Mobile Fidelity Analog Vinyl Controversy

[Sal1950]

I fail to see how they have egg on their faces or how this episode undermines the notion that all analog mastering sounds better, all else being equal. I have lots of Mofi records that I bought in large part because I believed their representations about the mastering. The fact that I didn’t notice that they were mastered with a digital step doesn’t mean that those same records wouldn’t have sounded better if they were mastered as Mofi said they were.

Baloney, please supply supportable evidence that the digital transfer degraded the sound quality in any way.

 

[DMill]

I fail to see how they have egg on their faces or how this episode undermines the notion that all analog mastering sounds better, all else being equal. I have lots of Mofi records that I bought in large part because I believed their representations about the mastering. The fact that I didn’t notice that they were mastered with a digital step doesn’t mean that those same records wouldn’t have sounded better if they were mastered as Mofi said they wer

I’m confused. They definitely have egg on their face. If you’re saying all analogue sounds better, show me. If you’re saying you feel like they misrepresented their product, I agree.

 

[RammisFrammis]

OK, kool, so mylar has an weakness?

Everything on planet Earth has a weakness. The universe has a weakness. Still Mylar tape is for all intents and purposes the best, most stable, most durable material with the highest longevity of any base material made. I have NEVER encountered a failure of the Mylar base of any tape in my 50 years of work with magnetic recording. If you have some professional experience with Mylar magnetic tape which refutes this, I'd like to hear it. And no, I'm not talking about your clapped-out Akai which ate a tape in '67.

 

[Sal1950]

If you have some professional experience with Mylar magnetic tape which refutes this,

Nope, I have zero first hand experience with tape.
I only know that everything has it's limits.
Last post by me on this subject
If we're still around in another 50 pull out a few of them tapes that will be nearing 100 and let me know their condition.

One last question for you then,
How do you reconcile these two posts?
They seem in direct oposition of each other?

Still Mylar tape is for all intents and purposes the best, most stable, most durable material with the highest longevity of any base material made. I have NEVER encountered a failure of the Mylar base of any tape in my 50 years of work with magnetic recording.

As for the subject of tape degredation, the elephant in the room as far as the recording industry is concerned is the entire generation of lost (relatively recent!) masters due to the 'sticky shed syndrome' debacle. Yes, the tapes can be baked, but by the time they get to us, a lot of the oxide and back coating has ended up on the heads of previous tape machines before the client decided the tapes were in trouble.

^^^ Is this not a failure of the base material ???

 

[RammisFrammis]

Nope, I have zero first hand experience with tape.
I only know that everything has it's limits.
Last post by me on this subject
If we're still around in another 50 pull out a few of them tapes that will be nearing 100 and let me know their condition.

One last question for you then,
How do you reconcile these two posts?
They seem in direct oposition of each other?




^^^ Is this not a failure of the base material ???

Sticky shed syndrome was a failure not of the Mylar base material, but of the binder formulation which held the oxide and back coating in suspension. It was the 'glue' which held the oxide and back coating to the base Mylar. The Mylar was just fine, and in no way at fault. The binder formula became hydroscopic over time which softened it, basically turning it to goo. Baking the tape drove enough of the moisture away from the tape to allow the tape to be played a few times. This was mostly a problem with Ampex tapes, and unfortunately Ampex Grand Master 456 tape was the most popular tape in the USA at the time. All these masters fell victim to sticky shed. I used Scotch 250 during this period, and these tapes never developed a problem.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Sticky shed syndrome was a failure not of the Mylar base material, but of the binder formulation which held the oxide and back coating in suspension. It was the 'glue' which held the oxide and back coating to the base Mylar. The Mylar was just fine, and in no way at fault. The binder formula became hydroscopic over time which softened it, basically turning it to goo. Baking the tape drove enough of the moisture away from the tape to allow the tape to be played a few times. This was mostly a problem with Ampex tapes, and unfortunately Ampex Grand Master 456 tape was the most popular tape in the USA at the time. All these masters, without exception fell victim to stick shed.

Kind of hard to separate the oxide coatings from the mylar and say mylar is stable. Because the coating on mylar isn't stable then you still have the end result that tape over time is not stable. Kind of a difference that makes no difference at all.

 

[RammisFrammis]

Kind of hard to separate the oxide coatings from the mylar and say mylar is stable. Because the coating on mylar isn't stable then you still have the end result that tape over time is not stable. Kind of a difference that makes no difference at all.

The Mylar film HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH STICKY SHED! I don't know how many times I need to stress this point. The base material could just as well have been acetate (or paper!) and this would not have altered the trajectory of sticky shed. Mylar was developed by DuPont to be a stable material, and it found use in many other areas other than recording tape because of this stability. For a 'science based forum' there seems to be some real denseness on display here, and it's not on my end.

 

[Robin L]

When I ran into issues with sticky shedding tapes, I did not have the baking option. I'd play the tape several times before making a dub or using for broadcast.

 

[Blumlein 88]

The Mylar film HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH STICKY SHED! I don't know how many times I need to stress this point. The base material could just as well have been acetate (or paper!) and this would not have altered the trajectory of sticky shed. Mylar was developed by DuPont to be a stable material, and it found use in many other areas other than recording tape because of this stability. For a 'science based forum' there seems to be some real denseness on display here, and it's not on my end.

Never said the mylar was the reason. Said if you use tape and audio tape is mylar+a coating which sheds with age, then audio tape isn't stable over time. Pretty easy idea to grasp. Mylar in various ESL's I've owned has been pretty stable. In some microphones too.

 

[RammisFrammis]

When I ran into issues with sticky shedding tapes, I did not have the baking option. I'd play the tape several times before making a dub or using for broadcast.

It took quite a while for scientists to figure out what was going on with sticky shed, and to develop a remedy, although a temporary one. Whatever solution they came up with had to be absolutely non-destructive, otherwise you can imagine the lawsuits from the record companies and holders of the master tapes. There were lawsuits galore anyway. The root cause from what I read long ago was that tape manufacturers were under pressure to abandon the use of whale oil in the binder formulation, so they changed to a urethane based binder. Urethane breaks down eventually. I'm surprised tape manufacturers didn't see this problem coming because it was well known that urethane of the time was unstable.

 

[RammisFrammis]

Never said the mylar was the reason. Said if you use tape and audio tape is mylar+a coating which sheds with age, then audio tape isn't stable over time. Pretty easy idea to grasp. Mylar in various ESL's I've owned has been pretty stable. In some microphones too.

THAT particular formulation of audio tape was not stable over time. That does not mean that ALL audio tapes are unstable. I'm surprised you made such a weak argument. As I said before, Scotch 250 which was a contemporary +6 tape like 456 never had the problem. This is a science based forum. Please try to think like a scientist, and not like a "she's a witch" Monty Python routine.

 

[Blumlein 88]

THAT particular formulation of audio tape was not stable over time. That does not mean that ALL audio tapes are unstable. I'm surprised you made such a weak argument. As I said before, Scotch 250 which was a contemporary +6 tape like 456 never had the problem. This is a science based forum. Please try to think like a scientist, and not like a "she's a witch" Monty Python routine.

I don't work with the tape, but quite a few people who do say 250 +6 doesn't get sticky, but does shed considerably. I've been told the later production of Maxell reel tape was probably the most stable long term tape made along with the old Scotch that was on acetate instead of mylar. Not because mylar was a problem, but because the red oxide coating and binders were better.

 

[Sal1950]

The Mylar film HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH STICKY SHED! I don't know how many times I need to stress this point.

Your point is irrelevant. The damn tape failed, bottom line.

 

[RammisFrammis]

I don't work with the tape, but quite a few people who do say 250 +6 doesn't get sticky, but does shed considerably. I've been told the later production of Maxell reel tape was probably the most stable long term tape made along with the old Scotch that was on acetate instead of mylar. Not because mylar was a problem, but because the red oxide coating and binders were better.

The Scotch 111 type tapes were indeed very stable, even on acetate base. I have probably 100 reels of 111, and only one of them has had a problem after something like 40 years; the lubrication embedded in the tape at manufacture has either dried up or was defective from the start. In any event, this reel squeals on playback. There are lubrication formulas which can be applied to be able to play tapes with this problem, but it isn't a permanent solution. The old Audiotape brand was pretty good and stable also; it was a very popular mastering tape of the time. Reeves Soundcraft was another. The Irish tape brand was purchased by Ampex. They were the developers of FerroSheen which was their method of calendaring the tape.

 

[RammisFrammis]

Your point is irrelevant. The damn tape failed, bottom line.

Please try not to be so reactionary and apparently allergic to scientific method. A bad look for a science based forum. If you don't want to discuss tape longevity intelligently, or are too impatient to do so, just move on.

 

[kschmit2]

[...] there's no such thing anywhere in the universe as "guides which incur no friction"

Well, there might be this: https://www.oavco.com/whatisairbearing (albeit they do take into account gas molecules and gravity)

 

[Phorize]

Here is the full detailed account of what MoFi does with the DSD. Pretty much what I guessed. They use the DSD as like a tape machine and make all other adjustments on the fly on vacuum tube analog gear. The ADC was a Meitner for earlier DSD64 files and they switched to a Merging Horus running at DSD256.

MoFi President Jim Davis Addresses the Digital LP-Mastering Controversy - The Absolute Sound

MoFi President Jim Davis Addresses the Digital LP-Mastering Controversy - Jim Davis, president of Mofi, gives JV and RH insight into the company's mastering process in this exclusive interview.

www.theabsolutesound.com

Same article is reprinted here:

MoFi President Jim Davis Addresses the Digital LP-Mastering Controversy

MoFi President Jim Davis Addresses the Digital LP-Mastering Controversy

www.musicdirect.com

Thanks, really enjoyed the read. The framing of the discussion was particularly enjoyable as we got to pretend that the main controversy was to do with the production process, rather than Mofis behaviour in inducing its customers to believe something false about the production process and therefore pay more than they otherwise would have done.

This bit nearly made me pee my pants though:

"The revelation that MoFi cuts from digital masters has suggested to many that the advantages of a purely analog chain are imaginary. How do you reply to that line of thinking?"​

 

[Mnyb]

Thanks, really enjoyed the read. The framing of the discussion was particularly enjoyable as we got to pretend that the main controversy was to do with the production process, rather than Mofis behaviour in inducing its customers to believe something false about the production process and therefore pay more than they otherwise would have done.

This bit nearly made me pee my pants though:

"The revelation that MoFi cuts from digital masters has suggested to many that the advantages of a purely analog chain are imaginary. How do you reply to that line of thinking?"​

it would be logical to also do the EQ in the digital domain for even better SQ

 

[restorer-john]

This quote is also interesting:

"We are privileged to not only be stewards of these recordings for a short while but also to be a conduit during that time"

So, do they get to store/archive their own DSD 'captures' or do they destroy them after making their 'limited release' vinyl records?

I wonder if MoFi had some DSD 'captures' of any of the masters destroyed in the great UM fire...?

 

[Mnyb]

This quote is also interesting:

"We are privileged to not only be stewards of these recordings for a short while but also to be a conduit during that time"

So, do they get to store/archive their own DSD 'captures' or do they destroy them after making their 'limited release' vinyl records?

I wonder if MoFi had some DSD 'captures' of any of the masters destroyed in the great UM fire...?

That could finance their lawyers during the lawsuit would be perfect irony