MoFi Comes Clean

engie490

Interesting article about MoFi's vinyl reissues and their process.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news/how-a-phoenix-record-store-owner-set-the-audiophile-world-on-fire/ar-AA10kCWg

F1nut

That's going to upset a lot of folks.

Nightfall

Deja vu

Emlyn

All over again.

SIHAB

It ain't over till it's over.

mhardy6647

No matter where you go, there you are.

jbreezy5

What a conundrum.

Emlyn

The story was even picked up by the major newspapers yesterday.

My main takeaway from this was I hadn't been paying attention that MoFi had been charging $100 plus for a piece of vinyl. I did know people were buying multiple copies of the "Original Master Recordings" in hopes of turning a profit later. Classic bubble market. There is also zero reason for these reissues of old back catalog recordings to be "Limited Edition" other than out of pure greed.

Maybe people should wise up and just pay the $30 for the SACD version. They do use the same source after all! LOL

msg

disregard, kind sirs

SIHAB

MOFI are liars. That is the main thing.
They lied for profit.

heiney9

Very deceptive marketing that should be punished in some way, ie; boycotts, industry reprimand, true journalistic expose, etc.

In the end they were no doubt lying about the sources/processes of their catalog, but it seems they still made excellent quality recordings/remasters that were still superior to the originals that many people liked. So, the process has *some* merit, but it's hard to come back from deception like this.

If they were honest in the beginning and let the end product speak for their process, I doubt they would have lost too many customers. Sure, hard core analog junkies who refuse to acknowledge that it is possible with current technology to incorporate some digital in the chain and still have it sound fantastic, might have gone elsewhere for recordings.

But now, I can't help but think their damaged reputation is going make sales take a nose dive.

H9

Emlyn

Definitely would have been better if MoFi had clearly said they were using 4X DSD in their process from the time when they started doing so and explained they were doing so because it helped produce a cleaner sounding product. It is really not something that needs to be obscured because DSD is great technology for audio reproduction.

F1nut

Emlyn wrote: »

The story was even picked up by the major newspapers yesterday.

My main takeaway from this was I hadn't been paying attention that MoFi had been charging $100 plus for a piece of vinyl. I did know people were buying multiple copies of the "Original Master Recordings" in hopes of turning a profit later. Classic bubble market. There is also zero reason for these reissues of old back catalog recordings to be "Limited Edition" other than out of pure greed.

Maybe people should wise up and just pay the $30 for the SACD version. They do use the same source after all! LOL

To be fair it's only the MoFi One Step reissues that run $100+. Everything from the actual record to the packaging are impressive. The standard MoFi reissues are less money.

The reason all are a limited edition is due to licensing agreements, not pure greed.

erniejade

To me, if it sounds better vs the oroginal, I don't care what processing digital or analog they use. Not all but in general, I have found mofi versions to sounds better. Same when Audio Fidelity was making sacds and gold disks. They just sounded better.

I find it hard to believe folks would believe they can take a 30-50 year old recording and not manipulate it in the digital realm and then convert it back to analog. It's how many have done it for years to make it on vinyl or remaster it to vinyl.

engie490

I agree with many here...I don't care if they used a can on a string somewhere in the process as long as the album sounds better.

They could have gotten out in front of this when they first transitioned by bringing in all of the golden ear journalists and have them blindly pick between the old version and the new one.

But they opted to bury the new process because one long-standing element of audiophile doctrine is that vinyl must be pure analog from master tape to what goes in the sleeve. And they were afraid of the folks who would never actually listen, but would flee based on a single fact.

I don't condone their subterfuge, but I understand why they did it.

Dennis Gardner

I find it amusing that Michael Fremer is butthurt that he wasn't the one to scoop the news. It makes him look more foolish for each time that he claimed to hear that analog difference in his reviews.

jbreezy5

The issue isn’t whether what was sold sounds good or not, but rather that bait-and-switch tactics were used to charge a premium.

Mofi’s customer’s trust was betrayed.

Being that Mofi makes great sounding vinyl (based on most opinions I’ve read anywhere), they should have simply been truthful in their advertising.

Now many may reasonably doubt anything they claim regarding their processes in the development of their media.

What if going forward one concludes to try their media on word-of-mouth of good sound, buys it at a premium, and later discovers the vinyl or disc purchased used mp3, not DSD, in the process?

I have no skin in this game, just looking at it through an empathic lens.

TEAforONE

I am of the opinion that this is a very fraudulent business practice. It should lead to a class action lawsuit. I have never heard one of mofi’s records, but sound quality isn’t the question. If I’m selling something,and I’m charging a premium for something that I’m not including, that is a clear case of fraud. They should offer a discount at the very least to past customers. If not a complete refund. If they do nothing, their name is stained forever. ( It probably will be anyway )

SIHAB

The truth has set me free. I've bought zero one-steps and I think three of
the new mofi LPs. (I had no hope of finding an OG in good enough shape)
I have nine of their SACDs. I would have gone SACD if
I had known there was a digital step involved. At $40 dollars a pop for
"normal" MOFI LPs they have priced themselves out of my league.
Nearly twice the price for a CD/SACD is bad enough.

This is kinda the third strike with me and MOFI/Music Direct.

machone

As an engineer I have been at odds with marketing my entire career.

SIHAB

machone wrote: »

As an engineer I have been at odds with marketing my entire career.

Will you go on record lying for your company?

jbreezy5

The struggle for me is the relationship between Music Direct and Mofi, because I have probably purchased more equipment from Music Direct than any other e-tailer, and my experiences have always been good.

But I have never purchased a Mofi pressing.

machone

SIHAB wrote: »

machone wrote: »

As an engineer I have been at odds with marketing my entire career.

Will you go on record lying for your company?

No stretching the truth here.

daddyjt

erniejade wrote: »

To me, if it sounds better vs the original, I don't care what processing digital or analog they use...

Unless you are in it for something other than sound, this pretty much sums it up.

Kinda reminds me of the whole "how many watts is that amp" argument -

jbreezy5

daddyjt wrote: »

erniejade wrote: »

To me, if it sounds better vs the original, I don't care what processing digital or analog they use...

Unless you are in it for something other than sound, this pretty much sums it up.

Kinda reminds me of the whole "how many watts is that amp" argument -

^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
Unfortunately, moral relativism does seem to be the pervading ideology in the USA.

From the perspective of analog purists they were paying a premium for the utmost in sonic fidelity, as advertised, but instead received a compromised product.

We do a disservice to our fellowman, and ourselves, when we excuse fraudulent behavior.

daddyjt

jbreezy5 wrote: »

daddyjt wrote: »

erniejade wrote: »

To me, if it sounds better vs the original, I don't care what processing digital or analog they use...

Unless you are in it for something other than sound, this pretty much sums it up.

Kinda reminds me of the whole "how many watts is that amp" argument -

^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
Unfortunately, moral relativism does seem to be the pervading ideology in the USA.

From the perspective of analog purists they were paying a premium for the utmost in sonic fidelity, as advertised, but instead received a compromised product.

We do a disservice to our fellowman, and ourselves, when we excuse fraudulent behavior.

So just to be completely clear, you would sacrifice better sound* for a "pure" analog signal?

*I understand that the phrase "better sound" is subjective, however it is central to this discussion. If you deny that it "sounds better", then why would this discussion even be taking place?

jbreezy5

@daddyjt

I disagree with the premise of your question, because it mischaracterizes the issue (people not receiving what they paid for) and my statements.

If you read my last post carefully, you would realize that you are making a straw man argument as I expressly stated that “utmost sonic fidelity” is what analog purists believed they were paying a premium for; however, from their perspective they received a qualitatively compromised product.

Your own words also contradict your own argument:

“*I understand that the phrase "better sound" is subjective…

There’s no way around it. Much to the chagrin of the post-modernist mind, this is a black-and-white issue. Right and wrong; no middle-ground.

It’s also quite selfish to reason in a manner that dismisses the fiscal loss of others who have been defrauded, just because it didn’t directly affect oneself.

To reason otherwise is merely to lie or be self-deceived.

K_M

Analog purists.........


Wait, so I was wrong all along??

Emlyn

Imagine the horror if a recording engineer had been using 16 bit depth PCM anywhere in the recording chain 40 years ago. Not that they were; or maybe they were.

daddyjt

jbreezy5 wrote: »

@daddyjt

I disagree with the premise of your question, because it mischaracterizes the issue (people not receiving what they paid for) and my statements.

If you read my last post carefully, you would realize that you are making a straw man argument as I expressly stated that “utmost sonic fidelity” is what analog purists believed they were paying a premium for; however, from their perspective they received a qualitatively compromised product.

Your own words also contradict your own argument:

“*I understand that the phrase "better sound" is subjective…

There’s no way around it. Much to the chagrin of the post-modernist mind, this is a black-and-white issue. Right and wrong; no middle-ground.

It’s also quite selfish to reason in a manner that dismisses the fiscal loss of others who have been defrauded, just because it didn’t directly affect oneself.



To reason otherwise is merely to lie or be self-deceived.

Perhaps you are correct. I often forget that we all have different goals in this hobby, and (wrongly) assume from time to time that others share the same goals that I do - the best possible sound, everything else be damned. If your goals lie in a different direction, then so be it. I sympathize with your feelings of being defrauded, and only hope that you can receive some remedy that does not bankrupt the company - I rather enjoy their SACD releases, and it would be a shame to lose future releases over this squabble.

pitdogg2

K_M wrote: »

Analog purists.........


Wait, so I was wrong all along??

Yes 🤣🤣🤣

daddyjt
I rather enjoy their SACD releases, and it would be a shame to lose future releases over this squabble

As do I! I hope they keep cranking them out. I've pre+ordered all the VH sacd's for gods sake get them to me!
😉