Always better to be forthright with your customers while trying to make more money.
Do Mobile Fidelity Vinyl Re-issues Have a Digital Step in the Process?
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
Always better to be forthright with your customers while trying to make more money.
Well if you add the beginning of the first sentence you quoted I think the context of the above changes "Although Mofi should have been more transparent about the provenance of its sources..." It downplays the issue and excuses Mofi
IMHO mofi lied to customers or deceived (if I enlarge the limits of politeness).
more importantly they cut lacquers from dsd files and declared that it’s for better sound quality. no it’s not. nobody believes that an “ADDITIONAL” AD and DA conversions make a recording sound better. argument is not about the sound of dsd but an additional step.
mofi used dsd transfer IOT reissue those albums under mofi brand. otherwise they simply couldn’t release those albums cause record companies don’t let master tapes to travel across USA. dsd transfer has nothing to do with sound quality. it simply enabled mofi to reissue those titles and make money.
more importantly they cut lacquers from dsd files and declared that it’s for better sound quality. no it’s not. nobody believes that an “ADDITIONAL” AD and DA conversions make a recording sound better. argument is not about the sound of dsd but an additional step.
mofi used dsd transfer IOT reissue those albums under mofi brand. otherwise they simply couldn’t release those albums cause record companies don’t let master tapes to travel across USA. dsd transfer has nothing to do with sound quality. it simply enabled mofi to reissue those titles and make money.
Last edited:
The only bright spot possibly is a greater transparency in the industry of provenance
i note the recent article on the remixing of Revolver, where the mixing engineer was quite candid about a digital step involved in the remixing
personally I have never been a great fan of reissues , but appreciate they can be hard to acquire, and suffer their own provenance issues eg UK, German, or USA release
its not hard to say what your using as a master, because the record company clearly knows
the problem with MoFi is they pushed a supposed process that suggested/implied exclusivity , and value for money inherent in that, and banked on this, till Thriller proved the deceit with the much larger run ( insiders realised that Sony weren’t releasing the tapes anymore so was just a matter of time anyway)
to use a car analogy it’s like AMG stops hand building engines, and has them built in Some lower cost labour market with robots , but still puts the AMG badge with the engineers signature on the engine ( I am sure they would be good engines, just not the same thing)
some time later we find this out, and people say “ but the engines are good” Yes they are, but they are not “exclusive” and that’s what the AMG badge implied , as now they are mass produced, not hand built .
i note the recent article on the remixing of Revolver, where the mixing engineer was quite candid about a digital step involved in the remixing
personally I have never been a great fan of reissues , but appreciate they can be hard to acquire, and suffer their own provenance issues eg UK, German, or USA release
its not hard to say what your using as a master, because the record company clearly knows
the problem with MoFi is they pushed a supposed process that suggested/implied exclusivity , and value for money inherent in that, and banked on this, till Thriller proved the deceit with the much larger run ( insiders realised that Sony weren’t releasing the tapes anymore so was just a matter of time anyway)
to use a car analogy it’s like AMG stops hand building engines, and has them built in Some lower cost labour market with robots , but still puts the AMG badge with the engineers signature on the engine ( I am sure they would be good engines, just not the same thing)
some time later we find this out, and people say “ but the engines are good” Yes they are, but they are not “exclusive” and that’s what the AMG badge implied , as now they are mass produced, not hand built .
For those of you intently following this MoFi Predicament, I heartily suggest reading the historic piece linked below. It will provide context and background regarding MoFi's thinking and future adoption of DSD as a format and a technology. Do note the names of all those present and be mindful of those individuals who are still with MoFi and what their roles were back in the day.
https://positive-feedback.com/Issue1/MoFiDSD.htm
https://positive-feedback.com/Issue1/MoFiDSD.htm
I never was bothered about digital lineage in the production process of a vinyl record.
I am always more concerned whether the boutique re-issue labels had actual access to the studio master tapes.
Even if the masters are digital, I am not the least perturbed, as I have countless digitally recorded/mastered vinyl records that I greatly enjoy listening to.
I was greatly intrigued how much would be the sonic improvements with the mofi 1-step process.
However, this was tempered by how manically restrictive Sony Music had always been with the movements of their master tapes.
To me, even if the pressing quality were top notch, it is still 2 steps backwards if the re-issue boutique never got access to the master tapes.
Well, I was not impressed with the Mofi 45rpm 2LP release, nor with the 1-step 45rpm boxset.
In fact, the 1-step was greatly inferior against a Singaporean 3-eye pressing.
I found the 1-step missing details, presence, energy and life that the Singapore pressing have in abundance.
The Mofi 1-step does have fuller bass though...
The Singapore 3-eye just simply sound more alive.
An audio buddy suggested that maybe different masters were used for both of them.
I kinda thought that probably he was right, as I also couldn't hear the same energy with all other USA (non 2-eye or 3-eye) pressings that I have on hand. And none of the Abraxas SACD pressings (i have stereo JSACD, the USA paper carton outerbox stereo SACD, the USA transparent outerbox stereo SACD, and the EU paper outerbox SACD and Mofi stereo SACD) all have this same "energy" that the Singaporean 3-eye vinyl have.
Nevertheless, I continued to buy further 1-step releases, including the 2 SRVs. But that was until they changed the vinyl formula to transparent which made them unreadable on my laser turntable (remember it was the Simon and Garfunkel). So I stopped buying for a while, and only picked up again with the Carol King, Muddy Waters, Clapton and all the Eagles.
And then recently, found that same presence, energy and life that I mentioned about on the Abraxas Singapore 3-eye pressing.
And it came from what I thought would be 2 unlikeliest of pressings - the 1981 Sony USA in-house half speed remastered, and the Japanese pressed, hybrid SACD in the 7" cardboard packaging.
I immediately went to buy extra copies.
So it seems my Singaporean 3-eye pressing wasn't a one-off. The half-speed have that same "energy" too.
They both must had been derived from the same masters.
And they are finally getting it right with the new Japanese 7" digipak SACD releases.
The Tapestry, The Stranger, and Toto IV re-issues in 7" digipaks sound fantastic too.
I am always more concerned whether the boutique re-issue labels had actual access to the studio master tapes.
Even if the masters are digital, I am not the least perturbed, as I have countless digitally recorded/mastered vinyl records that I greatly enjoy listening to.
I was greatly intrigued how much would be the sonic improvements with the mofi 1-step process.
However, this was tempered by how manically restrictive Sony Music had always been with the movements of their master tapes.
To me, even if the pressing quality were top notch, it is still 2 steps backwards if the re-issue boutique never got access to the master tapes.
Well, I was not impressed with the Mofi 45rpm 2LP release, nor with the 1-step 45rpm boxset.
In fact, the 1-step was greatly inferior against a Singaporean 3-eye pressing.
I found the 1-step missing details, presence, energy and life that the Singapore pressing have in abundance.
The Mofi 1-step does have fuller bass though...
The Singapore 3-eye just simply sound more alive.
An audio buddy suggested that maybe different masters were used for both of them.
I kinda thought that probably he was right, as I also couldn't hear the same energy with all other USA (non 2-eye or 3-eye) pressings that I have on hand. And none of the Abraxas SACD pressings (i have stereo JSACD, the USA paper carton outerbox stereo SACD, the USA transparent outerbox stereo SACD, and the EU paper outerbox SACD and Mofi stereo SACD) all have this same "energy" that the Singaporean 3-eye vinyl have.
Nevertheless, I continued to buy further 1-step releases, including the 2 SRVs. But that was until they changed the vinyl formula to transparent which made them unreadable on my laser turntable (remember it was the Simon and Garfunkel). So I stopped buying for a while, and only picked up again with the Carol King, Muddy Waters, Clapton and all the Eagles.
And then recently, found that same presence, energy and life that I mentioned about on the Abraxas Singapore 3-eye pressing.
And it came from what I thought would be 2 unlikeliest of pressings - the 1981 Sony USA in-house half speed remastered, and the Japanese pressed, hybrid SACD in the 7" cardboard packaging.
I immediately went to buy extra copies.
So it seems my Singaporean 3-eye pressing wasn't a one-off. The half-speed have that same "energy" too.
They both must had been derived from the same masters.
And they are finally getting it right with the new Japanese 7" digipak SACD releases.
The Tapestry, The Stranger, and Toto IV re-issues in 7" digipaks sound fantastic too.
Last edited:
Some new news, dated today, essentially a summary of the one in Illinois …
Mobile Fidelity Lawsuit Update
Mobile Fidelity Lawsuit Update
Lawsuit #4 filed in California
The Complaint
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
THOMAS MOLINARI, Plaintiff,
vs.
AUDIOPHILE MUSIC DIRECT, INC.; MOBILE FIDELITY SOUND LAB, INC.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:22-cv-05444-KAW
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
I read through the complaint and it is really well written. Very focused and to the point.
The Complaint
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
THOMAS MOLINARI, Plaintiff,
vs.
AUDIOPHILE MUSIC DIRECT, INC.; MOBILE FIDELITY SOUND LAB, INC.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:22-cv-05444-KAW
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
I read through the complaint and it is really well written. Very focused and to the point.
...maybe it only impacts "Mile" Davis. That's weak for such an expensive litigation, if you ask me (you didn't). Tsk, tsk...
Just When You Thought It Was Safe the Washington Post Comes To the Rescue
The article is long. I won’t bore you with Tracks 1-5, but do scroll down to Track 6 which highlights Michael Fremer, Mike Espositio and MoFi
Does the perfect sound exist? Vinyl records rebound in digital music age - Washington Post
The gift that keeps on giving.
The article is long. I won’t bore you with Tracks 1-5, but do scroll down to Track 6 which highlights Michael Fremer, Mike Espositio and MoFi
Does the perfect sound exist? Vinyl records rebound in digital music age - Washington Post
The gift that keeps on giving.
Robert Harley's article is particularly apologist in that he misrepresents the 3 justifications in his own article. The first two reasons he gives for why MoFi LPs sound better than DSD: that MoFi sources the best master recording, and that they make careful track by track adjustments would improve both a DSD release, and an LP.
Here we have an opportunity to release the highest quality version on DSD, not just an LP, and they choose not to. This is one of my personal pet peeves on this brouhaha.
Then finally he states that consumers are not likely to have D/A conversion as good as the studio, yet the same is true for most consumer vinyl playback systems.
These misrepresentations are clearly meant to bolster his argument and show that he is not being a straight shooter.
The only bright spot possibly is a greater transparency in the industry of provenance.
I quote from awsmone above but I disagree, the bright spot is in most of the MoFi reissues, I have purchased quite a few, and except for the recent Eagles One step reissues, I have always found them bright. The Cars and B52's reissues are almost unlistenable. I always suspected there was digital in the chain but the recent revelations have confirmed it.
I feel that the dark spot is in the deception of MoFi as a company, which, while not outright lying, have certainly been deceptive in their advertising.
I for one will never again purchase a MoFi reissue unless they are confirmed as all analogue.
I quote from awsmone above but I disagree, the bright spot is in most of the MoFi reissues, I have purchased quite a few, and except for the recent Eagles One step reissues, I have always found them bright. The Cars and B52's reissues are almost unlistenable. I always suspected there was digital in the chain but the recent revelations have confirmed it.
I feel that the dark spot is in the deception of MoFi as a company, which, while not outright lying, have certainly been deceptive in their advertising.
I for one will never again purchase a MoFi reissue unless they are confirmed as all analogue.
Our davidavdavid informed me that Mobile Fidelity has, once again, changed the visual workflow description of its Ultra Disc One Step Process:
Note that the representation of a reel-to-reel tape as the first step has been removed completely.
Note, more importantly, that any reference to the DSD conversion step also has been eliminated! How does hiding — once again — the digital conversion step fulfill Jim Davis’ promise of transparency going forward?
Note that the representation of a reel-to-reel tape as the first step has been removed completely.
Note, more importantly, that any reference to the DSD conversion step also has been eliminated! How does hiding — once again — the digital conversion step fulfill Jim Davis’ promise of transparency going forward?
Last edited:
Yeah, what's the point here? Why change the graphic? What's the context? None of the verbiage has changed, and it's not like the previous iteration of the graphic has not been seen, moreover it has been screen-captured and saved for posterity.
No Reel-to-Reel? No mention of the DSD transfer in the diagram? Re-writing history in this digital age of ours nigh on impossible. #laugh #cry
No Reel-to-Reel? No mention of the DSD transfer in the diagram? Re-writing history in this digital age of ours nigh on impossible. #laugh #cry
Ron,
The Ultra Disc One Step Process just refers to the cutting and lacquering process, they just removed the source specification in the description of the process. What is your point?
See Michael Hobson’s answer to my question: “Do you think you can take an analog master tape, convert it to DSD, and cut a record from that DSD that is better than the record you could cut from the analog master tape?”
www.whatsbestforum.com
Michael Hobson Interview: Nothing but the Truth
Please enjoy my interview with Michael Hobson, Founder of Classic Records, on October 14, 2022. Please subscribe to the What's Best Forum channel on YouTube.
www.whatsbestforum.com
Isn't the inclusion of a 30 ips - to - DSD 256 (as on the new MJ Thriller coming out later this month) an additional step, which would make it a two-step? What's with the puffery? I'm like Robert Plant; I'm thru with the two-step.
BTW, how do you like your Bardo? I've been very curious about that table.
Not really. If you look up the record manufacturing process, most of the information describes cutting, plating, lacquers, stampers, etc, and not what happens before that since it is variable with regard to any sound processing in the mastering process.
MoFi added a picture of the "master tape" in their process which people took literally as "nothing happens between the master tape and the mastering/manufacturing process." MoFi of course did nothing to dispel this and lied in certain instances.
That's why their latest diagram of the process completely removes the source from the picture - in my opinion that makes the diagram more in-line with other descriptions of the record manufacturing process.
Similar threads
- Sticky
