Do Mobile Fidelity Vinyl Re-issues Have a Digital Step in the Process?

[dminches]

I don’t know the client protocols of mastering engineers.

By writing “I trust Bernie Grundman” I am saying that I trust him not to pretend that, or abet a client whom he believes is falsely marketing that, a job which he does as ADA is actually AAA.

He did some of the Blue Note 75th anniversary titles. I don’t know which ones other than Sonny Rollins at the Village Vanguard.

I never bought any of these releases but people have always wondered which ones were cut from digital files. I don’t believe the hype sticker or jacket add any clarity but the marketing boasted that they were cut from the original masters.

Is this equally deceptive?

BG did an interview and discussed digitizing many Blue Note titles but it still isn’t clear what was used for the actual releases.

This is not to slam BG in any way. My main point is that the industry as a whole has been re-issuing vinyl, many times saying “mastered from original tapes” but not disclosing if the the LP is AAA or was cut from digital files. The lack of transparency is every where. MoFi was exposed and they need to “open up the books” but they aren’t the only ones.

 

[Audire]

IMO, while I consider MoFi’s actions atrocious and inexcusable, they could (should) turn this around reallly quick.

1. The execs responsible for this should come out and apologize verbally immediately.

2. Take a full page ad out in Stereophile and apologize in writing.

3. Instead of paying a PR firm, give every customer who purchased this Pinocchio Vinyl back their money.

4. Customers shouldn’t have to send back their vinyl.

4. Change their label (and website and other communications) to reflect the truth of what they are actually providing their customers.

A few things could be added, but I consider this a minimum.

 

[hvbias]

This is from another forum:

I was one of the people the Washington Post reporter contacted, after he saw my post about canceling 4 one steps on order. He seemed to have a good grasp of the situation and asked some great questions, some regarding Mike Fremer. The interview lasted over 15 minutes and I sent him some follow up details including the titles I canceled on. I had to look up the titles I had ordered, since it was a while back.

I now realize what a sucker I was for blindly falling into the FOMO frenzy around what I thought would be the ultimate analog experience, even after hearing some of the one step titles I bought didn’t sound that great.

Truthfully I have enough all analog LP’s to last a lifetime. I was an early CD adopter, but once I bought my first high end system, even a cheap technics turntable trounced a good CD player and even my first Wadia Dac.

At the time everyone here in NYC was dumping their vinyl and I bought at least 2500 rock and jazz LP’s at the time, including many MFSL’s, promo discs (some amazing white labels) Japan and European pressings, etc.

This whole distasteful experience has made me realize I don’t need any more LP’s.

I have a good digital front end, and will upgrade my DS to PS audio’s latest Dac when released.

I’m completely done with Mofi/Music Direct and their their marketing BS.

You can see my previous post about how Fremer’s one step digital capture of Paul Simon he made available was far inferior sounding to my Sacd rip of the same title.


Funny thing is I emailed 2 reporters at The NY Times a few days before (with no reply) the Post reporter contacted me.

If Washington Post runs with this at this point I think seriously considering litigation should not be off the table.

 

[XV-1]

He did some of the Blue Note 75th anniversary titles. I don’t know which ones other than Sonny Rollins at the Village Vanguard.

I never bought any of these releases but people have always wondered which ones were cut from digital files. I don’t believe the hype sticker or jacket add any clarity but the marketing boasted that they were cut from the original masters.

Is this equally deceptive?

BG did an interview and discussed digitizing many Blue Note titles but it still isn’t clear what was used for the actual releases.

This is not to slam BG in any way. My main point is that the industry as a whole has been re-issuing vinyl, many times saying “mastered from original tapes” but not disclosing if the the LP is AAA or was cut from digital files. The lack of transparency is every where. MoFi was exposed and they need to “open up the books” but they aren’t the only ones.

Don Was and Blue Note were clear up front that the BN75 titles were all cut from hi rez digital files and released at a cheaper price pf 19.99.
There is and was no deception.

Don realised after the releases the he made a mistake, hence the TP and BN80 releases, which are all analog

Rarities and Reissues: Blue Note Records Turns 75

Fifty-four years after it was recorded, Hank Mobley's immortal Soul Station has become a tale of two LPs. One, the original pressing (mono or stereo), is an artifact, an insanely valuable antique, the object of fevered jazz collectors the world over. The other is a fresh vinyl reissue, cut from...

www.stereophile.com

 

[Ron Resnick]

If Washington Post runs with this at this point I think seriously considering litigation should not be off the table.

A media article propelled by the opinion of a random consumer does not constitute a legally cognizable cause of action.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I have discovered that I have two copies of each of these MFSL Ultra Disc One Steps:

Simon and Garfunkel — Bridge Over Troubled Water

Carole King — Tapestry

Eagles — Eagles

They are for sale on eBay!

 

[Ron Resnick]

If evidence beyond a reasonable certainty is established in court, then other companies can claim they lost revenue because of MoFi’s misconduct. If any of MoFi’s customers state they wouldn’t have purchased MoFi if they had known this now disclosed information, and would have purchased from another Label instead then a lawsuit for damages and punitive damages could be forthcoming IMO. Then again, if other labels are playing the same game then there will be silence …

Did you go to law school over the weekend? Sorry to be harsh, but this is totally inaccurate.

 

[Ian B]

Can anyone actually tell with their ears if a release is DSD or AAA?

I used to work in professional analog-based recording studio, and it was extremely difficult to tell a 2x DSD copy from a 1/2" master. It also makes sense if they use a DSD copy for lookahead instead of a duplicate tape.

If it is the case they use DSD copies, they should explain this on the packaging. But if it sounds good, it is good, and I'd rather have a DSD intermediary than a second gen tape, or PCM lookahead delay.

A couple years ago a lot of audiophiles got in a frenzy that some PCM masters used a JCF Latte converter that maxed at 18 bit/192khz, but sounded awesome. All of a sudden all these guys were screaming they got scared because of the theoretical benefit of a few more bits, and ignoring the fact that the engineer chose that ADC because it sounded the most true to the source. What makes sense to the mastering engineer might not make the best marketing sense.

 

[b345t]

Here is OCD Mikey's take on the story, I wish he wasn't promoting the DAC he sells as much though. Just because it upsamples everything to 4x dsd does not make it the same as the original master tape...

I 100% believe that omitting the information about the DSD process after having those diagrams especially makes the claim ' mastered from the original analog master tapes' misrepresentation of the truth and in my eyes a lie. This is even more of an offense to me when you are obviously selling the vinyl to audiophiles who are especially finicky about what they are introducing into their playback system. To me it is the same as a cable manufacturer claiming a cable is made out of pure silver conductors and then finding out it is pure silver-plated copper.

 

[b345t]

Can anyone actually tell with their ears if a release is DSD or AAA?

I am not even a vinyl listener myself, but that is not the point of this controversy. You cannot misrepresent what you are selling, period. Would you accept a watch you paid a premium for that you thought was 'handmade' only to find out it was factory pressed and just the final screws on the back were screwed in by hand and sold as handmade? It might function the same, hell the factory might even outperform the handmade one. But that is not the point.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

Here is OCD Mikey's take on the story, I wish he wasn't promoting the DAC he sells as much though. Just because it upsamples everything to 4x dsd does not make it the same as the original master tape...

I 100% believe that omitting the information about the DSD process after having those diagrams especially makes the claim ' mastered from the original analog master tapes' misrepresentation of the truth and in my eyes a lie. This is even more of an offense to me when you are obviously selling the vinyl to audiophiles who are especially finicky about what they are introducing into their playback system. To me it is the same as a cable manufacturer claiming a cable is made out of pure silver conductors and then finding out it is pure silver-plated copper.

Thank you for sharing this video. I disagree with OCD Mikey in many aspects.

> Most people into vinyl aren’t into it only to buy these new audiofool represses whoever produces them.

> A company’s decision to use quad dsd because they supposedly know that that is the best medium and not doing it properly as advertised is nonsense to me. It is a financial one imho.

> Digital upsampled to quad dsd doesn’t sound anything like native quad dsd. Been there, done that, got the t shirt thanks. Tried all manner of upsampling software including the most sophisticated HQ Player algorithms. It simply doesn’t.

> Master tape is rarely original master tape. Master tape as most people are buying it is copied from another tape or series of tapes- that is a few generations down from the master at least - the exact process he was criticising in the video.

> Master tape isn’t a vinyl substitute due to tiny comparative catalogue.

> Master tape isn’t a vinyl substitute due to very high cost of acquiring tape vs most vinyl.

> The vast majority of vinyl pressings that I own (usually from 1950s to 1980s) sound infinitely superior to their digital counterparts.

> Quad dsd native recordings aren’t typically available other than for some obscure audiophile labels.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

I am not even a vinyl listener myself, but that is not the point of this controversy. You cannot misrepresent what you are selling, period. Would you accept a watch you paid a premium for that you thought was 'handmade' only to find out it was factory pressed and just the final screws on the back were screwed in by hand and sold as handmade? It might function the same, hell the factory might even outperform the handmade one. But that is not the point.

Exactly right.

 

[rDin]

Can anyone actually tell with their ears if a release is DSD or AAA?

I wouldn't have been able to tell you it was DSD prior to this, but all the MoFi titles I have definitely have a "house sound" that I recognise [edit: for clarity; I'm referring to sound qualities here, not the MoFi EQ] and would now attribute as DSD... And it's a sound I don't particularly enjoy; always preferring an original in comparisons. There's a word I use in conversations with friends when discussing vinyl sound: MAGIC. I'm always looking for the MAGIC in a pressing. You know it when you hear it. For all the good attributes MoFi pressings have, they lack the MAGIC. MAGIC, for me, only appears on AAA pressings.

I've been visually analysing my vinyl rips for some years now and have always be confused/concerned by what I see in MoFi rips. But I had always put that confusion down to my lack of understanding, because, after all, we all assumed OMR meant AAA. Well, [now I know] how to spot DSD in a vinyl rip thanks to MoFi. Silver linings

 

[Ian B]

Thank you for sharing this video. I disagree with OCD Mikey in many aspects.

> Most people into vinyl aren’t into it only to buy these new audiofool represses whoever produces them.

> A company’s decision to use quad dsd because they supposedly know that that is the best medium and not doing it properly as advertised is nonsense to me. It is a financial one imho.

> Digital upsampled to quad dsd doesn’t sound anything like native quad dsd. Been there, done that, got the t shirt thanks. Tried all manner of upsampling software including the most sophisticated HQ Player algorithms. It simply doesn’t.

> Master tape is rarely original master tape. Master tape as most people are buying it is copied from another tape or series of tapes- that is a few generations down from the master at least - the exact process he was criticising in the video.

> Master tape isn’t a vinyl substitute due to tiny comparative catalogue.

> Master tape isn’t a vinyl substitute due to very high cost of acquiring tape vs most vinyl.

> The vast majority of vinyl pressings that I own (usually from 1950s to 1980s) sound infinitely superior to their digital counterparts.

> Quad dsd native recordings aren’t typically available other than for some obscure audiophile labels.

I'm a bit naive about the industry's definition of "master tape" these days, but this has always meant the original master which the record company or artists owns, which sits in a vault and doesn't get repeatedly played. Every single one of these tapes Mikey talks about is at least second generation.

 

[Ian B]

I wouldn't have been able to tell you it was DSD prior to this, but all the MoFi titles I have definitely have a "house sound" that I recognise and would now attribute as DSD... And it's a sound I don't particularly enjoy; always preferring an original in comparisons. There's a word I use in conversations with friends when discussing vinyl sound: MAGIC. I'm always looking for the MAGIC in a pressing. You know it when you hear it. For all the good attributes MoFi pressings have, they lack the MAGIC. MAGIC, for me, only appears on AAA pressings.

I've been visually analysing my vinyl rips for some years now and have always be confused/concerned by what I see in MoFi rips. But I had always put that confusion down to my lack of understanding, because, after all, we all assumed OMR meant AAA. Well, know I now how to spot DSD in a vinyl rip thanks to MoFi. Silver linings

I think that is fair. FWIW, MoFi's house sound has been around for a long time, and it's not really my favorite either. I tend to think of their masters as being that way because of using little or no mastering processing, and occasionally some weird EQ choices. Sometimes the original ME's eq or compression is part of what makes a record, and removing/changing it isn't a good thing.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

I'm a bit naive about the industry's definition of "master tape" these days, but this has always meant the original master which the record company or artists owns, which sits in a vault and doesn't get repeatedly played. Every single one of these tapes Mikey talks about is at least second generation.

Hi Ian,

Exactly - Is actually more like 3rd generation+ because they will likely be taking their dub off the safety master.

I am not anti-tape either - I am well into tape and collect them too.

Best.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

I wouldn't have been able to tell you it was DSD prior to this, but all the MoFi titles I have definitely have a "house sound" that I recognise and would now attribute as DSD... And it's a sound I don't particularly enjoy; always preferring an original in comparisons. There's a word I use in conversations with friends when discussing vinyl sound: MAGIC. I'm always looking for the MAGIC in a pressing. You know it when you hear it. For all the good attributes MoFi pressings have, they lack the MAGIC. MAGIC, for me, only appears on AAA pressings.

I've been visually analysing my vinyl rips for some years now and have always be confused/concerned by what I see in MoFi rips. But I had always put that confusion down to my lack of understanding, because, after all, we all assumed OMR meant AAA. Well, know I now how to spot DSD in a vinyl rip thanks to MoFi. Silver linings

Interesting you used that word - I used the very same word a few pages back to describe my issue with Mofi pressings

 

[Al M.]

Thank you for sharing this video. I disagree with OCD Mikey in many aspects.

> Most people into vinyl aren’t into it only to buy these new audiofool represses whoever produces them.

You must mean most vinyl audiophiles.

"Most people into vinyl" would include all those young and perhaps less young people who fuel the current celebrated "vinyl resurgence", in much greater numbers than traditional audiophiles. That resurgence is mostly based on digital sourced material, and their turntables tend to have USB ports which they often use, so those people don't care about an original analog experience. This is also why I don't think highly of this "vinyl resurgence" that many vinyl lover audiophiles seem so happy about.

Yet certainly, most of those people don't care about MoFi either, analog sourced or not, so in that sense you have a point.

 

[Al M.]

I wouldn't have been able to tell you it was DSD prior to this, but all the MoFi titles I have definitely have a "house sound" that I recognise and would now attribute as DSD... And it's a sound I don't particularly enjoy; always preferring an original in comparisons. There's a word I use in conversations with friends when discussing vinyl sound: MAGIC. I'm always looking for the MAGIC in a pressing. You know it when you hear it. For all the good attributes MoFi pressings have, they lack the MAGIC. MAGIC, for me, only appears on AAA pressings.

I've been visually analysing my vinyl rips for some years now and have always be confused/concerned by what I see in MoFi rips. But I had always put that confusion down to my lack of understanding, because, after all, we all assumed OMR meant AAA. Well, know I now how to spot DSD in a vinyl rip thanks to MoFi. Silver linings

No clue what you are talking about. I enjoy vinyl in my friends' systems too, and prefer it to be AAA if possible for authenticity (otherwise, what's the point), but I find plenty of "MAGIC" in my digital as well.

So I'm not sure about a specific AAA magic. But hey, maybe I'm deaf or crudely insensitive to the finer, more mystically elevated, realms of "magic", who knows.

You can of course justify MAGIC as "I know it when I hear it". But being a bit more specific beyond that would be great.

 

[rDin]

I think that is fair. FWIW, MoFi's house sound has been around for a long time, and it's not really my favorite either. I tend to think of their masters as being that way because of using little or no mastering processing, and occasionally some weird EQ choices. Sometimes the original ME's eq or compression is part of what makes a record, and removing/changing it isn't a good thing.

For clarity, and this is my fault here; I'm not so much referring to the sound mix as to specific sound qualities. It's a little harder to describe, which is why I said you know it when you hear it.