Talk:Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] 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 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] The difference is clear

I have a very simple challenge. Compare the Polydor HDCD coded “The Bee Gees - Their Greatest Hits: The Record” with Mobile Fidelity’s own “Saturday Night Fever Soundtrack” (UDCD 716). Let’s pick a song “More than a woman” for an example. There is a huge drop at 00.20 on the left channel on a standard remastered HDCD, but none on the Mobile Fidelity’s UDCD. The difference is audible on ANY stereo equipment. No wonder audiophiles swear by Mobile Fidelity. Even with better equipment the standard HDCD version sounds bright, raw and lacks in bass. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mailingmaster (talk • contribs) 19:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC).