Hi Erik,
It relates to the volume of records (total sales) they want to put out. 40,000 for example will be much cheaper (and indeed viable with 1 step) this way.
Do Mobile Fidelity Vinyl Re-issues Have a Digital Step in the Process?
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
Hi Erik,
It relates to the volume of records (total sales) they want to put out. 40,000 for example will be much cheaper (and indeed viable with 1 step) this way.
UK First Love Over Gold. With the caveat that I cannot be certain, that looks digital to me. I wonder whether this is a digital delay line in use, so perhaps the record was "AAA" but going through the DDL results in something like this. Or as per the sleeve above - it was actually digital mastering. Need to research.
Last edited:
This feels like a straw man. In every conversation I've had with friends comparing MoFi to other pressings, I've consistently expressed disappointment with the MoFi and referenced the qualities of sound they have that I find detract from them. The issues I struggled with, while considering these qualities, was that I assumed they were AAA based on OMR strip, so concluded that tape aging was possibly having the effect on sound quality compared to the fresh originals. Now I know better. I recognise you have no reason to believe me.
As I referred, some people have shown dislike for MoFi since long. It happens all the time, particularly in a subjective hobby where we just stand to and analyze preferences. We even have members that dislike any re-issues. In this hobby we can't please any one, it is why there is no absolute "best", although we can try to build some statistics limited to our knowledge.
Perhaps it is not relevant for you, but the main point is that under real blind conditions no one has been able to identify the digital step in MoFi recordings, not being able to separate it from simple mastering and pressing issues. It is why people are selling MoFi sealed recordings. And this was true even before DSD256 , using inferior digital formats Every time they would listen to them they will imagine it written in the gatefold.
People are still reacting mostly to moral and legal aspects of this procedure. But IMHO once the emotion settles there is a lot to be debated about the MoFi saga. Or the audiophile community will simply sweep it all under the rug.
I believe that there are other issues that they, ie vinyl manufacturers, have to deal with today. First is the mastering equipment themselves and lack of talent to cut the masters. Neumann lathes still remain the industry platinum standard but I’m not sure how many are still around and in what condition but these manual machines require skill to deliver. The new cutting lathes are all computer controlled and almost autonomous when working off digital masters. You’re then looking at this horrible, horrible, did I say HORRIBLE heavy vinyl that somehow became standard today, it’s so dead and damp that you’re going to end up with flat lifeless records if they don’t drastically eq the heck out of the master, much easier done in digital without introducing additional hiss and noise when boosting upper frequencies. After all we’re living in the digital age so they’re cooking their sound according to that aesthetic as well. This is now across the industry and not limited to MoFi, while I appreciate their efforts to keep the industry alive you should blame Hobson & Kasem for this horror formulation and their continuous touting of it when I’m sure they’re aware how bad it really is.
david
Last edited:
In order to be able to really appreciate the very obvious superiority of original pressings versus most reissues (there are some anomalies), one has to have a decent system with sufficient discriminative ability to the recording. Systems able to retrieve this recording to recording variation without imparting their own substantial levels of colouration are quite rare. I think that most audiophiles will easily hear and prefer the original 99/100 on a good system, alas 99/100 audiophile systems aren’t able to determine any difference whatsoever.
Ymmv and all that stuff.
IMHO the problem made people upset is not only figuring out that lacquers were cut from digital file but also existence of an ADDITIONAL DIGITAL STEP. People bought mofi reissues thinking they’re buying records cut from tape but now they found out there is an EXTRA digital (A/D and D/A) process never mentioned before. It’s not about identifying analog from digital it’s about ruined sound quality with additional digital transfer.
A dsd A/D-D/A is not transparent, that’s for sure. People want to buy records cut from master tape if the master tape exists and people are also happy to buy records cut from dsd/pcm file if the original master is digital. People just don’t want any additional digital step/process when buying premium priced records of analog recordings.
The proper way to determine if people can identify a digital step, test should be like this:
- A record cut directly from master tape should be played side by side with same record cut from a dsd transfer of master tape (using same equipment)
- After that you play the master tape and ask people which sounds closer to master tape. This kind of comparison can help to determine whether people can identify a digital step or not. There can not be a valuable test without minimizing variables.
As a summary; it’s not about digital step it’s about adding an unnecessary digital step to an all analog recording (besides misleading and deceiving).
Last edited:
IMHO your numbers are an overestimation. I would risk that less than .01% audiophiles own a system that has specific colorations and non linearities that complement the characteristics of some original pressings in a way they sound magnificent with a few recordings and do not do the same to many others.
I respect the people who like and are able to differentiate pressings. But I am not interested in creating a system that focus on characteristic artifacts of stereo sound reproduction and is molded to complement them. I prefer to focus my system on enjoying the music, hiding the electronic and mechanical aspects of stereo sound reproduction and enhancing musical aspects according to my preference, keeping a good degree of accuracy. I would say me and 99.99% of the audiophiles have a similar approach.
Sorry, I do not accept the argument of "something being obvious superior, if you do not see it it is because you are not a skilled listener or never listened to a good system. Also when someone in this hobby needs to claim about something being very rare I always thing about the joke of the only soldier marching in step.
As a sideline, I would remember that in this MoFi debate we are focusing on a few recordings, less than one millionth of the number of titles available from Qobuz.
I am digging the way companies continue to market their technologies. The AKM chip in the Merging DAC has VELVET SOUND. No wonder the DSD256 was used in so many MoFi transfers.
velvetsound.akm.com
I am about to play my SATVV One-Step. I'm waiting for my Io phono to warm up!
TECHNOLOGY | VELVET SOUND | AKM - Asahi Kasei Microdevices
TECHNOLOGY. A faithful re-creation of the original experience, beyond any numerical representation. VELVET SOUND addresses every aspect of sound, delivering an experience that resonates emotionally - beyond the numbers. AKM has developed many new technologies in the name of achieving Real Live...
I am about to play my SATVV One-Step. I'm waiting for my Io phono to warm up!
Does it matter whether the source is tape or DSD of the tape if there is another ADC/DAC step? (This is true at MoFi).
Well, I wouldn't have paid $125 for it after realizing this. It's definitely worth $40-50 though.
This is a spurious assertion, a “straw man” type of argument. You make it sound as if many people have attempted this comparison under “real” conditions and have failed to identify correctly which record has the digital step. But no one has made this comparison.
We’ve all been believing these records are AAA and that there is no digital step. Why would anybody think to listen for a digital step no one believed was there?
As mtemur writes above: “The proper way to determine if people can identify a digital step, test should be like this: - A record cut directly from master tape should be played side by side with same record cut from a dsd transfer of master tape (using same equipment)”
Francisco, your post makes it sound like numerous people have heard this comparison and failed to identify which playback has the digital step. But the implied comparison does not exist (and cannot exist unless mtemur’s conditions are achieved).
Last edited:
Well, but here is the thing… the mastering isn’t on the master tape. I know that sounds weird but that is truth. That’s why there is a different mastering on copy 30,000 than 300 on so many of the old albums with same catalog #. It’s because they call in the cheap night guy to do the represses. Capitol was an exception for awhile because they had tape machines spec’d identically and at all the plants so they applied the same mastering to each with tubed identical equipment. Too bad they have so few good releases.
Last edited:
Was there an alternative you could buy at lower price that was sonically equal/better
A mistake or did they forget to roll over the counter after 2500 lol
Last edited:
I'm sure if I put a few grams of dog shit in your lasagne you wouldn't be able to tell. Doesn't mean you wouldn't like to know before you order or taste it though.As I referred, some people have shown dislike for MoFi since long. It happens all the time, particularly in a subjective hobby where we just stand to and analyze preferences. We even have members that dislike any re-issues. In this hobby we can't please any one, it is why there is no absolute "best", although we can try to build some statistics limited to our knowledge.
Perhaps it is not relevant for you, but the main point is that under real blind conditions no one has been able to identify the digital step in MoFi recordings, not being able to separate it from simple mastering and pressing issues. It is why people are selling MoFi sealed recordings. And this was true even before DSD256 , using inferior digital formats Every time they would listen to them they will imagine it written in the gatefold.
People are still reacting mostly to moral and legal aspects of this procedure. But IMHO once the emotion settles there is a lot to be debated about the MoFi saga. Or the audiophile community will simply sweep it all under the rug.
Be positive. MoFi gave you extra step for free! If only all companies were so generous!
There’s a number of types of upset going on here which are often mixed up together -
1. Dishonesty - ‘I was misled into paying a premium for a product that isn’t AAA’
2. Financial miff - ‘I bought these based on demand exceeding limited supply to flip now or invest and sell later, this debacle has damaged my return’
3. Audiophoolery - ‘I feel embarrassed that my golden ears were fooled by Mofi and before this revelation I was content that these were AAA’
Personally I have the most sympathy with 1. as it’s universally a pretty shit thing to feel cheated and lied to in any kind of transaction.
I have pretty much zero sympathy for 2. as I think records are there to be played and enjoyed. If you turn audiophile records into a trading commodity for profit then I’m afraid you have to accept like any other commodity the price can go up or down.
Its 3 where I think the most angst is for certain audiophiles who believe they have golden ears and purport ‘digital is always a bad thing’ and now have been found out that their claims to be able to spot D anywhere in the chain aren’t credible - just look at the somersaults Fremer is doing right now to try to distract from his former claims.
The purists who without any evidence but rely on belief that AAA universally produces the best audible results are also being forced to question their assumptions or double down on their faith.
Don’t get me wrong, it can be a great way to get a fabulous sounding record - see most of Analogue Productions catalogue for evidence. But equally go listen to another AP release in something like Cowboy Junkies ‘Trinity Sessions’ which was recorded digitally (16/44!) and tell me you don’t think it’s as good as any other AAA AP release. If that doesn’t make you question your AAA faith then frankly you’re lying to either me or yourself.
1. Dishonesty - ‘I was misled into paying a premium for a product that isn’t AAA’
2. Financial miff - ‘I bought these based on demand exceeding limited supply to flip now or invest and sell later, this debacle has damaged my return’
3. Audiophoolery - ‘I feel embarrassed that my golden ears were fooled by Mofi and before this revelation I was content that these were AAA’
Personally I have the most sympathy with 1. as it’s universally a pretty shit thing to feel cheated and lied to in any kind of transaction.
I have pretty much zero sympathy for 2. as I think records are there to be played and enjoyed. If you turn audiophile records into a trading commodity for profit then I’m afraid you have to accept like any other commodity the price can go up or down.
Its 3 where I think the most angst is for certain audiophiles who believe they have golden ears and purport ‘digital is always a bad thing’ and now have been found out that their claims to be able to spot D anywhere in the chain aren’t credible - just look at the somersaults Fremer is doing right now to try to distract from his former claims.
The purists who without any evidence but rely on belief that AAA universally produces the best audible results are also being forced to question their assumptions or double down on their faith.
Don’t get me wrong, it can be a great way to get a fabulous sounding record - see most of Analogue Productions catalogue for evidence. But equally go listen to another AP release in something like Cowboy Junkies ‘Trinity Sessions’ which was recorded digitally (16/44!) and tell me you don’t think it’s as good as any other AAA AP release. If that doesn’t make you question your AAA faith then frankly you’re lying to either me or yourself.
Similar threads
- Sticky
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |