What do you guys think of MoFi?

[bigpilot]

I personally hate the new MoFi, which is very much focused on vinyl. And I personally hate vinyl. I believe it's a very imperfect medium and the thought that people are admiring or even worshiping it enrages me.

Their SACDs are merely an afterthought and I even believe they're only reluctantly bringing them to market. In addition, their SACDs are poorly mastered and compressed. Very unlike the "old" MoFi where the CDs captured the full dynamic range of the recording.

 

[Daverz]

I haven't heard their speakers, but based on reviews and measurements, they made a good choice for the guy who designs their speakers and have followed through on the manufacturing side, with reasonable pricing. Hopefully enshitification will not occur.

I was never very interested in their LPs and SACDs, except for a few SACDs made from quad originals.

 

[mlsstl]

Why would someone else's personal preference on a subject like this "enrage" you? Just curious.

 

[DVDdoug]

And I personally hate vinyl.

I'm with you there!!! I grew-up with vinyl and the "snap", "crackle", and "pop" always annoyed me even though most people weren't bothered by it. I could "live with" the lower-level constant background noise and the other issues if I had to... but when I got my 1st CD player I was amazed by the dead-silent background and it was the best day of my hi-fi life!

I had a couple of Mo-Fi records and they DID sound "cleaner" than the average record. I had some other good sounding records too but most were mediocre so my impression is that the record companies just didn't care that much. The rumor was that classical records (and maybe jazz) were generally better but I was listening to rock.

I bought a Mo-Fi CD once because that's what the record store had. I didn't notice anything special compared to other CDs.

it enrages me.

I don't worry about other people. A lot of people here enjoy the experience of playing records and some people say it sounds better to them. I'm OK with that as long as they don't claim it's technically better or that analog has "infinite resolution", etc.

Some older records DO have more dynamics (less dynamic compression) than the modern "loudness war" CD remaster. Most newer records are made from the same master as the CD, sometimes with more processing. And a lot of people get fooled because the process of cutting/playing can increase the measurement of the dynamics (when measured as the crest factor) without changing the sound of the dynamics. (MP3 compression can also increase the crest factor without changing the sound of the dynamics.... MP3 is lossy file-size compression... unrelated to dynamic compression.)

In addition, their SACDs are poorly mastered and compressed.

Is that true???

except for a few SACDs made from quad originals.

(I've never owned an SACD or player. I DO enjoy surround sound on DVDs and Blu-Rays.)

Very unlike the "old" MoFi where the CDs captured the full dynamic range of the recording.

In the "old days" when I was buying records the CD didn't exist yet!

 

[antisuck]

I don't really think about them. I don't do vinyl, I have a few of their CD and SACD releases (Dire Straits Brothers in Arms, Queen News Of The World, Jethro Tull Living In The Past) that were reported to be quite good and I agree in those cases. Buying an album based on the label seems silly to me, there are ways to find out who mastered what and what the source was (and measurements of dynamics and subjective opinions of tonal balance etc) if that's important to you.

Their speakers are apparently excellent, unfortunately their sizes and shapes aren't a great fit for my space.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Weren't they busted lying about their signal chain or the provenance of their sources or something?

 

[Chrispy]

Used to do some logistics work for them back in the vinyl only days, but wasn't a customer. Eventually picked up some of their vinyl, which was pretty good quality compared to a typical pressing. A few years back picked up a couple of their SACDs, which were only 2ch and nothing special, but not horrible. Curious about their speakers but not likely to ever hear a pair. Not sure why you would hate them....just don't buy them.

 

[Chrispy]

Weren't they busted lying about their signal chain or the provenance of their sources or something?

Yeah they claimed an all analog thing when digital was involved.

 

[DVDdoug]

Weren't they busted lying about their signal chain or the provenance of their sources or something?

Yes. They were using digitized copies of the original analog tapes while claiming it was directly analog. (I think they were using DSD but I'm not sure.) If you search you'll find the news stories.

Technically, there's no audio loss with the intermediate digitization and it saves wear on the original master tapes, and the digital never deteriorates, and you can have multiple backups, etc. So it's a smart thing to do but it WAS dishonest.

 

[mhardy6647]

@bigpilot -- you know how Mobile Fidelity got its start, yes?
Started by Brad Miller. Field recordings of trains, thunderstorms, etc. cut to vinyl -- a long time ago (first release, 1958).

https://www.friktech.com/labels/EarlyMobileFidelity.pdf

Followed up in the 1970s by the "SR/2" half-speed mastered (and EQ'd on the fly, by ear, by Stan Riker) LPs pressed on low noise JVC "Super Vinyl", designed for CD-4 (compatible, discrete four channel) records, with a very low noise background compared to even virgin commodity vinyl of the mid-1970s.

CDs and SACDs came a long time later.

 

[bigpilot]

I make a disctinction between the "old" MoFi (before 1999) and the "new" MoFi (after 2004). The new MoFi consists of vinyl enthusiasts and mastering engineers which picked up the assets of the old MoFi and ran with it.

 

[bigpilot]

Why would someone else's personal preference on a subject like this "enrage" you? Just curious.

Because I believe it's stupid. And I hate stupid. The technology has improved to such an extent that holding on to an archaic format is just being thick.

There have always been religious undertones in high-end audio with dogmas and tenets, something which has always bothered me.

CD was already much better than anything vinyl could offer, let alone SACD. In addition vinyl has been produced using digital source material for almost four decades. So even if you buy vinyl you're listening to an imperfect digital ascribed version anyways.

 

[bigpilot]

I bought a Mo-Fi CD once because that's what the record store had. I didn't notice anything special compared to other CDs.

I have to disagree with you here. The old MoFi CDs were vastly better than the release made by the record company that owns the master tape. However, it depends on the recording. Some recordings simply aren't that good so the difference is slight. But it's still noticable. I don't know of any MoFi CD that isn't substantially better than the regular release.

An example would be Pink Floyd's The Wall. The dynamic range of that recording is limited so there's little difference between it and the regular release. But there is a difference. The dynamic range of most Pink Floyd recordings is limited in any case, at least the ones I listen too (Dark Side of the Moon, The Wall).

Big difference would be Joe Jackson's - Night and Day and Queen's - A Night at the Opera. The dynamic range on "Bohemian Rhapsody" is especially impressive. You can finally hear the instruments in their proper proportions to one another.

 

[krabapple]

I would be surprised if Mofi was adding digital dynamic range compression to their SACDs. Examples?

The ruckus about them a few years back was mainly hysterical vinylphile idiocy over Mofi making a DSD transfer of analog tape souce, and working from that.

 

[bigpilot]

I would be surprised if Mofi was adding digital dynamic range compression to their SACDs. Examples?

The ruckus about them a few years back was mainly hysterical vinylphile idiocy over Mofi making a DSD transfer of analog tape souce, and working from that.

My ears never deceive me. Their SACDs are extremely compressed.

You're thinking of the "old" MoFi, but that one's gone. These are vinyl worshipers and SACD is an afterthought for them. I'm guessing they released SACDs only because people were demanding it. Vinyl wears out and it's therefore a repeat sell, like a software subscription, which is an extra benefit for them.

 

[HalSF]

The online audio and physical music release community is infested with the worst, most emotively hostile chronic case of the narcissism of small differences, with dislike directed not at distant literal enemies with opposing values, but at close neighbors within the tent of shared experiences and interests. So rather than engaging in a mild, sane balance of reasonable approval and criticism, in this case of an audiophile label and gear company with a log complex history of contributing both excellence and dubious missteps, you get this exaggerated call for feuding and ostracism and seething animus.

And an OP throwing down a ridiculous and unbecoming declaration of literal hate for MoFi specifically and vinyl in general. What a loser way to convene a debate/discussion. No thanks.

 

[Chrispy]

My ears never deceive me. Their SACDs are extremely compressed.

Quite a claim.

 

[tmtomh]

Quite a claim.

And one without any evidence to support it.

I personally agree that the whole audiophile vinyl market is a bit silly, but I couldn't imagine being annoyed by that, let alone enraged. Well-manufactured vinyl records still can sound quite good when properly cleaned and played back on well-performing gear. To each their own, enjoy what you enjoy.

As for MoFI SACDs, I personally quite like a lot of them - I think in general they're mastered well. Their SACDs are all hybrids and the CD layers contain the same mastering, so there is a rather high "price of admission" to MoFi masterings on digital discs. But that's just how the audiophile disc market is now - they wouldn't be able to command high enough prices for plain old CDs to recoup their own production and licensing costs.

As for their speakers, it seems their recent offerings measure quite well and are solid performers. If I were in the market for speakers and I were interested in passives, they'd be on my list for sure.

 

[bigpilot]

Quite a claim.

I compare them to the "old" MoFi CDs, which are stellar.

The compression is "intelligent" these days. They can compress only certain instruments yet leave others intact.

 

[Chrispy]

I compare them to the "old" MoFi CDs, which are stellar.

The compression is "intelligent" these days. They can compress only certain instruments yet leave others intact.

Was more talking about your golden ear claim. Still no evidence on the other either.