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

[b345t]

I noticed on the MOFI site they have added the source information to Thriller.

Michael Jackson - Thriller

Mastered from the original analog master tapes, pressed on MoFi SuperVinyl at RTI, and limited to 40,000 numbered copies, Mobile Fidelity's UltraDisc One-Step 180g 33RPM LP set does for Thriller what Jackson's unforgettable appearance on the "Motown 25" TV special in 1983 did for his career: It...

mofi.com

"Source: 1/2" / 30 IPS analog master to DSD 256"

And I believe they added an extra part at the end talking about the UltraDisc One-Step that was not there before too.

 

[rDin]

Maybe you’re right, maybe thriller has a digital process in recording but please take my word. It’s hard to come to a conclusion only by looking at fft spectogram.

You missed the Quincy Jones comment?

I agree that it is impossible to draw conclusions with certainty from a spectrogram. Only those involved can really know. However, it is possible to draw inferences, which can then be further researched.

 

[Ron Resnick]

This is from the Mobile Fidelity Thriller marketing piece:

MoFi Ultradisc One-Step​

Instead of utilizing the industry-standard three-step lacquer process, Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab's new Ultradisc One-Step (UD1S) uses only one step, bypassing two processes of generational loss. While three-step processing is designed for optimum yield and efficiency, UD1S is created for the ultimate in sound quality. Just as Mobile Fidelity pioneered the Ultra High-Quality Record (UHQR) with JVC in the 1980s, UD1S again represents another state-of-the-art advance in the record-manufacturing process. MFSL engineers begin with the original master tapes and meticulously cut a set of lacquers. These lacquers are used to create a very fragile, pristine UD1S stamper called a "convert." Delicate "converts" are then formed into the actual record stampers, producing a final product that literally and figuratively brings you closer to the music. By skipping the additional steps of pulling another positive and an additional negative, as done in the three-step process used in standard pressings, UD1S produces a final LP with the lowest noise floor possible today. The removal of the additional two steps of generational loss in the plating process reveals tremendous amounts of extra musical detail and dynamics, which are otherwise lost due to the standard copying process. The exclusive nature of these very limited pressings guarantees that every UD1S pressing serves as an immaculate replica of the lacquer sourced directly from the original master tape. Every conceivable aspect of vinyl production is optimized to produce the most perfect record album available today.

 

[Ron Resnick]

This is from the Mobile Fidelity Thriller marketing piece:

MoFi Ultradisc One-Step​

Instead of utilizing the industry-standard three-step lacquer process, Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab's new Ultradisc One-Step (UD1S) uses only one step, bypassing two processes of generational loss. While three-step processing is designed for optimum yield and efficiency, UD1S is created for the ultimate in sound quality. Just as Mobile Fidelity pioneered the Ultra High-Quality Record (UHQR) with JVC in the 1980s, UD1S again represents another state-of-the-art advance in the record-manufacturing process. MFSL engineers begin with the original master tapes and meticulously cut a set of lacquers. These lacquers are used to create a very fragile, pristine UD1S stamper called a "convert." Delicate "converts" are then formed into the actual record stampers, producing a final product that literally and figuratively brings you closer to the music. By skipping the additional steps of pulling another positive and an additional negative, as done in the three-step process used in standard pressings, UD1S produces a final LP with the lowest noise floor possible today. The removal of the additional two steps of generational loss in the plating process reveals tremendous amounts of extra musical detail and dynamics, which are otherwise lost due to the standard copying process. The exclusive nature of these very limited pressings guarantees that every UD1S pressing serves as an immaculate replica of the lacquer sourced directly from the original master tape. Every conceivable aspect of vinyl production is optimized to produce the most perfect record album available today.

“The exclusive nature of these very limited pressings guarantees that every UD1S pressing serves as an immaculate replica of the lacquer sourced directly from the original master tape.” (emphasis added)

Mobile Fidelity apparently reviewed recently this marketing piece because it apparently added the disclosure “Source: 1/2" / 30 IPS analog master to DSD 256"

As a matter of English construction it is questionable, if not misleading, if not baldly false, to state that “the lacquer sourced directly from the original master tape,” when we now know that the lacquer is sourced indirectly from the original master tape because of the now-admitted intermediate DSD digital transfer step.

 

[dminches]

“The exclusive nature of these very limited pressings guarantees that every UD1S pressing serves as an immaculate replica of the lacquer sourced directly from the original master tape.” (emphasis added)

Mobile Fidelity obviously reviewed recently this marketing piece because it added the disclosure “Source: 1/2" / 30 IPS analog master to DSD 256"

As a matter of English construction it is questionable, if not misleading, if not baldly false, to state that “the lacquer sourced directly from the original master tape,” when we now know that the lacquer is sourced indirectly from the original master tape because of the now-admitted intermediate digital transfer step.

Ron, I don’t agree. “Sourced” refers to what they started with. If they had used the term “cut” or “made” it would be different. They are merely stating that they started with the original master tape.

This could be splitting hairs and given what’s transpired in the last week there should be no compromise on the wording they use to ensure transparency, but I don’t have an issue with having “sourced from the original master tapes” along with “…to DSD 256”. I think it is clear what one is getting.

 

[howiebrou]

Not a fan a beef dripping on the roasties, Howie?

I’m a big fan. Unfortunately I normally cook both at the same time. I reserve the beef oil for my Yorkies

 

[Audire]

Ron, I don’t agree. “Sourced” refers to what they started with. If they had used the term “cut” or “made” it would be different. They are merely stating that they started with the original master tape.

This could be splitting hairs and given what’s transpired in the last week there should be no compromise on the wording they use to ensure transparency, but I don’t have an issue with having “sourced from the original master tapes” along with “…to DSD 256”. I think it is clear what one is getting.

Unfortunately, at best MoFi is still making people between the lines to get to the truth. I agree with Ron here, it’s still deceptive. IMO, MoFi needs to be clear, honest, and transparent in their descriptions. It’s really simple to just tell the truth.

 

[dminches]

Unfortunately, at best MoFi is still making people between the lines to get to the truth. I agree with Ron here, it’s still deceptive. IMO, MoFi needs to be clear, honest, and transparent in their descriptions. It’s really simple to just tell the truth.

I agree with 100% transparency but what is unclear about “Source: 1/2" / 30 IPS analog master to DSD 256”?

All I want to know is if it is 100% analog or not. That description tells me what I want to know.

 

[Bergm@nn]

I think it is clear what one is getting.

I think that was obvious when they said ‘limited’ to 40,000 copies.

Or did people seriously think Bernie was going to laboriously set up and mechanically crank out 40 ‘identical’ (debateable) lacquers like a one man production line to be one-stepped?

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, I don’t agree. “Sourced” refers to what they started with. If they had used the term “cut” or “made” it would be different. They are merely stating that they started with the original master tape.

This could be splitting hairs and given what’s transpired in the last week there should be no compromise on the wording they use to ensure transparency, but I don’t have an issue with having “sourced from the original master tapes” along with “…to DSD 256”. I think it is clear what one is getting.

I understand your point of view. It is the statement of “directly” which I believe makes this sentence problematic, or misleading or false.

I am looking at this sentence by itself, in isolation. I am not giving Mobile Fidelity the benefit of the doubt by looking at this particular sentence in conjunction with, or as modified by, the separate DSD source disclosure.

To be very technical about the definition of the word “sourced” — “sourced,” I believe, does not necessarily mean the very first step. In other words a fourth step could be “sourced” from the third step immediately preceding it.

 

[Audire]

I agree with 100% transparency but what is unclear about “Source: 1/2" / 30 IPS analog master to DSD 256”?

All I want to know is if it is 100% analog or not. That description tells me what I want to know.

While you and I can understand what is meant, the uneducated masses don’t have a clue what is meant by the statement. Most probably don’t even know that original vinyl records had no digital in them at all.

In lieu of their deception(s) since app 2008-2022, I would like to see something more direct, like “at MoFi you are not receiving the true or original analogue sound in our vinyl, but a digital rendition of it.” Then they can go on and explain why they think theirs is better.

 

[Bergm@nn]

I understand your point of view. It is the statement of “directly” which I believe makes this sentence problematic, or misleading or false.

I am looking at this sentence by itself, in isolation. I am not giving Mobile Fidelity the benefit of the doubt by looking at this particular sentence in conjunction with, or as modified by, the separate DSD source disclosure.

To be very technical about the definition of the word “sourced” — “sourced,” I believe, does not necessarily mean the very first step. In other words a fourth step could be “sourced” from the third step immediately preceding it.

I’m pretty sure MoFi could easily suggest that sourced can also mean ‘derived from’. That’s the point at which lawyers will disappear into a black hole of legal speak as to the effect and meaning of ‘derived from’ when you put ‘directly’ immediately after it…

 

[bonzo75]

While you and I can understand what is meant, the uneducated masses don’t have a clue what is meant by the statement. Most probably don’t even know that original vinyl records had no digital in them at all.

In lieu of their deception(s) since app 2008-2022, I would like to see something more direct, like “at MoFi you are not receiving the true or original analogue sound in our vinyl, but a digital rendition of it.” Then they can go on and explain why they think theirs is better.

Uneducated masses are spending on Mofi LPs?

 

[Audire]

Uneducated masses are spending on Mofi LPs?

Good point, but probably some do (rich ones) thinking they are better record.

 

[bonzo75]

Good point, but probably some do (rich ones) thinking they are better record.

These rich guys do it for a lot of gear thinking it's better.

The hobby is weird. I bet many who have no experience with Mofi will now buy some because of this just to check if they can hear the difference

 

[Audire]

These rich guys do it for a lot of gear thinking it's better.

The hobby is weird. I bet many who have no experience with Mofi will now buy some because of this just to check if they can hear the difference

Can’t argue with this. I just got back into vinyl last Thanksgiving. I took the advice from some on this forum which labels to purchase. They saved me from making a lot of poor selections. But I did select some very expensive records at times thinking they may be better. Some of those were MoFi but after a few I decided I just didn’t like them - having absolutely no idea why.

I think part of a record label‘s responsibility is to be transparent and teach the uneducated with clear statements.

 

[bonzo75]

Can’t argue with this. I just got back into vinyl last Thanksgiving. I took the advice from some on this forum which labels to purchase. They saved me from making a lot of poor selections. But I did select some very expensive records at times thinking they may be better. Some of those were MoFi but after a few I decided I just didn’t like them - having absolutely no idea why.

I think part of a record label‘s responsibility is to be transparent and teach the uneducated with clear statements.

Oh ok you took advice from the uneducated masses

 

[Audire]

Oh ok you took advice from the uneducated masses

Well for the most part I took the advise of those at WTB. Then I struck out on my own for a few selections. But it helped me learn some - a long way to go yet.

 

[Al M.]

I understand your point of view. It is the statement of “directly” which I believe makes this sentence problematic, or misleading or false.

+ 1

"Directly" is the problem.

 

[dminches]

This is not to excuse MoFi at all since they are guilty as charged, but there needs to be an industry standard as to what has to appear in the advertising and the product itself since 95% of the companies selling records are guilty of either lying or lack of transparency.