Washington Post article on MoFi vs. Fremer vs. Esposito

All recordings are quantized. With ‘analog’ tape the signal is generated from a stream of magnetic particles which are which are either magnetized, or not ( i.e. 10 or 0). As the tape passes over the head gap these pulses are integrated to produce a continuous signal. Usually with some ‘hiss’ noise. The wider the tape track and the faster it moves it moves the less the noise.

My understating is that these particles, and thus the pulses they cause, vary in size. But the recording itself is NOT a pure analog image of the original signal.

With digital the pulses are all the same size, and are converted to an analog signal electronically.

If there are enough bits, and they are saved retrieved accurately, the only issue is the accuracy of the DA process itself. I am not versed in the latest technology but I understand that is not an issue these days.

Also, I believe, if all the magnetic tape particles were the same size, “analog” tape would be equivalent  to 1-bit digital encoding albeit with a different conversion process.

I would be interested to know (if there is someone out there who can tell us - approximately)

• The number of magnetic particles used to store 1 second of recording studio quality audio (stereo) on tape
• The number of bits used to store 1 second of a studio quality DSD audio (stereo)
• The number of PVC molecules (particles?) that impact the stylus for 1 second of LP audio (stereo)

So that barrel of 100% whale oil that I bought is not 100% whale oil? When I asked they told me that what whale oil in it is 100% whale oil but it was supplemented with a mix of olive, nut, hemp and castor oil. It took that combination of other oils to approximate the burn, look and smell of whale oil so I would not be disappointed. 

It matters not as I was told it was 100% whale oil. I was mislead. I'm contacting my local barrister to file a writ with my local magistrate and get the compensation due me. 

All the best,
Nonoise

I feel like this topic boils down to what the customer was intending to pay for.

It seems that the people that are upset with MoFi are disappointed that the vinyl that they paid for wasn't the result of wholly analog processes.  In my mind, there's two primary reasons for this.  First, they are willing to pay more for an all analog recording than they are for one that includes anything digital.  There's value for them in maintaining the old school process.  Second, they have a believe that  all analog recordings sound better.

What's puzzling to me is that it seems like a lot of people considered the MoFi recordings to be to notch before they were aware of the process used to produce them.  I recognize that there's some intrinsic value in owning an original recording as it's a collectors items that cannot be duplicated.  I don't think that reproductions have any intrinsic sentimental value and the sound quality is the only thing for which they should be judged.  It seems like the sound quality of the MoFi recordings should be the catalyst for opening minds to what is possible.

Audiophiles are funny creatures and I'm sure that there are some that will now be able to hear digital artifacts in the MoFi recordings now that they know that they are not all analog.

A song comes to mind:

There may be something there that wasn't there before
You know perhaps there's something there that wasn't there before
There may be something there that wasn't there before

The guy who wrote the article for the Washington Post has since been interviewed by Michael 45RPM on YouTube, and is available for viewing on his channel fyi.