MoFi controversy

Americans love to sue, sue, sue and that is what is on full display here there is no demonstration of any suffering, loss, or injury just a chance to pick up some $$$USD.

In the other side those woofers goes down to 16hz and common sense ( not with technical foundation. ) tells me that it does not play way higher than its crossover design at 450 and as a fact still have a first order filter through the in series inductor.

@rauliruegas My woofers can go that low too. They are crossed over at 500Hz and have significant output well above 1500Hz; I would expect yours do too. If I were you I'd be looking at a better quality capacitor rather than simply removing them.

Dear @atmasphere  . : Thank's, I already understand that but as anything in audio always exist a trade off and we need to choose what we think is the best trade-off and seems to me that the crossover caps makes more degradation to the signal reproduced by those woofers that the eventually " distortion " generated with out the caps.

In the other side those woofers goes down to 16hz and common sense ( not with technical foundation. ) tells me that it does not play way higher than its crossover design at 450 and as a fact still have a first order filter through the in series inductor.

 

Anyway, you explanation appreciated. Thank's again.

 

R.

You have got to be kidding me. I own dozens of Original Master Recordings from Mofi including a couple of One Steps, and would be upset if a ridiculous lawsuit caused them to go bankrupt. Whoever is suing them must not be a music lover, because it would lead to less competition and manufacturing of audiophile recordings.

I am not a lawyer (thankfully) but IMHO the only outcome of any lawsuit would be for MOFI to state the source/pressing process of each of their records, which they are now doing. The other damages are impossible to measure, and the only one getting paid would be the lawyers. We know what Bob Cray said about them....

Anyone trying to speculate buying their records and never playing them deserves what they get. For those of us who play them, we get the enjoyment, and if their value goes down as a result of this PR/Marketing blunder, so be it - that's life in the big city. I'm not selling - that will be my kids or wife's loss.

@rauliruegas

After what I posted here : do you still think that I must return the caps to the woofers crossover?

As @theaudioamp pointed out, some music may sound alright but other music may not; its likely the speakers will be less neutral due to distortion and frequency response variation. Since they are not rolling off correctly per the design of the speaker there will be too much energy in the range above the normal operation of the woofers.

Is the intention of suit to drive Mofi out of business?

IMO, someone with enough excess time and money is imposing a lawsuit because they can.

I get why some are ticked, and I understand suit has been instituted. What are the financial harms here, are Mofi recordings now worth less? For those individuals who own Mofi recordings, what do you estimate your harms are worth? Is the intention of suit to drive Mofi out of business?

 

I don't own any Mofi recordings, but I've mostly only heard positives in regard to sound quality. If sound quality hasn't suddenly morphed into lesser sound quality,  there is absolutely no qualitative loss.  Now, if its the case value of Mofi recordings have suddenly depreciated, which would be due solely to mass perceptive bias of digital inferiority,  there would still be no qualitative losses involved.  Can one prove analog recordings with digital step involved have less inherent worth than those with no digital step? Not sure this has been proved in case of Mofi, let alone with any vinyl media.

 

Certainly, there has been some level of misrepresentation by Mofi. I understand there should be some measure of consequence for Mofi, What amount of money, assuming there are settlement monies involved should go to owners of Mofi recordings? In my view there is no loss in regard to this specific issue to individual Mofi recording  purchasers. I'd like to see any money settlement go to preservation/restoration of analog masters.

MoFi President Jim Davis Addresses the Digital LP-Mastering Controversy - 

https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/mofi-president-jim-davis-on-the-companys-mastering-process 

Too many of you don’t get it. Why is MoFi’s process a mystery?

Why aren’t they transparent about their products?

Why is their only interview with a retailer who gets free or discounted products who then in turn serves up softball questions? I hear Fremer asked for an interview and was declined. See question 3

Where is the honesty?

Why treat your loyal customer base like disposable trash?

Reality - Line up the lawyers while a Class Action lawsuit comes your way.

Why, because you earned it!

 

@dconsmack  +1

Dear @moonwatcher  ; These are two reasons  to focus on system fine tunning and enjoy listening MUSIC instead buy LPs " new " re-issues or new audio equipment. 

Today the MUSIC reproduction at my place is a full enjoyment " jail " that does not permits any thing but following the listening experience:

This came from my post in other thread.

Btw, sorry to disturb the OP thread/subject:

 

Btw, no one in that tech-talk forum shared opinion about the woofers inductor crossover subject and there are heavy knowledge level gentlemans as erik , bdp, graynnig and many others but maybe do not posted because are still a little " angry/disturbed " with me when I posted that the boutique/fancy capacitors are just bs against the overall  industry ( not in specific and only audio but whole ) standard caps.

R.

Dear @atmasphere : As you know I use my 20.6’s as amps and as crossover to the speakers woofers can runs over around 80hz ( first order crossover. ).

 

The ADS woofers then crossover to the mid range at 450hz. The woofers are made of pulp/paper ( two 14" woofers each speaker. ) and the 3.5 mH silver inductor is wired in series with the woofer + input and from the + amp output and negative is direct to the amp output negative.

 

So, the stock crossover is a second order and with out the caps I understand is now a first order crossover. Yes probably the woofers are not with the same linearity than with the caps but I already tested unders several play conditions: low/high SPL with solo instruments as violin or piano and full scores as the Gladiator movie CD or the Telarc 1812 and under any of those tests that I did it 3-4 times either what I been aware is a better QS not day and nigth difference but a difference for the better.

I know perfectly not only the LP/CD I used but I know really good my room/system overall performance and I can’t be aware of any minimum breackup, at least that be audible.

I know that a way different speaker design and obviously dedicated for the speaker but in the past Serblin designer/owner of Sonus Fqaber use only inductors in the crossover of some models. Of course that that is not a reference been a different drivers/design.

After what I posted here : do you still think that I must return the caps to the woofers crossover?

 

Thank’s in advance,

R.

Which kind of problems could be to appear in the woofer or amps

@rauliruegas 

Many woofers break up at higher frequencies. The breakups are great in a blues guitar amps but they really aren’t good for hifi. Breakups are portions of the cone that are no longer acting as a piston with the rest of the cone. Its like a resonance but doesn’t show up in the impedance curve. This is one reason ’full range’ drivers don’t work all that well unless crossed over.

Dear @theaudioamp  : Before I did it I connected the woofer hard wired to the amps outputs, this is with out inductor/caps and performs good with out any breackup I been aware with and my system has very high resolution with almost non-existent noise floor.

 

I really appreciated your post as the @atmasphere  too. Now, you said:

"" You need to capacitor to turn the woofer off before it starts creating problems. ""

Which kind of problems could be to appear in the woofer or amps.? can be damaged the woofers. Are excellent ADS drivers?

 

Thank's in advance,

R.

@rauliruegas ,

 

I am not sure I have seen a woofer that does not have some breakup at higher frequencies, at least to some degree and this is especially true when you look at the off-axis response. The problem with only using the inductor is that the impedance of the woofer goes up with frequencies. Hence that single inductor is not going to attenuate that breakup very much. You may end up with something that sounds lively with some music, but pretty bad with other music. You need to capacitor to turn the woofer off before it starts creating problems. If you don’t want the cap, perhaps an active crossover would be a better path.

 

Sorry @atmasphere I hadn't refreshed this tab and didn't see your reply.

My last move was to take out the caps in the speaker woofers crossover and left only the pure silver ribbon inductor and I will try to do the same with the speaker tweeter silk dome. At the end the best cap is no cap at all.

@rauliruegas One important function of the crossover is to prevent the driver from operating out of its proper region. Depending on the driver this could mean that without those caps you might have more breakups audible- increasing distortion. I would do this with care if I were you.

Dear @moonwatcher  : Agree. For the last 2-3 years I was and am focus to put at minimum every single distortion developed through the whole system chain and I did and do it at every single link on that chain.

 

I'm fine tunning my system that today has an incredible resolution that permits really easy to note any " microscopic " differences and that permit to enjoy the MUSIC the most.

I'm not buying hardware because I don't need it any more but improving what I have. My last move was to take out the caps in the speaker woofers crossover and left only the pure silver ribbon inductor and I will try to do the same with the speaker tweeter silk dome. At the end the best cap is no cap at all.

 

Details as those makes MUSIC.

 

R.

Music Direct owns Mobile Fidelity.

When I have chance, I will stop by Music Direct talk to one of their guy to see what they think on this issue? 

@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. 

Dear friends: I think that some or many of us knew what @moonwatcher  postedddd b@theaudioamp  posted too: when one supports digital in the analog forum is threated as a " pariah ".

 

I never cared about and for to many years I " preached "  that digital is a superior SQ alternative no matters what and people like  @atmasphere  in one thread posted that if I was a digital  man why I " live " in the analog forum. Other gentlemans as m.lavigne disagree with me telling that still " today " analog normally is superior alternative but at the same time he accepted that DSD 2/4X could be excellent.

 

@alexberger  people like me that know for sure and for many years the SQ superiority of digital alternative stay in analogue because in my case I own 7K+ LPs but many of you are over 10K and this is the main reason, at least for me.

Alex you posted:

 

"" most of the new reissues, including the most famous audiophile brands, sound like digital. ""

sorry but that's no posible. The best SQ LP sounds as the best SQ LP  not digital.

My LP experiences told me that when recording manufacturers started to use digital medium the LP experience improved, especially in the bass frequency range.

I own a lot of PCM recorded LPs coming from Telarc, Chandos, Denon, Chalfont, etc, etc. The best Denon Lps or Telarcs as the 1812 have and excellent SQ even today and even are best that its reissues as the FIM 1812 resissiue that¿'s very good but the original is better.

 

I left to buy LPs for the last 2 years, today I do it but in very special ocasions. The LP industry has nothing new to shows up. First step or one side recordings and the like are not something new and unfortunatelly there are almost none new really new LP recordings but mainly reissues so why pay so many money for more of the same? and many of you already posted the answer: "  because I want the best SQ " . and my question here is " best quality sound " against what? which my reference ? and things are that almost all of us our reference is what we like it instead the live MUSIC or at least what's neaer to the recording.

 

We are accustom to the full/whole LP distortions generated/developed through the home system playback analog rig and phono stage. Things are that those " thousands " of bad any kind of distorions that degrades in heavy way what's in the recording are NICE to our ears, it's what we are accustom to and what we like no matter what.

 

I accepted the superiority of digital alternative many years ago because I'm not an analog lover but a MUSIC lover that's way different, so I want to listen the best SQ and today the only alternative that meet that target is digital.

 

The digital/analog issue is only common sense. Any one of you please analise each single step of all " manipulation " that suffers the LP recorded signal starting at the first moment that that archaic cartridge playback proccess starts till we reveive the sound through the speakers. That tortuose path is not high SQ but high degraded sound that's different.

 

Of course it's only an opinion.

 

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,

R.

R.

Well said @sns. 

Perhaps we'll all look back on this "outing" as the start of the end of the analog / digital argument. One can obviously sound as good as the other.

As the article mentioned through a quote, anyone who believed 40,000 copies of Michael Jackson's "Thriller" were all done through the "one-step" process needs help. They obviously don't understand the limitations of analogue tape. Put differently, most of us who are vinyl fans knew that digital was being used. Fremer wrote about this again, again, and again. Were you folks that are now complaining not reading?  Granted, the marketing terms and the one-step diagram ARE misleading. Absolutely. But the reality was there for all to see. 

As the article also points out, MoFi got rescued/revived after BR by Music Direct and though profitable now has only a "handful of full-time employees". Being a small operation without good management leads to this type of publicity debacle. 

I have long known MoFi wasn’t cutting their lacquers from "the" original master (which "original" master? The 1/4" or 1/2" two or three track tape---commonly used in the late-50’s and early-60’s, or the 2-track "master" mixed from those 3-tacks? Or the 1" four and then eight tracks used from the mid-to-late 60’s? Or the 2-track master mix made from the multi-track? Or the 2" 16 or 24 tracks from the late-60’s onward, or the master mix made from those multi-tracks?). No label (especially Sony) is going to let their master tapes out of their sight. Those tapes are worth a fortune! ALL reissues are made from a copy tape (with one notable exception---see below), in the record biz known as the production master (or safety copy).

That is why first Classic Records and then Analogue Productions long ago took over leadership in the LP reissue field. Bernie Grundman cut his Kind Of Blue lacquer from the actual 1/2" 3-track master, run directly into his cutting lathe. Not after making a 2-track final mix tape (analogue or digital) and using it as the cutting lather source, but directly from the playback machine’s circuitry into the lathe! While preparing for the mastering of KOB, Grundman discovered the original LP (and also subsequent reissues) had one LP side cut with the master tape running at the wrong speed! Turns out the 3-track machine used on one day of the album’s recording was running either slightly too fast or slow (I forget which), and the lacquer cut in the original mastering job played back off-pitch and tempo! Grundman of course corrected it, and Sony has used speed-corrected masters since.

Grundman cut the lacquer for Classic Records, from which the metal father was made. More recently Analogue Productions used that same metal part to press their reissue of Kind Of Blue. After the passing of infamous mastering engineer Doug Sax, AP’s Chad Kassem bought the mastering chain long used by Sheffield Labs for their world class work.

MoFi’s reissue of The Beach Boys’ Surfer Girl album was good, Analogue Productions version is INSANELY great! Michael Ludwig (45 RPM Audiophile on You Tube) declared the AP pressing of Surfer Girl one of the 10 greatest sounding LP’s of all time. Fremer has in in his Top 100.

Also doing great work is Speakers Corner in Germany (their LP’s pressed at Pallas, perhaps the best pressing plant in the world), and Intervention Records in Washington State. Both go to great lengths to make 100% analogue-sourced and pressed LP’s, while MoFi for over twenty years deliberately hid the fact that they were mastering from digital copies of the analogue masters, knowing full well an LP mastered from a digital copy would not sell as well as one mastered from what they claimed were analogue master tapes, an outright lie.

@dconsmack you know what the best analog sound sounds like? It sounds exactly the same as digital. That is a fact that audiophiles would be best to accept. Now if what you really want is a bunch of stacked artifacts just saw so.

 

Turntable setups are finicky beasts that are rarely perfect. Frequency response issues, high distortion, crosstalk, all kinds of nasties. An SACD will never sound like your turntable even if the two recordings are mastered for as close to the same result as possible. There are too many artifacts and non fixed variables in vinyl.
 

I am defending the result of MoFi not business practices. If your organic produce was grown on overused old cotton fields, do you think the result is better than non organic?

@dconsmack - MoFi corrected the mistake that some have taken issue with. I didn't care. 

I want the best sounding record possible. Your organic produce argument doesn't hold weight - there are no health benefits to pure analogue.

Not sure why you want the best analogue sound possible, don't you care about pressing quality? . Are you trying to judge engineers in a contest for third place (or lower) in terms of SQ? Engineers can do a great job, but if the pressing sucks, what is the point?

To theaudioamp… I didn’t buy a MoFi record because I wanted the best sound possible. I wanted the best ANALOG sound possible. If I wanted the best digital sound possible I would’ve bought an sacd or a download. I wanted the analog experience. I have hundreds of digitally sourced records. The thing I was paying extra for was the analog experience. I wanted to know what the best a team of engineers could do to take analog as far as it could go, warts and all. If you argue that DSD makes a better record, fine. But I didn’t want a DSD record no matter how good it sounded. If I was paying extra for organic produce and I found out it was conventionally grown in another country, I’d be pissed even if the imported produce tasted good. Anyway, it’s clear no explanation or analogy will make you understand that what MoFi did is unacceptable. 

@sokogear that is just Philelore talking.  I can run a DAC off a laptop with an isolator, spend $1,000 on a DAC, and get far more resolution and accuracy then vinyl could ever dream of. That would be true of a $100 DAC too. Yes, true. There is absolutely no point on which vinyl can stand though many will try. Run a Pi off a linear supply instead. Same result. A Bluesound Node with an external DAC, same result. Almost no one uses a transport today, most streamers are purely to extract money, and the present day cost of 50 years of streaming at what I am paying would suffice for but a small record collection. No shipping, no driving to find things, etc. All there. I have about 10,000 songs in my permanent library. If my ISP is down, I have 30 days before the license expires.

 

@alexberger I don't discount the "synergy" between who knows what the frequency response is of vinyl setup and the rest of a system, the euphonics of high distortion, and other artifacts programmed over decades.

Hi @sns,

I completely agree with you.

In terms of sound quality vinyl before ~1965 is really special. I don't say it is better than any digital records but nothing gives me similar enjoyment of sound and music.

For example, most records produced from 1965 to 1970 do not sound good and good digital or analogue remastering of same records sound much better. I think in these years the main issue in sound quality was in record pressing production and less in masters itself.

The pressing quality has improved by 70x, but most of the records are not very special except some like for example, Sheffield Labs.

Regards,

Alex.

To set up an equal quality DAC, streamer, transport, etc. costs more than an equivalent quality sounding vinyl rig. Plus add in some subscription fees and the inconsistency of your ISP and it's not as cut and dry as you think @alexberger 

If you want a huge variety of new music and library and are just starting out, I would go digital. Most people on AG are not in that mold. Lots of old folks, and those getting there (like me).

If digital is used in vinyl remastering-production proses. Why do we need this vinyl at all? Why don’t stream these files or play this music on SACD/CD player?

Why anyone has to spend $150 for this kind of vinyl, and thousands of $$$ for carriages, turntables, tonearms and phono stages? Why don’t save money for a better DAC, streamer or transport?

@sns with the fragility of older tape, I expect most tapes used to cut the vinyl were a few steps away from the 1st master out of caution and necessity. I have to assume the people who were making the master to the vinyl knew this and may have accounted for generational changes in the sound and compensated. I am guessing though. Are there any 90 year old mastering engineers in the house?  Perhaps the goal of being pristine to the 1st master is flawed?

@theaudioamp Hard to say, amongst my vinyl collection are hot stampers, can imagine many more very early generation masters as vast majority of 3.5K vinyl collection is from the era it was first released in. I'm thinking most of difference I hear between old and new vinyl is from both differences in recording studios and mastering chain. I have a ton of 50's and 60's recordings, tube recording studio equipment, very little multi tracking. this sounds very different from late 60's into 80's vinyl, multi tracking, ss recording equipment. The much later vinyl I own does improve on most of the late 60's thru 80's vinyl, for the reasons you stated above. The earlier stuff I prefer on early vinyl, I like the warmth, resonance, natural qualities of those recordings, specifically on vinyl. I'm not going to complain about how digital does these recordings either, sound great as well. For most  recordings late 60's on up, in order of preference, best being last, old vinyl, new vinyl, digital streaming. Keep in mind these are my individual preferences played back on my individual vinyl and streaming systems.

 

For me, in general, these late 60's-80's recordings benefit from remastering and being played back via digital, I'm sure this has much to do with superiority of my steaming vs vinyl setups, but I also believe much of the remastering is done with digital playback in mind. I assume past 1980's recordings all being done digitally.

 

 

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.

@moonwatcher Tape does not have much of a 'sound'. Tape technology does. In case you are not aware, new tape is being made by ATR Magnetics https://www.atrtape.com/

-and it 'sounds' just fine; every bit as good as the Ampex/Quantegy. But of course, any time you change the tape you're recording with the bias on the record head should be optimized for the tape or it won't 'sound' right. So it might sound bright or otherwise unpleasant if the bias is off. If you've run into this and think its the tape, its really your machine not being set up right.

Beyond that any properly functioning tape machine will express a bit of 3rd harmonic at or near 0VU (when properly calibrated) which adds a bit of warmth to the sound.

@dconsmack -  I hope there are lots of people like you out there. It will keep the prices of the used UD 1steps down and keep the scalpers who don't ever play them away. Please continue cutting off your nose to spite your face.

The only thing the DSD transfer will do is remove a generational loss. If they added another analog tape step, there would be more noise, more compression of high level transients, etc.  It is as close to the 1st gen master as possible. Then again, that 1st gen master is possibly quite old now.  Do you associate more realistic high level transients as "digital"? Perhaps.  You may associate softening of those transients as more natural as it is what you are used to, even if it is less natural.  Many analog records were pressed by 2nd and 3rd gen tapes, so more of the above noise and softening of high level peaks. The 1 step process may also preserve more transient detail. It may not even be the digital step.

@theaudioamp The masses may not have been screaming, but I've been telling myself this for many years now, Alex seems to be in same boat.

 

I'm not saying the old or new vinyl objectively better or worse, it just sounds different, and I'd agree it sounds more like my digital than the old vinyl. Vinyl and digital sound different on my vinyl and digital setups, so they do have different sound qualities, at least in my setup. And I'd bet vast majority of those with both setups find them to sound different.

 

I'm not judging one as better than other, Iove my streaming setup, rarely listen to vinyl anymore, digital is great. This is not about digital vs analog.

To my ears, most of the new reissues, including the most famous audiophile brands, sound like digital.

 

Which means exactly what? No one knew. No one was screaming for the last many years that they sounded digital (whatever that means). A big difference in modern audiophile vinyl is how much quieter they are. They may have a wider frequency response due to superior equipment. Does that mean they sound digital? Digital does not sound like anything except flat frequency response without noise.

 

Guess its up to each individual to make cost/benefit analysis in this and every transaction.

 

@alexberger Probably 90% of my vinyl (over 3,500) is 1950's-80's recordings purchased in 1980's. Certainly sound different than my newer reissues, can't be sure if this due to remixing or adding digital to process. I'd just say more sterile sound quality, less warmth and naturalness vs original recordings. I much prefer my digital setup for newer recordings.

I have several hundred old records from the 50s to the 80s. I also have over a hundred new reissues. 

To my ears, most of the new reissues, including the most famous audiophile brands, sound like digital. I am sure that not only MOFI uses digital in their record path.
I don't understand people who justify MOFI in this scandal, unless they are people who have a material interest in all sorts of reviewers and other hucksters.
If you like digital sound (I don't mind since digital doesn't mean bad sound) then why spend thousands of dollars on vinyl equipment and buy records for $150+ each? Isn't it easier to listen to good digital recordings on a good digital source?

Regards,

Alex.

If their customers are audiophiles with the stated goal of the best sound possible, then what is more contemptuous, providing the best sound possible but not clearly defining how, or using an inferior all analog process and then claiming it is the best when it quite clearly is not the best possible and they know it is not the best possible?

 

I cannot believe how many people are making excuses for and/or defending an unethical company who LIED to their customers about making an all analog product in order to charge a massive premium. The literature included in all their releases clearly depicts and/or describes a master tape being the source for their lacquers. It’s literally the core feature of their business. A nice sounding fake analog record does not excuse MoFi from selling a fraudulent product. I will never buy anything from them again, even if their records cure cancer. It would only reward their greed and contempt for their customers. 

Looks like the ’One Step’ Evans SATVV is an AAA recording, one of the very few! If so, I would think that this would increase its value, certainly to a higher point than ’Abraxas’, which is determined to be from a DSD source!

Sorry about the above sloppy post and duplications. It is impossible to figure out how to embed links and then continue to add text at various places.

Hey @optimize  -

That was just to put this issue to bed. MOFI is now showing the sources for the mastering of the One Steps, unless they are not sure of what they'll use yet for ones not yet released. Most are 1/4" 15ips from its master to DSD 256, although they vary a bit. (Thriller is 1/2" 30ips, although I can't see them selling 40K of these).

 

A lot of guys are a lot deeper down the rabbit hole than I am. I've spoken with a guy who has 5-6 copies of the same record from different labels. And  he wouldn't sell me his second best copy! That's a deep hole. At least he's not trying to scalp them. Also, I don't know if you've ever heard of Better Records, but their customers are WAY down the rabbit hole. They sell normal pressings for hundreds of dollars. Cheapest are $169. Check this out - 

How about $900 for a regular copy of Aja? I am sure it sounds great, but $900? Hey - if you've got $$ to burn, more power to you, and they do guarantee satisfaction.

BTW - just to put this issue to bed, MOFI is explaining the sources of the UD 1 steps on their web site now, unless they don't know what they are going to use on the new ones. 

 

@sokogear 

"I only care about the SQ."

I see you are also deep into the rabbit hole of vinyl.😉

I used to think the same. During many years of optimizing and evolving my system to just getting it better and better. Learning how production process of a LP and their steps. Going deep into LP rabbit hole. With the mental drive force that I am only after SQ..

 

But after all upgrades, refinements and increasing knowledge. I now know that vinyl is not a way to obtain the BEST SQ after all my learning and experience but during the time going down to the hole and staying there the LP has rubbed off and i noticed that it is far from best SQ but other aspects than SQ that I value.

So more correct is to say. I care only about the best LP SQ. 

But it is a long journey with a lot technical knowledge (maybe it has helped me to been working in the process industry and later software developer and software tester so LP process is nothing magical or digital for that matter with critical thinking as tester) to come to that conclusion.

 

 

I don't care which way the disc was created/recorded. If it sounds good to me that's all it matters, specially if I'm able to say whoa!!!

Having say that, I was all this time under the impression that my MoFi were all a strictly analog business, but reading and learning some stuff here, I'm actually glad that it's not all an analog business, and that that 4x DSD technology helps to create those awesome Ultra Disc LPs. 👏 

I was told once by a legend in the recording/record business that the "art" of recording and mic placement is different if recording in analog vs recording in digital. I've also been told that editing in DSD is a pain...doesn't much matter to me. I hope MoFi continues to thrive and continues to put out great sounding recordings. Same goes for Jack White...

 

If it sounds good it IS good.

@blisshifi - I'm certainly far from a hifi expert.  I do a little reading and watch some videos and try to pick out the commonalities and things that seem to be common sense to me.

The idea that the mastering for vinyl (70 dB dynamic range) and CD (100 dB dynamic range) and SACD (120 dB dynamic range) would be expected to yield different sonics making it impossible to truly compare them directly.  It's always going to be an apples to oranges comparison starting with the media.

It seems reasonable that the best mastering for each format would result from the mastering being done with that format in mind.  Even though the mastering for vinyl could be placed on on either CD or SACD, maybe the sound could be improved by better utilizing the full dynamic range.

I doubt they will do it, but I suggested that PS Audio include their masters for vinyl on SACD.  This would allow listeners to compare SACD mastered for SACD to SACD mastered for vinyl to vinyl mastered for vinyl.

My personal opinion is that the more limited dynamic range of vinyl leads to a specific sound that is very pleasing to the ear for most people and the mechanical process of the stylus also adds some of the smoothness that's associated with the format.  I couldn't find the video, but I think it was Paul from PS Audio that described the methods of "compressing" the master onto vinyl where it can be done by squeezing top and bottom (bad) or just increasing the level of the bass (good).

In the end, there's so many factors the impact the final result that I don't think it's possible to make a definitive statement.  The best that I've heard in an A/B was vinyl, but the digital was also fantastic.

 

Looks like the digital b_#ches are here to prop up their format.

Regardless fact is a lot of studios use digital master and cut lacquer.

Third Man records will not and Jack White is true to the art of vinyl. As a matter of fact Jack is now cutting the masters to vinyl first shot.