Features

Saturday Deluxe / 6 August 2022

McCartney, MoFi scandal and Wham!

By Paul Sinclair

Comments

72

McCartney embraces spatial audio

Some of you have been in touch to advise that Paul McCartney has made available Dolby Atmos Mixes of his three ‘McCartney’ albums: McCartney (1970), McCartney II (1980) and McCartney III (2020). This of course isn’t some random event – it ties in with the vinyl and CD box set that was released yesterday.

It’s a very interesting development because in almost 12 years of Archive Reissues, McCartney has shown no interest at all in spatial audio. He’s had opportunities, because both Band on the Run and Venus and Mars had Quad Mixes created in the 1970s (reissued in the 1990s as ‘DTS CDs’) but Paul chose not to dust them down or spruce them up to full 5.1 for the 2010 and 2014 reissues, respectively.

In 2015, McCartney, with his trusted engineer Steve Orchard, remixed 1982’s Tug of War in its entirety, apparently to deliver a downloadable hi-res stereo version for the Archive Reissue (the original album was digitally mixed and therefore ‘trapped’ in a lower kHz/bit rate). Given the work involved, this presented a golden opportunity to create a 5.1 mix but the opportunity went begging. Or if they did do it, nothing was issued.

That’s not to say that Paul has eschewed surround sound entirely. His McCartney Years DVD from 2007 had promo videos with 5.1 mixes and 2009’s live album Good Evening New York City also boasted spatial audio.

With Apple now driving a strong interest on Dolby Atmos, it seems McCartney and his team have finally relented and the three albums have been remixed by Atmos stalwart Giles Martin working with Steve Orchard. The Dolby Atmos Mix was mastered by Emily Lazar. They are available via streaming (Apple Music and Tidal).

I haven’t had a chance to listen to them yet (more on that at a later date) but this is undoubtedly exciting news. Will any of these get a physical release? It seems unlikely, unless I could persuade them to join the SDE Surround Series!

Could we get Atmos Mixes in future Archive Reissues? Possibly. It has now been over two years since Flaming Pie was reissued and fans are waiting/hoping for London Town (1978) and Back to the Egg (1979). I very much doubt we’ll get Atmos Mixes of either of those, should they arrive this year, but I strongly suspect that McCartney will put out a 50th anniversary super deluxe edition of Band on the Run in the latter part of 2023 and, if that happens, then perhaps we’ll get an Atmos Mix as part of that offering.

In the meantime, you can access the Atmos Mixes of all three McCartney albums using the links below:

MoFi admit to using digital files in its ‘all analogue’ reissues

In a fascinating and quite shocking story, which no doubt some of you will already be aware, audiophile reissue label Mobile Fidelity have admitted that they use DSD ( Direct Stream Digital) files in what were previously thought to be ‘all-analogue’ workflows.

The Washington Post does a brilliant job of following the narrative of how the deception was uncovered and says that MoFi admits that by the end of 2011, 60 percent of their vinyl reissues used digital files in their workflow and all but one of their coveted ‘One Step’ series have used DSD technology. The latter are box sets that sell for hundreds of dollars initially – and then sell for even more on the resale market, precisely because audiophiles believe they are getting a unique product that is created entirely within the analogue domain.

It seems MoFi had been creating hi-res DSD files (from the original masters) and that was step one in their ‘one step’ process. This was never mentioned in the sheets included with One Step box sets but now will be in the future.

One wonders, with such reputational damage, whether MoFi can weather this particular storm. What are your thoughts? Leave a comment below.

Andrew Ridgeley-approved remix of Wham!’s ‘Club Tropicana’ is released

Andrew Ridgeley has today announced a ‘Wonderland Redux’ remix of Wham!‘s classic 1983 single ‘Club Tropicana’.

Issued (digitally) via Sony Music Commercial Group, the new version is a collaboration between Ridgeley and his good friend, songwriter/producer Dru Masters. Andrew said that the goal with this remix was to present, for a new generation, “the wonder and joy of the carefree and heady days of youth”. He adds “It is the soundtrack to summer renewed and reaffirmed and I hope it conveys the same vitality and pleasure George and I imagined in the original recording”.

Something is definitely afoot with Wham! and SDE expects reissue activity later this year. George Michael’s official social channels have already reached out to fans asking for “footage or pictures that you might have taken of, or with Wham! from back in the day” and there’s also a new book called If You Were There from Snap Galleries (their website was down when I checked!).

SuperDeluxeEdition.com helps fans around the world discover physical music and discuss releases. To keep the site free, SDE participates in various affiliate programs, including Amazon and earns from qualifying purchases.

Related Content

72 Comments

72 thoughts on “Saturday Deluxe / 6 August 2022”

  3. The MoFI thing is completely OTT in my opinion – they are a business and, just like every other company, prone to hyperbole and guilty of allowing misconceptions to go unchecked.
    I can’t find where they claim “all analog” mastering and in my opinion, much of the outrage is misdirected at MoFI when in fact it comes down to a misunderstanding of what “mastering” is and what constitutes an “original master tape”. As far as I have been able to find, MoFI only claim that they are producing the best sounding version of that recording. They ARE using the original master which they are using as the sonic reference before they tweak the sound (i.e remaster) to what they believe is a better sound. No equipment is transparent, but analogue to analogue transfers carry greater penalties in degradation (not to mention the risk of damage to the original tape if the process is repeated) compared to modern digital transfers with state of the art equipment which is very different to that used in the 80s even in professional circles. Mastering Engineers disagree amongst themselves on the analogue vs digital preference – Bernie Grundman, Kevin Gray, the late John Dent amongst others are analogue purists whereas Bob Ludwig and the late Rudy Van Gelder have embraced digital.

    It becomes even more illogical to insist on all-analogue when the original recording was itself a digital recording – Dire Straits “Brothers in Arms” being the best example and one which was done by MoFI with the “Original Master Recording” banner. The definitions of what a Master is have necessarily changed once digital recording became the norm and “mastering” is now taken to meaning an additional step in production where the mastering engineer makes choices on how he thinks the product should sound.
    This is what MoFI do – when you buy a MoFI release, you are buying their opinion of how the recording should sound after it has gone through THEIR playback equipment.
    Not that I like Brothers in Arms…..but to me, I would much rather have a new version of the recording processed from the original DIGITAL source (such as done by Miles Showell last year) but played back through modern state of the art equipment than to have an “all analogue” transfer from the (so-called) Original Master Tape which was made from an 80s era DAC! I think the “all-analogue” brigade needs to rethink what it is they are really after and what advantage they believe “all-analogue” provides. To me a 4xDSD transfer of the original master tape and then post-processed with Plangent to remove wow and other tape aberrations, in other words a restored version of the recording is the preferable option! To each their own :)

    1. It’s not the fact that they used a digital source. It’s the fact that they allowed people to believe their process was ‘all-analog’ – if not explicitly stating as such, then at least not correcting those who believed this to be the case.

      1. Not that I approve of their business method, but I still think that Caveat Emptor applies. The aim of a business is to make money and the purpose of Marketing is to encourage people to part with their money. It’s the responsibility of the buyer to ensure he/she/they are happy with the final product. Until this saga hit, most people were completely satisfied with the sound quality. Every marketing department will stretch the truth (not necessarily within legal limits as Consumer Watchdogs the world over are evidence of) to achieve this goal. Deception and Confusion are standard tactics – just look at banks and telcos and the frequency of the fines they receive! In those instances they are either charging excessive amounts by keeping people on unnecessary services or blatantly applying a meaningless surcharge. Mofi have not done anything more than not elaborating. Hardly the same sin in my opinion!

  4. Not really surprised by the MOFI scandal. Even if I’m not an expert, I noticed their recent releases weren’t as good as the ones from 80s and 90s. I only have a dozen MOFI vinyl releases from 80s and 90s and a few from the 2000s (Pixies for example) and they are excellent.

    The original MOFI shut down in 2001 only 2 years after the MOFI founder Brad Miller died. After it was acquired by Jim Davis (Music Direct), things became different with new ownership, engineers and vinyl resurgence.
    All previous MFSL titles that were widely available suddenly became out of print in the span of only 2 or 3 years (between 1998 and 2001). Heavy speculation on old out of print releases and inflated prices for new releases. It became a diferent business model for MOFI. Now, lots of buyers didnt acquire those vinyls to play them but to resell them later on Ebay…Circa 2005, Ebay became the main source to buy MFSL vinyl.

    MFSL became big in the 80s because after the 1973 economic crisis, major companies started to use recycled and thiner vinyl to lower production costs. MFSL was the first to use half speed mastering, all analog mastering, 200g virgin vinyl, etc. MFSL was unique but with the 2000s vinyl resurgence, 180g virgin vinyl became the new thing, companies like Speakers Corner or even Music On Vinyl used the same concepts and started to produce high quality vinyl and with a much lower retail price.

    I don’t know why people still buy MFSL titles on vinyl. Not worth the price nowadays. A few years ago, a friend bought the MFSL B52s first album on 140g vinyl (mastered on the Gain2 Ultra Analog system) in 2011. Music on Vinyl released the same album on 180g vinyl in 2015. He also bought it. A couple of years ago, he played them to me on his system and there was pretty much no difference on his high end system (Linn LP12 turntable, Naim audio amp, pre-amp and speakers). I even thought the MoV sound was more enjoyable. Then he played the original UK pressing and it was even better.
    After more discussion with my friend (a big B52s fan), he told me original master tapes of the B52s debut album had been lost. The original UK pressing was mastered at Sound Clinic (it closed in 1987 and was one of the finest in Europe) and is the one B52s fans want to possess because it has the best sound.
    The MFSL release wasn’t made from original master tapes and on 140g vinyl. Yet he paid approx £35 in 2011 to own that record! You pay for the trademark Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab and not really for the quality of vinyl and/or masters.

    Basically, a very good original pressing is often better than a remastered newer version on a so called audiophile label.

    1. Very much agree. I have had the exact same experience.
      I only buy old pressings now. Releases from MOV are also unreliable as they have also confessed to using digital sources for their pressings.
      If you listen to the latest offerings by Duran Duran and Tears For Fears, the vinyl pressings are near equally compressed and the sonic gain from listening to vinyl is not there. SDE’s Blu-ray was a gift from paradise as it was phenomenal sound.

      Lastly, leaving the MoFi lie aside, not many will hear the difference between a good digital source and an analog one these days. I have a very good system and subscribe to Qobuz and the sound is very enjoyable. Cheers.

  5. Regarding the Mofi Saga I feel that they should of admitted that the DSD was in the process from when they started using it. They most certainly would of lost those searching for analogue authenticity but I feel a lot of these AAA purists would have bought again once they realised some titles sound superior to practically all that is available to buy.
    I consider myself to be one of those who have bought thinking they are analogue but in all honesty they sound that good (even if DSD sourced), I don’t mind!.
    I have around 50 MFSL albums a few of which are under this DSD banner now but will live with it, and won’t stop buying if I can afford to (at this time I can’t due to the cost of living). I think this will all blow over. If MFSL released Soundgarden’s Superunknown I’d buy it even if a DSD one step – but hopefully they may start doing real Analogue throughout the process occasionally!.

  7. Im’ not an audiophile, the Mofi-gate won’t trouble my world. It’s not the sound that matters but the music. These are two different things. I’m a massive Velvet/Stooges fan and I’ve listened to many messy, crap-sounding tapes and believe me, I find them far more exciting than any Eagles/Doobie Brothers record. But that’s only my humble opinion.

  8. I’ve never bought Mo-Fi vinyl because of the cost but I got the appeal not as an audiophile ‘nut’ but rather it seemed what they were offering was the opportunity to hear as closely as possible what the artists who’d recorded the album heard (via acetates etc) and ultimately approved.

    I’ve bought a few Beatles ‘analogue’ late 2000’s reissues on vinyl because I imagined that I’m listening to an accurate reproduction of the original issues from the 1960’s. Am I?

    It’s wrong to assume that everyone who bought the Mo-Fi releases are audio snobs who claim to have ‘golden ears’ there are probably many buyers who bought these releases thinking like me that they were getting closer to the source… the artist.

  9. One can, and possibly should get upset that MOFI have in essence missold their product, but it’s made me chuckle that on the other hand that people have been espousing the idea that true analogue is the way to go, not knowing that the “quality sound” they so believe is actually digital. It also shows that a good recording is just that regardless of how it’s brought to your ears. A bad recording, (and/ or pressing), is a different matter and should be more of a concern. I was talking to a musician a couple of weeks ago and he was saying that small batches of vinyl are expensive to do these days and the equipment used is so delicate and irreplaceable that the cutting tools are not used to cut the discs, but it is digitally transferred across so it preserves the tooling so it may not be just one manufacturer that is doing this?

  10. I (and I suspect most rational listeners) don’t give a hoot what source vinyl is cut from as long as it sounds good. The fact that it’s exposed these hi-fi snobs who’ve been buying MOFI releases as a badge of authenticity and fooling themselves for years about having ‘better’ hearing than everyone else (not to mention regarding themselves as the real gatekeepers of the vinyl community while sneering at anyone else buying a regular new-release LP as a ‘hipster’) is oddly satisfying.

  11. The MOFI scandal has been an interesting saga to follow. I used to buy their CD’s in the 90’s, which are excellent, and I have some of their vinyl pressings from the 80’s. But the more recent narrative didn’t really hold up well. And I never really embraced MOFI post bankruptcy, though I do have “Songs From The Big Chair” on vinyl, but again, I knew that was not an entirely analogue album anyway. As the tapes of classic albums have gotten older I have wondered how they could produce a flawless transfer without any repairs or drop outs in sound, it is such a common problem, it just seemed too good to be true. The one step thing made even less sense, so it really filled in the blanks when the truth came out, I was not surprised. When they did Donald Fagen’s “The Nightfly” as a one step, and it is a digital album, I never looked at this series of one steps as anything more than a marketing ploy, but it got good reviews. They should have been honest.
    I think the takeaway is that the originals are where it’s at for analog.
    I think they could have been more successful if they had explained their innovative process, and embraced digital, rather than appearing to fleece people.
    But now… I think MOFI is done. I hope some lessons were learned.

    1. It was the Thriller One-Step and its announced production run that got people thinking and started a lot of the rumours leading directly to this…

  12. I’m glad the likes of Dutton Vocalion and even SDE are capable of selling SACDs and Blu-rays but at a reasonable price. I find MoFi SACD’s around $10 over priced $30 – $35 for a single album. I haven’t bought any of their vinyl so I can’t comment about the use of digital files.
    There hasn’t been a rock/pop/soul surround SACD for a while from DV so I hope they haven’t run out of material to reissue.

  13. The thing that pisses me off most about the MoFi issue isn’t so much the fraud (which is bad enough), but that all their rhetoric about how amazing their process was became more ammunition for vinyl enthusiasts to say that digital was trash. From the start, if the mastering is handled correctly, you can get excellent sound reproduction from analog or digital. MoFi’s rhetoric became more fodder for record companies to try to kill digital products, so a company who’s main mission is to celebrate music actually was putting nails in the coffin for entire formats, with not grounding in reality. In the end, it was about money–none of which the artists actually saw. It goes beyond “shame on them.”

    1. I agree. I heard some of their recent digital Supertramp “Breakfast in America” a good friend (who really likes a well mastered CD) listening at the same time commented how it sounded fake, tinny and digital. It seemed like it was made bad intentionally. I never heard the corresponding LP, but the whole thing kind of disgusted me.
      I really had a lot of respect for their work back in the day, but something changed in their process, and even in their innovative mindset which progressed with emerging technology. So post bankruptcy resurrection, the “zombie-pet cemetery version” of MOFI seemed more like a banner that relied on a assumed reputation, and was perhaps used more to sell expensive listening gear, and equipment: love their sleeves, and cleaning fluid, however the music….the standard digital did not sound as good as it should have, so perhaps it was downgraded to sell more expensive vinyl or top end turntables, or create a narrative about SACD or expensive players or Digital audio converters. But since the more recent basic digital stuff did not sound better than what could be achieved 30 years ago, I did not investigate further and just wrote them off.

  14. I own zero MoFi vinyl records, but I do own a few of their SACDs. I can tell you they sound great, and I believe they are very good at making great-sounding recordings, whatever the medium. And sometimes they’re more-than-a-little different than what you’re used to hearing – for instance, on Iron Butterfly’s “In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida” (a song that has been familiar to me since age 2), the MoFi version uses the master-tape channel placement, which is different than the channel placement from the original LP.

    I am also a big believer in the science that shows that, at CD-quality, almost no one can hear the difference between the exact same recording reproduced via analog or digital. That said, mastering for vinyl is different than mastering for CD, and so because of that, when you compare the two, it’s apples to oranges at some level. It shouldn’t be a stretch to understand that they will be “different” – and between two things that are different, each of us can decide which sounds “better” to us. MoFi are very good at mastering audio in a way that sounds good to them, and to many of their customers.

    MoFi got caught leading their customers on in letting them fetishize “all-analog,” and didn’t tell the whole truth about the DSD step in order to charge more for that fetishization. It’s wrong, and they will get their comeuppance in less trust and lower sales. Since I was never invested in that part of the equation, my only concern then becomes whether I continue to reward such a company for their thoughtfully-mastered, great-sounding SACDs. It’s a tough call.

  15. I have been as have many fooled by MOFI Marketing. I have several one step albums, one on the way. I had considered Hotel Califronia but I have the BLU RAY HI Audio release and put it on-it sounded stunning so I thought I don’t need to spend $125 on ONE STEP. I do feel like the chump bought the lump. I do buy lots of vinyl albums, but I will going forward not buy any ONE STEP albums after I get the next Paul Simon release. I know people who bought 2 copies of the Clapton release one to listen-one for investment. I assume the aftermarket for MOFI ONE STEP has been impacted-alot. The myth and legend of analog vs digital audio has been IMHO called out. I am waiting for someone to actually do a lawsuit. Also I agree that MOFI products do sound excellent but so do HI AUDIO Blu Ray or Hi res downloads on players like FiiO. I will still buy from MUSIC DIRECT, I actually live in Chicago area and attend their warehouse sales were you can get great deals on high end releases, also doesn’t hurt that the warehouse is near to great brewey’s!

  16. I’m thoroughly enjoying the recent Saturday Deluxe articles, which have been interesting e.g. TTD, and informative; especially if you want to find out that George Michael’s Older has been delayed yet again, which I really don’t mind, as it’s one less bill to pay.

    Many thanks to Matt D for the Almost Famous tip off. £5.49 for the two cd version is fabulous . I’ve never seen the film, but there are plenty of quality songs to enjoy.

    I can’t get too excited about the MoFi honesty issue, but I would be upset if I’d invested in their products as a collector. It’s a hard road back for a company that has found to have misrepresented and knowingly mis-sold their products. Technical data sheets and processes of production are expected to be correct and true, and in most industries, these are independently tested, so consumers can buy in confidence. What I wouldn’t agree with is the view that the supporters of MoFi kind of deserve this outcome, just for advocating the quality of something that turned out not to be true. USA is a litigious country and I wouldn’t be surprised to see lawyers going after MoFi.

    You could say that a golden age is developing in atmos / spatial sound releases. And yet, large box sets aside and the recent SDE releases, the physical product is largely ignored. This is good news and an opportunity for SDE, but it’s such a shame for fans who would like physical versions, but can’t buy the likes of Elton’s 2 Low 4 0, Abba’s Voyage, McCartney II etc. You’d almost think that the industry doesn’t like physical products – mmmm! Streaming allows the control of everything in the present moment. Corporations can control the narrative in real time and edit and remove artists music from their platforms, if they wish to. Still, as long as good physical products exist, then there will be a market for them with music enthusiasts.

    1. “What I wouldn’t agree with is the view that the supporters of MoFi kind of deserve this outcome, just for advocating the quality of something that turned out not to be true.”

      MoFi consumers were ripped off, for sure. But the analog-or-bust consumers are searching for a level of “quality” that most likely does not exist. I would love to see the results of blind A/B testing among the analog-only crowd, between high-quality vinyl and high-quality digital recordings. Maybe the crackles and static would give away the vinyl recordings in some cases, but I’d be willing to wager that most analog-or-bust consumers could not honestly tell the difference between the two formats if subjected to blind tests (assuming roughly equivalent quality in the mastering process for both sources).

      1. I agree. And even if there is a noticeable difference between digital and analogue, so what?

        I’ve an expensive enough cd system in the kitchen and a cheap vinyl set up in the front room. I enjoy listening to both regardless of a quality differential.

        I’m not a MoFi follower, but I still wouldn’t derive pleasure from MoFi customers misery.

  17. MOFI: Being as I only buy Sacd or Blu-Ray products for myself which are DSD (sacd anyways) I have no issue with the sound quality (just remixes to 5.1 sometimes), its the sneaky way they deceived customers that is bothersome.
    I do buy vinyl releases for my granddaughter but she’s not what I would call an audiophile like me, she’s just a fan of good music and collector of vinyl LP’s.
    I would venture to say now that they been called out on this we may be getting actual analog reissues with increased prices no doubt.

  18. Seems the McCartney team has gone through one mess to another and then go in reverse to catch up. It wouldn’t shock me if there will be BR audio released at one point.

  19. I think it matters to the extent that MoFi haven’t been selling quite what they claim to be selling. That is very bad practice. Had they said they create a high quality digital intermediate and the platters are pressed from that it would not be an issue. That is two steps though. Tapes>Intermediate>Platters.

    High quality digital is very good these days. It is noticeable that the Mo-Fi records are usually praised for their sound.
    I suspect putting the DSD through RIAA correction makes it effectively impossible to tell what has been done.

    I have never bought a Mo-Fi album. I always thought they were too dear. What they should do is release the digital intermediate (as a DSD and as a192/24 file) at a reasonable price, and for free to people who have bought the records.

    And pledge not to mismarket again.

    However I am also of the opinion that the final judge is whether you like the sound. If you do, and you think it is the best sound, and that was the only way to get it I am not sure that on the audio side there is much to complain about.

    It is embarrassing though.

  20. Really like the Wham! remix, a modern twist yet retaining the core of the song, I wonder if there are any more remixes of other tracks, maybe a Wham! remix album??

    1. Me too! It is a great remix. I have everything crossed that we get super deluxe editions of the Wham! albums in all their glory including Wham! in China: Foreign Skies DVD as part of Make It Big. A few more modern remixes are welcome too.

  21. The ‘Wonderland Redux’ remix is fine but it doesn’t give me the same feel as the original does. But if this makes it attractive for a new audience than the more the merrier.

    Regarding MoFi, they clearly serve a brand, a lifestyle an overpriced product for the self proclaimed connoisseurs of sound. It’s like perfume or brand clothing, some people feel the need to have that in their lives and now probably some will feel a bit silly. Others will deny it.
    It made me think about Prince, how he slammed his music on a cassette tape and drove around listening to it. If it sounds good in a car it’s gone be great everywhere, right, love that. But than I’m a guy who doesn’t hear the difference between half speed or regular pressing.

    1. The voices sound much deeper at half speed. It’s the easiest way to be certain you are playing a 45 at 33 rpm if you don’t know the song.

      1. I have a few records that sound almost as good played at the wrong speed. “Say What You Mean, Mean What You Say” by Durutti Column and “1+2” by Recoil spring to mind (both are all-instrumental, though, which supports your humorous point).

  22. My favorite quote from the Wash Post article is the last one:
    “These people who claim they have golden ears and can hear the difference between analog and digital, well, it turns out you couldn’t.”

    MoFi should not have lied to their customers. They should not charge inflated prices for product using false claims of “all analog” reproduction. Having said that… the folks who are “highly invested in believing that any digital step will destroy their experience” (another quote from the article) are as full of s**t as MoFi itself. Any sound recording, using whatever analog or digital technologies available to record it and play it back, will only sound as good as the weakest part of the process allows. There is nothing inherently superior about an “all-analog” sound recording compared to a recording that uses digital tools of equivalent (or better) quality. The “golden ears” analog-only crowd can easily be fooled, which is what MoFi has been doing (indirectly) for the past decade or so.

    Maybe in the 1980s, the digital technologies were not good enough to record and play back sound as well as the analog technologies of the era. This is not true today. The hard core audiophiles should accept that DSD and other digital technologies can be used to create an excellent sound recording, and buy their recordings from the companies that produce the best product and that provide the best disclosure of what actually happens when they reproduce the recordings.

  23. The MoFi development is not a surprise. The use of digital masters for vinyl is more of a standard process than an exception. At least they used the DSD files but obviously that doesn’t justify it.
    Vinyl used to be the go to medium if you didn’t want the compressed loudness of a cd as well as it’s physical attributes (large sleeve notes etc). The masters for vinyl used to be better/different than the ones for digital.
    When the audience started buying them for the “novelty” after its resurgence in popularity and played them on cheap record players, the sound quality became lesser of an attribute. Record companies took advantage, used the digital masters and issued colored vinyl to promote and sell a more expensive medium.
    MoFi’s crime is that they catered to an audiophile crowd and misrepresented what they sold. Most/some would not have been able to tell the difference as most/some didn’t buy a box set for the sound quality.

    MoFi recordings have a signature sound that they apply to all recordings (irrespective of the DSD conversation). I have several copies of Toto’s IV and have compared and found the Masterdisc Gold version to be the best rendition (in the re-releases). Same for the MoFi of Songs From The Bug Chair (as compared to the original vinyl).

    I have had the opportunity to listen to many DSD recordings alongside the 24bit PCM files of the same album. To my ear, the 24bit sounds better. This has consistently been the case with the ABBA catalogue.

    There’s a lot of voodoo in the audiophile world. I admit that I knowingly accept some with the contention of 16/192 recordings sounding better than their 16/44.1 counterparts (a middle aged adult won’t hear above 16khz, let alone the 22khz that the 44.1 sampling frequency represents). DSD files with sampling rates >1000 kHz (albeit a different technology), may suffer from the same fantasy.

      1. If the Bug walking on the chair could make a noise one could even consider making The Tapping Point.
        Interesting albums by the lads.

        I had a humorous pun for The Hurting but will refrain at this forum.

  24. I have a mobile fidelity album that sounds the same as the original vinyl. I have cd’s that sound better than the vinyls. I have vinyls that sound better than the cd’s. I have original cd versions that sound better than the remastered ones and visa versa and so on (all in my opinion). It comes down to what your ears like I think.

    But for me the next step forward are the surround mixes. I don’t want to buy the same album over and over again just for another new remastering. A surround mix gives me much more listening pleasure.

    I have the McCartney Years DVD. Those surround mixes are good and I hope these Atmos Mixes get a physical release.

  25. My issue with MoFi is not the sound of the records…they still sound as good today as they did yesterday. My issue is that they artificially inflated the cost of these records by claiming they were all analog, directly from the master tape, which by it’s very nature puts a strict limitation on how many can be pressed before another pass from the master tape would be required…thereby creating incredible demand. In reality, they could have simply created a new set of plates from their digital source. And since MoFi has really been the industry leader in this field for quite some time, they have been setting prices, which other labels soon match. Bottom line, if MoFi been transparent about their process from the beginning, just ask yourself if they would have been able to charge the same amount for the product. In my opinion, the answer is a resounding “no”.

    1. Meh. Criterion jacks up the prices on their release even though it has the same content of the “regular” release that was out a few years or so before. Maybe better audio but worth doubling the price.

      1. AFAIK the higher price for Criterion Collection dvd and blu-ray releases is justified not only by higher picture or sound quality but by bonus material especially created for these releases.

      3. If you’re talking about about Criterion the movie distributor, I have NEVER bought anything from them that had “the same content of the ‘regular’ release that was out a few years or so before.” Their releases take an almost academic approach to the material–not just great restorations, but extensive extras exporing the making of the film. So lets not tarnish a reputable company that puts care into their products with the same brush as another company that has been committing outright fraud. Many of the films Criterion has reissued wouldn’t even have proper restorations if it were not for their efforts.

        1. I agree with this. Criterion are great and there’s loads of director’s commentaries that are still unique to their releases (Spinal Tap, being one such example).

  27. The McCartney team never leaves money on the table so I would not be surprised these Atmos mixes get a physical release. Macca fans are older and still into physical stuff, the Macca team knows that.

    Shame on MOFI! As it is, it is hard enough to trust whether any reissue was done from the master tapes and now one of the most trusted names in reissues turns out to be a scam! I never bought MOFI because thankfully I can’t be bothered whether something sounds good or really good. It would ruin my joy of listening to music if I was so focused on the quality of the sound and always found something to complain about rather than just enjoy the music.

    I love the new Club Tropicana remix! It’s a difficult song to remix, there wasn’t even an extended version released back in the day. It is done very respectfully, great job! I do hope there will be some nice Wham! reissues soon. This music brought so much joy to so many.

  28. Am I being stupid, but wouldn’t it have made sense to include the Atmos mixes physically within the McCartney 1,2 & 3 box set? Surely this would have been a selling point for this pointless box. It’s a bit like the free exclusive downloads that have appeared around the Archives that aren’t within the sets. These streaming Atmos mixes seem to becoming a trend so there must be some logic but I’m fu##ed if I can understand it.

    1. Why include it on what can be called a compilation.
      Just keep the mixes [if they exist] in the vault until some major anniversary. Why waste on a release like this? Save it for a SDE release where you can charge ridiculous amounts for it [only to be released on its own separately at one point].
      On the other hand, for non-collectors but who like Paul, this is really a useless release with nothing new.

  29. Re all the recent dolby atmos/spacial audio releases. I find it hard to believe that in all cases an engineer has gone back to the original multi-track tapes to remix effectively from scratch to create a new spacial mix. I’m sure that in many cases they must be processing the stereo master through some kind of spatial audio upmixer. In fact if I switch on the dolby atmos processor on my Samsung phone and play and stream 2 channel stereo songs the effect can be better than listening to a specific spatial audio mix. I wonder if anyone might know if spacial audio mixes are in some cases derived from stereo masters?

    1. I picked up an original Macca II on vinyl not long ago, and not ever hearing it before, immediately fell in love with it. I’m trying to figure out how an Atmos mix would do this album justice. It’s supposed to be lo-fi.

  30. Regarding MoFi:
    I think they made a big mistake and will lose some reputation, but what matters for me is, they always try to create the best sounding records. And they are one of the best in what they do.
    I will continue to buy their products.

  31. Unfortunately the Washington Post story about Mofi is behand a paywall and as I’ve currently no work I can’t afford to contemplate looking at it!

    I assume though that audiophiles had been complaining about this for a while? That their ears had picked up on this? It seems incredible that there’s such an overpriced secondhand market for such releases despite the use of digital files – unless no one can hear the difference anyway?

      1. It’s paywalled for me, too. However, there’s an excellent article exploring the controversy and MFSL’s mastering process over at a website called Audiophile Style.

          1. I think there is a “gift article” at the bottom of most/all articles but unsure how many can see the page if you include it here.

          2. Usually deleting the cookies of a site will reset the counter. Doesn’t always work, though.

    2. That’s just it – their ears didn’t “pick up” on anything. It was an anonymous tip to an audiophile record store owner in Phoenix, who posted a video on YouTube detailing the allegation. Some of the releases this guy touts as the best sounding vinyl reissues did in fact go through this digital step.

  32. „It is the soundtrack to summer renewed and reaffirmed“
    I always thought George was making fun of cheap holidays and trashy seaside discos with the lyrics.

    1. I thought it was about an actual club in Ibiza which is not really by the seaside which is why the sea is missing :)
      I don’t think Ibiza was trashy yet in 1983.

      1. I know a girl who was actually in the video to Club Tropicana. She has a great story about that filming and what happened. Must try and talk to her for SDE!

  33. The Wham remix is a bit meh but I can imagine blasting out of nightclubs across Europe.
    I’m a big vinyl fan but have to say I feel a little bit of schadenfreude about those pompous audiophiles who splashed tons on something, convincing themselves that they could hear something that wasn’t there. I know its bad but I can’t help it.

    1. I suppose we’re all somewhere on the audiophile spectrum though, like I can hear the degraded audio in low bitrate files, and I’m sure my ears are not deceiving me that original 60s and 70s vinyl usually sounds better than later CD versions. The market for these MoFI things I think take it to more of sports level, like people who soup-up classic cars they’re just searching for the ultimate sonic perfection. MoFI seem to have damaged their reputation for no good reason, but perhaps their buyers need to reflect on what really matters if they’ve enjoyed these releases in spite of being deceived about the manufacturing process

  35. Sony has missed a trick with the Club Tropicana remix. They should have has the current king of tropical house, Sigala, provide a remix…

Leave a Reply