Why do you think a few members have an 'alcoholic anonymous' vibe towards the audiophile community? It seems a harmless hobby as far as things go?

[Deleted member 21219]

But I’m sure Amir would appreciate free speach and the need for (rational) criticism.

I'm sure he does, too.

If perchance you suppose that my post was intended to be a criticism of something that you said, I assure you it was not.

Jim

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

It's one thing to buy something that expensive if one is well off enough to not care about the cost, or indeed to spend money well into diminishing or non existent returns on actual listening enjoyment with an understanding that this is what one is doing in pursuit of pride of ownership or whatever. That's not descriptive of what is always happening though; alot of people are spending money that they wouldn't part with if they understood that it won't gain anything in terms of enjoyment of the actual sound. These people are often buying expensive products because they are gently encouraged to participate in what is effectively a mass delusion. There are more nefarious examples though where manufacturers studiously mislead people into believing that the product on sale is superior to another when it is not. The mofi analogue LP shenanigans and Naim's wkward encounter with U.K advertising standards are easy examples. I could point to many others.

MoFi didn’t mislead anyone. It’s unfortunate that the all analog nut jobs also suffer from poor reading comprehension.

 

[Phorize]

MoFi didn’t mislead anyone. It’s unfortunate that the all analog nut jobs also suffer from poor reading comprehension.

The picture below is of my mofi 180g pressing of the Santana album. I don't think that we can be any doubt that mofi a) intended that the high profile reference to analogue processes in their marketing would imply equivalence to products that use analogue masters and b) studiously designed their marketing to maximise this perception without making a claim about the master itself, greatly reducing the possibility of a successful action in contract/consumer law. I personally didn't really check as I didn't care one way or the other, I just wanted a good master and pressing of the record, which it is.

Not all labels were this unscrupulous, Verve explicitly cited the source on the vital vinyl releases as being dsd archives for example.

 

[Mart68]

Doesn't say 'All analogue' anywhere. MoFi did what any good salesman does, they painted a picture without making any specific untrue claims.

If it mattered that it was all analogue everyone would have returned them after listening for just a few minutes. That they didn't know until they were told pretty much says it all.

Reminds me of the people who are concerned they may not be getting a 24/192 feed as the LED isn't lighting up. What? You can't just tell by listening?

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

The picture below is of my mofi 180g pressing of the Santana album. I don't think that we can be any doubt that mofi a) intended that the high profile reference to analogue processes in their marketing would imply equivalence to products that use analogue masters and b) studiously designed their marketing to maximise this perception without making a claim about the master itself, greatly reducing the possibility of a successful action in contract/consumer law. I personally didn't really check as I didn't care one way or the other, I just wanted a good master and pressing of the record, which it is.

Not all labels were this unscrupulous, Verve explicitly cited the source on the vital vinyl releases as being dsd archives for example.

View attachment 345760

The “Gain II Ultra Analog System” TM. Is the brand name MoFi gave to their custom modified Studer A 80 analog tape deck and modified Neumann lathe. They ditched the digital preview on the tape deck and cutting console and installed a custom tape head for the preview and all analog circuitry in the cutting console bypassing the existing digital unit normally integrated into the console. If you read the inner sleeve you will see that MoFi is quite explicit about what the Gain II Ultra Analog System is. They never claim that any of the actual mastering is all analog. They claim to only source original master tapes, do their own transfers of those tapes using their tape deck and use their cutting lathe to cut lacquers. They don’t talk about mastering moves.

 

[GaryY]

Though I'm just newbie, it's difficult to understand why this can be so complex discussion at all. In my understadning...
The role/quality of audio = the ability/capability of reproducing sound as recorded
Whether someone can enjoy the recording of old time(due to lack of engineering), live or not = personal taste

If role of audio should be also creating well decorated sound for all situation, should I buy tons of set of amplifieres for 1920's recording, designated speakers for Carnegie hall and DAC for Alllianz stadium?
I would not care at all someone spends lots of budget according to his/her taste. They can "love" it. The issue is quite often they (and market) say it's "better" sound which can lead the newbies like me to the rabbit hole.

In that sense, thank you so much ASR.

 

[Galliardist]

The “Gain II Ultra Analog System” TM. Is the brand name MoFi gave to their custom modified Studer A 80 analog tape deck and modified Neumann lathe. They ditched the digital preview on the tape deck and cutting console and installed a custom tape head for the preview and all analog circuitry in the cutting console bypassing the existing digital unit normally integrated into the console. If you read the inner sleeve you will see that MoFi is quite explicit about what the Gain II Ultra Analog System is. They never claim that any of the actual mastering is all analog. They claim to only source original master tapes, do their own transfers of those tapes using their tape deck and use their cutting lathe to cut lacquers. They don’t talk about mastering moves.

I'm pretty certain it was a lie by omission, which is a common marketing technique.

To be clear, they stated that they used an analogue master as source, that they used an analogue tape deck and an analogue fed lathe. In fact they cut (whether directly or indirectly) from a digital copy of that analogue source that they made. All of the language they used implied strongly that the source tape was played on the analogue mastering system. They never corrected any reviewer who stated that those LPs were all analogue.

In other words, they had plenty of opportunity to correct the record, and they benefited by not doing so.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I was actually buying those records. Given the policies of the two majors I assumed they were either doing transfers to digital on the premises or accepting the studio’s if that was all they were offered.

They used EXACTLY the same hype stickers and inserts touting the Gain II Ultra Analog System on their one step pressing of Donald Fagan’s The Nightfly. That’s a digital recording. Ya think MoFi was being deceptive? Or maybe just a little lazy?

 

[Galliardist]

I te

I was actually buying those records. Given the policies of the two majors I assumed they were either doing transfers to digital on the premises or accepting the studio’s if that was all they were offered.

They used EXACTLY the same hype stickers and inserts touting the Gain II Ultra Analog System on their one step pressing of Donald Fagan’s The Nightfly. That’s a digital recording. Ya think MoFi was being deceptive? Or maybe just a little lazy?

I tend to think a lot of the time that the company doesn’t realise what the customers assume.

MQA was a bit like that - GoldenSound’s exercise revealed far more about how he (and lots of others) thought MQA worked, than any actual problems with it. I have other issues with MQA.

Same here, maybe. But it was stated by some reviewers and in other places that some of these LPs were all analogue, and I don’t believe that everyone at MoFi were oblivious to that.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I te

I tend to think a lot of the time that the company doesn’t realise what the customers assume.

MQA was a bit like that - GoldenSound’s exercise revealed far more about how he (and lots of others) thought MQA worked, than any actual problems with it. I have other issues with MQA.

Same here, maybe. But it was stated by some reviewers and in other places that some of these LPs were all analogue, and I don’t believe that everyone at MoFi were oblivious to that.

I’m not a mind reader. I make no assumptions about what MoFi was thinking. But when I saw exactly the same hype sticker and promo sleeve touting their Gain II system on their one step pressing of The Nightfly I saw no reason to assume any of their LPs were cut directly from the master tapes.

That everyone and their mother knew those master tapes were not allowed off the premises for both major labels should have been an obvious tell.

Personally I wasn’t worried about it. It’s a better way to cut records anyway. But make no mistake about it. The hype was clearly and explicitly about using the best source possible and using their proprietary gear. They never hype the actual mastering process at all. They don’t even talk about it. All these AAA cultists are worried about an utterly transparent step in the mastering chain and are obviously oblivious as to how analog equalizers actually work. No one ever discloses that part of the mastering. EQ is A-OK as long as it’s all analog. Don’t want to be infecting the purity of that analog signal with digital. The irony

 

[Phorize]

I was actually buying those records. Given the policies of the two majors I assumed they were either doing transfers to digital on the premises or accepting the studio’s if that was all they were offered.

They used EXACTLY the same hype stickers and inserts touting the Gain II Ultra Analog System on their one step pressing of Donald Fagan’s The Nightfly. That’s a digital recording. Ya think MoFi was being deceptive? Or maybe just a little lazy?

Syd Schwartz, Mobile Fidelity’s chief marketing officer:

“There had been choices made over the years and choices in marketing that have led to confusion and anger and a lot of questions, and there were narratives that had been propagating for a while that were untrue or false or myths. We were wrong not to have addressed this sooner.”

In other words: the ambient level of outrageous nonsense in the self proclamed high end audio industry was already maximal, and mofi knowingly allowed a large number of their customers to believe that the product was something that it was not. To be fair it is the legion of magazines, websites and YouTubers that do most of the heavy lifting deception wise. All audio companies have to do to reap the benefits is to provide a steady stream of products for review, pay for advertising of course, and tactically fail to intervene when everyone grabs the wrong end of the stick.

 

[Mart68]

I'm pretty certain it was a lie by omission, which is a common marketing technique.

To be clear, they stated that they used an analogue master as source, that they used an analogue tape deck and an analogue fed lathe. In fact they cut (whether directly or indirectly) from a digital copy of that analogue source that they made. All of the language they used implied strongly that the source tape was played on the analogue mastering system. They never corrected any reviewer who stated that those LPs were all analogue.

In other words, they had plenty of opportunity to correct the record, and they benefited by not doing so.

The reviewers just had to call or e-mail Mo-Fi to check and all would have been revealed.

But they didn't because, like any HE punter, they wanted to believe. Plus they know nothing real or useful about the subject they are writing about, so it never occurred to them. They could hear that it was all analogue, and it was good.

 

[antcollinet]

I'm pretty certain it was a lie by omission, which is a common marketing technique.

To be clear, they stated that they used an analogue master as source, that they used an analogue tape deck and an analogue fed lathe. In fact they cut (whether directly or indirectly) from a digital copy of that analogue source that they made. All of the language they used implied strongly that the source tape was played on the analogue mastering system. They never corrected any reviewer who stated that those LPs were all analogue.

In other words, they had plenty of opportunity to correct the record, and they benefited by not doing so.

This is true. But they never actually outright lied in their materials.

Yet with all the other dodgy products in audio - with all the outright lies stated, Mofi is the one the zealots got all riled up over. Never mind that they are producing excellent quality recordings using a process that - while not 100% analogue - is audibly and measurably indistinguishable from one that is, while also protecting the integrity of the original analogue masters. So they choose to go after the company that are delivering excellence - albeit without being totally transparent with the process - while giving all the actual snake oil merchants a free pass. Not even that, actively encouraging, promoting and defending them.

I have zero sympathy.

 

[Galliardist]

This is true. Yet they never actually outright lied in their materials.

Yet with all the other dodgy products in audio - with all the outright lies stated, Mofi is the one the zealots got all riled up over. Never mind that they are producing excellent quality recordings using a process that - while not 100% analogue - is audibly and measurably indistinguishable from one that is, while also protecting the integrity of the original analogue masters. So they choose to go after the company that are delivering excellence - albeit without being totally transparent with the process - while giving all the actual snake oil merchants a free pass. Not even that, actively encouraging, promoting and defending them.

I have zero sympathy.

The complaint I would have regarding the Mofi process, were I still buying vinyl - and one that applies to some digital re-releases also - is that often there is an earlier digital transfer that may be superior to the sometimes degraded analogue originals that these companies insist on reusing. How do we regard selling an inferior product based on a mythological trust in forever analogue?

 

[Phorize]

This is true. But they never actually outright lied in their materials.

Yet with all the other dodgy products in audio - with all the outright lies stated, Mofi is the one the zealots got all riled up over. Never mind that they are producing excellent quality recordings using a process that - while not 100% analogue - is audibly and measurably indistinguishable from one that is, while also protecting the integrity of the original analogue masters. So they choose to go after the company that are delivering excellence - albeit without being totally transparent with the process - while giving all the actual snake oil merchants a free pass. Not even that, actively encouraging, promoting and defending them.

I have zero sympathy.

No quibbles about mofi's products here, their releases are always good in my experience. So yes it's unfortunate they are the only ones to have fallen on their sword to date, meanwhile Qobuz have embedded some what hifiesque equipment reviews section in their music app. Someone should write to them and ask if they are paid to promote certain products.

 

[Phorize]

How do we regard selling an inferior product based on a mythological trust in forever analogue?

It's a bit different if it's clear what one is buying. If someone wants a worse sound for more money who am I to stop them, but manufacturers should be held a accountable for to their claims and what they avoid saying. It's not black and white though, as it feels unintuitive to make manufacturers responsible for educating the public on why their products may be a waste of money.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

I'm sure he does, too.

If perchance you suppose that my post was intended to be a criticism of something that you said, I assure you it was not.

Jim

No worries mate.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

It's a bit different if it's clear what one is buying. If someone wants a worse sound for more money who am I to stop them, but manufacturers should be held an accountable for to their claims and what they avoid saying. It's not black and white though, as it feels unintuitive to make manufacturers responsible for educating the public on why their products may be a waste of money.

There is no legal obligation for any record label to disclose anything about the mastering of their records. MoFi made no claims that any of their LPs were mastered all analog. Not even the one’s that actually were. It’s certainly no company’s obligation to educate audiophiles. That’s a nearly impossible task and unreasonable burden for any commercial business.

 

[Phorize]

There is no legal obligation for any record label to disclose anything about the mastering of their records. MoFi made no claims that any of their LPs were mastered all analog. Not even the one’s that actually were. It’s certainly no company’s obligation to educate audiophiles. That’s a nearly impossible task and unreasonable burden for any commercial business.

But they did more than not disclose something, they inserted this into the LP sleeve, a literal reading of which could lead to a few justified conclusions, one being that the original tapes were used:

 

[Waxx]

I think the main problem is the false claims (aka lies), not the coloured gear, not the personal preference that divers from "true to the source". And to cover up the false claims, they are anti-measuring objectivly.

Not all are like that. A good example is Nelson Pass. He don't claim clean sound or the best technical advanced designs, he says himself his amps are mainly about adding harmonic distortion to the sound to make the sound sound "better" while still being reliable. That "better" is off course subjective to his standards, but it seems he got a point for a small part of the market. His designs are not secret, as he shares a lot (not actual versions, but almost all old designs) to the diy world and explains how they work and why what and how. He also is clear about the pricing, he asks the big prices for his Pass Labs brand because he can (Pass Labs sales are good). But also designs amps for smaller budgets (First Watt a.o.) or just free open source designs (on diyaudio.com) as it's his hobby. Off course that is also good advertising for his main brand, but most of his diy followers won't have the money to afford those i think...

But most are not like that. They like to hide their claims in a most of audomyths and wooh, while their designs don't do what they claim. That is the big problem.