Talk:Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab

Untitled
Moved from the article (history) but sannse (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

MESSAGE FROM MFSL *** For accurate information directly from the source, please visit http://mofi.com or contact our Communications Director Coleman Brice via email at cbrice@mofi.com or call (310) 995-MOFI.

Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab uses Gold for its scientifically proven superior reflectivity and durability. We firmly stand by this position..

If an an orginal master recording is in fact mixed in a digital environment and the resulting master media is in the digital domain, then this is in fact the ORIGINAL MASTER RECORDING. For example, our Lennon Gold CDs were mixed in a 24 bit 48k PCM environment and were perfectly compatible for a Gold CD reissue. Releasing these album as upsampled SACDs would have misleading and inappropriate, instead we released these albums on suitable media formats that are compatible with "end user" consumer media..

End of moved text

This is a Joke
This is only the ad for the purchase of an unsuccessful company by other one. In audio science there's no such thing as "After listening tests".

Also the References aren't from any scientific or well know audio site.

Reads like an ad
"All releases are made from the first generation master tape and mastered at half-speed, allowing for the finest sound quality possible."

Surely if they were mastered at quarter-speed, the sound quality would be even finer? This article reads like an ad. And the text at the top of this talk page just rubs it in. "Call now and we'll throw in a special discount for Wikipedia readers!" --taras (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe there are sound (no pun intended) technical reasons for mastering at half-speed. Quarter-speed might well be better but is probably impractical. Definitely in dire need of npoving, thugh, and the list of MFSL releases, if it's retained, should be given its own page. Lee M (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. I learned a lot but it might as well be a commercial. Even if the claims are legit, I'd rather see some criticism or peer-review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.111.227 (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've gotten into Terrible Arguments with recording-industry people about what comprises a "master" recording. Clearly, the original studio recording is the only recording that can legitimately called a master. Everything else is a copy. But those in the industry insist, like Humpty Dumpty, that a master is whatever they say it is.

To the best of my knowledge, Mobile Fidelity recordings are not made form the original analog master tapes, but from mix tapes that were used for mastering (see what I mean?) the original LP. No artist or recording studio in its right mind would let the first-generation session tapes (which Mobile Fidelity claims to use) out of its sight. "Accidents happen." 76.22.80.62 (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

--From what I understand, mobile fidelity used the stereo master tapes to half speed master their LPs. NOT a copy, the original stereo mix master tape from the studios. I used to get newsletters from mobile fidelity back in the late 70's early 80's and they made quite a point about specificily stating the sources for their LPs. JC O'Connell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.179.40.179 (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Controversies
The Wikimedia Foundation has had a letter of complaint about this article. I've removed the controversies section for now. This should only be replaced if it is done so with careful wording and sourcing. If any statement is controversial then it should be clearly attributed. We don't make statements about (for example) quality - we just report what was said, and who said it. Please be quick to remove anything from this article that you think problematic, and slow to add anything new. Thanks all -- sannse (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please why have you removed the list of MFSL Releases???? It was great help for us audiophiles when searching eBay etc. for those records... That was really great, that it was on Wikipedia, but now is the article shortened, why? That list of releases was really great and even on www.mofi.com is there no list like this one on Wiki was. PLEASE return this list on Wiki, thanks for all HiFi fans. Hi from Prague, Kuba.

There are no less than three places to find comprehensive listings of releases, including the MoFi site itself (check 'Out of Print Archive'), Rate Your Music, discogs, and others. They are all easily found by doing a simple search, and having them all listed here - particularly with MoFi operational again - is cumbersome. 7jlong (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

-When JVC phased out pressing vinyl for mfsl in japan in 1988 that was it for mfsl in terms of vinyl until they made a comeback in 1994 with their american pressed discs called anadisc200's made from 1994 to 1996 which they produced about 65 titles on LP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.179.40.179 (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

-the current mofi company has newly recently reissued some titles that went out of print that were supposed to be strict limited editions issued by the original mofi company. foul play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.179.40.179 (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Jeez
That's such bullshit. Controversies aren't exactly resolved by the controversial company claiming "don't listen to them," y'know? -Xnn


 * Of course, it's the only solution. If the mere FACT of the existence of something you don't like is enough to piss you off, even though it doesn't affect you in any way, shape or form, then the problem is with YOU, not the person who made the thing you hate.

It figures...
Ever since the brave and true (yes, I'm being snide) Wikipedia editors fell on their knees and begged forgiveness to a certain NY Times columnist, the Wikipedia now caves in unquestionably to the whims of its disgruntled subjects. Even the Great Soviet Encyclopedia editors showed more integrity than this. WHAT SORT OF ENCYCLOPEDIA REPEATEDLY ALLOWS THE SUBJECTS OF ITS ENTRIES TO DICTATE CONTENT???? Do you really expect anyone to take the Wikipedia at all seriously? This is a joke.


 * WTF are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.26.197 (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Origin of name
Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab, rather surprisingly, started off by selling high quality recordings of steam locomotives, hence the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

As the younger brother of Brad Miller, the co-founder of the original MFSL, I would like to say that Mobile Fidelity Productions was founded in 1958 with his first recorded album MF-1 "Memories in Steam". Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs was founded much later, in 1977. The original three releases for MFSL, were three of the original Mystic Moods Orchestra albums created (1965) and owned by Miller. using the original master tapes. They were half-speed mastered by Stan Ricker. The three titles in order of release on the original MFSL label were: Emotions, Cosmic Force, and Stormy Weekend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delmaracer (talk • contribs) 05:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair and Balanced
This article is typical of many "subject matter expert" articles posted to wiki (of which I myself am guilty of) where the information presented is correct, informative, not easily found elsewhere... and doesn't follow all of the arbitrary "wikipedia guidelines." One has to ask: what is the purpose of wikipedia? Is it to centralize useful information so readers can be easily informed? Or is it a cabal of deletists who get their jollies waving their keyboards around?

Obviously, I am biased. But the article has stayed online for at least 13 years so maybe the good guys are winning? Rcarlberg (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)