Mobile Fidelity Analog Vinyl Controversy

[MarkS]

Does anyone know what MOFI actually said about their offering to imply it was a fully analogue process

Earlier I posted the graphic they included with all their analog records showing what they claimed the process was:

I think any reasonable person would infer from this that there was no digital step, even if they did not explicitly state that.

 

[Blumlein 88]

A lie by omission is a lie IMO. Plain and simple that is not a good way to run a company. As to whether there are degrees of misrepresenting your product, we can maybe debate that. I tend to be a bit black and white if there is calculated intent to hide information. In this situation, if MoFi had been transparent they could have been the heroes of audio. Imagine reading, “We use a digital capture from the master recordings, to ensure these original recordings are preserved to honor artists we celebrate.” Something like that might have alienated a few analog idiots who want to hang endangered species heads in their family room, but might have given cred on a site like this to sell to an audience that cares. The truth will set you free.

Why, people here aren't buying LP for superior fidelity. I can see why they just didn't mention it, and they didn't lie about it when asked. In optimum conditions they might have explained why they originally did make the switch to DSD masters. I do not know if it might have lost them a significant chunk of business however. It very well might have. We are talking about 2007, and people were less likely to believe how good digital can be then than now.

 

[Labjr]

No ambiguity there.

"The exclusive nature of these every limited pressings guarantees that every UD1S serves as an immaculate replica of the lacquer sourced directly from the original master tape."

 

[antcollinet]

No ambiguity there.

"The exclusive nature of these every limited pressings guarantees that every UD1S serves as an immaculate replica of the lacquer sourced directly from the original master tape."

View attachment 227520

There is no statement or implication about digital or otherwise there. This diagram is simply illustrating the difference between the 5 step and one step - mechanical creation of tools - processes (Although it looks more like 5 step to 3 step to me)

The source is the original master recording, and that goes to the lacquer. Nothing is said about the equipment that transfers from the master recording to the Lacquer in either case. There must be some machinery that does that and they can easily argue (in court) that they used the highest fidelity process for that.

Unless they have specifically said there is no digital transfer in their advertising/sales/promotional material, then they are (imo) in the clear. They have simply set up a process to get the very best quaility from the master tapes onto the vinyl.

 

[antcollinet]

It appears that there is a class action lawsuit brought against MoFi talking about this. Here’s a link to the actual complaint which is public record. I’m not going to get too caught up in this, because I won’t buy any of the records anyway. But it was kind of shocking to hear.

Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab Vinyl Records Not as Analog as Advertised, Class Action Alleges

A class action alleges Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab has falsely advertised that its vinyl records are sourced directly from analog master recordings and free from any digital mastering.

www.classaction.org

But that is simply a list of complaints from the plaintiffs. Not in itself any evidence that the complaints have any merit.

IMO the idiots here have fooled themselves, and I expect that they will lose the case. Unfortunately they may well take down one of the few companies that can supply them the very best in vinyl recordings in the process.

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

There is no statement or implication about digital or otherwise there. ...

Unless they have specifically said there is no digital transfer in their advertising/sales/promotional material, then they are (imo) in the clear.

How about this (sentences in red, underlined):

Edit: the first sentence sentences

 

[antcollinet]

How about this (the first sentence in red, underlined):

View attachment 227584

We would need to see the question that email was answering (for context).

For example if the cutting process takes the DSD file as input, the statement is correct. Even out of context it is correct, although the context might make it a deliberate muddying of the waters.

More importantly that email is (probably - context needed again) a reply to a particular customer. If that is not part of marketing/sales/promotion then it would only enable a claim by that particular customer - and then only if it was deemed to be misleading info resulting in sale.

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

We would need to see the question that email was answering (for context).

For example if the cutting process takes the DSD file as input, the statement is correct. Even out of context it is correct, although the context might make it a deliberate muddying of the waters.

How about the second sentence in red, underlined:
"We do not use digital sources except in cases where the title's original master was digital itself".

More importantly that email is (probably - context needed again) a reply to a particular customer. If that is not part of marketing/sales/promotion then it would only enable a claim by that particular customer - and then only if it was deemed to be misleading info resulting in sale.

Yes, it is misleading info, big time.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Yes splitting hairs, but a tape source done using a digital copy is awfully close to lying by omission though technically the original tape is still the source and not a digital source from the record company.

I can see some customers being upset. But only because they have mistaken ideas. It you fuel your business with those ideas that is wrong. Yet they do normally a very high quality job and I'd hate to lose them as a source because of this law suit. One of those sausage factory situations. You don't really want to know how things are made. Certainly with nearly all the music so many things are done this purity idea is simply a mistaken mythical belief of consumers.

 

[Deleted member 50971]

Yes splitting hairs, but a tape source done using a digital copy is awfully close to lying by omission though technically the original tape is still the source and not a digital source from the record company.

I can see some customers being upset. But only because they have mistaken ideas. It you fuel your business with those ideas that is wrong. Yet they do normally a very high quality job and I'd hate to lose them as a source because of this law suit. One of those sausage factory situations. You don't really want to know how things are made. Certainly with nearly all the music so many things are done this purity idea is simply a mistaken mythical belief of consumers.

Well stated.

 

[kschmit2]

How about this:

When digital started to be desirable as a recording medium, there were several formats of digital reel to reel recording devices (starting in 1980):

ProDigi and its predecessor X-80 by Mitsubishi and Sony's DASH (Digital Audio Stationary Head).

So how exactly did "Original Master Tape" ever imply that the master would have been analog exclusively?

More on Mitsubishi's ProDigi:

MITSUBISHI ProDigi Digital - Positive Feedback

MITSUBISHI ProDigi Digital Reel-to-Reel Recorders - From X-80 to X-880

positive-feedback.com

MITSUBISHI ProDigi Digital Reel-to-Reel Recorders - Positive Feedback

MITSUBISHI ProDigi Digital Reel-to-Reel Recorders - From X-80 to X-880, Part 2

positive-feedback.com

And a late model Sony DASH:

http://www.broadcaststore.com/pdf/model/10728/PCM-3348.pdf

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

How about this:
When digital started to be desirable as a recording medium, there were several formats of digital reel to reel recording devices (starting in 1980):

So how exactly did "Original Master Tape" ever imply that the master would have been analog exclusively?

Because of this outrageous lie (sentences in red, underlined):

They were using analog master tapes, transfering analog content to digital "mater tapes" with analog to digital conversion (first sentence in red) and were selling the final product as pure analog (second sentence in red), charging premium prices.

 

[kschmit2]

Because of this outrageous lie (sentences in red, underlined):

View attachment 227605
They were using analog master tapes, transfering analog content to digital "mater tapes" with analog to digital conversion (first sentence in red) and were selling the final product as pure analog (second sentence in red), charging premium prices.

I don't see where it says "analog Original Master Tapes".

It says "no analog to digital conversion in our vinyl cutting process", which is well after the recording stage, and near the end they say "we do not use digital sources except in cases where the title's original master was digital itself". That would apply to Original Master Tapes created using digital reel-to-reel recorders.

Btw, my previous statement was general, not specific to the Mofi situation.

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

I don't see where it says "analog Original Master Tapes".

It is in front of your eyes.
According to them (MoFi), they were using analog master tapes (the real original analog master tapes!), which they afterwards digitised in digital copy "Original Master Tape".

It says "no analog to digital conversion in our vinyl cutting process", which is well after the recording stage, and near the end they say "we do not use digital sources except in cases where the title's original master was digital itself". That would apply to Original Master Tapes created using digital reel-to-reel recorders.

No, because for many of their releises the real original analog master tapes WERE AVAILABLE, and they were using those real analog analog master tapes to make digital copy (with deceiving title "Original Master Tape") which were used in their process... of lying unsuspected customers.

 

[kschmit2]

It is in front of your eyes.
According to them (MoFi), they were using analog master tapes (the real original analog master tapes!), which they afterwards digitised in digital copy "Original Master Tape".


No, because for many of their releises the real original analog master tapes WERE AVAILABLE, and they were using those real analog analog master tapes to make digital copy (with deceiving title "Original Master Tape") which were used in their process... of lying unsuspected customers.

I'm not arguing about what they did or didn't do.
I'm just arguing that what you deem is proof of what they did, actually is not. You simply keep adding "analog" to what they stated, because that is what you want it to mean.

 

[Labjr]

If MoFi tries to legally claim it's only a misunderstanding by their customers, and even win a lawsuit, they'll be done. Because it would be another lie. Continuing the conspiracy. They could keep their money but their reputation would be trashed. Nobody would ever believe anything they say.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Wonder if there is a market for digital half speed masters of material originally on tape? Play the tape back at half speed, record at 44.1 khz. Then speed it all up digitally so you have an 88.2 khz file.

 

[antcollinet]

Lets take the Santana record Mofi did, it was originally released in 1970 before the digital age. So if Mofi takes that record and states right on the jacket from the “original master recording” what does that imply to you?

The source is the original master tape. The fact they've take a digital recording of that tape (to protect it) doesn't change fact that the original master is the source.

 

[antcollinet]

How about the second sentence in red, underlined:
"We do not use digital sources except in cases where the title's original master was digital itself".


Yes, it is misleading info, big time.

The source is the tape. Digitised as part of the processing. Source is still the tape.

 

[kschmit2]

Lets take the Santana record Mofi did, it was originally released in 1970 before the digital age. So if Mofi takes that record and states right on the jacket from the “original master recording” what does that imply to you?

1970 may be a tricky year, as it is also the year the first digital recording was released according to this very nice paper:

https://www.aes.org/aeshc/pdf/fine_dawn-of-digital.pdf