sullis02

Not quite. Stereo Review had a distinct 'objectivist' line running through it, via e.g. Tom Nousaine and David Ranada. Blind tests were not verboten/ignorantly dismissed as they are at TAS.

There is a 96/24 download available from ProStudioMasters.com. It purports to be the 2012 remaster. However, based on comparison to the '12 download vs '16 download gif in the article above (e.g., from ~4'40 to the end in Red Rain -- almost looks like phase inversion?) the ProStudioMasters appears to be the 2016 remaster. Josh, perhaps you could inspect/confirm? I'm attaching a picture of ProStudioMasters Red Rain waveform.

After years of using a laptop + external drive + HDMI to play my collection, in 2017 I turned an old (vintage 2010) spare Dell desktop into my dedicated 'music server' by installing a used Gigabyte ATI Radeon HD 4550 PCIe card I found on ebay for $25. It has an HDMI output. The Dell's OS is Win 10, 'storage' is a pocket-sized 2TB WD external drive connected to the Dell via USB, using foobar2k playback software with the WASAPI output plugin for bit-perfect data transmission to my AVR, which does any necessary decoding (e.g. of DTS). The Dell is networked and I control foobar2k wirelessly from a tablet running the 'foobar2000 controller" app from the Google Play store. This setup plays every multichannel format I've thrown at it short of DSD (by choice; I always store DSD as PCM files).

*Negative* audiophile fluff about MQA like that Audiobacon piece are about as credible as MQA marketing fluff. There's no solid evidence I know of that indicates MQA will either impart or remove 'warmth' or 'density'...or any clearly audible difference at all, for that matter. (Same for 'oversampling done with software', a pretty broad brush category)

LOL! Good one! Thanks, I needed a laugh.

Talk about your 'cargo cults'......Hoffman's place fits the bill. Diament did most of his work back in the 80s when he was one of Atlantic records' few in-house remastering engineers for the new CD medium. No doubt some consider those 1st gen CDs the 'best sounding' (though for giggles one may always read a Hoffman thread and see how quickly such 'consensus' turns to mush) but rest assured that it's far from a universal opinion. And again, having 'some idea what good sound is' doesn't protect you from all the usual sighted biases nor does it automatically validate your cause/effect beliefs. If wav 'sounds better' than flac to old Barry, proof doesn't come from the ability to make a nice sounding record. We aren't accepting such specious arguments from authority for MQA 'sound' -- Bob Stuart after all is a highly respected name in audio -- so why accept those sort of argument for Barry Diament's claims?

So? One can be a decent (re)mastering engineer and still hold all manner of ridiculous beliefs about digital audio. Promoting stuff that in fact won't make any audible difference, obviously won't make your work sound worse.

Aww, c'mon, TCA, if you're gonna send posts to the cornfield for snark, at least make a clean sweep of it. Yours too.

As regards matters relating to digital audio, Barry Diament is at best a well-meaning victim of Dunning-Kruger, or at worst a hopeless high-end hack.

No, just rebutting 'fake news'. something I hope we have gotten used to doing now, it being our new duty as citizens. Wgscott in fact got a fair hearing on HA, and the vast majority of his posts aren't even 'Recycle binned' (where they'd still remain visible too). He just gave up when he was challenged by the HA TOS.

The only actual benefit of HDCD, if any, was the relative (for its time) high quality of Pacific Microsonics (Johnson and Pflaumer)'s ADC. Which itself isn't anything that could not have been done by others. The rest was really all unnecessary marketing nonsense. And if you didn't have an HDCD decoder for the discs, it was potentially bad (if peak-extension was used) unnecessary marketing nonsense. 16-bit CD already had ~96 dB of dynamic range available to it, and mastering engineers already weren't utilizing it.

Why would they? Wilson's is a remix, starting from multitrack master tapes. The MoFi is a remaster, starting from the two-track master tapes. A more apples-to-apples comparison would be to the 'flat transfer' and 'archived flat transfer' of the two-track tapes, found as bonuses with the Yes Album surround set. ( I don't give a damn about vinyl.) And count me as one who doe NOT find Wilson's Yes remixes 'uniformly spectacular'. His two channel Yes remixes are all entirely secondary to Eddy Offord's, afaic. They always seem to be missing 'something'. His 5.1 Yes remixes are spotty; Yes Album and Fragile work well, but the rest are all lacking in some way (and Relayer, in particular, is a mess).

To set the record straight (versus erroneous theorizing on this thread), here is what Rob LoVerde himself wrote (on a long-deleted Facebook page) about his mastering process for Mofi's 'Yes Album' (bolding is mine): "Since its release a few years ago, the MFSL Gold CD of “The Yes Album” seems to have created a rather polarized set of opinions among our customers. Some have said that it’s the best version of the album they’ve ever heard, some say they prefer previous versions of the album – and some said they loved our version…that is, until they saw waveform graphics of the audio contained on the disc. This message is being written mainly for them in the hope that I can clarify what seems to be some misunderstanding. When I heard that we had secured the license for “The Yes Album”, I was absolutely thrilled because not only is it an incredibly good album, but one that I grew up listening to quite often. As with all MFSL projects that I work on, I became obsessed with mastering this album correctly. Once the masters had been obtained, I set about auditioning them as I would with any other master tapes. These were in absolutely perfect condition. Everything about them was just as I would hope except one thing: no calibration tones. This is very common in recordings up to the mid-1970s and usually doesn’t represent a serious issue. Unless, that master is Dolby-encoded. Unfortunately, “The Yes Album” was one such instance. As many of you probably know, the interaction between the tape machine’s reproducing amplifier and the Dolby decoder is especially important. Both the output of the tape machine and the input of the Dolby are ideally set to unity gain (zero in = zero out) or “neutral” in order to mimic how the tape was encoded to achieve accurate decoding and playback. “The Yes Album” master tapes were mixed at Advision Sound Studios in the UK and utilize the CCIR playback EQ curve. Given the absence of calibration tones, the puzzle became figuring out what level these mixes were recorded onto the tape at. Enter critical, time-consuming, analysis mode. Rather than bore you, the reader, with a long story of that analysis, I will simply jump to the conclusion. After many hours spent getting (nearly) nowhere, I called MoFi’s analog guru, Tim de Paravicini. To use the typical phrase of saying that Tim has forgotten more about analog than I’ll ever know is flattering, but inaccurate – he hasn’t forgotten a thing. He is the greatest source for knowledge on the subject that I know and is always there to help. Tim informed me that, back then, the UK reference fluxivity standard for recording onto magnetic tape was 320 nWb/m (nanowebers per meter). This standard was actually invented in Germany, but the UK adopted it, as well. However, though they thought they were recording at 320, it was later discovered (by Magnetic Reference Laboratories) that the calibration tapes used in Germany and the UK at that time were actually 290 nWb/m…a difference of about a dB. To help its customers needing CCIR alignment at the true standard reference fluxivity of the day, MRL manufactures a tape they label G320, or German 320. As you can probably figure out, the tones on this calibration tape are recorded at 290 nWb/m. So, now I’ve got the tape machine output level puzzle solved. But, what about the input on the Dolby? Once again, Tim to the rescue. He told me the proper input level setting required for Dolby input when playing back CCIR at 290. Hanging up from my transAtlantic telephone call with Tim, I stepped back into the mastering suite to see what his expert instructions would yield. Unsurprisingly, everything fell into place. After a frustratingly long amount of time, I finally was hearing “The Yes Album” master tapes played back properly, which is immediately apparent if you know what mis-calibrated Dolby decoding sounds like. Once I heard a full playback of the correctly-decoded masters, I determined that the tapes needed nothing more on my part to create a wonderful ORIGINAL MASTER RECORDING. Just straight wire playback of the incredible sounds that Yes and producer/engineer Eddy Offord had put onto tape in 1971. I will now address the main concerns that I’ve heard voiced since our version became available to the public. One concern has been bass content. Some listeners feel that there is simply too much bass on our version. Of course, they have a right to this opinion. I will simply state that the bass quality and quantity on the MFSL Gold CD of this album is a verbatim of the master tape. Nothing added,nothing removed. I liked what I heard and left it the way it is. The other primary concern that has been brought to my attention a number of times over the years is compression. Once consumers began seeing waveform graphics on the Internet, they either changed their previously positive opinions to negative or voiced their opinions based solely on the graphics, never having actually heard the product. I have never, nor will I ever be inclined to apply compression to a MoFi product. The practice of mastering music with full dynamic range intact has been an MFSL cornerstone since the company’s inception in 1977. We have maintained that practice, always. There would be no reason for me to stray from that practice now, and certainly not for a recording like “The Yes Album”. Unfortunately, some consumers believe that waveform graphics tell the whole sonic story. They can be highly informative, if they are understood. Waveform graphics use level to illustrate the basic information of the audio. Since equalization is basically frequency-selective level control, EQ plays a part in waveform graphics, as well. In other words, some have seen waveforms for “The Yes Album” and feel that compression has been applied due to their “thick”, “dense” or “plump” characteristics. That is actually a representation of the extended bass content. In fact, if I had added high-end to the transfer during the mastering process, the peaks in the high-end section of the frequency spectrum would have been exaggerated, causing the treble peaks to rise higher in level and actually causing the waveform to appear more dynamic. I hope by now I’ve explained how waveforms surely don’t replace ears for true audio analysis. I also hope that I have sufficiently explained how this great album was mastered here at MFSL. Of course, I don’t expect to change the minds among our customers that are already made up. But, if I cause even one person to re-evauate how they perceive audio – and how they perceive audio in these modern times using video – then that’s good enough for me."

Very much the opposite.

Threads that privilege science and reason over 'I experienced it, therefore it is true', and take subjectivist sophists like Herb Reichert to task. Btw, you did *read* that CA thread on HA , yes? Even leaving out my (krabapple) posts, the opinions are hardly uniformly negative. One may also cull out the posts that are simply misinformation (like the claim that controversial HA posts are 'deleted' and the user's history scrubbed). So I wonder how anyone could find it dispositive.