Mobile Fidelity Analog Vinyl Controversy

[restorer-john]

1. They put "Original Master Recording" on their SACDs, and have for years. Does it mean "pure-AAA" there? No, of course not. That's never been what they're talking about. It's never meant "pure-AAA". Some people in the vinyl world assumed it did, because they weren't really paying attention.

That's rubbish.

Everyone who grew up with vinyl knows they were pushing the 'direct to master disc' from the original analog mastertape angle. Now, they've been caught out bigtime and MoFi will never be the same reputation wise.

 

[deniall83]

1. They put "Original Master Recording" on their SACDs, and have for years. Does it mean "pure-AAA" there? No, of course not. That's never been what they're talking about. It's never meant "pure-AAA". Some consumers in the vinyl world assumed it did, because they weren't really paying attention to MoFi's decades-long usage and explanation of the term.

2. "Original Master Recording" means what it says - they start from the original master. They do take the original master recording and they do use it in their presumably-bespoke vinyl cutting process and in their SACD mastering process and they do always label their stuff when they take the original master recording, and that's what their usage of the term means - again none of this has changed for years.

You're missing the emails people posted from MOFI CS and the interviews with the engineers stating that no digital is used in the process. Clearly they wanted people to believe it was all AAA.

 

[dadregga]

You're missing the emails people posted from MOFI CS and the interviews with the engineers stating that no digital is used in the process. Clearly they wanted people to believe it was all AAA.

Did they say no digital was used anywhere in the end-to-end process, or that it wasn't used anywhere in the vinyl mastering/cutting process?

 

[dadregga]

That's rubbish.

Everyone who grew up with vinyl knows they were pushing the 'direct to master disc' from the original analog mastertape angle. Now, they've been caught out bigtime and MoFi will never be the same reputation wise.

Their reputation before this was a bunch of vague ad copy about their mastering chain, and some actually well-regarded releases.

Now, they have clearer ad copy, and the same usually well-regarded releases as before - but the people that assumed a strictly pure AAA chain "because they sound so analog" have been shown to be entirely wrong.

Nothing of value has been lost, and they've gotten more transparent about their process than they ever have in their entire history. That seems like a good thing?

What, actually, has been lost here, and what is there left to be upset about?

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

1. ...

2. ...

Can you see the symbol of ANALOG reel-to-reel deck (recognizable by everyone and everywhere in the world!) they put on their explanation how the Ultradisc One-Step proces work?
Or you don't want to see that symbol?

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

What, actually, has been lost here?

Their reputation.
Undeserved reputation.

 

[dadregga]

Can you see the symbol of ANALOG reel-to-reel deck (recognizable by everyone and everywhere in the world!) they put on their explanation how the Ultradisc One-Step proces work?
Or you don't want to see that symbol?

Yes! And I can *assume* several things about that symbol.

- One of which is that they source the original master reel-to-reel tapes for all their releases (backed up by their ad copy), by the fact that they put that same term "Original Master Recording" on their analog and digital releases.

- Another of which is that they cut every master lacquer from a a reel-to-reel tape machine loaded with the actual, real studio master tapes.

One of those assumptions is wrong. They are both assumptions. One matches their own descriptions of their own process and their own terminology usages more accurately than the other.

 

[restorer-john]

What, actually, has been lost here?

A lot of intrinsic value in MoFi records held by audiophiles.
The trust of the record buying public in the brand.

No different to people being sold expensive solid gold bars only to find out years later they were just gold plated lead. MoFi was selling the solid gold experience for many years.

They should change the name of these to DSD sleeves:

 

[dadregga]

Their reputation.
Undeserved reputation.

Their reputation for what?

Good-sounding, well-mastered releases, for the most part? Presumably well-cut vinyl? Or something else I'm missing here?

 

[Rednaxela]

Their analog reputation perhaps?

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

Yes! And I can *assume* several things about that symbol.

- One of which is that they source the original master reel-to-reel tapes for all their releases (backed up by their ad copy), by the fact that they put that same term "Original Master Recording" on their analog and digital releases.

- Another of which is that they cut every master lacquer from a a reel-to-reel tape machine loaded with the actual, real studio master tapes.

One of those assumptions is wrong. They are both assumptions. One matches their own descriptions of their own process and their own terminology usages more accurately than the other.

Or, there is a third assumption: you (and MoFi) intentionally skipped to mention the most important part - the DSD step between "source the original master reel-to-reel tapes for all their releases " and lacquer making!

 

[Mnyb]

Their analog reputation perhaps?

That's the thing , but it really has no value , it's only in the eyes of their misled customer's .
Digital production is very likely to make the vinyls sounding even better ? and their well regarded reissues still sounds good don't they ?

They are however guilty of spreading the FUD about "analog magic" and profit from it over the years, if they stop doing that it's a win.

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

Their reputation for what?
Good-sounding, well-mastered releases, for the most part? Presumably well-cut vinyl? Or something else I'm missing here?

Yes, you missed the MoFi missing to mention they use DSD between original analog master tape and lacquer making.

 

[deniall83]

Did they say no digital was used anywhere in the end-to-end process, or that it wasn't used anywhere in the vinyl mastering/cutting process?

 

[Mnyb]

Yes, you missed the MoFi missing to mention they use DSD between original analog master tape and lacquer making.

Yes but it does not have any consequence for how the release will sound at all .

That's just showing how bizzare this is . their marketing speil hinged around something they themselves absolutely knows has no impact on their product at all , but they made all their customers believe this or customers that already had such beliefs chose them for it.

It's quite similar to how in some cases alternative medicine may lack the actual ingredients thier marketted to have , because it does not do anything and is expensive , so it's omitted , why have have anything but sugar in your sugar pill but it's very cynical to operate like this.

 

[rdenney]

Summary: Lying is bad. Using a DSD transfer to gain access to a better original master tape is good.

Rick “in a summarizing mood this morning” Denney

 

[killdozzer]

Their reputation for what?

Good-sounding, well-mastered releases, for the most part? Presumably well-cut vinyl? Or something else I'm missing here?

Cheating is cheating. If you say it's all analog, it should be all analog. Regardless of the end quality. As we established numerous times, some people are not after the top quality that is at their disposal.

 

[IPunchCholla]

View attachment 223010

Wow. The care that went into implying it is an all analog process, without actually say so is impressive!

No A/D in our VINYL CUTTING process is technically true, but just glides over the fact that there were A/D and D/A steps BEFORE the “vinyl cutting process”. To follow that sentence with a re-reference of their use of the original master recording (again not mentioning the A/D and D/A steps) is quite brilliant. They did everything could to imply pure analog, without actually stating it.

The intent is clearly to deceive. They clearly knew what their customers wanted the answer to be and did everything they could to mislead, while still covering their butts with mealy mouth lawyer words.

That’s pretty gross IMO.

 

[Robin L]

Wow. The care that went into implying it is an all analog process, without actually say so is impressive!

No A/D in our VINYL CUTTING process is technically true, but just glides over the fact that there were A/D and D/A steps BEFORE the “vinyl cutting process”. To follow that sentence with a re-reference of their use of the original master recording (again not mentioning the A/D and D/A steps) is quite brilliant. They did everything could to imply pure analog, without actually stating it.

The intent is clearly to deceive. They clearly knew what their customers wanted the answer to be and did everything they could to mislead, while still covering their butts with mealy mouth lawyer words.

That’s pretty gross IMO.

And at the same time, their actions clearly undermine the notion that the digital step in the process sonically degrades the signal. It doesn't. Skip the discs if you want the best sound---the best sound is the digital step in Mo-Fi's process.

Of course, anyone really paying attention will hear the sonic degradation of turning a perfectly good digital file into a sonically distorted LP. It's easy to hear, if one is paying attention.

 

[Rednaxela]

As I understand it, the main reason to insert the DSD step was ultimately to prevent wearing out the master tape.

Who on earth would want to have it the other way?