You can hardly blame them. Some mastering engineers are 100% honest about what they do, and audiophile people turn their noses up at it. Same processes and results from other engineers, but because they claim to have done none of these "dirty" things, audiophile people praise them.
It occurs to me that I own a number of MFSL CDs....and in a few cases I also have 'standard issue' versions to compare to. For many, I don't. Perhaps we could crowd source this, and test lore against data. For a given MFSL mastering, decide on a track to compare, and generate a frequency plot for the MFSL and other versions, using a standard FFT setting. I would use Audition to do this; don't know what other applications are out there...
Sean Magee has confirmed today that the vinyl is cut from unlimited 24-bit/44.1 kHz files, not 96 kHz as previously believed.Read his comments here:Code: [Select]http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=8238940&postcount=585
Sean Magee has confirmed today that the vinyl is cut from unlimited 24-bit/44.1 kHz files, not 96 kHz as previously believed.
It could have been cut from 16/44.1 and no one would have been the wiser.
I'm having fun reading... That forum is full of analog-beatle extremists... no matter if God himself tell them that 44.1 KHz are good enough, they'll keep asking for 24/192 'hirez' transfers. or even 'full analogue remastering'.
warped vinyllots of clicks and popsscratchesweird constant noisesnon-fills (still not sure what it is)inner groove distortionpre-echo or print trhoughoff-center labelsdirtfingerprintsSome of the problems reported thus far....
non-fills (still not sure what it is)
Sounds like your usual vinyl record!
The guy who remastered the Beatles vinyl quotes the HA wiki over on the SH forums...http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/beat...12#post-8261615
Some guy just said:"Given the lack of basic understanding of vinyl and the gross misinformed prejudices against vinyl prevalent at Hydrogen Audio I would suggest you use references with at least some credibility here. Not saying you are wrong but you are not going to help your case using such ridiculously bad references."
192/24 down to 44.1 16bit pcm? no they wouldn't, if this was done digitally, with noise shaping etc, how could it. If the conversion to 44.1 from 192 was done in the analog domain...ie analog eq, that would be a different kettle of fish.
As for all analog, there is no doubt that this is superior to digital.
is he making coherent sense?
I do enjoy the Fremer reviews - once he heard it was 44.1kHz, you knew he was going to hate the whole lot. He didn't really need to play them
Quote from: 2Bdecided on 22 November, 2012, 06:52:34 AMI do enjoy the Fremer reviews - once he heard it was 44.1kHz, you knew he was going to hate the whole lot. He didn't really need to play them I learn from that Hoffman thread that Fremer started out as a standup comic....to me, he's still one