 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.166.116.8
I bought several MoFi records with the unadvertised DSD step.
I'm either going to go for the 10% off coupons, exclude myself from the process or do nothing. (see link)
Should I feel damaged or owed something in order to go for the 10% off coupons? I'm a long term MoFi customer who is happy with the products I buy from them.
Problem with 10% coupons it might make it so I have to spend more to free shipping. Think I'm leaning towards excluding myself. Doing nothing keeps me out of the potential next round.
Follow Ups:
It is only 98% of the lawyers that give the other 2% a bad name.
I dream of an America where a chicken can cross the road without having it's motives questioned.
the intentional deceit of the paying customers by playing to their puristic desires. the vague way that they labeled the product implies, but not states straight out, that they used actual analog tapes as their source.
i, for one, feel that DSD comes VERY close to analog, illustrated by the verisimilitude of SACD to an analog sourced LP. they shot THEMSELVES in the foot. we will get over it and hope that all are honest in the future.
...regards...tr
"i, for one, feel that DSD comes VERY close to analog, illustrated by the verisimilitude of SACD to an analog sourced LP."
And SACD is only DSD64. One can imagine that DSD256 is a lot better.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
"One can imagine that DSD256 is a lot better."
It is except that it trades inner detail for refinement.
DSD was developed for archival purposes by SONY and I believe that part of the reason they didn't let SACD proliferate is their fear of people copying the DSD files for duplication purposes.
...regards...tr
My only problem with my MoFi purchases over the years is that they didn't spread "Goo" over 2 LPs. I'm still holdin' that grudge from the 90s.
Many folks bailed on MoFi when they abandoned their special vinyl formula of their earlier pressings.
I've always held a grudge against MoFi because of the the ludicrous self promotion plastered on the covers of the records they release.
Most of my purchases are from the 90s (except for gold cds that were on clearance sales). I do have 2 LPs on the list, though - thank you for posting the link. I might claim the coupons for those 2, if I get around to it.
Now, I'm reminded of my other grudge against MoFi and others like DCC who used the fancy cd case with moving, locking spindle. Those things are so tight in the cd hole when locked in place, they caused the discs to crack.
You should do what *you* feel is right. I received the notice about the class action suit and my eligibility to collect as a member of the class. I responded with the following email.
"I am disgusted by this lawsuit brought by whiney delusional audiophiles and I have no interest in financially damaging a company that has produced such excellent product for the ignorance and egos of those whiney little audiophiles."
Laugh as if getting a handful of 10% off coupons to be used within 6 months is going to damage the company. If anything it'll mean I'm going to buy more records from them.
Don't think I'm going to damage Music Direct or MoFi using the coupons.
The coupons are nothing.
The real damage has been done. The payout to the opposing lawyers was about $350,000 as well as $10,000 to each of the plaintiffs. Who knows how much they had to spend on their own council.
That's a lot of coin for bruised egos.
Bruised egos so you say. I have no idea how the plaintiffs were damaged. Far as I know they are resellers of MoFi products or folks who have built up large collections for future resale. Could be they are folks who have contracts to buy MoFi in the future. Heck maybe they are just lawyers who happen to collect MoFi records and saw an opportunity for some easy money. Somehow I doubt they are simple audiophile/record collectors bruised because they feel duped by MoFi's marketing/management decisions. Could be though I guess.
By all accounts that is exactly what they are.
As for investing. Mofi has no legal liability for resale value.
I'm speculating on who might have been behind the lawsuit. Certainly you've spoken with great authority that it's AAA audiophiles - I'm just saying there are other possibilities. The fact that the lawsuit was brought based on the expectations of AAA audiophiles doesn't mean AAA audiophiles had anything to do with bringing the suit.
I don't claim to be any kind of authority but the plaintiffs were named. And there were actually multiple class action lawsuits. All plaintiffs had council and were not lawyers themselves.
This is from one of those class action suits filed on behalf of Adam Stiles.
"Plaintiff Adam Stiles is a resident of Charlotte, North Carolina and has an intent to
remain there, and is therefore a citizen of North Carolina. Mr. Stiles has purchased various records
from MoFi over the years. Most recently, in or about February 2022, Mr. Stiles purchased The
Pretenders' self-titled debut album for approximately $40, directly from MoFi via MoFi's website
while Mr. Stiles was in North Carolina. Prior to and at the time of purchase, Mr. Stiles reviewed
the representations on MoFi's website regarding the Record, including that the Record was an
"original master recording," as well as representations on the Record itself that the Record was
made using the "Gain 2 Ultra Analog System," which "only utilize[s] first generation original
master recordings as source material," and that "any sonic artifacts present are a product of the
original master tape." Nowhere on either the website or on the Record itself was there a
representation that digital mastering or DSD was used as part of the recording or mastering process.
Mr. Stiles relied on these representations and omissions in deciding to purchase the Record.
Accordingly, these representations and omissions formed the basis of the bargain in that, had Mr.
Stiles been aware that the Record used digital remastering or DSD technology, he would not have
purchased the Record, or would have paid significantly less for it. In or about July 2022, Mr. Stiles
discovered that his Record used DSD technology as part of the mastering chain."
What do you think? Am I getting it wrong?
I don't know the guy but he is being characterized as the person you describe. I've met people like that around but I haven't heard from such a person here on AA or on the record site where I probably spend as much time.
I don't have any reason to demean or disrespect such a person for having such an interest or for feeling miffed by MoFi.
You can find quite a few of them over on the Steve Hoffman forums. I would not be so demeaning were it not so well deserved. I've had a few "discussions" with these folks. Some folks really deserve it at times in my opinion.
I consider them to be among the creationists of audio. Not the kind that just passively believe but the kind that try to legislate their religion into state and federal law. IMO there is good reason to call out their bullshit. Reasons like their lawsuits against Mofi.
In those terms I'm more of a pacifist, live and let live person. I have no reason to rile folks up when clearly they are dying off like dinosaurs all on their own. Erasure and/or internment camps don't work for me but boycotting those empowering them while profiting off exploitation of them would be a priority with me. Which so far is not a priority of mine. I haven't bought from Acoustic Sounds in years because of poor service and packaging BTW. I boycotted a Taco Bell once for over a year because they shorted me a taco one day and on the next day I mentioned it and they said I needed the receipt and the bag from yesterday if I wanted the taco I paid for - not that I really cared about the taco it just pissed me off they asked me for the "bag". Like I'm some criminal trying to steal a taco.
Edits: 06/26/23 06/26/23 06/26/23
I am definitely not a pacifist in defense of facts and objective information. Which puts me in an inherently hostile environment as an audiophile.
The high end audio world has always been rife with misinformation, urban legend and just plain antiscientific beliefs. But now it is the dominant force in high end audio. As much as I like the idea of "live and let live" I think there is no room for it on public forums where so much of what audiophiles believe about audio is disseminated. There are two reasons for this.
1. Perception is taken for reality. Tell a lie often enough and if unopposed it will eventually be accepted as the truth. If the only voices that are represented in audio are the voices of misinformation, urban legend and just plain anti-scientific bullshit for lack of a better word then that becomes the "reality" that is taken at face value by the general audiophile community. I do think most audiophiles, at least when they are starting out, would actually like to know the facts and make truly informed buying decisions. That is not even possible if we allow facts and reason to be shouted down by these true believers. This is exactly why I made the creationist analogy. I have no problem with creationists believing in creationism. That's on them. I do have a big problem with government representatives trying to legislate it into schools to be taught as legitimate science.
2. This influence and imbalance of beliefs among audiophiles DOES affect manufacturer's choices in ways that make for inferior product. And in this regard I am being quite selfish in my public ridicule of the AAA cult. They have a very loud voice and they have the attention of the labels who make audiophile vinyl. When you have idiots like Michael Fremer who declares he can always hear digital in a vinyl record when there is a digital step and you have PT Barnums like Chad who managed to angle certain business advantages as two of the loudest and most respected voices in high end vinyl perpetuating the myth that AAA mastering is actually better you end up with companies like Mofi who fucking get sued for quite literally doing the best they can to make the best LPs they can because it bruised the egos of the AAA cultists who drank the Fremer/Kassam et al Kool aide. (so so sorry for the run on sentence there) And this makes it a problem for other companies to make the otherwise obvious superior choice of doing digital transfers to make their LPs.
So yeah, I am selfishly going to publicly fight this nonsense tooth and nail for pretty selfish reasons. I want better sounding records. Religious beliefs about sound quality that clearly are factually incorrect are an obstacle to that goal.
I fight the fight because I truly believe that if it isn't fought then the bullshit rules the industry and everything ultimately suffers for it.
It's already uneven enough that such bullshit as $40K power cords, cable lifters, esoteric DACs and a multitude of other nonsensical garbage is largely held as true because of the wide acceptance of it's truth. IMO we are already in a deep hole.
So I am not a pacifist in the struggle between fact and reason against religion and irrationality.
And to quote Rocco DeLuca "The truth is not polite."
"When you have idiots like Michael Fremer who declares he can always hear digital in a vinyl record when there is a digital step"I can unfaillingly hear this step! My latest purchase is the Kevin Grey reissue of the Cars debut album which claims to be directly produced from the original master tape (HA!). Not only does it have a clear digital degration (step), my original analog pressing of this album completely cleans its clock!
I am done with purchasing these modern digital counterfits!
Edits: 06/26/23
So how does "clear digital degration (step)" sound compared to 40 something years of storage and usage on the master tape? And FWIW a DSD transfer from the original master tape will result in a record produced directly from the original master tape.
Edits: 06/26/23 06/26/23
"So how does "clear digital degration (step)" sound compared to 40 something years of storage and usage on the master tape?"
The tape itself shows no audible signs of degration. The defects I hear are clearly digital in nature.
Did you do a direct comparison between the original master tape and the alleged digital transfer?
"Did you do a direct comparison between the original master tape and the alleged digital transfer?"
As I have exhaustive experience with analog tape, I am infinitely familiar with its sonic properties and capabilities.
I have no need to investigate further.
and you are faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive and can leap tall buildings in a single bound?
You have to be putting us on. This is just toooooo much of a cartoon caricature of an audiophile
I consider myself to be among the worlds most critical audio enthusiasts. I am not an Idiophool!
You may or may not be joking. either way you sure are good for laughs. Thank you for that.
Later Gator,
Dave
I think he was joking
I gave up sarcasm on-line years ago. It just doesn't work - half the people who love you actually are those you are laughing at, and half the people who hate you are the people you love. I guess the results are better than any moderate could hope to achieve.
I've always been impressed with folks who are capable of hearing the space/gaps in-between the digital samples.
Humor often doesn't translate well. I thought he was joking. Now I'm not so sure
"Humor often doesn't translate well. I thought he was joking. Now I'm not so sure"
No anti-analog scott, I am not.
OK you are not joking. Ironically though you providing yet another example of the very thing that permeates high end audio. Beliefs in audio mythology over facts and science.
The Cars LP you speak of that you believe you can hear a digital step in the mastering chain is by all accounts an all analog mastering. Is it *possible* that Kevin Gray and everyone at Rhino involved in the making of this LP are collectively lying? It's *possible* but given the environment of multiple class action lawsuits against companies for failing to disclose a digital step in their transfer/ mastering chain it would seem like a needless risk to take by a company whose parent company literally owns that master tape to make unambiguous claims that the record was an all analog mastering. From the Rhino website:
"Cut From The Original Analog Master Tapes By Kevin Gray
Pressed On 180-Gram Heavyweight Vinyl At Optimal
Heavyweight Glossy Gatefold Jacket
Features A New Interview With Elliot Easton And Producer Roy Thomas Baker's Tracking Notes For "Good Times Roll"
Limited & Numbered To 5,000
Available Now, Exclusively At Rhino.com
ABOUT RHINO HIGH FIDELITY
Rhino is synonymous with high-quality reissues, setting the standard with award-winning audio releases for the past 45 years. Now we're raising the bar with a new premium vinyl series, Rhino High Fidelity. These high-end, limited-edition vinyl reissues of classic albums represent the pinnacle of sound and packaging.
To ensure consistent sonic excellence, Kevin Gray will cut lacquers for all Rhino Hi-Fi releases, and Optimal will press the 180-gram vinyl records. The releases boast high-quality glossy covers and "tip-on" jackets, an old-school aesthetic that evokes the golden age of vinyl."
Given the fact that the total gross revenue from this record will be $800,000.00 and that Mofi had to pay no less than $370,000.00 to settle their lawsuit. (that does not include the costs of their own council) It would be profoundly stupid for them to lie about this.
So you hear a digital step in an all analog record. Just like so many AAA devotees including Michael Fremer failed to hear digital steps that were in the transfer/mastering chain of various LPs by Mofi and other labels. AND OTHER LABELS. (more to come and that one)
Sorry it's nonsense and is counter productive. Nobody can hear a proper hi res digital step. No one. It is not physically possible.
Goober, if you are reading this, does my fight seem so unreasonable now? This is NOT an isolated opinion. It is an example of the loudest collective voice in audiophile vinyl.
As a side note. I am certainly not "anti-analog." Understanding analog and the effect it has on audio does not make one "anti-analog" OTOH I am pro fact and pro science and pro rational thought. The choice of audio mythology and anecdotal evidence derived from non controlled casual listening over objective evidence and research from an entire field of science is the opposite of being pro fact, pro science and pro rational thought.
It is the single biggest problem in the high end audio industry. It's why we get records that are made avoiding digital and is inferior as a direct result. It's why we have a market for $40K power cords that do absolutely nothing to the audio signal. It is the reason audiophiles will buy a bag of magic rocks for $300.00. It's the reason why most of the audiophile community is wallowing in inferior sound anchored in and held back by antiquated technology while ignoring and even demonizing real innovations in audio.
" Goober, if you are reading this, does my fight seem so unreasonable now? "
Yes. Here's why -
" The choice of audio mythology and anecdotal evidence derived from non controlled casual listening over objective evidence and research from an entire field of science is the opposite of being pro fact, pro science and pro rational thought. "
Non controlled casual listening is exactly how I evaluate audio gear. Objective evidence and research from an entire field of science will never trump casual listening. Choosing audio equipment and building audio systems is an art not a science just like making an album is an art not a science.
Objective evidence and research only plays a part in this art. However one values the results varies from each system owner to the next.
"Non controlled casual listening is exactly how I evaluate audio gear. Objective evidence and research from an entire field of science will never trump casual listening."
That is a point of major disagreement. Which is fine. It's audio. But at the same time I have offered Michael Fremer and numerous other folks who think their hearing perceptions under such casual conditions trump science a $20K bet that under double blind conditions their "hearing" won't do what they think it can do. I have even gone so far as to make it my $20.K vs. My travel expenses to come to whoever thinks they can hear these differences. I'm talking in most cases better than 10-1 odds!
No one will take any of the bets. No one! If the shoe were on the other foot? I'd be all over those offers. ANYONE who wants to bet me $20K that I can't hear differences in anything audio that I firmly believe makes an audible difference will immediately be taken up on such an offer.
Honestly, what do you think an entire field of science is missing and getting wrong that casual audiophiles are routinely picking up on? Does that really seem feasible to you?
"Honestly, what do you think an entire field of science is missing and getting wrong that casual audiophiles are routinely picking up on? Does that really seem feasible to you?"
This question is getting old. Measurements cannot tell us how a component audibly performs beyond the most basic criterias.
Actually it's your anti scientific audio religion that is getting old. Wanna take my bet? I'll bet you whatever you want to risk that you can not reliably identify difference between the analog audio signal of your choice, using the source material of your choice on the stereo system of your choice from a real time hi res ADC/DAC step in the signal.
3 conditions.
1. Level matched
2. Double blind ABX
3. A positive has to meet the basic scientific statistical criteria of 95% confidence level.
I look forward to your excuses not to take the bet
"Sorry it's nonsense and is counter productive. Nobody can hear a proper hi res digital step. No one. It is not physically possible."
As hearing acuity is direct tied to ones intellect, perhaps I the Great Genius am the only one that can reliably do so.
The Cars reissue sounds exactly like the very distinctive degrations of digital, with no true air and space around the instruments/performers, and a lack of fine resolution, texturing and inner detail!
You do know that Beethoven was stone deaf when he composed much of his greatest work right?
So how do you explain you hearing degrations of digital in a recording in which is aaa?
"So how do you explain you hearing degrations of digital in a recording in which is aaa?"
The only explanation is the hidden digital step!
I'm a hobbyist not a warrior. I'm doing just fine records sound good to me. Spent lots of time picking the hardware that works for me and the enjoyment of recordings follows.
The geek and the collector in me encourages various versions of my favorite records. And naturally comparisons of the versions. Current MoFi, Speakers Corner and Analog Production products hold up pretty well. But so has lots of original labels reissues of older music as well the Pure Pleasure titles I've acquired - I'm sure there's more than a bit of digital in there. The vast majority of my music purchases are not audiophile records.
It's a big hobby with room for all types of "philosophies". It's 2 channel audio and there's only that much to work with. I'm expecting digital remixes to result in reissues of older music some of which will sound better than the original releases. And it should not cost more than what we are paying for a regular release or the $40 bucks we are paying for a standard MoFi or Analog Productions reissue.
Whiney and delusional indeed.
The lawyers LOVE that shit, and are the only ones
who will truly benefit from the whole, warped proce$$.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
Nt
...MoFi records and they are definitely NOT in the settlement group. They are steam locomotive recordings from the original Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs (?) from the late 1950s: "THUNDER ON BLUE RIDGE" and "STEAM UNDER THUNDERING SKIES"; Crank up the bass!!
Later Gator,
Dave
I think this whole lawsuit business is a bunch of nonsense. I purchased a couple of the albums on that list but I'm not going to bother with making a claim for anything. Even if I'd purchased a dozen or more. Should Mobile Fidelity have been clear ("more transparent") about the entire process? Sure. Should they be taken to court over it, so some well-heeled lawyers can make a lot of money? No.Tom
Added: No offense to those lawyers who provide legal services to people in need of council. I'm just not impressed with the system we've allowed/enabled to handle civil cases.
Edits: 06/24/23
Maybe but the lawyers are getting paid whether I take the 10% off coupons or not.
I'm not judging your actions; if you want to be compensated, that's your business, not mine.
Tom
It's not about a "want to be compensated". It's about getting 10% off coupons an on-line provider is willing to give me in order to keep my business after a marketing/management decision that has alienated a chunk of their customer base.
I'm not damaged in anyway by MoFi's lack of transparency. However I would have preferred greater transparency. I'm a proponent of digital audio (not the opposite) and feel somewhat mislead in my quest for a better understanding quality audio because of MoFi's clear and obvious non promotion of the digital step.
There is an ethical question here for me. The "ethical" thing for me to do would be to end my relationship with Music Direct and no longer buy MoFi products. The coupons are an enticement for me not to do so.
I'll repeat myself: If you want to take advantage of this class action lawsuit, that's your business, not mine.I didn't purchase MoFi albums because I thought they were all analog, I bought them because I'd read that they were good pressings and 1) I needed to replace an old album that had a bunch of pops and ticks, or 2) the original release copy that I had wasn't that good in the first place, or 3) I didn't have the album and it was highly recommended and reasonably priced.
I'll probably purchase another MoFi release if any of the above scenarios plays out. So with that in mind, I'd rather not contribute to MoFi's further loss of revenue. That's just my take on it.
Tom
Edits: 06/25/23
I'm a collector - sometimes I just buy records because I like the albums or the bands. And recently I've been buying new to me music on audiophile labels I trust. At $40 to $70 it's a bargain compared to buying a nm used record for many recordings. I also enjoy comparing sound quality though my system.
I never thought taking the coupons offered by MoFi was going to hurt the company - in fact I thought maybe I would buy more because of them. If my intention was to hurt the company I wouldn't buy anything - simply not buying 1 LP going forward will cost them much more than the 8 coupons will cost them (if it costs them anything).
I've bought 2 MoFi's since the story broke and there's a few more 45s rpms on my want list. I might get the CSN One-Step if it's around for another month or so - next week I'm expecting the UHQR of The Royal Scam to show up.
I've averaged about $100 a month from Music Direct for the last 4 maybe more years. If I wanted to "hurt" them I would just buy my stuff somewhere else and not buy any MoFi records. I view the coupons as a kind gesture, or an apology, for their marketing mis-step.
I can see the coupons as a gesture, an acknowledgement that they can do better. In that light I might consider using them since, as Analog Scott pointed out, sales are common and part of their business model.
Tom
I don't think the coupon is really going to affect that. These labels do labor day sales 10% off, memorial day sales 10% off, flag day sales 10% off, groundhog day sales 10% off, national kangaroo day sales 10% off....
I wasn't in on this....and have no direct anything to add, but A QUESTION.How much did the Attorneys make on this?
I just paged thru the settlement. 20,000 class members is not a huge number.
Attorneys fees capped at 290,000$ which seems low. And the 2 original filers, each
got 10,000$, presumably as some kind of finders fee.Discounts have a time limit and I don't think are transferrable, but MAY be combined.
So? You get a minor discount for spending MORE money......Which leaves me scratching my head.
Years ago I was part of the EPSON settlement dealing with printer inks. And took the discount and bought MORE INK.....Than I went and bought a monochrome laser printer for mainly text....
Too much is never enough
Edits: 06/26/23
My understanding was that they got $350,000.00. Maybe that was fees and expenses? And the two plaintiffs got $10,000.00 each just for being whiny little bitches.
It's ridiculous that bruised egos could cost a legitimate audiophile company, one of the few that are truly legit that much money. That is absolutely fucked up.
I wonder how many true snake oil peddlers in the high end audio industry are having trouble sleeping at night knowing that being exposed could lead to such lawsuits?
Is it really a 10% off coupon as I thought it is a credit in the amount of 10% of your mofi purchases that are listed in the settlement?
Tom
" However I would have preferred greater transparency. I'm a proponent of digital audio (not the opposite) and feel somewhat mislead in my quest for a better understanding quality audio because of MoFi's clear and obvious non promotion of the digital step."
Do you feel somewhat mislead by any audiophile reissue company that does not disclose the entire mastering chain in detail both in terms of the gear used and any processing used? Almost every audiophile reissue label hires mastering engineers who use EQ to modify the sound. If a failure to disclose an inaudible hi res digital transfer step is misleading is it not even more misleading to fail to disclose the use of EQ? There is NO question that EQ affects the sound. Unlike the digital step no one will argue audibility of EQ. And there certainly was a time when EQ was seen in audiophile circles as Satan's spawn and that no audiophile worth their salt would ever be associated with EQ much less allow it in their playback chain. And let's keep it real. They aren't just using EQ. There is some very "quiet" use of compression here and there too. Not to mention the use of limiters. If a digital step should be disclosed shouldn't everything else be disclosed? If it's really about transparency and "provenance."
The thing is this would make them all guilty of lies of omission.
And I would like to know when and where transparency and disclosure became an obligation? A legal obligation no less.
No one is making a stink about all the other non-disclosures though. No one! And this IMO is the smoking gun that shows us this was and still is about digital and more to the point about AAA devotees having their egos bruised because many of the LPs they held as evidence of their beliefs turned out to have a digital step in them. It was like finding out there really is no Santa Clause. Just about every kid cries when they get that news. AAA cultists file class action lawsuits and whine endlessly about bullshit like transparency and provenance just so they can say it isn't about digital. None of those same folks whining about provenance and transparency EVER talked about that bullshit before finding out the Mofis had digital steps.
And none of them are complaining about the lack of transparency with every other aspect of the mastering chain including EQ. I wonder how many of them even know how an analog equalizer actually works? If "provenance" is an issue with a digital step heaven forbid they every find out what those analog equalizers are doing to that precious analog signal. Oh but wait, never mind all the distortions an analog equalizer introduces when it separates and filters that precious all analog signal into multiple bands, applies active gain changes and then slaps the multiple signals back together with all kinds of phase shifts in each band and other artifacts. It's ANALOG! So it's OK....
This ALWAYS was about the bruised egos of AAA cultists.
No I don't feel misled as I think it's fairly normal for some EQ or editing to be done when doing a reissue.
Regardless everyone else is being deceptive doesn't justify MoFi being deceptive. And if it didn't matter MoFi wouldn't have bothered to start including the information in their advertising.
Far as I can tell MoFi has accepted responsibility for it's actions yet you continue to try to justify them.
If I heard your reasoning coming from MoFi they would definitely come off my reissuers to buy from list.
"No I don't feel misled as I think it's fairly normal for some EQ or editing to be done when doing a reissue."It's fairly normal for vinyl reissues to have a digital step in the transfer/mastering chain. Whether or not it is fairly normal is beside the point. It isn't disclosed. If this about transparency then that should matter too. It's about digital.
"Regardless everyone else is being deceptive doesn't justify MoFi being deceptive."
They weren't deceptive. The accusation was eventually reduced to a "lie of omission." And my point isn't that Mofi is justified but that digtal is singled out. They ALL omit almost everything in their transfer/mastering chains. And nobody seems to care, except for when it's digital.
"And if it didn't matter MoFi wouldn't have bothered to start including the information in their advertising."It mattered ONLY because they were sued. They were sued because it was digital not because they weren't being transparent. No one else is being transparent. Mofi STILL isn't being transparent. It was never about transparency. It was about digital
"Far as I can tell MoFi has accepted responsibility for it's actions yet you continue to try to justify them."
There is nothing to justify. They were no less transparent about their processes than any other reissue company. If anything they were more transparent. And I will remind you again, they were sued! They did what they did to mitigate financial loss. They have never admitted any wrong doing. And they shouldn't because they didn't do anything wrong.
"If I heard your reasoning coming from MoFi they would definitely come off my reissuers to buy from list."
Then it looks to me like it's about digital for you too. Because all of these reissue companies continue to NOT be transparent about their transfer/mastering chains. And apparently you are OK with this. Except for Mofi's use of hi res digital transfers. THAT one step was wrongfully not explicitly disclosed. But all the other non-disclosures are totally OK.
Ironically it was disclosed in the very Youtube video these AAA cultists hold up as some sort of smoking gun against Mofi.
Edits: 06/26/23
I agree Tom.
Certainly not all lawyers are bad people, but there seems to be enough bad apples to continue to spoil the bunch.
I read recently that the families of three students killed in an on-campus shooting will be suing my alma matter. The shooter was not affiliated with the university, but was an emotionally unbalanced person who elected (randomly) to walk into a couple of campus buildings and begin shooting. It all ended in a matter of minutes. So how could the university have anticipated this and prevented it from happening?
That was a terrible tragedy for all concerned, but how was the university responsible? Is it reasonable to expect everything to be locked down and have continuous on-site security teams? Maybe not, but when a shark team smells blood, particularly in a deep pocket entity, you can predict what will happen.
Sorry to go off topic, but this is broadly related in what has become a "lawsuit happy" society.
"In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future." Columbia record jacket - 1959.
+1. Same boat, same sentiment.
I bought the MFSL Santana (first album) repress that has just come out - the jacket has been updated to show the DSD transfer step on the back so any repressings will reflect the process more accurately it appears. It doesn't bother me in the slightest.
I get why Analogue Productions won't do it but I would rather the reissues done by the original label owners in the Blue Note, Verve, Prestige (etc) series have a digital transfer step to enable the Plangent process to be used to clean up the obvious tape W/F that can be heard on some of these originals.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Do you have a sensitivity to wow & flutter? I certainly do. That was the original reason I got into digital to begin with. The year was 1991 and I did a lot of traveling in my job. I took a Walkman tape deck on trips but I just couldn't tolerate the wow & flutter on piano music. Consequently, I decided to buy the new little Sony Walkman DAT recorder that had just come out. I began copying my favorite LPs to DAT and I got the surprise of life. Not only did DAT alleviate the wow & flutter problem, but the recordings came out sounding just like vinyl. I couldn't have been happier. I began copying all my favorite LPs to DAT and I've been making digital copies of vinyl ever since. Now, I copy vinyl to DSD128, which makes the best sounding copies I've ever heard.
Happy listening!
John Elison
I certainly do. I may well be in a minority here, but apart from having a clean pressing and recreated artwork, I feel the jazz "audiophile" reissues on vinyl to be rather poor value in the sense that no effort is made to address the limitations of the original tape machines. It's all very well hearing the quality of Kevin Gray's latest tube based transfer system and his cutting equipment, but many of the recordings have audible distortion and audible wow (as I usually buy the CD reissues as a reference so the warble is not arm resonance related). I thought the Plangent process would have been a game changer for at least giving us the best that the recording could offer and I am surprised that it is not being universally adopted.
IMO, this obsession with "all-analogue" means that true restoration of the recordings is now a lost opportunity.
Back when tapes were a thing, I explored the Dual Capstan 3 head options which weren't bad, but playback on the go remained problematic and tape alignment and calibration was never up to the level that I felt I needed in the machine I could afford (Denon DR-M24HX). I have all the test tapes and alignment tools; I had a Walkman DC-2 which at the time (apart from the D6C) was supposed to have been about the best for W/F given the Quartz Lock Capstan servo, but it was still audibly warbling on piano. I improved things a bit when I took it apart (having got the service manual) and reset the motor and thrust wheel alignment, but from that day on I yearned for a better recording solution. I went the MiniDisc route for convenience and the fact that DAT machines weren't easily available. Plus, like DCC, DAT doesn't give quite the same ease of random track access.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
wouldn't that be nice. I'm with you 100% on that.
I've bought 2 MoFis recently I'll check tomorrow if they've been updated. Doesn't bother me either.
Are you signing up for the settlement? I might have 10 or more records that qualify. I'm thinking about it.
I have that Santana, maybe it was my first 45 rpm MFSL.
Nah...I only have 4 MoFi records plus I live outside of the US!
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
