Mr. Afternoon
Mixing Engineer & Artist
In small quantities, vinyl costs significantly more to produce than SACD/Blu-ray, which costs more than DVD, which is more than CD, which is more than digital distribution.
Mobile Fidelity - the digital step in MFSL vinyl debacle
- Thread starter windhoek
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
Set-up *for cutting* , versus set up for *tape playback*. Two different things. Obviously any analog tapes requires set up for playback...simply to get the correct playback , regardless of what's downstream in the workflow. E.g., this playback setup involves adjusting tape heads, Dolby decoding calibration, proper tape speed, loading and rewinding the tape.... even, possibly, having to 'bake' the tapes first.
What's directly downstream of that can be, for example, cutting a lacquer master, or conversion to digital.
In the 'purist' workflow, you cut directly from the 'set up' tape deck to the cutting head, applying tweaks along the way to make sure it's a good-sounding, playable LP. If you ever need another lacquer master, you'll have to repeat
1) tape playback setup
2) any cutting moves you made
In Mofi's (and standard practice), where tape playback setup is followed by conversion to digital, you'll never have to repeat (1). In Mofi's particular worklfow, it seems, you will have to repeat (2). In other practice, you can create a digital 'cutting' copy of your digital master, where all the cutting tweaks are applied, meaning you don't have to repeat (2) either.
So of course, especially each master tape for an album needs a different set up for playback, using a digital master benefits cutting. It saves an enormous amount of time and effort and eliminates human error in trying to replicate the same tape playback setup.
I'm curious, why would one optical disc cost more to produce than any other?
I have no knowledge in this area.
Sony ask for upfront royalties for every Blu-ray produced, so you have to pay this per production batch, before any sales, and the record companies don't like doing that. Why music discs end up costing more than video ones is another thing!
Mr. Afternoon
Mixing Engineer & Artist
Well, producing something that holds 700MB of data is a lot easier than producing a disc that holds 50GB of data. The pits and land on the disc get increasingly harder to imprint accurately the smaller they are.
Sometimes it's licensing fees/production costs/smaller stock. Most of the time it's money.
the size and value of the content and creating it is an obvious factor - not just about the cost of the disc.
MidiMagic
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 2,079
A couple of things were left out:
- NAB de-emphasis in the playback of the tape.
- RIAA pre-emphasis before cutting the disc.
OK, I wrote e.g. meaning 'for example', not an exhaustive list.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but AIUI RIAA is ''enforced" by a circuit in the cutting amplifier during cutting, regardless of what's upstream, i.e., even if you're cutting from a production master (a tape/file that has all the manual cutting moves recorded on it). So that production master should NOT have RIAA EQ recorded on it.
I don't know if tape deck PE is similarly 'automatic' or if it is switchable/selectable.
So everyone and their cousins are trying to dip their beaks in the gravy.
Of all the people who can opine on this I think @Stephen W Tayler 's opinion would be an asset, and most members here are also VERY knowledgeable..and basically that is the point of a thread , that everyone can opine!So everyone and their cousins are trying to dip their beaks in the gravy.
AAMOF, I will right now:
I really don't know why MFSL has taken the most "controversial" method, I mean, a 96/24 PCM would do just fine...the DSD will just add the "cat/dog scramming" ultrasonic noise inherent in the system which , when compunded by the RIAA EQ curve when cutting the LP, will make it louder! I can't remember where the HF cut is at but adding extra ultrasonic noise sounds counterproductive to me...
WillydeWoofer
New member
Can someone tell me which Freddie Hubbard I should buy? A first pressing? A mono pressing? A stereoper? A cheap re-? An expensive re-? A download in high resolution? I'm just a professional musician, teacher, conductor. I want a sound that approaches life, I want to work every day with live acoustic musical instruments. My turntable is a Kuzma with VanDenHull The Frog. My dac is a Weiss.
Sincerely, Will
Sincerely, Will
Last edited:
I don't know anything about Mr Hubbard, hopefully some of our members do.
You might get more responses or just try a search over at Steve Hoffman Forums. I'm not recommending the site exactly but there are guys over their that seem to spend their life comparing one master against the next.
Good Luck.
https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/
"Red Clay" is good
*edit I just looked for my copy but can't find it. It's either MFSL or Analogue Productions? Or another boutique label. Sounded good to me, whatever it is! Good luck
*edit I just looked for my copy but can't find it. It's either MFSL or Analogue Productions? Or another boutique label. Sounded good to me, whatever it is! Good luck
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,358
What I think WILLY is trying to convey ..... As a musician, conductor and teacher there is nothing like the REAL DEAL ... LIVE MUSIC.
https://antiquesci.50webs.com/VirginCommies.htm <--- click this link
That article mirrors what I've been saying for years.
It parallels the vinyl/CD debate as well. When CD's came out it was generally felt that vinyl was outdated and inferior to digital. Then people came to realise that CDs didn't have that same "magical" sound as vinyl. Most of digitals technical deficiencies have long since been ironed out. The reason for that sonic difference now comes down to very poor mastering.
Modern solid state equipment has improved a lot since the early days. The "transistor sound" of seventies equipment is mostly gone. Still there's something special about that tube sound!
Yep, it's call distortion, same as the modern "vinyl" sound LOL
From Billboard:
Vinyl producer Mobile Fidelity has reached a settlement that could be worth as much as $25 million to resolve allegations that the company’s pricey “all analog” records were secretly created using digital methods. But some customers strongly object to the deal, saying it’s “tainted by the stink of collusion.”
The proposed agreement, first publicly filed in court last month, would allow tens of thousands of MoFi customers to secure a full refund for any eligible records that they purchased. Alternatively, it would also allow them to keep their albums and instead take a 5% cash refund or a 10% refund in credit.
The final monetary total depends on how many consumers utilize the settlement and which options they choose, but court filings say the money available under the deal is “expected to be over $25 million.” Under the settlement, MoFi will continue to deny any wrongdoing.
But the deal is not final, and it’s already facing stiff objections from attorneys who filed similar lawsuits against MoFi. They say the settlement was struck without their input, by “ineffectual” lawyers who took a bad deal: “Despite this clear abdication of their duties to class members, counsel … are now trying to ram an inadequate, collusive settlement through this court.”
The scandal at MoFi first erupted last summer, after Phoenix-area record store owner Mike Esposito posted a pair of videos to YouTube alleging that the company’s “all-analog” and “triple analog” records were in fact partially created using so-called direct stream digital technology. In one of the videos, MoFi’s engineers appeared to confirm that some digital tech had in fact been used in production.
As reported by the Washington Post, the digital revelations created “something of an existential crisis” in the analog-obsessed vinyl community. In a statement in late July, MoFi apologized for using “vague language” and for “taking for granted the goodwill and trust” of its customers: “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.”
But the apology wasn’t enough to avoid litigation. In early August, a pair MoFi customers named Stephen J. Tuttle and Dustin Collman filed a proposed class action in Washington federal court, claiming the company’s analog branding had been “deceptive and misleading” and had duped them into paying premium prices.
Later, at least four more similar cases over the analog scandal were filed in federal courts around the country, including a class action filed in Illinois on behalf of a MoFi buyer named Adam Stiles, who claimed the company had “intentionally hid this fact from consumers.”
“When defendant began using a digital mastering process in its records as opposed to purely analog, it inherently produced less valuable records — because the records were no longer of limited quantity and were not as close to the studio recording — yet still charged the higher price,” the lawyers for Stiles wrote at the time.
The proposed settlement, first filed on Jan. 15 in the lawsuit filed by Tuttle and Collman, is expected to cover at least 40,000 consumers who purchased records marketed as analog. The “total gross value” of the refunds and credits available to consumers is over $25 million, according to the agreement; the lawyers who filed the case will be paid $290,000 for their services.
Seeking approval of the settlement, attorneys for both sides argued the deal was reached through “arm’s-length negotiations” and represents “a fair compromise in light of potential risks of continued litigation.” They warned that if the case continued, MoFi might have success in defending itself by arguing that the customers didn’t actually suffer any real harm by buying the digitally-processed records.
In a statement to Billboard in response to a request for comment on the proposed settlement, MoFi lead counsel Joseph J. Madonia said: “Unfortunately, we can’t comment on pending litigation, but MoFi stands behind its records and is offering anyone who is not satisfied a refund.”
While the new settlement was filed solely in one case (the case filed by Tuttle and Collman), it would cover all applicable MoFi buyers nationwide — including those who filed the separate cases in other courts and weren’t involved in negotiating the deal. If the agreement is approved, those other customers would be eligible for the same refunds, but they would also be barred from continuing to bring their own claims against MoFi.
Faced with that scenario, the attorneys who filed those other cases are none-too-pleased about the deal.
In a Jan. 27 filing, the lawyers who filed the Illinois case on behalf of Stiles decried the agreement as a “reverse auction” settlement, alleging that MoFi essentially shopped around between the various lawsuits and picked the most “ineffectual” lawyers it could find in order to get the cheapest nationwide settlement possible. They claimed MoFi’s lawyer had directly stated that he would “pick the lowest bidder” from the five class actions.
“There is no doubt that the [settling] plaintiffs have inadequately represented the class,” they wrote, saying that the settlement will be “perpetually tainted by the stink of collusion.”
An attorney for the settling customers declined to comment on the allegations of “collusion” and “reverse auctions.” A representative for MoFi declined to comment directly on those claims, but in a court document filed this week in the Stiles case, the company’s attorneys flatly rejected those allegations, arguing that the proposed settlement would “afford the best possible representation for the class.”
Attorneys for the objecting customers did not immediately return a request for comment on Thursday (Feb. 9).
MoFi Reaches Multi-Million Dollar Settlement Over Analog Vinyl Controversy, But Some Buyers Object
The company wants to end litigation claiming it deceived customers about "all-analog" records, but a battle over the settlement's fairness is already brewing.Vinyl producer Mobile Fidelity has reached a settlement that could be worth as much as $25 million to resolve allegations that the company’s pricey “all analog” records were secretly created using digital methods. But some customers strongly object to the deal, saying it’s “tainted by the stink of collusion.”
The proposed agreement, first publicly filed in court last month, would allow tens of thousands of MoFi customers to secure a full refund for any eligible records that they purchased. Alternatively, it would also allow them to keep their albums and instead take a 5% cash refund or a 10% refund in credit.
The final monetary total depends on how many consumers utilize the settlement and which options they choose, but court filings say the money available under the deal is “expected to be over $25 million.” Under the settlement, MoFi will continue to deny any wrongdoing.
But the deal is not final, and it’s already facing stiff objections from attorneys who filed similar lawsuits against MoFi. They say the settlement was struck without their input, by “ineffectual” lawyers who took a bad deal: “Despite this clear abdication of their duties to class members, counsel … are now trying to ram an inadequate, collusive settlement through this court.”
The scandal at MoFi first erupted last summer, after Phoenix-area record store owner Mike Esposito posted a pair of videos to YouTube alleging that the company’s “all-analog” and “triple analog” records were in fact partially created using so-called direct stream digital technology. In one of the videos, MoFi’s engineers appeared to confirm that some digital tech had in fact been used in production.
As reported by the Washington Post, the digital revelations created “something of an existential crisis” in the analog-obsessed vinyl community. In a statement in late July, MoFi apologized for using “vague language” and for “taking for granted the goodwill and trust” of its customers: “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.”
But the apology wasn’t enough to avoid litigation. In early August, a pair MoFi customers named Stephen J. Tuttle and Dustin Collman filed a proposed class action in Washington federal court, claiming the company’s analog branding had been “deceptive and misleading” and had duped them into paying premium prices.
Later, at least four more similar cases over the analog scandal were filed in federal courts around the country, including a class action filed in Illinois on behalf of a MoFi buyer named Adam Stiles, who claimed the company had “intentionally hid this fact from consumers.”
“When defendant began using a digital mastering process in its records as opposed to purely analog, it inherently produced less valuable records — because the records were no longer of limited quantity and were not as close to the studio recording — yet still charged the higher price,” the lawyers for Stiles wrote at the time.
The proposed settlement, first filed on Jan. 15 in the lawsuit filed by Tuttle and Collman, is expected to cover at least 40,000 consumers who purchased records marketed as analog. The “total gross value” of the refunds and credits available to consumers is over $25 million, according to the agreement; the lawyers who filed the case will be paid $290,000 for their services.
Seeking approval of the settlement, attorneys for both sides argued the deal was reached through “arm’s-length negotiations” and represents “a fair compromise in light of potential risks of continued litigation.” They warned that if the case continued, MoFi might have success in defending itself by arguing that the customers didn’t actually suffer any real harm by buying the digitally-processed records.
In a statement to Billboard in response to a request for comment on the proposed settlement, MoFi lead counsel Joseph J. Madonia said: “Unfortunately, we can’t comment on pending litigation, but MoFi stands behind its records and is offering anyone who is not satisfied a refund.”
While the new settlement was filed solely in one case (the case filed by Tuttle and Collman), it would cover all applicable MoFi buyers nationwide — including those who filed the separate cases in other courts and weren’t involved in negotiating the deal. If the agreement is approved, those other customers would be eligible for the same refunds, but they would also be barred from continuing to bring their own claims against MoFi.
Faced with that scenario, the attorneys who filed those other cases are none-too-pleased about the deal.
In a Jan. 27 filing, the lawyers who filed the Illinois case on behalf of Stiles decried the agreement as a “reverse auction” settlement, alleging that MoFi essentially shopped around between the various lawsuits and picked the most “ineffectual” lawyers it could find in order to get the cheapest nationwide settlement possible. They claimed MoFi’s lawyer had directly stated that he would “pick the lowest bidder” from the five class actions.
“There is no doubt that the [settling] plaintiffs have inadequately represented the class,” they wrote, saying that the settlement will be “perpetually tainted by the stink of collusion.”
An attorney for the settling customers declined to comment on the allegations of “collusion” and “reverse auctions.” A representative for MoFi declined to comment directly on those claims, but in a court document filed this week in the Stiles case, the company’s attorneys flatly rejected those allegations, arguing that the proposed settlement would “afford the best possible representation for the class.”
Attorneys for the objecting customers did not immediately return a request for comment on Thursday (Feb. 9).
What a crazy stupid world we live in, its just an LP, Ok over priced, buts its still just an LP with all it inherent limitations! (and I love playing my vinyl)
