Do Mobile Fidelity Vinyl Re-issues Have a Digital Step in the Process?
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
The estimated claims for a 5% refund or a full refund are about $301,000. Refunds of sales tax and shipping are estimated to be $48,000. Plaintiff’s attorneys are asking for $290,00 in legal fees. Defendants’ legal fees are unknown.
Some class members filed more than one claim, so the actual number of class members is 1,002. The average number of albums per class member was 13.
Some class members filed more than one claim, so the actual number of class members is 1,002. The average number of albums per class member was 13.
Latest update October 30, 2023.
The court asked the plaintiffs’ attorneys for the following information by November 13, 2023.
The court asked the plaintiffs’ attorneys for the following information by November 13, 2023.
- Case law supporting the percentage of claims filed.
- An updated calculation of the monetary value of the settlement.
- The estimated percentage of direct purchasers and indirect purchasers.
- The amount paid to date for administration of the settlement.
- An updated calculation of attorney’s fees.
Though I have three Mobile Fidelity Ultradisc One Step 45 RPM sets (Santana Abraxis, Marvin Gaye What's Going On and Crosby Stills and Nash), I was not able to participate in the class action suit as I live in the UK. I wanted to participate as I always felt that digital processing of vinyl resulted in recordings that were inferior in that the artificial analogue did not sound as real as real analogue. A recent test I ran however, both supports this view and also doesn't.
I tested two of the above Mobile Fidelity Ultradisc's above (Marvin Gaye and CSN) against the best analogue "One steps or equivalent" that I could find.
From Deutsche Grammophon, der offizielle shop (where I had been sourcing The Original Source records) I bought a "Mastercut Record" (actually produced by Supersense in Austria) "hand-cut" acrylic/lacquer of Marvin Gaye (What's Going On), released on 31 Oct 2023.
From The Electric Recording Company I was able to secure a pure analogue from the master tape (copy no. 297/450) of Crosby Stills & Nash, also just released from orders taken last month.
I had three fellow enthusiasts join me for the Marvin Gaye comparison. First we listened to side one of the "hand-cut" Supersense acrylic at 33.3 RPM. I then turned down my amplifier two notches so that the MoFi (which is recorded louder) would be more or less the same volume, and set the speed to 45RPM. I played the first two songs (all of side one). Thereafter I asked each listener whether they preferred the first, the second, or both the same and why. The first listener, who listens to digital predominately, preferred the MoFi because the voice was clearer, instruments more distinct as well, more hi fi and what he would play to a potential buyer if I wanted to sell my stereo. The second listener, who also plays mostly digital currently, preferred the pure analogue acetate, saying it was more real sounding. The third listener, plays analogue records, thought that the digital-to-vinyl MoFi would sound terrific on his system and the difference wouldn't be perceptible, however he said on my system that the acetate definitely sounded better, more air around the instruments and singers, more relaxed listening to it. I too felt that the acetate sounded much better, that with the MoFi you were drawn to the various hi-fi aspects of the sound reproduction, that the voice and instruments sounded etched, almost harsh and that I would want to turn off my stereo after listening to a side or two at most, whereas with the pure analogue acetate, I could just relax and get lost in the music.
The CSN comparison was not as clear cut. I had only my wife with me (not interested in hi fi, no bias and calls it as she hears it). First we played the ERC version. I was disappointed as I was hoping it would blow me away but in fact it sounded just like the 1969 release sounded when I first heard it (then, the process was the same as it is now with ERC so it shouldn't sound different). When Stephen Stills sings "it's my heart" it comes from right of centre, and as he holds and extends "heart" it sounds as if he is turning his head to the right away from the microphone so that the word moves back to the right and then fades into the background. When the person on the left of the microphone is singing in Spanish, his head is three-dimensional, the illusion picked up by micro movements perhaps?
The MoFi Ultradisc One Step was then put on. The volume had to be dropped a couple of clicks as before to make listening levels the same. What I noticed is the voices were clearer, a bit more forward and easier to discern. The instruments were clearer as well. That part with Stephen Stills singing "my Heart..." doesn't sound as if he turns his head from the microphone to the right and his voice picked up in the distance reflecting from the back of the studio, instead it sounds like his head is stationary and the volume of "heart" just turned down. The Spanish singing too is not three-dimensional, but sounds as if picked up from a speaker broadcasting it left of microphone, not a person. My wife, she said the MoFi recording is clearer, they sound different but would not say one was better than the other.
MoFi tells me (email response) that Marvin Gaye was 1/4"/ 15 IPS Analogue Master to DSD-64 (bit stream at 64 times CD sampling rate) to analogue console to lathe (where is the DAC?) one-step. The MoFi Ultradisc of CSN however, is 1/4" / 15 IPS Analogue Master to DSD-256 (much faster than the Marvin Gaye), to analogue console to lathe (again, where is the DAC). On the surface, one could argue that whereas DSD-64 wasn't sampled fast enough to challenge analogue, DSD -256 is. There is also an often reported story that the original recording and mastering of CSN was not great, as evidenced by a bland presentation on ERC and therefore aspects of it could be improved in the digital realm. Whatever the reasons, I must admit that the DSD-256 modified CSN did sound better than the ERC pure analogue recording generally, but in no way did the MoFi DSD-64 modified Marvin Gaye sound as pleasant as the pure analogue Supersense acetate.
I tested two of the above Mobile Fidelity Ultradisc's above (Marvin Gaye and CSN) against the best analogue "One steps or equivalent" that I could find.
From Deutsche Grammophon, der offizielle shop (where I had been sourcing The Original Source records) I bought a "Mastercut Record" (actually produced by Supersense in Austria) "hand-cut" acrylic/lacquer of Marvin Gaye (What's Going On), released on 31 Oct 2023.
From The Electric Recording Company I was able to secure a pure analogue from the master tape (copy no. 297/450) of Crosby Stills & Nash, also just released from orders taken last month.
I had three fellow enthusiasts join me for the Marvin Gaye comparison. First we listened to side one of the "hand-cut" Supersense acrylic at 33.3 RPM. I then turned down my amplifier two notches so that the MoFi (which is recorded louder) would be more or less the same volume, and set the speed to 45RPM. I played the first two songs (all of side one). Thereafter I asked each listener whether they preferred the first, the second, or both the same and why. The first listener, who listens to digital predominately, preferred the MoFi because the voice was clearer, instruments more distinct as well, more hi fi and what he would play to a potential buyer if I wanted to sell my stereo. The second listener, who also plays mostly digital currently, preferred the pure analogue acetate, saying it was more real sounding. The third listener, plays analogue records, thought that the digital-to-vinyl MoFi would sound terrific on his system and the difference wouldn't be perceptible, however he said on my system that the acetate definitely sounded better, more air around the instruments and singers, more relaxed listening to it. I too felt that the acetate sounded much better, that with the MoFi you were drawn to the various hi-fi aspects of the sound reproduction, that the voice and instruments sounded etched, almost harsh and that I would want to turn off my stereo after listening to a side or two at most, whereas with the pure analogue acetate, I could just relax and get lost in the music.
The CSN comparison was not as clear cut. I had only my wife with me (not interested in hi fi, no bias and calls it as she hears it). First we played the ERC version. I was disappointed as I was hoping it would blow me away but in fact it sounded just like the 1969 release sounded when I first heard it (then, the process was the same as it is now with ERC so it shouldn't sound different). When Stephen Stills sings "it's my heart" it comes from right of centre, and as he holds and extends "heart" it sounds as if he is turning his head to the right away from the microphone so that the word moves back to the right and then fades into the background. When the person on the left of the microphone is singing in Spanish, his head is three-dimensional, the illusion picked up by micro movements perhaps?
The MoFi Ultradisc One Step was then put on. The volume had to be dropped a couple of clicks as before to make listening levels the same. What I noticed is the voices were clearer, a bit more forward and easier to discern. The instruments were clearer as well. That part with Stephen Stills singing "my Heart..." doesn't sound as if he turns his head from the microphone to the right and his voice picked up in the distance reflecting from the back of the studio, instead it sounds like his head is stationary and the volume of "heart" just turned down. The Spanish singing too is not three-dimensional, but sounds as if picked up from a speaker broadcasting it left of microphone, not a person. My wife, she said the MoFi recording is clearer, they sound different but would not say one was better than the other.
MoFi tells me (email response) that Marvin Gaye was 1/4"/ 15 IPS Analogue Master to DSD-64 (bit stream at 64 times CD sampling rate) to analogue console to lathe (where is the DAC?) one-step. The MoFi Ultradisc of CSN however, is 1/4" / 15 IPS Analogue Master to DSD-256 (much faster than the Marvin Gaye), to analogue console to lathe (again, where is the DAC). On the surface, one could argue that whereas DSD-64 wasn't sampled fast enough to challenge analogue, DSD -256 is. There is also an often reported story that the original recording and mastering of CSN was not great, as evidenced by a bland presentation on ERC and therefore aspects of it could be improved in the digital realm. Whatever the reasons, I must admit that the DSD-256 modified CSN did sound better than the ERC pure analogue recording generally, but in no way did the MoFi DSD-64 modified Marvin Gaye sound as pleasant as the pure analogue Supersense acetate.
I too own the ERC CSN record. The original recording is not great. However, it does improve as the record progresses. “Helplessly Hoping” sounds as good on this LP as I have ever heard.
Your comments on “What’s Going On” are similar to what I have been hearing from the digitally-sourced MoFi.
Your comments on “What’s Going On” are similar to what I have been hearing from the digitally-sourced MoFi.
Supersense (Deutsche Gramophone shop) still has a few acetates of Marvin Gaye left. I highly recommend getting one if you can live with the cost, special handling precautions and shorter life of such ( assuming you haven’t got the tape and an appropriate R-2-R at home, which would be better still ).
I think what many don’t realize is how close DSD64 genuinely gets to the master tape. I have done work in studios and heard the comparisons. I think the sonic differences you are hearing likely have more to do with tape age/quality and differences in mastering chain and EQ choices.
This may be so, I don’t know, but since the age of the master tape (copy?) of the Marvin Gaye recording is probably the same “tape age” in both cases, such can probably be excluded from possible causes of difference in sound quality between the two.
I agree with your citing differences in the mastering chain. It has long been argued that the more stages/electronics added to the processing chain the more the music is degraded (i.e. analogue tape to minimal analogue processing to cutter head vs analogue tape to DSD64, manipulations in the DSD64 digital realm, and then back to analogue through some sort of DAC, before cutting to acetate, worse if fully solid state with higher-capacitance circuits, aluminium wire etc.).
Another factor is likely the inherent sound quality of the One Step pressing process. That does give MFSL and UHQR an advantage.
An observation. When I worked on the Chesky title New York Reunion, the CD came out very well and was used often for hifi demos. Still, I was a little disappointed we had not fully captured the sound of that amazing session. I ran an analog tape machine at the session however and when the DSD transfer was done for the SACD, the tape was used by Barry Wolifson. The SACD brought back that missing (to me anyway) warmth and natural sound of the session.
If you have New York Reunion, there is a famous photo of McCoy Tyner listening to Stax Lambda headphones. He's listening to the tape.
If you have New York Reunion, there is a famous photo of McCoy Tyner listening to Stax Lambda headphones. He's listening to the tape.
Not quite a comment about digital files for Mo Fi but:
I quite like the sound of some of the Ultradisc One Step pressings of the Eagles albums and recently purchased Hotel California.
Got it home to find two copies of LP1 and nil of LP2.
I emailed the store, and they asked if they could just send me a copy of LP2 so they could ensure that I got the correct one. I agreed (I live 600 miles from the store).
They opened a further two copies of the album and both had two copies of LP1. Zero LP2's out of three!!
Quality control seems a bit lacking for such costly albums. They are $250 each here in Australia so you don't expect to have these issues.
Mo Fi doing their best to bring back the customers!!!
I quite like the sound of some of the Ultradisc One Step pressings of the Eagles albums and recently purchased Hotel California.
Got it home to find two copies of LP1 and nil of LP2.
I emailed the store, and they asked if they could just send me a copy of LP2 so they could ensure that I got the correct one. I agreed (I live 600 miles from the store).
They opened a further two copies of the album and both had two copies of LP1. Zero LP2's out of three!!
Quality control seems a bit lacking for such costly albums. They are $250 each here in Australia so you don't expect to have these issues.
Mo Fi doing their best to bring back the customers!!!
Similar threads
- Sticky
