MoFi controversy

Speaker wizard Andrew Jones left ELAC and went to Mobile Fidelity.  His new work for them is supposed to come out later this year. Do you think the interest in his speakers among audiophiles (at whatever price point they come in at) will be compromised any by this controversy?

I find it amusing and ironic that all this mess will eventually pass. Going forward most albums WILL be natively recorded digitally. Only albums made prior to perhaps 1990 might have analog master tapes.  I do not own any MoFi vinyl (only a few of their CDs), but is the issue that you all feel you were misled by MoFi more than the quality of the audio?  Many engineers feel that DSD256 and higher offers as much of an "analog" sound as we are likely ever to get from "digital". PCM doesn't even come close.   Those ancient master tapes are slowly deteriorating. They sure don't sound the same today as they did say in 1950.  Many of the really old ones have to be baked in an oven carefully for hours before they can even be played. What is truth?  Will we ever know? All we ever have is an approximation of it.  I know many feel mad and more than a bit agitated that they paid premium money for a product that had a digital source when they thought it was AAA all the way - and limited.  I came close to buying the Alan Parsons Project "Eye in the Sky" but didn't not because I didn't think it would sound good, but rather because a reviewer noted how crappy the packaging was with blurry photos not even as good as the 1982 original and no extras at all except for a freaking advertisement. Smaller labels do a far better job than that for better prices. 

Ah, buyer beware.  But as some have noted, this "hobby" is small, and getting smaller. Eating our own due to indignation will ultimately make it smaller.  MoFi has waited too long now to issue a real apology though. They really dropped the ball.  If they had been forthcoming and more transparent perhaps they could have made the case that all these precious old deteriorating analog master tapes need to be recorded to DSD256 while they still can be so that they aren't lost to posterity. 

But this will pass. Twenty years from now people will wonder what all the hubbub was about, if they think about it at all.

@bukanona that depends. Not all studios are using DSD for recording because editing it later on is a pain in the ass, and many engineers have not yet been trained on how to best use it or the necessary tools. I would think most studios are going to keep using whatever "digital" recording tech they use because they want to get as much bang for their investment as possible and they don't want to have to send their engineers back to school or get them training.  

But hopefully one day they all will. DSD256 and higher will be worth it - at least assuming there are people around who care about quality in the future. 

For now, I've heard 24-bit/192KHz is used by many, others might have higher PCM resolutions. 

@theaudioamp I didn't say "perfect" I said  or meant "better".  PCM is great. We've been loving it since the 1980s.  But DSD allows for far higher sampling rates such that interpolation is kept to a minimum.  Yes, Paul is very persuasive in his talks. And I have bought and played DSD64 and up files from him and Blue Coast and thought they were nice. Indeed though, the care taken in recording and using the proper mics and set up can go a long ways to making something sound good - or bad - no matter what the native recording format is. 

As computers get better and faster, why not use DSD? Maybe not today for most studios, but 20 years from now, I don't see why not. No one can argue that a more detailed representation file of a sound shouldn't (in theory) sound better than a lower representation file.  Can your human ears hear the difference on your system I guess is the real question.  

Many audiophiles have bought into wanting high resolution PCM and some say that yes, they can hear a difference between CD quality and 24-bit/96Khz or higher.  Qobuz and Tidal are proof of that.

I enjoy CD quality for the most part just fine. I can buy into the idea of recording analog master tapes to DSD256 for "backup" isn't a bad idea though. 

@theaudioamp I guess that is the "thing"...Are we kidding ourselves that our ears can hear the difference in CD quality versus anything with more resolution? But if studios are recording in 24/96 it would seem best if we could buy the files in that native format or stream them. 

But then again, if TV manufacturers ever start making 32K super-super-duper resolutions and enough color depth for a trillion shades of grey, you can bet people will buy them.

Advertising hype works.  Not too many went broke using the ideas of Edward Bernays. 

I note that while many have their panties in a wad over this MoFi controversy (and perhap rightly so), they aren't quite as bent out of shape knowing MoFi used DSD256 instead of PCM at 24/96, so maybe it does come down to "impressions, perceptions, and misconceptions".

One last posting on this mess. This copied from Cookie Marenco at Blue Coast Music. (Yes, just like PS Audio's Octave Records they sell CDs and DSD files of music they record using DSD).

"It was hard to avoid the conversation about Mobile Fidelity (MoFi) and their vinyl releases over the last few weeks. I have my own perspective on the situation - take it or leave it...

In case you missed it, here’s what happened.... Mobile Fidelity has been a long time favorite brand for audiophiles to purchase licensed vinyl. They master in their own facility in Northern California using well respected engineers and top notch equipment. After watching the interview with the mastering engineers, I believe they made the best choices possible to preserve the sound of the original tape and transfer that to vinyl. Even the vinyl critics agree that the sound is spectacular.

In the last few years, MoFi engineers started cutting from DSD256 rather than make a second analog tape stage. I completely understand. I love analog tape, but I’ve made the comparison tests myself... making a copy on tape from another tape (called a safety copy) doesn’t sound as "good" to me as making a copy of the tape to DSD256. If you have to chose between a safety copy on tape or DSD256, I would choose DSD256. And besides, as a tape lover myself, finding new tape that sounds good is a problem. After Ampex/Quantegy went out of business, I had questions whether I could tolerate the sound of new tape... some of it sounds worse than PCM recording - just my opinion.

It happens, one of the mastering engineers, Krieg Wunderlich, had been our repair tech for more than 20 years and he talked about their processes often. I knew what they were doing and how. It was never a secret. He never said, "Don’t tell anyone how we do this".

But, many vinyl music lovers felt there was a coverup as to how MoFi was mastering their vinyl recordings. I think the journalists and reviews for vinyl didn’t want to ask the right questions. Technology changes... tape and machine become obsolete and fragile. Changes to processes have to be made to offer anything on vinyl or other formats. One thing was clear in all the confusion... the audiophile reviewers loved the sound MoFi was getting for their vinyl reissues.

I watched a lot of videos taking advantage of the ’click bait’ opportunities with even the mention of "MoFi" on their youtube channels. There are interviews of journalists, reviewers and more about how "outrageous" the situation was. Then, they interviewed each other. There was also a lot of misinformation being spread by these outraged journalists. People heard what they wanted to hear and made up what they didn’t pay attention to. Frankly, I was more disappointed in the journalists involved than MoFi.

One thing was clear - the journalists and reviewers felt the MoFi DSD256 vinyl recordings sounded fantastic.

So why did I know how MoFi was mastering and not the journalists or reviewers? Maybe because the journalists didn’t want to know and never thought to ask? Didn’t want to learn something new? Needed a dumbed down answer because the truth is technology is difficult to understand? There were a lot of assumptions being made on a very difficult subject. Personally, I believe that if any journalist decided to interview any of the great mastering engineers they would hear a lot of things they don’t want to hear... or understand.

Having been in the business of selling DSD and HD downloads for a long while, we get a lot of questions from consumers and even other distributors. If there were easy methods for any of the recording, mixing or mastering process, everyone would be doing it. But there’s no easy explanation. We routinely respond to our customers and many ask the same questions 10 times... to which we answer 10 times. It’s like using the word "best"... If a $200 DAC is the best or a $20,000 DAC is the best... then what does the word "best" mean?

People want black and white answers when there are multiple shades of grey. Systems aren’t perfect and each mastering has a different set of issues. Believe me, we all wish that wasn’t the case. At Blue Coast Music we try to be transparent in our work by adding the provenance to each album.

Since all this news shattered the vinyl enthusiasts dreams, MoFi has released a statement that they will include the information about the methods used in each mastering. Better late than never.

There is (of course) the other side of this which is..... A lot of DSD enthusiasts who listen to vinyl already know how good DSD sounds and many people wondered what the fuss was about.

Here we say ----

Enjoy your music, how ever you want to listen to it!

Cookie Marenco"

@rauliruegas I think the main gist of the "issue" is that many audiophiles were misled (or thought they were misled) by MoFi's "lie of omission".  MoFi never came out and said they were AAA all the way, but many believed that because MoFi never said (until now) otherwise.  I hope this teaches companies to be more forthcoming and honest with consumers.  If they had said in 2015 we are going to start using DSD to record analog masters because we think it is the better way to go, then some would have agreed and a few others might not. But it would have been out there for all to know and make their purchasing decisions. 

I really don't have a dog in this hunt. Like you I just love music whether vinyl, CD, FLAC, or DSD. Good gear is what delivers that and I'm a techie geek engineer so I love that gear too. And the fact that most recordings made from now on (indeed in the last 10 years or so) are going to be digital anyway.  What studio records to analog these days? 

Like Cookie at Blue Coast I simply take a pragmatic view of all this. However, for those who feel "wronged" I can understand their angst. It's like finding out your girlfriend fakes most of her orgasms - but she is really, really good at it.