MoFi Comes Clean

jbreezy5

daddyjt wrote: »

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.

That’s a fair response. The only thing is I haven’t lost anything, nor do the arguments I’ve made represent any recompense due me by Mofi, which can be seen in my prior posts.

I was simply empathizing with those who may be feeling ripped off (since they, in fact, were) not having actually received what was advertised.

This again just comes down to, not giving a da*n about something that doesn’t seem to affect oneself directly.

And how do you prove to the analog-only audiophile that your interpretation of superior sonics is the right one as opposed to theirs, since you rightly asserted “better sound is subjective” when it comes to audio?

So even in the above response you are making an objective claim to have a goal to attain “the best possible sound, everything else be damned.”, about something you identified as subjective to each individual; while simultaneously projecting, or implying, that I or others do not.

So why do you 1) presume to know my approach, or definition, to attain the sound that most satisfies me; or, 2) view fraud as a minor thing just because the specific act that occurred didn’t directly impact you, and are concerned the repercussions could affect you in the future if your preferred Mofi SACDs, become unobtainium?

We agree on one thing it seems…it is a shame. It’s just disappointing that we aren’t in agreement regarding what the shame is.

I expressed earlier that I have always had good experiences with Music Direct, but if deceitfulness of Mofi were to cause a negative outcome for the company, they only have themselves to blame.

Unfortunately, too many think this way:

https://youtu.be/M2VBmHOYpV8

DaveHo

It all boils down to truth in advertising. It's like a Craigslist ad that proclaims it's mint. Then when you show up it turns out to be a piece of shite. Just tell me the truth and it's all good.

daddyjt

jbreezy5 wrote: »

And how do you prove to the analog-only audiophile that your interpretation of superior sonics is the right one as opposed to theirs, since you rightly asserted “better sound is subjective” when it comes to audio?

So even in the above response you are making an objective claim to have a goal to attain “the best possible sound, everything else be damned.”, about something you identified as subjective to each individual; while simultaneously projecting, or implying, that I or others do not.

I don't have to prove anything to the "analog-only" audiophile - They either like the sound of the MOFI pressings and buy them, or they don't. The fact that many are unhappy with their pressings only after the news broke is a topic for the expectation bias discussion.

As for the subjectivity of the best sound, my reasoning went something like this: Unless you believe MOFI made this decision just to piss their customers off, than we have to assume that the powers-that-be at MOFI thought it sounded better... And isn't THAT what you're buying MOFI for in the first place?

jbreezy5

daddyjt wrote: »

jbreezy5 wrote: »

And how do you prove to the analog-only audiophile that your interpretation of superior sonics is the right one as opposed to theirs, since you rightly asserted “better sound is subjective” when it comes to audio?

So even in the above response you are making an objective claim to have a goal to attain “the best possible sound, everything else be damned.”, about something you identified as subjective to each individual; while simultaneously projecting, or implying, that I or others do not.

I don't have to prove anything to the "analog-only" audiophile - They either like the sound of the MOFI pressings and buy them, or they don't. The fact that many are unhappy with their pressings only after the news broke is a topic for the expectation bias discussion.

As for the subjectivity of the best sound, my reasoning went something like this: Unless you believe MOFI made this decision just to piss their customers off, than we have to assume that the powers-that-be at MOFI thought it sounded better... And isn't THAT what you're buying MOFI for in the first place?

Evade, evade, evade.

Apathy is the enemy of the common good.

F1nut

WTF, are ya'll arguing about!?!

jbreezy5

F1nut wrote: »

WTF, are ya'll arguing about!?!

Some people don’t think fraud should be thought of in a negative light; as long as they are happy, don’t screw with the system.

msg

dude, nobody said that.

jbreezy5

msg wrote: »

dude, nobody said that.

Actually it was expressly stated if you read the statements between @daddyjt and myself from the beginning.

invalid

You will never know now if an analog only or DSD to analog is superior, what are you going to do take MOFI's word for it?

msg

jbreezy5 wrote: »

msg wrote: »

dude, nobody said that.

Actually it was expressly stated if you read the statements between @daddyjt and myself from the beginning.

You're stretching his point of view.

He said he likes his MoFi recordings because he prefers the best sound (to his ears), and that he hopes MoFi doesn't go under because of this because he likes the product. You make it sound like he said screw everyone else; he's happy.

What do you think MoFi is going to do, anyway? They're not going to buy back all these records and discs. No matter how many pissed off customers speak up. Class action? Who's that benefit? Not the customers.

They're guilty of a crime of omission, and anyone who bought thinking they were getting a full analog recording path does have a legitimate complaint. But how many of those people were complaining about the quality of those records/recordings before this came out, though? Probably way fewer than were enjoying them.

People bought MoFi for two reasons, either/and/or:

1. They thought they were getting the full analog recording path
2. They like the sound.

I think most of the "analog purists" are simply more annoyed that they might be feeling a little silly that they couldn't really notice quality lacking now that the digital conversion step has been revealed, and it's only now that they're going, "I bet I really could tell the difference if I heard a copy that was analog all the way." And yeah, we all paid about $15 to $20 more for the records. That cost isn't likely just for "recorded from the original tapes", it's the premium they place on the remastering expense and for sourcing the tapes.

daddyjt

jbreezy5 wrote: »

msg wrote: »

dude, nobody said that.

Actually it was expressly stated if you read the statements between @daddyjt and myself from the beginning.

It’s a RECORD COMPANY!! I find it stunning that we’re discussing “moral relativism” with regards to RECORDS, that you don’t even buy! Apologies, but I’ll save my moral outrage for chit that actually MATTERS…

With that, I’ll stand by my original statement, agreeing with Ernie that “if it sounds better than the original, I don’t care what processing digital or analog they use”. Hopefully this “scandal” doesn’t knock the Earth off it’s axis...

daddyjt wrote: »

erniejade wrote: »

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

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

jdjohn

Personal property fraud lawsuit has been filed: Tuttle vs Audiophile Music Direct.

audioluvr

What is this MoFi thing you are talking about?

F1nut

You just knew some lawyer was going to jump on that one.

I own a lot of MoFi's CD, SACD and vinyl releases, which I bought because they sound great. A lot of those are old releases long before DSD came about, but even though the newer releases have a digital step in the process it's my understanding they are still sourced from the original master tape, so technically MoFi stating they are from the original master tape is true, IMO. I hope the lawsuit gets tossed.

maxward

It’s looking like Mobile Fidelity is likely going to have to rub some money on their little problem, similar to what Volkswagen had to do.

jbreezy5

daddyjt wrote: »

jbreezy5 wrote: »

msg wrote: »

dude, nobody said that.

Actually it was expressly stated if you read the statements between @daddyjt and myself from the beginning.

It’s a RECORD COMPANY!! I find it stunning that we’re discussing “moral relativism” with regards to RECORDS, that you don’t even buy! Apologies, but I’ll save my moral outrage for chit that actually MATTERS…

With that, I’ll stand by my original statement, agreeing with Ernie that “if it sounds better than the original, I don’t care what processing digital or analog they use”. Hopefully this “scandal” doesn’t knock the Earth off it’s axis...

daddyjt wrote: »

erniejade wrote: »

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

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

Again, as you indicate above, you consider business fraud an amoral matter. That's illogical.

What does empathy for other audiophiles who were defrauded have to do with whether or not I was one of them? That is the definition of what empathy is.

You have no valid moral outrage in this conversation. ^^^ See above ^^^ You deny that fraudulent business practices in the record industry are a matter of morality (as long as the record "sounds better than the original", to which you replied, "Unless you are in it for something other than sound, this pretty much sums it up..."); as has been your consistent reply).

You may not care what processing the company uses, but they advertise that they use a certain kind of processing that did apparently impact the decision to make a purchase for some audiophiles. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

pitdogg2

You can only use the original master tapes for so long before degradation shows up and they're junk. It does make sense to make a copy that preserves their integrity for the future.

msg

pitdogg2 wrote: »

You can only use the original master tapes for so long before degradation shows up and they're junk. It does make sense to make a copy that preserves their integrity for the future.

Yes, I wondered about this as well. I need to learn more about the recording process wrt steps, because I wondered how they managed this before digital. They must always have had intermediate copies of some sort for repro, whether secondary tapes or multiple stampers, right?

One of the guys in the article engie linked mentioned this.

Earlier this year, MoFi announced an upcoming reissue of Jackson’s 1982 smash “Thriller” as a One-Step. The news release said the original master tape would be used for the repressing, which would have a run of 40,000 copies. That’s a substantially bigger number than the usual for a One-Step, which is typically limited to between 3,500 and 7,500 copies.

Michael Ludwigs, a German record enthusiast with a YouTube channel, 45 RPM Audiophile, questioned how this could be possible. Because of the One-Step process, an original master tape would need to be run dozens of times to make that many records. Why would Sony Music Entertainment allow that?

“That’s the kind of thing that deteriorates tape,” says Grundman.

mhardy6647

Yes, "they" made all sorts of early generation copies of the masters, to send out to the pressing plants and as safety back up copies, and probably for other reasons as well.

Those early generation copies are in fairly high demand on the 'audiophile' tape market. They're not terribly hard to find, and not always terrifyingly expensive -- but, of course, there are counterfeits out there. too.

Here's one, e.g.


Don't know how easy it is to read, but this is an early-generation copy of Pretzel Logic.

The tapes sent to pressing plants start with a series of tones. Those tones are of known level and frequency and are used to calibrate the recipient's playback deck with the sender's deck so that the end use of the tape is 'high in fidelity' to the original.

Emlyn

Although not a direct parallel I see this as being similar to how old movies are remastered for Blu Ray like Criterion does. People don't really want to see what's on the old reels of film stock with all the degradation that's taken place over the years. So it's essential to clean up what's there while preserving as much of the original image and sound as possible and that's only possible with digital imaging and processing.

In the case of MoFi they just didn't market up front that they were doing something in the digital domain. I think what they've been doing has been an essential step. Criterion sometimes makes a little video to show exactly how much work they did to clean up video and audio on one of their releases. That's like marketing to get people to understand that there's work that goes into what they release. I do own some MoFi products and think they're special regardless of what was done to get the best quality onto vinyl, or SACD, with them.

SIHAB

F1nut wrote: »

but even though the newer releases have a digital step in the process it's my understanding they are still sourced from the original master tape, so technically MoFi stating they are from the original master tape is true, IMO. I hope the lawsuit gets tossed.

Maybe, maybe not.
4XDSD is what they have been working from per them from the one-steps.
https://mofi.com/pages/technologies#one-step
It's a case by case basis but nearly all have been digital sources as of the
turn of the century.

I view this like the McDonalds French fry lawsuit.
Pooey, digital.

SIHAB

I take it back. They claim analog master tape to DSD for
most stuff...

F1nut

Can someone who purchased MoFi vinyl believing it to be AAA who then does a needle drop to the digital domain really be upset about this?

SIHAB

this sums it up for me;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wt8A82OrHQ

msg

F1nut wrote: »

Can someone who purchased MoFi vinyl believing it to be AAA who then does a needle drop to the digital domain really be upset about this?

Does this mean someone not tubed from end to end?

I upgraded to one of these for the shortest path. My records only last 3 plays before the needle pokes through, but it's worth it for the atmosphere. Got a good deal as the previous owner did not have the original packaging. Nor the dog. Well, coulda gotten the dog, but it was just a box of bones.

Clipdat

jdjohn

For those who haven't seen the graphics originally included in MoFi's One-Step pressings, here it is:



And here is the corrected graphic of how they were actually produced:



I wonder how MoFi would feel if they found out the "original master recording" they received was just a tape recorded from a CD? Would they feel de-frauded, or just say, "Eh...sounds pretty good. Why should we complain?" Of course, they would be livid, file lawsuits, etc., because they 'invested' in those supposed genuine master recordings.

Many record collectors see these special pressings as investments, akin to investing in art, or fine jewelry. If a counterfeit painting, or cubic zirconia diamond, is still pretty (but not what you were paying for), is there no right to complain or feel de-frauded?

Those are all rhetorical questions as food-for-thought...not directed towards anyone.

P.S. I think the lawsuit MUST be from a guy who has invested 000's of dollars in these pressings. I can't imagine any other situation where someone would sue for a few $100 records. That would be small claims, and possibly end up on Judge Judy.

jdjohn

There is already a new moniker...'Mo-Lie'

engie490

For me, the strangest aspect of this story is that an audiophile company decided they could make something sound better and felt they had to hide that fact. When have you ever heard of that???

msg

I have to wonder if it was something they were developing with the intention of disclosing, and then there just wasn't a good way or time to bring it up. Like when your wife's away on a girls week and you accidentally have Charlie Sheen and hookers over the whole time she's gone. It doesn't hurt anyone not knowing, and telling her would only cause trouble.