privilege of spending (too) many hours at various recording studios including Abby Road and Olympic in my 20s /30's and used to try my hardest to detect differences between live and pb coming off 24/48/64 track interlocked machines and I swear I could not hear ANY difference. I'm sure there would be a difference if the signal was measured by a scope but to my ears there was none. So like you say, the reproduction cannot be more faithful to what the artist indended

I wish all records that were cut from digital files used DSD as well. But yeah they hid that step and avoided telling people about it. Cutting from DSD is probably going to be the only way to get vintage records while being as close to the original source. But that doesn't mean they should stop cutting records from the analog masters either.

So Paul after all the MOFI controversy with DSD and your kind explanation to help us all understand this better do you feel this has been played out far too dramatically in the end? I will still enjoy and continue to enjoy my MOFIs and not get so hung up on the way they have chosen to produce outstanding recordings. Like Tevya the milkman in Fidder On The Roof kept saying "Tradition" he too had to and DID accept change. Thank you.

Did they market their stuff as only analog? I know very little about them obviously. I remember seeing their albums in record stores many years ago but never bought any because of the prices.

Paul, the word you were looking for and did not find is lacquer. The "lacquer". is cut and mothers and stampers are made from that. The stamper is not cut from the tape. So you do indeed get more than one stamper out of the single perfect pass of a master tape. Sorry if this seems like nothing, it seems like more stampers available to me. Anyway the issue with MFSL is that they lied, and it's not with their DSD digital process. Honesty is the RIGHT WAY to do buddy.

What is wrong with making a high quality tape copy? As far as I understand quality loss would be minimal, negligiblely so in the final vinyl copy.

I had done before using my RME dac. I had run comparison in between FLAC version of the music running at 192khz and 384khz vs DSD64 and DSD128 version, and it's devastating humiliation in cons PCM. DSD is the close you can get to real live music.

Whoa now, Paul. We all know that MoFi is altering the EQ and adding filters (de-esser) after the DSD transfer. And we all know that no DSD editors exist. So in MoFi’s case specifically, they had to convert to PCM to perform the EQ and filtering. You just stated that PCM can be heard “every time”. I feel that you should have addressed this fact as part of your video here. And I’m not seeing enough mention of this fact in the comments. I kind of feel like you’ve added to some of the confusion instead of clarified anything objective.

Mofi fiasco opened many eyes to the beauty of digital.

So Paul just for clarification are you saying all of Octave Records new vinyl pressings are coming from a 100% pure DSD master with no, thhhhhp, DXD (PCM) conversion? Just asking for a whole bunch of friends.

Analog tape deteriorates over time, I know this becuse my 1970s maxells that had a lifetime warranty started flacking off lets face it its rust on a thin plastic film So I belive the purest way to make a master is live cutting. Then only make a limited supply of high grade lps. The lps going to out last the tape. My 70s lps still play now a way to track the grooves and pick up the sound waves from the grooves could be done with 3 lasers this feeds into an analog amp, then boosted to a system to hear. Between the guys drums to the sound youve got fewer steps and chances to blow its orignal sound. I belive somone made a laser stylist and record player, I think it was B&O and it came out in the 70s. Last point is tosslink and why wasn't a toslink type cable used for HDMI Insted of using copper wires. FIBER OPTICS can transfer more information then copper wires and 8k would be no problem.

Tape or DSD as master, which one better?

For one thing.....it's not the 'real' master, but a first gen master dup. And I agree with Paul, you really think even a first gen master dup should be subjected to repeated playing when they need another stamper? I think not.......get it on DSD, mix it right and it's captured digitally for perpetuity.

Here's the dirty little industry secret: Most of the SACD's are pcm because of editing. Also, many AAA vinly records are also pcm and not AAA because a digital delay was used instead of an analog delay to the cutting lathe. So, there ya go. It had to be said.

Dsd cant you take the orignal recording Thats limited in its bandwidth and use the harmonics to give a wider bandwidth then the tape had thats true to the orignal sound. Might be worth a try, and you can use the DSD formate to experiment with as a copy.

By the time DSD can be improved, they'll have invented Startrek-like Holodecks, from which bands from the past can be brought back to play live in holographic studios and make brand new [simulated] analogue recordings onto [simulated] analogue tape!

I must appreciate PS Audio(Mr Paul) for taking this stand in this debate,that preserving the pristinity of the master tapes is Paramount. Most people want to just own 'Pure Analog' vinyl, even if it may demonstrably be almost the same sound as a good DSD,just for the sake of it so they can OWN it. I think it is selfish of those people,as they know it WILL degrade the Masters.

Bingo !

Condolences to the Royal Family, God bless them all at this sad time

l've got 80's vinyl that was not only done using PCM, but a low-grade version of it, and those records still sound amazing! So l don't know what the big deal is anyway.

Paul, mixing up his mastering of their vinyl records with MOFI is a huge mistake! why oh why Paul has not taken the time to listen to both Bernie Grundman and Ryan Smith explain the differences in working with digital and analog is crazy! Paul, go listen to the interview - find out what actually happens when mastering from a master tape. Equating a DSD driect recording to what MOFI is doing is ludicrous. Reading the ignorant comments that have now been perpetuated by someone who speaks about a process - taking the master taoe and converting it to DSD, without knowledge is really sad. As far as who is in the know about mastering projects it is like Paul being an ant against Grundman who is an elephant. Trying to make this about just setting up a master and then transfering it to DSD without having a PCM step is not what has been happening - Paul should know it and if he doesn't it is high time he research more about what really happens when you have the raw recording. I am so sad to see so much misinformation on this subject when the truth is out there and can be watched to understand the real process. How many people watch Paul but don't have a clue about Chad Kassem's Acoustic Sounds and their process is astounding!

Maybe, I’m missing something here. If the master copy is DSD (regardless of where it originally came from) and making a vinyl copy is that much trouble, I would rather have a good quality CD or Blu-ray copy since it’s all digital from master to end product. I was also informed that vinyl has to be substantially compressed due to its limitations. Hopefully, I explained my point of concern.

What flummoxes me about the DSD recording process, is that it has to be converted, PCM, or analog, in order to mix ,if its being done digitally then PCM I believe. so then converted back to DSD for the final file the customer purchases. So how does the DSD advantage hold up? I accept Paul's advocacy that it does, but something doesn't add up for me or I am misunderstanding what's going on with Octave's recordings

I’m still amazed how many people don’t understand the basic reason why mofi were in the wrong. Quality was never the issue, it was them lying to their customers and overcharging as a result.

I don't have any problem with the MoFi process. My problem with MoFi is that they strongly _implied_ that it was a full analog process, even if they didn't outright say so. But still, if they're making vinyl, I'd rather they make, say, a 15ips tape copy of the original master tape to work from (Intervention Records does this, I think). If I'm going to listen to analog like vinyl, the whole point to me is to keep it _all_ analog. If there's a DSD step, I'd rather listen to that!

The MoFi thing is only an issue because some in the vinyl community that have spent thousands of dollars on equipment, think they are audio experts and can hear a flea fart have egg on their faces. Because god forbid they listen to anything digital because they are purists! When in actuality MoFi will have the last laugh when these masters are no longer playable and they have the most pristine copy. And those asking for transparency…hmmm. I think there are other more important “organizations” that we should be screaming for transparency from instead of a record label.

Anything above 150 Khz would be picking up the radio stations nearby, not the actual signal from the microphone/instrument. Therefore, 150khz x 2 x 64 = 19.2 Mhz DSD would be my personal way to go, if I was to create a Master copy in DSD. There is no technical limitation for doing so, just psychological limitations. Is it overkilled? It must be, it is a master copy.