Mobile Fidelity Analog Vinyl Controversy

[restorer-john]

Dude, were you paying attention at all to all that I've written about this subject? I plainly said that tapes like Ampex 456 were a notable exception, and failed due to poor decisions made at the time to binder formulas. Maybe you just have an exceptionally short memory, or you like to keep pushing on some personal agenda which seems pointless. In any event, please stop doing it.

What is all that about?

 

[Xulonn]

What is all that about?

Yet another ego clash - member who has been here at ASR for a while but posts infrequently - and apparent has some specific relevant experience - pops up suddenly and has difficulty communicating in a civil manner. Loud pontification leads to clashes. The heart of the matter seems to revolve around definitions and perspectives, and component vs final product performance.

Instead of working towards common ground, or agreeing to disagree, verbal combat ensues. Not the first time I've seen this on internet forums.

 

[restorer-john]

Not the first time I've seen this on internet forums.

Or likely the last.

They either double-down and flameout or quietly go to ground for a while. The smart ones admit they were out of line, apologize and move on.

 

[Don Hills]

... A vinyl master would have been further EQ'd to insert the RIAA curve if nothing else, when being cut....

No, it wouldn't. It might have been mono bassed and de-essed etc but the RIAA curve was applied during the cutting.

I have a lot of Scotch 175 (1/4" 4 track of live bands) that sheds and binds up the deck when played. Baking didn't work. The only thing that has worked so far is to run the tape over a pad kept moist with isopropyl alcohol, located just before the head block. It makes a heck of a mess of the deck though.

 

[antcollinet]

No, it wouldn't. It might have been mono bassed and de-essed etc but the RIAA curve was applied during the cutting.

Did you miss "when being cut"?

 

[Robert C]

EQ'd Production Masters (aka LP Production Masters, Vinyl Production Masters, EQ'd and Limited Master) have the mastering moves used at the original lacquer cutting session 'baked in' but not RIAA pre-emphasis.

Here is an informative read about the development of production masters:

https://worldradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-Audio/Archive-Studio-Sound-IDX/IDX/80s/One-to-One-1985-12-OCR-Page-0022.pdf

https://worldradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-Audio/Archive-Studio-Sound-IDX/IDX/80s/One-to-One-1985-12-OCR-Page-0023.pdf

Sometimes, Production Masters are all that an archive has left. So these tapes become the "original master tape" in marketing speak.

 

[Robert C]

Your assessment is far too pessimistic. There are many very well maintained machines in existence. We have some of them at our studio. This situation is not nearly as dire as you seem to think it is. Do you have any specific experience with analog tape, or analog tape machines at the professional level or tape archiving?

@levimax has a point. UNESCO has highlighted ~2030 as the time at which it will no longer be possible to continue to digitise tape recordings in the same way that we currently do. A combination of physical and technical obsolescence will make things quite challenging. There is already more un-digitised tape in the world than there are remaining tape head hours, and most organisations that hold legacy audiovisual carriers have not digitised enough of their collections. One of the issues is that stuff that was digitised in the 80s-00s is on unstable carriers and is having to be re-done to current archival standards.

 

[Jaxjax]

I certainly understand why you feel this way. It seems that MoFi has dug themselves into a pretty deep pit. The notion of giving a full refund to past buyers seems impossible to me. The costs of tracking, shipping, and processing refunds to past buyers would surely put them out of business. Deception aside, which I believe occurred here, is there anything you feel they could do to make it right to you? Also curious if you feel their remasters sounded better (again, I know that’s not the point.) but I’m curious all the same

Maybe if I was younger I wouldn't care about what they did & would continue to purchase products from them. I'm not a hard core vinyl only person & when I do listen to vinyl, I want it as when it 1st hit the market. If Chad came out tomorrow & told the public most all his stuff was DSD stepped ,etc..I would do the same as today , never buying AP/AS/QRP ever again. I always have the choice of original pressings & would choose that path regardless. Mofi & MD might be just fine, heck their sales might go up as far as I know because I've been proven wrong on the pulse of humans many times over.

 

[krabapple]

Who knows?
Maybe the hipsters'll bring back DVD-A.
Perhaps something Jack White'll want to get involved with -- or T-Bone Burnett.

a digital release sourced from their DSD transfer of original master tapes?

it could be CD
it could be DVD
it could be DVDA
it could be BluRay
it could be SACD
it could be files for download. You know, like in the far future 21st century

hmm, what seems to the the most important aspect here, from an audible quality perspective?

(the next most important would be another aspect: the mastering EQ Mofi adds)

 

[krabapple]

I did read that 'production masters' or at least the digital dubs of these, were stored elsewhere and it was the original studio session tapes of many famous artists that were destroyed... One artist complained that they could no longer go back to their multi-tracks and re-mix them now.

A production master for a given format will have production EQ tailored for that format already baked in. That's fine if you want to re-release on the same format. But an LP production master is not what you want to use for a digital release, especially one labelled 'remastered'. You want to go back to the original mixdown master, or a one-to-one digital dub of it. Or second best, a flat tape dub of it (there will be some degree of generational loss). Third best is, you're fired. Fourth best is, a clean vinyl LP.

 

[krabapple]

In recent years music lovers have been very lucky to have a few people like Steven Wilson and the BluRay media around.

In one sense, yes. He always advocates for inclusion of 'flat transfers' sourced from the original master tapes, in the album releases he works on. I.e., he favors 'non-mastering'.

But I've learned to be careful what I wish for. Some of them just,,,don't sound that great. Some mixdown masters apparently need....help.

SW remix sets often also include flat vinyl-to-digital dubs , from first pressings...these too don't always sound that great to me.

(SW himself does not do the ADC transferring in any case...that's supervised by others. )


And that's apart from whether SW's remixes themselves are 'all that'. To me, they're quite hit or miss, though lots of fans genuflect to them/him.

 

[MattHooper]

Sadly, I used 456 through the 90’s. I don’t know whether this 8-track master will be playable, even if I regain access to a Tascam 80-8 like the one that recorded it.

View attachment 228073

The half-track mixdown stereo master (on Maxell tape) is fine, though I’ve had to replace the splices. I need to get that digitized immediately if not sooner, while my Teac deck is working well. But I was hoping to have the pinch roller rebuilt first.

Rick “need to get that package to Terry” Denney

As someone who did a lot of film/sound work starting in the 80's, I find the photo in your post triggering

I'm pretty sure I still have a few boxes of Ampex 456 in my basement, with old work on them. I haven't checked how they've held up.

 

[Sal1950]

Some of them just,,,don't sound that great. Some mixdown masters apparently need....help.

SW remix sets often also include flat vinyl-to-digital dubs , from first pressings...these too don't always sound that great to me.

Well, do you want to hear the un-tained original or not? LOL

And that's apart from whether SW's remixes themselves are 'all that'. To me, they're quite hit or miss, though lots of fans genuflect to them/him.

No ones perfect, but his globe of work shows him to be the best we currently have for doing multich mixing in popular music

 

[Keened]

A production master for a given format will have production EQ tailored for that format already baked in. That's fine if you want to re-release on the same format. But an LP production master is not what you want to use for a digital release, especially one labelled 'remastered'. You want to go back to the original mixdown master, or a one-to-one digital dub of it. Or second best, a flat tape dub of it (there will be some degree of generational loss). Third best is, you're fired. Fourth best is, a clean vinyl LP.

Given how cheap data storage is these days I see no reason why a digital re-master shouldn't also include an LP re-issue in digital format.

 

[Steve H]

You guys carry on. I’m following the cases on PACER. Public Access to Court Electronic Records for those who don’t know. But if this is an audiophile existential crisis you can be sure I’m doing everything I can to make it worse.

 

[antcollinet]

You guys carry on. I’m following the cases on PACER. Public Access to Court Electronic Records for those who don’t know. But if this is an audiophile existential crisis you can be sure I’m doing everything I can to make it worse.

LOL

 

[Robert C]

an LP production master is not what you want to use for a digital release, especially one labelled 'remastered'

Ideally not, but sometimes it's unavoidable.

Thousands of '80s CDs were sourced from LP PMs.

 

[Steve H]

I've advocating elsewhere that all these people who claim to hear a digital step in their records be deposed. Either they can hear a difference or they can't.

 

[Sal1950]

Ideally not, but sometimes it's unavoidable.

Thousands of '80s CDs were sourced from LP PMs.

More from 78 shellacs than LP I would venture, just a guess.

 

[krabapple]

Ideally not, but sometimes it's unavoidable.

Thousands of '80s CDs were sourced from LP PMs.

I know it happened. But I know of no one who ever actually tabulated a verified number. That would be a difficult thing to do.

It was a common excuse that record companies used for remastering, starting in the late 80s.