MoFi controversy

There are any number of great sounding originals and reissues of “Sunday at the VV”, probably because the recording process must have been so well done and the results so superb.

I don't own any of them.

Always so much speculation on this discussion board.  I can tell you with certainty that mine don't sound any worse after getting this "news".  You may not think they are "worth" the asking price, but go try to find a copy of the Nightfly (or most any of them for that matter) and you'll see they are not losing their value.  

A couple of thoughts:

1. This is about misleading marketing practices...not which one sounds the best. A One Step could be made from an 8-track tape dub and may be the best sounding ever. However, the box needs to say the source and signal chain for such expensive pressings. 

2. Analog vs Digital. My guess with today's digital converters one would need to hear the original master tape and then a flat transfer(DSD) from that tape. Any sound quality differences at the consumer level probably has more to do with the mastering tweaks and/or format (LP, etc) and it's inherited sound charactoristics.

Fill the same as aberyclark

Once you tell the lie and know that it's going to produce fooled buyers how can we trust MOFI again.

@tomcy6  Found it.

https://mydigitalpublication.com/publication/?i=751045&article_id=4294938&view=articleBrowser&ver=html5

Thanks @twoleftears .  I'll definitely read it.  Should be interesting.

@optimize Dynamic compression is not an overlooked problem. It is discussed often here and on other forums. It is by far the biggest problem for digital formats and is contributing to the vinyl resurgence among audiophiles.

There is little we can do about it other than to not buy overly compressed recordings (actually the problem is often overly limited music, limiting is making quiet sounds louder, I believe). The major and many independent labels insist on dynamically compressing digital music in spite of many complaints. We can only hope this practice will end one day.

MoFi’s customers are fired up because they have been misled, to put it diplomatically. They are right to be outraged about MoFi’s marketing of their vinyl. Let the vinyl folks have their say. The dynamic compression issue will not go away.

People keep saying MoFi lied as if the matter has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt but I see no indication of its truth, no evidence, no claims based on actual documented misrepresentations, but plenty of fire, fury, and self-proclaimed "injury." 

Clearthink ++++ you nailed it.

@clearthink @jayctoy

What proof I found that In my book I consider as a lie.

Is that they supply a sheet withe each one-step box, that explains the one-step process and how they do it:

"MFSL engineers begin with the original master tapes and meticulously cut a set of lacquers."

here is the source:

MFSL lies

@optimize I clicked on the link you provided and for "Thriller" it clearly states the transfer was from 1/2" analog master to DSD.  Not sure what the issue is.

@clearthink I guess that people can disagree on whether MoFi calling their vinyl mastering process Ultra Analog and not disclosing that the master tapes are converted to digital is lying or not, but it’s not being open and straightforward when these vinyl albums can cost up to $125 each, is it?

From Mofi’s website:

Technologies – Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs (mofi.com)

GAIN 2™ Ultra Analog™ System for Vinyl

GAIN 2 Ultra Analog™ is a proprietary cutting system built and designed by legendary design genius Tim De Paravicini, with consultation from one of MFSL’s founding fathers – Stan Ricker, an audio engineer responsible for many of MFSL’s most heralded past releases.

The GAIN 2 Ultra Analog™ system is comprised of a Studer™ tape machine with customized reproduction electronics* and handcrafted cutting amps that drive an Ortofon cutting head on a restored Neumann VMS-70 lathe. (*It is worth noting that independent studies have confirmed that the GAIN 2 Ultra Analog™ system can unveil sonic information all the way up to 122kHz!)

First and foremost, we only utilize first generation original master recordings as source material for our releases. Our lacquers are then plated in a specialized process that protects transients in the musical signal. (Due to this process, there may be occasional pops or ticks inherent in initial play back, but as the disc is played more, a high quality stylus will actually polish the grooves and improve the sound). We further ensure optimum sound quality by strictly limiting the number of pressings printed for each release. These limited editions, in addition to being collectors’ items, ensure that the quality of the last pressing matches the quality of the first.

As you can imagine, all these efforts involve a tremendous amount of time, technology, cost and effort. The introduction of GAIN 2 Ultra Analog™ maintains Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab’s position as the world’s leading audiophile record label, where a passion for music with extraordinary sound quality matters most.

@onhwy61 

I Retested and clicked on the image and got the image.

Should look something like this:

Yes, the DSD on the UltraDisc One-Step description and images has been added since the story broke.

DSD is now included in the description under the Technologies tab as well as posted with each individual UD1S album.  NOTE:  There are a few albums without the DSD statement added.  I'm not sure if that means the album was created from the original tape without the use of a DSD file or if they (hurriedly) missed a few albums in the description upgrade.  Either way, they seem to have felt the heat and have complied with better transparency.

My opinion, though, is they should further update their Technology statement with a detailed description as to why they do it in this manner.  While they have gone to great lengths to describe and market the UD1S process and purpose, this new reveal about DSD should also include a full and complete disclosure of the technological details and why it serves purpose.  Maybe sometime soon?

@twoleftears Interesting article. Plenty of opportunity to mention that their modified Studer contains an analog to digital converter and why they do the transfer this way, but no mention of it at all.

In the youtube video with the MoFi mastering engineers after the story broke, they say they get a better source to work with by converting to a 4x DSD file than they would if they made a tape to tape copy.

I think the reason this is such a big deal to some people is their almost religious conviction that digital is bad and that if it so much as touches the music, it contaminates the music irredeemably.  The fact that many of these people were "fooled" by the MoFi releases makes it such a betrayal to such belief.  

I don't care how they achieve a nice sounding release.  I find decent most, but not all, of the MoFi reissues I've heard, and that includes both their CD/SACD releases and vinyl albums.  Is it their mastering, or their technology, or access to decent source material, or quality manufacturing, or a combination of all these factors?  I would bet it is the combination.

I could not care less about this brouhaha, as I have already said, but tomcy quoted the following above, from the MoFi website. "First and foremost, we only utilize first generation original master recordings as source material for our releases."  If I were a lawyer (g*d forbid) arguing this issue in court, I would take the position that DSD-encoded music is in the category of "recordings".  Therefore, there is no deception surrounding tape vs SACD or 4XSACD.  The deception is around the definition of "first generation original master recordings". I am actually quite confident that they are getting better results with their technique than they could hope to achieve with a true first generation master tape, where the music was captured on tape 20 and much more years ago. And that's why they do it.

I'm a huge digital fan. I have tons of SACDs and Digital Hi-rez files. I'm also a vinyl collector. I think MoFi is now doing the right thing and all should be good. 

MoFi can change the narrative about digital since so many find their versions of LPs are the best. For myself, an owner of many Mofi regular and One Steps, it's a mixed bag. However, that, I'm sure has more to do with the sonic "flavor" from the mastering tweaks and my taste vs the quality of the master transfer. 

In my opinion, before all the hubub, I was starting to think MoFi was turning into a "Monster Cable" of audiophile record producers. Tons of pre-order announcements (sometimes years ahead of time), and tons of major, one-step releases. "We'll put the MoFi name on many things, records, gear, record cleaning...you name it....people will buy it all up". I think this controversy will make MoFi stronger in the long run and rethink placing their name on just anything.

1. This is about misleading marketing practices...not which one sounds the best. A One Step could be made from an 8-track tape dub and may be the best sounding ever. However, the box needs to say the source and signal chain for such expensive pressings.

Why isn’t it about which one sounds the best? It certainly is for me.

Is it OK if less expensive pressings don’t have all the details of how they were made? Do food manufacturers tell you what the artificial and natural flavors they use are? That leaves a lot of room for unknown sources in the food we eat, doesn’t it? But people are ready to blow a blood vessel over how a record is made?

This "controversy" reminds me of many discussions I’ve heard over the years about the use of Photoshop and other image manipulation tools. The "true believers" insist that you "get it right" in the camera (as if there isn’t a computer in all the cameras now). Others are more concerned with the end result than the process. If the end result is pleasing and the process doesn’t obviously affect the quality of the end product in a negative way, why does it matter?

I love a good controversy!

I did not know that Mofi claimed to use only first generation master tapes. Are you sure? That sounds like a bad practice. Common sense would be to use the generation that has degraded the least. Some of those 2nd generation master probably got less use over the years.

I own some Mofi. I never even considered whether they were AAA ADA, or whatever. I bought them for how they sound. If using a digital intermediary step is what got them there, then I am glad they did!  I got them to listen to, not as an investment. Whatever happened to "If it sounds good, it is good."?  Removing two plating steps is a far bigger improvement than any loss converting to digital and back. Their alternative was to create their own 2nd or whatever gen analog tape copy. That would be even worse and it would degrade a little every time played. Progress is hard to swallow people.

They do appear to have shot themselves in the foot with that Ultra Analog marketing stuff. I could see them getting fined for that, but good luck as the end consumer seeing any of that money. To prove damages, you would need to prove it sounds worse than if they didn't do that. Good luck with that. Forced to accept returns? Perhaps, but they likely go bankrupt first.

@big_greg 90% of people who purchased one steps did so believing they were buying an all analog “ chain” record. Regardless what sounds best, MoFi was well aware of this, thus avoiding any mention of dsd in their literature. 
 

Regardless of what you think sounds best, the analog aspect was important to those buyers and may have influenced if the purchase was made or not. 
 

the controversy has Nothing to do with sound quality. It’s about deceptive marketing practices

We are audiophiles. If we never bought anything from companies that use deceptive marketing practices, we would be listening on Gramophones.

Yes, it is about deceptive marketing practices.  And that is why I suggested they need to dive in deeper in their Technology tab and describe the entire process, full disclosure.  They are very good at marketing, and they need to do a good job now, marketing their entire chain from source to finished product, describing the full benefits for their end users.  Nothing to hide from, the product sound quality is excellent.

Well, MoFi has apologized and promises to do better:

mobilefidelity on Instagram: "We at Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab are aware of customer complaints regarding use of digital technology in our mastering chain. We apologize for using vague language, allowing false narratives to propagate, and for taking for granted the goodwill and trust our customers place in the Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab brand. We recognize our conduct has resulted in both anger and confusion in the marketplace. Moving forward, we are adopting a policy of 100% transparency regarding the provenance of our audio products. We are immediately working on updating our websites, future printed materials, and packaging — as well as providing our sales and customer service representatives with these details. We will also provide clear, specific definitions when it comes to Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab marketing branding such as Original Master Recording (OMR) and UltraDisc One-Step (UD1S). We will backfill source information on previous releases so Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab customers can feel as confident in owning their products as we are in making them. We thank you for your past support and hope you allow us to continue to provide you the best-sounding records possible — an aim we've achieved and continue to pursue with pride. Jim Davis President, Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab"

Very good start!  I love the product and will continue to buy it. It sounds very good.  Now, let's see how they live up to their word with total transparency and authenticity.

That statement needs to be on more than just Instragram.  I'll check their website in the morning.  They have a wonderful opportunity to market themselves, all over again.

@mammothguy54 Mofi has been updating the albums on their site with analog or DSD sources little by little. I'd say within a few days all the albums (future, past, and present) will be updated.

So on the MoFi website, it seems as though the one steps are the records affected by the digital process.  They discuss the ultradisc Gain 2 process and there is no mention of digital DSD, only on the One Steps.  They use a Studer tape machine Etc.   So those are probably all analogue.  They do say super analog. 

I'm guessing the site will be complete soon. The Washington Post is getting ready to drop a story on this and MoFi will want all their ducks in a row when that happens

So nowadays new vinyl means DSD master file at the very beginning. Nice to know.

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.

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?

@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. 

@moonwatcher, what engineers do you know who believe that PCM does not even come close and that DSD256 and better is perfect?  You have been listening to Paul's spiel at PS Audio a bit too much. I don't think he is an engineer in any sense of the word. 24/96 is the vast majority of what is done digital today during recording. Why? 24/192 only creates more data but does not sound any better. Even if someone was to record in DSD, practically no one mixes or masters in DSD. They convert to PCM, work in PCM, and then convert back to DSD. Even Sony's DSD editing system isn't pure single bit DSD at high data rate. It is converted to 8 bits. With PCM, all the tools are, or have moved to 64 bit processing internally.  If it makes you feel any better, all those 24 bit ADCs are sigma-delta converters so essentially start as DSD, then just convert down to PCM.

Audiophile companies make stuff that audiophiles will buy. That does not mean it is better or best. Somehow DSD got a reputation within the community, not because it sounds better, but probably because the recordings were better. If you are working purely in DSD, out of necessity, you are probably doing less tinkering. Philes still like physical media too. Not many have SACD players any more, but even fewer philes have something that can play a physical high resolution digital disc on their audio system that is not SACD.

This may help people understand how an LP is made.

Much to do about nothing.

@theaudioamp i agree with you. There are many digital recording methods. 24/96 will capture everything that is on an analog tape. Sony invented DSD to be an archive format

@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. 

@moonwatcher it is probably best to learn from people who understand how this technology works and people who think they do. There are too many philes that fall into the latter camp.

DSD samples more often, but its sample size is much larger. It needs to apply sophisticated noise shaping to move the noise out of the audio band to higher frequencies. Guess what, virtually every PCM ADC and most PCM DACs do exactly the same thing as their interior structure is a sigma-delta converter. Most PCM converters on playback upsample to a higher frequency as well. This allows simpler analog filter. Interpolation happens in the digital domain but it is a mathematical process and effectively perfect. In the analog domain there is no interpolation. It is simply a low pass filter. That low pass filter makes sure all the steps connect into as perfect an analog waveform as possible. Feeding in a DSD signal does not result in any better analog waveform on the output.

Here is the crazy thing about the phile world. They will believe many things are are inherently at conflict. For instance they talk about the superiority of DSD, while shunning sigma-delta ADCs. Sigma delta DACs are PCM mathematically converted to something that is effectively like DSD but using multiple bits to improve performance. They could do single bit, but the results would be worse.

Why not use DSD in computers? Because speed or not, it is a poor mathematical description of a signal to work with. 24/96 already represents everything perfectly up to past 40KHz. 24/192 already represents everything perfectly past 80KHz. It is already very hard, some argue well impossible, to tell the difference between 16\44.1 and 24\96 if you do the testing properly. Using TIDAL/ Qoboz as a comparison would not be considered an adequate test. Under no conditions will anyone be able to tell the difference between 24/96 and 24/192 data (note use of the word data). We aren't bats.  So absolutely it can be argued that a higher resolution file cannot sound better. We are simply not equipped to hear the difference.

There is a whole lot of phile beliefs that were perhaps one time true as well, but no longer are if they ever were. Whole product categories have rised out of these misconceptions. DSD is in many ways no different.

@aberyclark , neither Philips nor SONY invented DSD. Philips was the first to work on applying it to modern audio. Sony jumped on and they created the SACD standard.

@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".

I was dopped into believing I had something special so I unloaded a lot of money buying them and know feel raped and will go in a different direction in the future.

For all the digital guys here’s something to have a cup of coffee over! https://www.atrtape.com/sound-of-tape  

To understand why, a professional tape recorder provides the most lifelike reproduction revolves around a couple of important factors. The key lies in the inherent technology of the tape itself. Audio tape in use during the 1950s and ’60s provided approximately 65,000,000 magnetic particles per second of recording a quarter inch format at 15 inches per second (ips) tape speed. Each magnetic oxide particle or groups of particles takes on either a north or south orientation after exiting the recording head. Starting to sound like digital bit stream? Well yes and no. However there is one huge difference between analog tape recordings and even the best digital recordings.

RESOLUTION

The highest digital resolution today offers 4,608,000 bits switching per second. Not bad. Big improvement over the standard Red Book CD but it is not even close to sub-micron particle resolution of ATR Master Tape.

RANDOM PARTICLE STACKING

Quarter inch, two track ATR Master Tape running at 15 inches per second (ips) involves approximately 80,000,000 oriented and randomly stacked particles per track second. It’s not just the particle count but the random stacking that turns this super binary resolution into pure analog playback. This is why even a narrow track width recording still sounds so detailed despite the lower surface area.

Music is an intrinsic part of the human soul. It plays to our emotions, it talks to us, it calms us, it makes us rise to our greatest accomplishments and brings back our warmest memories. Why not record it on the best medium to achieve the best quality of sound?

theaudioamp

Member since	Jul 28, 2022   So....yah.....

@budlite22 , coffee? I think you mean a good laugh: https://www.atrtape.com/sound-of-tape I don’t know what they were smoking when they wrote that, but they should have been reading instead. Tape does not sound more life like. It sounds like tape.

You got it @secretguy , I am new and have not been brainwashed yet. Better ask me questions quick before my brain is sullied.

@budlite22 a wise old salesman once told me. It is our job to tell the customer what is better about our product. It is our competitors job to tell the customer what is wrong about your product. You don't lie to the customer and you never sell them something that will not work for them, but other than that, you just tell them the good stuff.

I will play the competitor to magnetic tape:

• While it is true that there is a high density of tape particles, our competitor left out a few key points.
• The storage and recording is affected by magnetic particle density. It is impossible to keep the magnetic particle density perfectly consistent along the tape causing distortion.
• In addition to manufacturing inconsistency, the tape moves left/right changing what the tape head is exposed to independent of the audio signal causing distortion.
• Our competitor did not give an accurate description of the process of magnetism of the particles. There is both orientation and strength of magetization. It is the strength that is the signal level. That strength needs to be communicated to the tape and taken off the tape. It is true there are lots of fine particles, but the signal levels are low, which contributes to analog noise.
• Magnetic materials are not linear. As the field gets stronger, they will store less and less magnetism. This causes compression which is a harmonic distortion.
• The tape does not move perfectly linearly by the tape head. It shifts left, it shifts right, it stretches, it rebounds, it even bounces on the head a little. This causes wow, flutter and signal distortion.
• Every time you play a tape, the tape head become partially magnetized. This slightly demagnetizes the tape every time you play it.
• The layers above and below can also cause magnetic changes in the tape.

Oh Mr. customer, I forgot one thing. While it is true the number of magnetic particles per second is high, it is a poor analogy to compare to digital. A tape head does not read single particles, It reads all particles under the tape head at once, and when the tape moves, it is not exposed to a single new particle, but a whole row of particles. All the particles in a line act as one particle no matter how many of them.

Our competitor makes a good product, but the technology has fundamental flaws that cannot be overcome without starting from scratch and redesigning everything rendering everything you have already obsolete. Even then, many of those fundamental flaws will exist. I applaud their pushing their technology to its practical limits, however, if the benefits they claim existed, they would be able to easily able to demonstrate their advantages, not just write about them. Any time you wish to compare the two technologies side by side, whether using measurements or with a listening test, we will provide our equipment to participate in that testing at the venue of your choice. Other customers of ours have attempted to do a similar head to head test, but our competitor has not participated as of yet.

@budlite22 , be happy they used a DSD4x digital transfer. It ensured you got the best quality possible. If they used analog tape, there would have been a loss of quality, especially with their process where they make the limited use stamper from the laquer which I believe means they need to play the tape lots of times.

My DSD sounds better than some mofi go figure

@theaudioamp Sony's original intention for DSD use (regardless who invented it) was to Archive master tape recordings first. Yes, DSD was also thought to be a viable consumer file format as well. 

I’ve been watching all the outrage from the different sides…but if the recording was pleasing to someone “before” they knew about Mofi’s full process, it should still be pleasing now.

To those who were buying because they thought it a wise investment, thats a different topic. Mofi owes nothing to the person buying up stock for the sole intent to resell…stuff happens.

What we have here is actually kind of humorous if people will take a step back to objectively analyze what has happened. This is the hifi equivalent of a vegetarian ordering a dish, raving that its amazing and stating that it tastes just like bacon …. only to discover they’ve been served bacon. For those who saw the movie “The Crying Game” ….. LOL. You were “in love” only moments ago and now you’ve inadvertently “switched teams”.

@ghasley I agree in that the final product is what it is, it hasn't suddenly morphed into something it wasn't prior to this knowledge. Still, people do deserve being given this knowledge prior to purchase.

I presume beyond this, any anger or dissatisfaction may be due to an analog bias by those who can't come to terms with digital as valid competitor to analog. For them kind of like double blind test in which they couldn't differentiate between digital and analog source, kinda bothers the ego.