Mobile Fidelity Analog Vinyl Controversy

[rdenney]

Why would it be a shame? Let's put it in these terms: they lied about the provenance of the art they were selling.

Art?

Rick “not unless they lied about who was on the recording” Denney

 

[rdenney]

All of that is irrelevant. What MoFi did is deception, fraud, false pretenses or whatever you want to call it. Doesn't matter if it sounds better than a full analog chain. It's not what buyers thought they were paying $125 for. And MoFi knew this. If they claim they didn't know, then they're lying.

Maybe we should just shoot them.

Rick “just a little reductio ad absurdum” Denney

 

[tmtomh]

Do they "make an almost uniformly great product" though? Remember their gold CDs? Here's an interesting story about them:

Has anyone compared Santana's Abraxas MOFI Gold CD versions?

Are there are any differences between the original MOFI Gold version of Abraxas compared to the one currently available? I ask as you can buy the newer...

forums.stevehoffman.tv

Yes, they do in fact make an almost uniformly great product. "Uniformly" does not mean "literally every single release is the very best out there when compared to every other available pressing/mastering by anyone else." And even if "uniformly" did mean that, "almost" does not mean "totally."

So if one can read, then yes, MoFi does make an almost uniformly great product. Just as many of the other audiophile labels do. I would actually put MoFi slightly ahead of many other audiophile labels in terms of consistency of track record in putting out good quality product.

There's no need to downplay the quality of their output in order to support the argument that they are at fault for misrepresenting the source lineage of many of their releases. The two are analytically separable issues, even if some folks don't want to admit it.

 

[Deleted member 50971]

With respect you may want to check provenance of your Titles. MoFi DSD as early as 2007. 'Abraxas' 2008 widely discussed. Certainly 2015 not a DSD safety threshold.

Some info courtesy "Sex Lies and Master Tapes" on sh.tv here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ma5KjjGYsC-bvtwfsNIR4NNqGk0o2a7zEPyOCue6Nv0/edit#gid=0

MoFi web site was adding provenance to products, but this may have suspended pending potential class action lawsuits.

Hi, thanks for posting.

All of mine are long gone, and I sold much of my vinyl collection about 3 years ago. I have a much more manageable collection now.

 

[Azazello13]

Whether DSD vinyl is a good product, or can be distinguished from analogue-era 1st issues is moot. There are only opinions. All are equally subjective/legitimate.

The issue here is deception. wtf were MoFi doing, since possibly as early as 2007, selling DSD to customers many of whom MoFi must have understood wanted or thought they were buying AAA. The whole body of evidence comprises sins of both omission and commission. Some are implicit; some more blatant.

As far as lawsuit(s) go, the style or quantity of damages is not what matters. Nor whether lawyers make on the whole kerfuffle.

All the internet chatter, and threatened legal action no matter what outcomes, will likely have the effect of:
1. deterring shysters in the music retail industry; and,
2. soothing the understandable indignation of people who bought MoFi records because they wanted analogue musical experiences (regardless of any SQ arguments).
So - chat on.

It honestly just boggles my mind that, of all the blatant swindles in the audio world, THIS is the "deception" people have finally decided to get worked up over.

First of all, their deception consists of a lie by omission. I think they knew full well that a lot of superstitions about analog/digital had been elevated in this sphere, and they danced around the topic in a way that allowed those superstitions to persist while they took advantage of them. They were dishonest, but a lie by omission IS different, both legally and morally, than an outright falsehood.

But more importantly, they did all this in furtherance of their mission as an organization, which is to preserve and convey original, historical recordings in the most transparent and best sounding way possible. That mission is an admirable one every audio and music lover should be on board with. Before this controversy, nearly every single person in this space agreed that Mofi was doing a great job of delivering on that mission. Turns out they used a digital capture because they determined through trial and error that it was the best method they had available. They helped fuel the vinyl resurgence by infusing more detail and better sound quality into that medium than had ever been possible before.

But now they're persona non grata, because they kept quiet about using a digital capture in their production chain. Meanwhile, many of these very same people wanting to banish them will turn around and sing the praises of some charlatan selling them a useless power supply or speaker cable costing as much as a new car. I find the whole thing very depressing.

 

[tmtomh]

It honestly just boggles my mind that, of all the blatant swindles in the audio world, THIS is the "deception" people have finally decided to get worked up over.

First of all, their deception consists of a lie by omission. I think they knew full well that a lot of superstitions about analog/digital had been elevated in this sphere, and they danced around the topic in a way that allowed those superstitions to persist while they took advantage of them. They were dishonest, but a lie by omission IS different, both legally and morally, than an outright falsehood.

But more importantly, they did all this in furtherance of their mission as an organization, which is to preserve and convey original, historical recordings in the most transparent and best sounding way possible. That mission is an admirable one every audio and music lover should be on board with. Before this controversy, nearly every single person in this space agreed that Mofi was doing a great job of delivering on that mission. Turns out they used a digital capture because they determined through trial and error that it was the best method they had available. They helped fuel the vinyl resurgence by infusing more detail and better sound quality into that medium than had ever been possible before.

But now they're persona non grata, because they kept quiet about using a digital capture in their production chain. Meanwhile, many of these very same people wanting to banish them will turn around and sing the praises of some charlatan selling them a useless power supply or speaker cable costing as much as a new car. I find the whole thing very depressing.

Well said.

 

[formdissolve]

I still say some of their 90s CDs sound great, particularly their Velvet Underground releases. They sound "better" to me than the 2010's 24 bit 96khz versions which are very loud (they don't sound bad, I just prefer the mastering on the MoFi CDs). I also like their masters of Nirvana

Also, that 80's digital brittle sound was pre-emphasis ".. which means that some or all of the tracks were recorded with a basic form of noise reduction wherein a treble boost is applied to the audio going onto the disc, and special flags in the disc's subcode trigger a real CD player to undo this boost as it sends the audio out." (source, some guy on discogs but that's a good description). Some players didn't play those properly which made them sound "bright" and brittle. This include some ripping software such as EAC (although there may be an option for that in later version.. I haven't checked in a long time), so some of these tracks played back on DACs won't sound as they should.

Also, not only is there a class-action lawsuit, there are multiple single filer lawsuits as well. MoFi might be sued out of existence unless Music Direct can settle out of court somehow for a lower amount...

This was on the back of their CDs in the 90s.

 

[Azazello13]

I still say some of their 90s CDs sound great, particularly their Velvet Underground releases. They sound "better" to me than the 2010's 24 bit 96khz versions which are very loud (they don't sound bad, I just prefer the mastering on the MoFi CDs). I also like their masters of Nirvana

Their more recent CDs sound great, too. I have no real use for SACD, but just the redbook layers on them greatly surpass previous reissues in my experience. One example is the "Monk's Dream" they just put out this year or last. Originally I had the old 1980s CD reissue of this, it was OK. when it was reissued in 2002 I got that because it's a great album I really enjoy, and that was an improvement. I got the Mofi recently, and suddenly this sounds like one of the best recorded jazz quartet sessions I've ever heard.

What Mofi does is really worthwhile, and they are really good at doing it in my experience. I wish the labels that own of these recordings took half as much care restoring and reissuing as Mofi seems to take, we as listeners would have much better recordings to choose from if they did.

My biggest gripe with Mofi is I wish they'd branch out more, do some new underappreciated artists rather than go through the whole Miles Davis, Dire Straits or Bob Dylan catalog AGAIN. Other reissuing houses do a better job in that regard.

 

[MarkS]

Art?

Rick “not unless they lied about who was on the recording” Denney

I said that they lied about "provenance", chain of ownership. The music passed through a purely digital stage. The buyers of the final product care about this. We may think they are stupid to care, but they do care nonetheless. They paid for something (a purely analog chain) that they did not get.

 

[MarkS]

There's no need to downplay the quality of their output in order to support the argument that they are at fault for misrepresenting the source lineage of many of their releases.

I am downplaying the quality of their output because I am not convinced that it is actually better.

For example, Abraxas is available on Apple Music Lossless. Can its sound be distinguished from the MoFi SACD in a double-blind listening test? And if so, is the MoFi sound consistently preferred?

 

[tmtomh]

I am downplaying the quality of their output because I am not convinced that it is actually better.

For example, Abraxas is available on Apple Music Lossless. Can its sound be distinguished from the MoFi SACD in a double-blind listening test? And if so, is the MoFi sound consistently preferred?

Why do you keep harping on a single title (which happens to also be a prime example of the source-lineage issue)?

Many of their masterings are excellent. A single example means nothing.

This discussion doesn’t have to be as tedious as you’re making it.

 

[MarkS]

I like giving specific examples, but the same question can be asked about any of their releases. Which ones do you think are clearly better?

 

[Deleted member 50971]

Being gaslit is a drag though. Unfortunately that’s the world, and it’s not going to get any better in the audio industry IMO.,I mean it’s right out in the open, and people know that much of it is nonsense but yet there it is. Unfortunately simply making a statement anymore isn’t good enough, and I miss the time when it was. As a business person my word is my reputation, and no nothing ever goes perfect as to plan, and sometimes it’s what you do afterwards that means the most.

“If” given a chance maybe MoFi will do the right thing, but unfortunately doing the right thing in this case may bankrupt them.

It’s unfortunate, not funny at all.

 

[tmtomh]

I like giving specific examples, but the same question can be asked about any of their releases. Which ones do you think are clearly better?

You seem to like giving specific example, singular.

Some examples of ones I find noticeably, and in some cases quite notably, superior, off the top of my head (all CDs or hybrid SACDs in my case):

Aimee Mann, Bachelor No 2
Aimee Mann, Lost in Space
Allmann Bros Band, Eat a Peach
Beck, Sea Change
Carole King, Tapestry
Carpenters, A Song for You
Albert King, Born under a Bad Sign
Pretenders, first three albums
Marshall Crenshaw, debut album
Muddy Waters, Folk Singer
U2, The Unforgettable Fire

 

[Azazello13]

I like giving specific examples, but the same question can be asked about any of their releases. Which ones do you think are clearly better?

But it doesn't sound like you've A/B'd that particular release. I haven't either.

There are three I've A/B'd recently against the high-res versions in Qobuz. Again, just listening to the redbook layer, both through same DAC/amp and speakers, starting at the same time and switching inputs.

Thelonious Monk - Monk's Dream. Mofi clearly better, dramatically so in my opinion.
Richard Thompson - Rumor and Sigh. Preferred Mofi slightly. Both versions were well done, and it's a well recorded album.
Miles Davis - Four and More. This one was interesting because they seemed clearly a different mix. Horns more forward in the mix on Qobuz, which made it more pleasing on a certain level. Drums sounded really great on the Mofi, and Tony Williams is one of the most interesting things happening on that performance. So again I think I slightly prefer the Mofi, but others may disagree.

I really do think that if you listen to some of their work you'll appreciate what they do.

 

[formdissolve]

Their more recent CDs sound great, too. I have no real use for SACD, but just the redbook layers on them greatly surpass previous reissues in my experience. One example is the "Monk's Dream" they just put out this year or last. Originally I had the old 1980s CD reissue of this, it was OK. when it was reissued in 2002 I got that because it's a great album I really enjoy, and that was an improvement. I got the Mofi recently, and suddenly this sounds like one of the best recorded jazz quartet sessions I've ever heard.

What Mofi does is really worthwhile, and they are really good at doing it in my experience. I wish the labels that own of these recordings took half as much care restoring and reissuing as Mofi seems to take, we as listeners would have much better recordings to choose from if they did.

My biggest gripe with Mofi is I wish they'd branch out more, do some new underappreciated artists rather than go through the whole Miles Davis, Dire Straits or Bob Dylan catalog AGAIN. Other reissuing houses do a better job in that regard.

There's a really great DSD256 version out there on HDTT (https://www.highdeftapetransfers.ca/products/monks-dream-thelonious-monk-quartet).. but if you can't play DSD, it's kinda pointless.. You can convert to PCM I guess. The versions on there are reel-to-reel rips straight to DSD (not from the masters though). I have a few versions of that album and I like to compare them all..

I also agree that they should branch out more. They have the Silver series that put out a lot of more than just the same classic rock/jazz. I've been trying to convince someone at MoFi to release more 80s/90s stuff, but they seemed to not care..

 

[MarkS]

Thanks for the examples. Good to know MoFI is releasing better sounding recordings.

 

[antcollinet]

Because what objectively crooked jeweler MobFidelityGold is doing is the best known method for deceiving unsuspected customers – selling 14 karat gold alloy (50% gold) ingot/bar to them as a genuine pure 24 karat gold (>99.7% gold) ingot/bar and charging the same price as a pure 24 karat gold bar. No more 100% depleting/wearing gold mines, just 50%, which means double amount of years available resources from gold mines around the world and greener Earth because of 50% less polluting from producing technology. All 14 karat gold bars from MobFidelityGold will be identical in color compared to genuine 24 karat gold bars and indistinguishable even by Golden Eye individuals.
But for some, required purity of >99.7% gold is of supreme importance in their religion of worshiping the "24 karat God". Sadly, infidels and apostates, which believe there is nothing wrong selling the 14 karat gold bar at the same price as 24 karat gold (because both have the same color), must be destroyed.

And now seriously: I am not a lawyer, @NTK. But I am not dumb either, you know? It is easy to prove this scam and is easy to put the exact dollar ammount to it for compensation - the same dollar ammount payed for their "14 karat gold presented as 24 karat" products.
P.S
Yes, I know 14 karat gold has not exactly the same color as 24 karat, but I believe you understood my point...

False analogy.

The purchased 14karat gold can clearly be recognised as such and is inferior to what was sold.

On the other hand the vinyl recordings made (albeit) with a DSD step in the mastering chain - are 100.1% indistinguishable from the product that would have resulted from fully analogue process (unless they are infinitesmally better due to reduced wear on the master tapes)

 

[DMill]

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.

 

[antcollinet]

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.

Does anyone know what MOFI actually said about their offering to imply it was a fully analogue process, or have some people simply assumed it was?

If people have just assumed this from nothing, then no lie has been told - by omission or otherwise.