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?

[Justdafactsmaam]

As an vinyl person that is ALSO an ASRer - I wasn't bothered by the revelation. I did not return (like many did) or even filed for the class action thing, felt wrong to try to get money out of that, given that I am satisfied with the product. The ones I own sound great to me.

That said, while they technically did not lie, they also omitted the info in some places where it made sense to be provided, and KNOWING THEIR MARKET they should have known better not to do that. You should know the market you are in, wrong or right, whether it makes sense or not.

No reissue label fully discloses detailed info on their process. They all leave things out. And none of them have any legal obligation to reveal anything about their processes.

Show me one audiophile reissue where they disclose what EQ was used and what equalizer was used to implement it. And that actually makes an audible difference unlike a DSD transfer.

This was all about the bruised egos and reality crisis the AAA cultists went through. Instead of learning a valuable lesson they acted like spoiled children. Disclosure? These same aholes have been told numerous times their multi thousand dollar power cords, interconnect cables and snake oil tweaks do nothing to change the sound. Are there any pending lawsuits?

It was all about egos and their destroyed religious beliefs in the powers of all analog and the evils of anything digital.

 

[Jaxjax]

Let me be clear then. Digital or analog is not an overriding concern for me. All I care about is whether it is enjoyable during the listening session. Yes, the whole process of recording to final release can be complicated. I have a few MoFi releases that I like. I don't know of any way to know if it's a good recording without listening. The simple part is whether I like it. If I do, then I will sample more from the label or talent.

Same with me...The digital or anaolg aspect is not my concern If it's a good version of original. Remaster is hit & miss for me. I really need to transfer the albums I have that are in the special category. Like my version of "Tons of Sobs" is spectacular to me in a raw sense. The transfer versions Ive heard are not so much..I just need to do it myself I suppose.
Joe

 

[HammersRocco]

No reissue label fully discloses detailed info on their process. They all leave things out. And none of them have any legal obligation to reveal anything about their processes.

Show me one audiophile reissue where they disclose what EQ was used and what equalizer was used to implement it. And that actually makes an audible difference unlike a DSD transfer.

This was all about the bruised egos and reality crisis the AAA cultists went through. Instead of learning a valuable lesson they acted like spoiled children. Disclosure? These same aholes have been told numerous times their multi thousand dollar power cords, interconnect cables and snake oil tweaks do nothing to change the sound. Are there any pending lawsuits?

It was all about egos and their destroyed religious beliefs in the powers of all analog and the evils of anything digital.

Exactly - like I said, KNOW your market. You are right, but not the point - the point is that the you (meaning they and anyone trying to sell something) need to be aware who you/they are dealing with - regardless of what I or @Justdafactsmaam think about that. Right or wrong, if you are selling to them, well, know what they want... and what angers them!

[EDIT] Specially with something, well, as specific as a process.

You can sell all the cable snake oil you want, but for example if you claim you put angel tears on your cable or yes, imply that is angel tears what makes your cable better, you better put them in there.

Do you get better sound? SUBJECTIVE, so you are OK legally.

Do you REALLY put angel tears in there? You better do it, otherwise, you anger your market and you get lawsuits.

That insert, I think that was their mistake AND probably (again, speculation) the reason they settled. Just look at the new inserts, they have the DSD step. And what is more, I think the last MoFi I bought does not include the insert - they did learn their lesson.

Again, different point. It is not that disagree with you, I am talking about a different matter - truth in advertising, no matter how silly.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

No producer of any goods can be held responsible for the wide variety of weird and wild beliefs the many different possible customers may bring to their expectations. As long as they are explicitly accurate in their advertising the rest is on the consumer to educate themselves. The line has to be drawn at a reasonable expectation for both producers and consumers.

 

[HammersRocco]

As long as they are explicitly accurate in their advertising

Exactly - MoFi did not do that - Really, I don't care; AS I SAID, I DID NOT EVEN CLAIM THE SETTLEMENT, let alone get rid of the records, but I think it is right they got flak and had to settle.

AGAIN, PLS TAKE THE TIME TO CHECK THE INSERT DESCRIBING THE PROCESS - I believe that's where they doomed themselves... I don't think you have checked it.

But let's leave it at that - I know you want me to let MoFi off the hook, but well, I can't say you are right about that. I think they were in the wrong. You do you, but I am starting to get bored of this and you won't convince me and I won't change my opinion

Because, in the end, you and I and we are all ASRers; opinionated know-it-all-s that insist on having the other party concede Given that it won't happen on my part or yours, well, I don't have the time or the inclination.

After all, we agree that it doesn't matter; most (not all, but that is subjective) of those pressings go from "very good" to "the best". Maybe even because of the DSD step...

So peace, putting the thread on IGNORE. Will pick it up when we are off the MoFi thing. I mean, it is SO old news now, why go thru it again.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Exactly - MoFi did not do that

Yes they did.

AGAIN, PLS TAKE THE TIME TO CHECK THE INSERT DESCRIBING THE PROCESS - I believe that's where they doomed themselves... I don't think you have checked it.

I have checked it numerous times. Almost memorized it. It describes one step pressing vs three step pressing. It has *nothing* to do with the mastering chain. It applies to *any* lacquer and the plating process applied to that lacquer regardless of how or where the cutting head got its source signal. The word analog appears zero times in that insert. *Zero*

And it is 100% accurate! That is how one step plating is actually done and how MoFi did theirs. That includes any one steps cut from digital files. Like The Nightfly, a well known digital recording.

MoFi was absolutely explicit and accurate and in their description of one step pressing vs three step

 

[antcollinet]

AGAIN, PLS TAKE THE TIME TO CHECK THE INSERT DESCRIBING THE PROCESS - I believe that's where they doomed themselves... I don't think you have checked it.

I have - and they state nothing about an all analogue process, nor that the original masters go straight into the manufacturing process. The only statement they make about the masters is that they start with them. Well, so they do.

The insert is ONLY intended to describe the difference between the conventional three step process to make the stampers, vs their one step process.

If people want to infer things that are not stated, that is their own problem. I wish MOFI had not settled, I'd have expected the complainants to get their asses handed to them, together with an invoice for Mofi's costs.

 

[JustJones]

Yet, they did settle. If it was a slam dunk case where plaintiffs asses were handed to them then defendants attorneys should be disbarred. Yet, defendants paid plaintiffs attorneys and costs. I don't think defendants attorneys were idiots. I think they understood how a jury would view it .

 

[Brian Hall]

I'm not much of an old hand in the audiophile community. Audio Science Review was my starting off point. I've noticed some of the more experienced members have an 'alcoholic anonymous' vibe towards the audiophile community they were formerly a part of. They talk about their former life as an audiophile in a bitter way like they escaped from a dangerous hobby. It set me thinking in light of the recent hitpiece on Ken Fritz that tried to blame complaints about lack of vacations from his ex-wife thirty years prior on his audiophile hobby in retirement.

Just I wonder if audiophilia is not almost the definition of a harmless hobby? Its greatest danger is encouraging physical inactivity like most indoor activities. You could also damage your hearing. That's unlikely with home speakers. Most people listen at safe levels here excepting the headphone users. You could burn your house down just that applies more to the DIY crowd. Other than that you could buy some overpriced cables. Even then you would have resale value for your crazy decisions unlike someone addicted to gambling. Hobbies related to alcohol or outdoor activities where people have accidents and injure themselves are more risky physically. Gourmets and oenophiles are fattening their livers. Financially being an audiophile shouldn't be more costly than anyone who buys a computer or consumer electronics. Psychologically listening to music has been shown to be good for you. Socially being an audiophile isn't isolating in the way of being a gamer. Environmentally the main risk is the use of electricity and the shipping costs when you buy speakers. I don't think audiophiles contribute more of a negative environmental impact than anyone who buys any kind of electronics.

When people lie, it makes me angry. Lowlifes selling snake oil products and reviewers praising expensive BS are forms of lying.

I believe their lying is mostly intentional. Some of the reviewers like those that "hear a difference between CD transports" are lying to themselves and then to us. Anyone saying a $5,000 or higher dac sounds better and creates a better magical soundstage than a good sub $1,000 dac is lying as are those promoting expensive cables or power cords and saying there is an obvious audible difference.

I'm not angry at audiophools who spend a fortune on BS. I feel sorry for them that they fell for the BS, but it is their money.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Yet, they did settle. If it was a slam dunk case where plaintiffs asses were handed to them then defendants attorneys should be disbarred. Yet, defendants paid plaintiffs attorneys and costs. I don't think defendants attorneys were idiots. I think they understood how a jury would view it .

frivolous cases are regularly settled when the best guess on the part of the defendant is that the settlement is less costly than litigation even if they won.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

I don’t have a horse in this race, but there is one thing that makes me laugh.

“From the original master tapes”. What does that mean? Everything ultimately comes from the original master tapes.

 

[Galliardist]

Yet, they did settle. If it was a slam dunk case where plaintiffs asses were handed to them then defendants attorneys should be disbarred. Yet, defendants paid plaintiffs attorneys and costs. I don't think defendants attorneys were idiots. I think they understood how a jury would view it .

They settled for reasons that had nothing to do with the merits of the case.

It was that a large part of their previously loyal customer base were well and truly offside with the company - and they had a lot of journalists and reviewers putting the boot in as well - just as they were expanding their hardware range with plans for speakers involving a no doubt high fee for the services of Andrew Jones, and if I remember rightly other new products as well.

They had to apologise and take that hit, otherwise they were going to take much bigger losses from big investments in that new hardware going bung.

 

[martin900]

I'm not much of an old hand in the audiophile community. Audio Science Review was my starting off point. I've noticed some of the more experienced members have an 'alcoholic anonymous' vibe towards the audiophile community they were formerly a part of. They talk about their former life as an audiophile in a bitter way like they escaped from a dangerous hobby. It set me thinking in light of the recent hitpiece on Ken Fritz that tried to blame complaints about lack of vacations from his ex-wife thirty years prior on his audiophile hobby in retirement.

Just I wonder if audiophilia is not almost the definition of a harmless hobby? Its greatest danger is encouraging physical inactivity like most indoor activities. You could also damage your hearing. That's unlikely with home speakers. Most people listen at safe levels here excepting the headphone users. You could burn your house down just that applies more to the DIY crowd. Other than that you could buy some overpriced cables. Even then you would have resale value for your crazy decisions unlike someone addicted to gambling. Hobbies related to alcohol or outdoor activities where people have accidents and injure themselves are more risky physically. Gourmets and oenophiles are fattening their livers. Financially being an audiophile shouldn't be more costly than anyone who buys a computer or consumer electronics. Psychologically listening to music has been shown to be good for you. Socially being an audiophile isn't isolating in the way of being a gamer. Environmentally the main risk is the use of electricity and the shipping costs when you buy speakers. I don't think audiophiles contribute more of a negative environmental impact than anyone who buys any kind of electronics.

I'd turn it around and say this is an extremely ignorant point of view from your part actually.
For the same reason our brain and ears actually dislike a ruler flat response and fighting SINAD is meaningless for anyone but the manufacturers, hence I consider 95% of the DAC and amplifier measurements of no value, besides if there is a potential dangerous error in the design (high frequency noise / switching noise, for example).

 

[Galliardist]

I don’t have a horse in this race, but there is one thing that makes me laugh.

“From the original master tapes”. What does that mean? Everything ultimately comes from the original master tapes.

Once again, it's implication. "From the original master tapes" implies minimal steps between that original master tape and the resulting vinyl disc.

As @Justdafactsmaam pointed out, people who knew the majors' policy regarding what happens to those original tapes now, there actually had to be another step in the chain to get to MoFi's vaunted "one step process".

But as a MoFi customer from the first wave not following that matter, I could easily have assumed that the original master business was the same as when they previously made LPs from the same master tapes and they were shipped to MoFi or their engineers to cut.

Related to that...

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.

(courtesy of @Justdafactsmaam )

There's a DSD step in the chain? They sure didn't play that directly on a Studer A80 without one hell of a lot of modification... see how easy it is to get the implication that the process was all analogue when the original master tape was?

Then, the insert said...

MFSL engineers begin with the original master tapes and meticulously cut a set of lacquers

No mention of additional steps there. If you read that, wouldn't you assume that the lacquers were cut from the master tapes? To be done with a digital step and a tape played on a Studer A80 means they meticulously cut a set of lacquers from a third generation copy, doesn't it?

 

[Gary_G]

Well every other year anyway. I clean terminal ends and jacks. It's 101 "stay out of trouble vs getting out of trouble."
I just quit doing the neighbors too. I might suggest it though.

Equipment fresh out of mothballs is "clean as much as you can shy of a high pressure car wash."

OCD is pressure wash the inside too, twice for good measure. The thing I've seen were close. LOL

I have CDO. It's OCD but in alphabetical order.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I don’t have a horse in this race, but there is one thing that makes me laugh.

“From the original master tapes”. What does that mean? Everything ultimately comes from the original master tapes.

The mastering engineers actually do explain it in a video somewhere on YouTube. The issue is that often times a commercial release is sourced from a third, fourth or even fifth generation analog copy that Ma have been subject to one or more high speed transfers with little or no care given to careful azimuth adjustment or other key factors. Maybe at some point it was EQed and compressed when copied. A lot can happen between the earliest generation tapes and the tapes used for a given commercial release.

They research and develop investigate what would be the original master tapes or even original mix tapes of individual tracks. They bring in their custom modified Studer deck, carefully make all the adjustments, often at every physical edit, something that can’t be done with an AAA LP and they take that hi res DSD transfer and use it to carefully work out and implement their mastering moves for their final transfers to SACD or to their current atom cutting lathe.

Love, hate or feel meh about their releases, what they do is legit. It ain’t snake oil.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Once again, it's implication. "From the original master tapes" implies minimal steps between that original master tape and the resulting vinyl disc.

No it doesn’t. It says, correctly, that they start with the best source material. That goes back to the original company and their philosophy on making records (back when all there was was records)

As @Justdafactsmaam pointed out, people who knew the majors' policy regarding what happens to those original tapes now, there actually had to be another step in the chain to get to MoFi's vaunted "one step process".

One step PLATING process. Now you are actually misrepresenting something MoFi was clear and detailed in their overtly explicit description of that specific process.

But as a MoFi customer from the first wave not following that matter, I could easily have assumed that the original master business was the same as when they previously made LPs from the same master tapes and they were shipped to MoFi or their engineers to cut.

“Assumed”

Related to that...

(courtesy of @Justdafactsmaam )

There's a DSD step in the chain? They sure didn't play that directly on a Studer A80 without one hell of a lot of modification... see how easy it is to get the implication that the process was all analogue when the original master tape was?

“Implication” do you see a pattern here? And what about when the original master tape was NOT analog? Which was a few times. Same hype stickers, same promo inserts.

Then, the insert said...


No mention of additional steps there. If you read that, wouldn't you assume that the lacquers were cut from the master tapes? To be done with a digital step and a tape played on a Studer A80 means they meticulously cut a set of lacquers from a third generation copy, doesn't it?

A lot of assumptions. And no, as someone who was buying many of those records I did not make those assumptions.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

The mastering engineers actually do explain it in a video somewhere on YouTube. The issue is that often times a commercial release is sourced from a third, fourth or even fifth generation analog copy that Ma have been subject to one or more high speed transfers with little or no care given to careful azimuth adjustment or other key factors. Maybe at some point it was EQed and compressed when copied. A lot can happen between the earliest generation tapes and the tapes used for a given commercial release.

They research and develop investigate what would be the original master tapes or even original mix tapes of individual tracks. They bring in their custom modified Studer deck, carefully make all the adjustments, often at every physical edit, something that can’t be done with an AAA LP and they take that hi res DSD transfer and use it to carefully work out and implement their mastering moves for their final transfers to SACD or to their current atom cutting lathe.

Love, hate or feel meh about their releases, what they do is legit. It ain’t snake oil.

It’s either a direct digital copy of the original master tape, or straight original master to lathe.

If you allow anything else, then it’s “steps/stages/copies inbetween”, and then there’s no difference apart from the numbers of steps - but it’s no longer ‘from the original master tapes’ unless you include everything, which makes it meaningless.

 

[JustJones]

frivolous cases are regularly settled when the best guess on the part of the defendant is that the settlement is less costly than litigation even if they won.

Frivolous cases are usually thrown out, at least that's been my experience not sure about yours.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

It’s either a direct digital copy of the original master tape, or straight original master to lathe.

If you allow anything else, then it’s “steps/stages/copies inbetween”, and then there’s no difference apart from the numbers of steps - but it’s no longer ‘from the original master tapes’ unless you include everything, which makes it meaningless.

There’s plenty of difference. That is a grossly overly simplistic view