Mobile Fidelity Analog Vinyl Controversy

[krabapple]

They do an amazing job on those releases!


Agreed! The use of DSD is due to the BS audiophool myth about DSD sounding better than pcm.
Just more of the subjective cults imaginary contributions to our favorite pastime.

DSD is fine (though not *necessary*) as an archiving format. It was designed to be converted to PCM for commercial releases. Record companies then saw it had potential for very strong copy protection, so it became a commercial release format too as SACD.

 

[krabapple]

So I have a question.

It’s completely clear now that you can make a digital file which is indistinguishable from an analogue master tape.

But it’s also clear that some people ‘prefer the sound of vinyl’.

The inescapable conclusion is that the transfer from either the original master or the high quality digital copy creates distortion which some people like.

So. Could someone take such a high quality source, cut it to vinyl, then digitise the vinyl (okay, yes we already know that part can be done), but then analyse the difference and see exactly what that distortion is, and create a simple digital tweak which can then be made to the original digital file on the fly. Analyse enough vinyl pressings that it becomes clear what vinyl is doing to the sound, and replicate it digitally.

I suppose what I’m suggesting is including a ‘vinyl sound’ button on a DAC.

"vinyl sound' and 'analog tape' plugins have existed for years for digital production. IOW it's been done.

 

[krabapple]

He kind of loses the plot IMO. There's decades of loss and decades of deception.

MoFi made out they had a golden goose and charged accordingly for its incredibly rare eggs. They kept their golden goose in a special barn where nobody saw it. Then it was revealed they didn't even own a goose, it was an egg laying machine! It was exposed when they got too greedy and made way more eggs than an actual goose could ever lay.

Mofi has a golden goose. It's their fanatically carefully done (if we are to believe them) DSD transfers of precious analog tapes.

 

[antcollinet]

I'll make it a little plainer: any differences in distortion from copying a master tape vs. a digital copy is swamped by the processing that goes into re-mastering and pressing the LP.

Jim

Thanks


It would have helped if I'd actually looked at what you were replying to - instead of assuming you were replying to me

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

Sure, That's possible enough. Is that really what you want?
To take the pristine sound of the original digital (or analog) master, and add all vinyls distortions, noise, etc???
WHY?

I don’t know where you’ve come to the conclusion that it’s what “I” want.

 

[antcollinet]

Archimago has an excellent write up on the mofi controversy below

Archimago’s musings regarding the mofigate class action lawsuit here

Pretty much reflects my thoughts on the class action.

The claims in the action are based on factual falsehoods, and self contradictions. On that basis (in my non legally qualified opinion) the action has no merit.

The result will depend on the courts ability to understand the science behind the arguments - and/or the ability of the defendants to explain it well enough.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Thanks


It would have helped if I'd actually looked at what you were replying to - instead of assuming you were replying to me

No prob!

Jim

 

[kemmler3D]

Pretty much reflects my thoughts on the class action.

The claims in the action are based on factual falsehoods, and self contradictions. On that basis (in my non legally qualified opinion) the action has no merit.

The result will depend on the courts ability to understand the science behind the arguments - and/or the ability of the defendants to explain it well enough.

Some judges are pretty smart, and most won't forget about the principles of law because of fancy technical arguments. They'll of course realize that nobody noticed the recordings were digitized before MoFi admitted it. IMO it was a mistake for the plaintiffs to put any assertions about sound quality into the lawsuit, because they're obviously contradicted in multiple ways.

The arguments about collectibility are much more likely to lead to damages IMO. People really did pay more based on on false beliefs that the sources would wear out over time. Legally it doesn't matter if that's a respectable point of view or not.

 

[antcollinet]

The arguments about collectibility are much more likely to lead to damages IMO. People really did pay more based on on false beliefs that the sources would wear out over time. Legally it doesn't matter if that's a respectable point of view or not.

I would agree. The question there is - did the defendants actually sell this benefit. Did they state for the particular recording referenced in the claim (or for any recording) that there would only ever be a limited number made? If they did, they might be on a sticky wicket.

Or was that just an assumption made by the plaintiffs?

 

[kemmler3D]

I would agree. The question there is - did the defendants actually sell this benefit. Did they state for the particular recording referenced in the claim (or for any recording) that there would only ever be a limited number made? If they did, they might be on a sticky wicket.

Or was that just an assumption made by the plaintiffs?

IIRC most of their releases stated how many units would be produced in a given run.

And as long as they can demonstrate that customers bought the records on the belief that could only be a finite number of copies, I think they can probably get some damages. And I think that's probably something they can prove.

If I were MoFi I would settle, honestly. Think about it from the other direction. Could they really successfully argue they had no idea anyone was buying these records based on a belief about limited production quantities?

They really did mislead people about their production process. There are actual swings in pricing happening as a result of this disclosure. One is a result of the other. It seems fairly cut-and-dried from that point of view.

It's as if you found out your lithograph was actually a very good digital print. The art may be visually indistinguishable, but the resale value will be quite different. In use, there's no difference, but that's not necessarily the point.

e: To me there are 2 key takeaways from this whole kerfuffle. 1) The "digital inherently sounds different" argument is dead forever. 2) MoFi is probably screwed. But we can thank them for their sacrifice in debunking the analog sound quality myth.

 

[Blumlein 88]

You know what might serve MoFi in all this. Do a run of discs the all analog way. Do a run with DSD sourcing and the fewer steps process. Do a big enough blind test with customers to establish either A) no one can tell a difference or B) a clear difference and preference was heard in favor of the DSD process. If C) a difference and preference for all analog, then quietly sweep it under the rug and tell no one the results. I mean drug companies don't fess up to the public about drugs that don't pass testing.

 

[antcollinet]

And as long as they can demonstrate that customers bought the records on the belief that could only be a finite number of copies

No, they'd need to show that MOFI informed the customers that there would be a finite number of copies. If the customers assumed that on their own, MOFI are not legally responsible.

They really did mislead people about their production process.

People keep saying that. So far no-one that I have seen has been able to point to any actual documentary evidence of it that would stand up in court.

 

[kemmler3D]

No, they'd need to show that MOFI informed the customers that there would be a finite number of copies. If the customers assumed that on their own, MOFI are not legally responsible.



People keep saying that. So far no-one that I have seen has been able to point to any actual documentary evidence of it that would stand up in court.

They released plenty of limited edition records. They also advertised an all analog process, which would inherently limit the number of copies. If you look at the archimago post, they used an infographic of a tape going directly to a cutting machine. In the context of their other marketing, I would say that's misleading as far as the collectibility goes.

The introduction of a digital copy in that process fundamentally changes how collectible the records are. The quantity in circulation goes from "10,000 and probably no more" to "10,000 and however many more we decide to make later". Apples and oranges for a collector, whether it's vinyl records or beanie babies.

Not everything needs to be explicitly said to be considered misleading, although it certainly helps the plaintiffs anytime something is explicitly said.

(to be clear, I think the whole rabidly-pro-analog thing is bemusing at best, but it's likely a lot of their customers weren't even audiophiles at all, just collectors / speculators.)

 

[spartaman64]

they said all analog in interviews and in emails

 

[kemmler3D]

they said all analog in interviews and in emails

In that case their only hope would be convincing a judge that their customer base would generally not know, or not believe, that "all analog" implies "limited production". Which they do, apparently. In fact, that very factor is what supposedly tipped off this whole scandal, right? They announced a production run of (IIRC) 40K that seemed much too high for a normal analog duplication run and people started asking questions.

Or they would have to convince a judge that MoFi didn't know people cared about limited production. Which seems unlikely since they often did limited editions... they printed "limited edition" on the covers and serialized them. They knew.

 

[mansr]

No, they'd need to show that MOFI informed the customers that there would be a finite number of copies. If the customers assumed that on their own, MOFI are not legally responsible.



People keep saying that. So far no-one that I have seen has been able to point to any actual documentary evidence of it that would stand up in court.

They were walking a fine line, never explicitly stating their process was entirely analogue, yet happily letting that perception persist amongst audiophools. Then the truth got out, and all hell broke loose. I can't say I'm sorry for anyone involved. Amused, rather.

 

[antcollinet]

They released plenty of limited edition records. They also advertised an all analog process, which would inherently limit the number of copies. If you look at the archimago post, they used an infographic of a tape going directly to a cutting machine. In the context of their other marketing, I would say that's misleading as far as the collectibility goes.

The introduction of a digital copy in that process fundamentally changes how collectible the records are. The quantity in circulation goes from "10,000 and probably no more" to "10,000 and however many more we decide to make later". Apples and oranges for a collector, whether it's vinyl records or beanie babies.

Not everything needs to be explicitly said to be considered misleading, although it certainly helps the plaintiffs anytime something is explicitly said.

(to be clear, I think the whole rabidly-pro-analog thing is bemusing at best, but it's likely a lot of their customers weren't even audiophiles at all, just collectors / speculators.)

Judge : So you purchased at a particular price because you expected increased future value due to a limited production run.
Plaintiff : Yes
Judge : so what limit on production would have made the price you paid appropriate?
Plaintiff : Oh, I think around 10,000
Judge : And did mofi inform you in any sales literature or any other promotion that you could expect future value to increase due to limited production run?
Plaintiff : err... No.
Judge : And what quantity did Mofi commit to limiting the production run to?
Plaintiff : err......

Now IANAL - but I don't think it matters in a court of law what a customer might infer from the statements of a supplier. At least in the UK, we are effectively talking about contract law (in consumer law the contract that is implicitly made as part of a transaction). And in a contract it only matters what is specifically stated. I accept that US Consumer law might be different.

I hope they don't settle out of court - it will be fascinating to see how this plays out in front of a judge.

 

[antcollinet]

They were walking a fine line, never explicitly stating their process was entirely analogue, yet happily letting that perception persist amongst audiophools. Then the truth got out, and all hell broke loose. I can't say I'm sorry for anyone involved. Amused, rather.

Agreed. MOFI were at best disingenuous. But being disingenuous isn't actionable.

The plaintiffs on the other hand (every single class member) are a bunch of bloody idiots.

The whole thing - as you say - is pure entertainment.

 

[kemmler3D]

Judge : And did mofi inform you in any sales literature or any other promotion that you could expect future value to increase due to limited production run?
...
Judge : And what quantity did Mofi commit to limiting the production run to?


Now IANAL - but I don't think it matters in a court of law what a customer might infer from the statements of a supplier. At least in the UK, we are effectively talking about contract law (in consumer law the contract that is implicitly made as part of a transaction). And in a contract it only matters what is specifically stated. I accept that US Consumer law might be different.

I hope they don't settle out of court - it will be fascinating to see how this plays out in front of a judge.

I don't know if MoFi ever actually said "We only use analog, therefore the production runs are limited, therefore the value will go up." I am not sure if they needed to or not, for it to be relevant in court.

IANAL either but I think the standard for this sort of case in the US is whether customers would have changed their purchasing behavior if you hadn't said what you said.

They based a lot of purchases on the belief that it was all analog, when it wasn't.

So we could say there's likely some liability for MoFi there. The question is whether there are damages, and if so, how large.

On the sound quality front, the damages are obviously nothing. Nobody's listening experience was harmed and that's pretty easy to prove.

On the collectibility / rarity front, that is where I think the plaintiffs might get something. Their purchase was based on beliefs about rarity that were inherently tied to claims about the analog process. I am not sure if MoFi would have had to specifically claim anything about collectible value, to be found liable for the loss in value. I think they could be, but again not sure.

The plaintiffs on the other hand (every single class member) are a bunch of bloody idiots.

I don't know, some of those records really did go up in value, especially if you didn't play them.

 

[Labjr]

Keep in mind if MoFi tries to defend this in court and win on a technicality such as, "We never said those exact words...bah, blah, blah...", their reputation would be trash. Nobody will ever believe anything they say. What they did is very obvious. People didn't pay $125 for a digital transfer and they knew it. They paid for an analog process regardless of how it sounds.