Tuttle et al v Audiophile Music Direct

[Rt66indierock]

31 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

Well, High West buys much of their Rye Whiskey from that alcohol plant in Indiana. I worked in the industry, for a competitor that got their Rye from the same place in Indiana until they built a large Distillery in Iowa.

 

A bit off topic old friend. When I buy High West Whiskey, I’m buying Brendan Coyle’s blending skills. If it come from Midwest Grain Products so much the better. When I buy a Mobile Fidelity release, I’m buying the mastering skills of their engineers. Not an all-analog chain, I know better.

 

And I had great fun telling people in DC from about 2012 until I moved to Phoenix in 2014, your craft whiskey came from a giant factory in Indiana.

[Iving]

11 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

When I buy High West Whiskey, I’m buying Brendan Coyle’s blending skills ... When I buy a Mobile Fidelity release, I’m buying the mastering skills of their engineers. Not an all-analog chain, I know better.

 

AAA = Single Malt

 

That's what most MoFi vinyl customers thought they were buying.

 

If they knew the product was blend they'd not have bought it - whether it's good or not.

 

Sure they've drunk it and enjoyed it and it's too late now.

 

But it's still a con and why should people suck up having been hoodwinked.

[Samuel T Cogley]

How can so many audiophiles who claim to know so much about the tech that goes into their systems know so very little about how fragile and precious these master tapes are?

 

I'm with @Rt66indierock, people thinking they were getting the master tape cutting the lacquer over and over deserve the product they purchased.

 

It's not the alleged unscrupulousness of MoFi that will be remembered when this story is retold 10-20 years from now.  It's the pompous entitlement of boutique vinyl buyers. 🧐

 

A First World Problem if there ever was one.

 

 

[Norton]

I suspect the MoFi instance is just a high profile example of a much bigger issue with the provenance  of the music we buy and stream.

 

When I see a classical recording from the analogue era touted as now available in a new digital transfer from the “original recording” or “original master“, I’ve  often wondered do they really mean a fresh transfer from the actual original master tape or are they starting from an existing digital copy? Let alone being fragile, do the original master tapes, for DECCA SXLs for  example, really still exist and in a useable form? Although I guess multiple copy tapes may have been made over time.

 

It would be good  if  there was standard and required labelling  to detail all the known formats, sample rates, bit depths etc that a release had gone through from recording to distribution.  

[The Computer Audiophile]

15 minutes ago, Norton said:

It would be good  if  there was standard and required labelling  to detail all the known formats, sample rates, bit depths etc that a release had gone through from recording to distribution.  

While this may seem like a good idea, it would really be a disservice. Any transfers or conversions that a release has gone through, are of no consequence to the listener if the product sounds good or sounds how the company releasing it wants it to sound. If we had all the information, every armchair engineer would be spouting nonsense and this would actually create a market for worse products, but products that have a mythical following because people talked good about them.

[Norton]

18 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

I'm with @Rt66indierock, people thinking they were getting the master tape cutting the lacquer over and over deserve the product they purchased.

 

It's not the alleged unscrupulousness of MoFi that will be remembered when this story is retold 10-20 years from now.  It's the pompous entitlement of boutique vinyl buyers

 

For some reason you really, really want this to be something to bash people who enjoy vinyl with and seem to care much more about it than most  MoFi vinyl customers do.
 

Why are boutique vinyl buyers pompous and entitled?  They are just pursuing a hobby that gives them pleasure and I guess have a reasonable expectation that if they pay a premium price for a product of a given (or at least heavily implied) provenance, then that is the product they should receive.  But even given that, there is little evidence that most MoFi vinyl customers are doing anything other than continuing to enjoy their purchases.

[The Computer Audiophile]

14 minutes ago, Norton said:

 

For some reason you really, really want this to be something to bash people who enjoy vinyl with and seem to care much more about it than most  MoFi vinyl customers do.
 

Why are boutique vinyl buyers pompous and entitled?  They are just pursuing a hobby that gives them pleasure and I guess have a reasonable expectation that if they pay a premium price for a product of a given (or at least heavily implied) provenance, then that is the product they should receive.  But even given that, there is little evidence that most MoFi vinyl customers are doing anything other than continuing to enjoy their purchases.

+1

[Norton]

25 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

it would really be a disservice

 

I kind of understand where you are coming from but still surprised  at your approach, as the information involved would be much the same as that which is the bedrock of  discussion on this site.  Are you really saying that it would be a bad thing to let people know, for example, that the 24/192  release they are considering buying is just upsampled from RBCD?

[Iving]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

+1

 

+ 100 

 

warp speed provocative nonsense

[Iving]

1 minute ago, Norton said:

the information involved would be much the same as that which is the bedrock of  discussion on this site

 

+ 10

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Norton said:

 

Surprised at your approach as the information involved would be much the same as that which is the bedrock of  discussion on this site.  Are you really saying that it would be a bad thing to let people know, for example, that the 24/192  release they are considering buying is just upsampled from RBCD?

 

What I'm saying is that if a chain of provenance is on display, it should provide information useful to consumers. We may think it's useful to know how many transfers a specific tape has undergone or what resampling has been done to a specific digital album, but more often than not this information would only have the chance at causing issues. 

 

It's a popular belief that less is more and recordings without resampling are more "pure" and thus better. Does the original master of Kind of Blue sound different than the safety master? Chances are very high that people would purchase a derivative of the original master before purchasing a derivative of the safety master. What if the safety master was stored properly and the original master was not? What if the safety master sounds better because of its lack of use? That would matter not because people have it in their heads that they know best, know more than the professionals creating this stuff. 

 

Remember SPARS codes? Did they really mean anything, in relation to the final product's sound? No. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Rather than relying items we think would be helpful, SPARS codes etc..., we should rely on the people with proven track records of producing good products. This comes down to people. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

28 minutes ago, Norton said:

 

For some reason you really, really want this to be something to bash people who enjoy vinyl with and seem to care much more about it than most  MoFi vinyl customers do.
 

Why are boutique vinyl buyers pompous and entitled?  They are just pursuing a hobby that gives them pleasure and I guess have a reasonable expectation that if they pay a premium price for a product of a given (or at least heavily implied) provenance, then that is the product they should receive.  But even given that, there is little evidence that most MoFi vinyl customers are doing anything other than continuing to enjoy their purchases.

 

I understand the pro-consumerist backlash.  If you feel "bash[ed]" by what I wrote, so be it.

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

@Norton I used to be in your camp. I've since come to realize my logic was based on zero factual evidence. 

 

A record company will happily release an inferior remaster of Kind of Blue from the original master rather than a better sounding version from the safety master because the effort involved to attempt to change peoples' minds with respect to a specific master is far too great. Thus, we end up with an inferior product. 

 

I wonder if MoFi wishes it would've released an inferior product (AAA), rather than deal with all that is going on. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

What does provenance tell us about a specific album? Absolutely nothing about the sound quality. 

 

What does it tell us about a specific album when a professional works on it, does whatever s/he believes is best, and puts his/her name on it, as in MoFi? It tells us a lot about the sound quality.

[Iving]

26 minutes ago, Norton said:

the information involved would be much the same as that which is the bedrock of  discussion on this site

 

Here at AS, as @Norton suggests, we discuss endlessly digital math; e.g.s:

 

Over/upsampling vs. NOS per se but also wrt Holo May DAC;

 

HQPlayer - how it dances math-wise with specific DACs;

 

PGGB, "heady brew of math and magic";

 

Digital room correction

 

etc etc etc

 

All of which overlaid on what?

 

A recording/mastering:

- Leave to experts - don't question - they know best - black box - mystery - we shouldn't have audacity to ask

or

- Openness about provenance chain so that we can know and understand how our audiophile hobby math combine with what's mathematically underneath - and we can satisfy intellectual curiosity into the bargain?

[PYP]

1 hour ago, Norton said:

I suspect the MoFi instance is just a high profile example of a much bigger issue with the provenance  of the music we buy and stream.

 

When I see a classical recording from the analogue era touted as now available in a new digital transfer from the “original recording” or “original master“, I’ve  often wondered do they really mean a fresh transfer from the actual original master tape or are they starting from an existing digital copy? Let alone being fragile, do the original master tapes, for DECCA SXLs for  example, really still exist and in a useable form? Although I guess multiple copy tapes may have been made over time.

 

It would be good  if  there was standard and required labelling  to detail all the known formats, sample rates, bit depths etc that a release had gone through from recording to distribution.  

As someone who is always interested in reading about production methods and the like as well as the general concept of transparency, I think some additional information about the provenance, if known, would be interesting.  It wouldn't make me question what I hear nor my own preferences, but it is like giving credit where credit is due.  Those companies that take time and care to provide the best transfers should be recognized.  Sure, the number of folks who care about this might be small, but if the effort needed to provide some insight is also small, it seems worth doing.  

 

Qobuz has multiple sampling rates for some albums.  When I have listened to those, I don't always prefer the highest resolution.  This is probably because of the provenance.   It would be interesting to know how the transfers have been made.  

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

Perhaps straying from MoFi legal issue but how else to discuss ...

 

Here at AS, as Norton suggests, we discuss endlessly digital math; e.g.s:

 

Over/upsampling vs. NOS per se but also wrt Holo May DAC;

 

HQPlayer - how it dances math-wise with specific DACs;

 

PGGB, "heady brew of math and magic";

 

Digital room correction

 

etc etc etc

 

All of which overlaid on what?

 

A recording/mastering:

- Leave to experts - don't question - they know best - black box - mystery - we shouldn't have audacity to ask

or

- Openness about provenance chain so that we can know and understand how our audiophile hobby math combine with what's mathematically underneath - and we can satisfy intellectual curiosity into the bargain?

 

We had SPARS codes. What did those tell you about a recording's sound quality?

[Norton]

20 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I understand the pro-consumerist backlash.  If you feel "bash[ed]" by what I wrote, so be it.

 

 

 

Not being a customer of MoFi or any other “boutique” vinyl label, I don’t feel bashed.

But I am interested in why you are so keen to be the basher.  People like you give us high functioning misanthropes a bad name.

[Norton]

22 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Rather than relying items we think would be helpful, SPARS codes etc..., we should rely on the people with proven track records of producing good products. This comes down to people. 

Isn’t that perilously close to just trusting the little blue light...?

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Norton said:

Isn’t that perilously close to just trusting the little blue light...?

Trusting a blue light is like trusting a SPARS code. It means nothing. 

 

Sure, people can create great products followed by bad products, but on the whole, MoFi has produced great products. Trusting MoFi to continue to produce the best products it can is probably a decent move.

[Iving]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

We had SPARS codes. What did those tell you about a recording's sound quality?

 

We enjoy a hobby where, at least on this forum, we dig and turnover many information and experience amulets in order to make our own judgements about SQ without fear or favour!

 

Why not provenance. Are we not grown up enough to blend in provenance info.

 

Spars very small and specific category of provenance. 

 

Anyway - can we not make up our own minds.

[Iving]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

Trusting MoFi to continue to produce the best products it can is probably a decent move.

 

Sure - based on accurate info about retail product.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Iving said:

 

We enjoy a hobby where, at least on this forum, we dig and turnover many information and experience amulets in order to make our own judgements about SQ without fear or favour!

 

Why not provenance. Are we not grown up enough to blend in provenance info.

 

Spars very small and specific category of provenance. 

 

Anyway - can we not make up our own minds.

 

This has nothing to do with making up our own minds or being grown up enough. It's about a mistaken belief that this information tells us anything about the quality of the product. It doesn't. Period. 

 

Look at @JoshM's amazing series The Best Version Of ... That's how you find the best sounding version. Not by looking at provenance. 

 

People are mistaking provenance for sound quality. 

[Iving]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

People are mistaking provenance for sound quality. 

 

I don't.

 

imo patronising remark