Tuttle et al v Audiophile Music Direct

[Samuel T Cogley]

Digitally-sourced vinyl is the biggest scam in audiophilia today.  I've always seen vinyl as a "necessary evil" to facilitate consuming content that is OOP or otherwise unavailable in digital form.  But Vinyl As A Lifestyle?  Can't help but feel a little schadenfreude at the MoFi news.

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 hours ago, Rexp said:

Some digital masters actually sound better on vinyl though, so assuming you want the best sound, a turntable is a must.

 

I got my first turntable in 1975 or so.  It was a BIC that looked something like this:

 

 

I currently have a Pro-Ject Perspex:

 

I respectfully disagree with your "best" characterization.  A digital source with added mechanical distortion will always sound worse that the same digital source without it.

 

Because of this, I believe that digitally-sourced vinyl is the biggest scam in audiophilia today.

 

 

 

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

7 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Actually I borrowed this theory from Tony Faulkner who recorded this album:

 

You can have the mechanical distortion.  It's just not my thing.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 hour ago, Rexp said:

Sure, not everyone is so susceptable to digital distortion.

 

I know the Mikey Fremer soliloquy.  Chapter and verse.

 

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

8 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

Do we really have to turn this into yet another digital v. Vinyl thread?

 

I share your fatigue with the subject.

 

But at the heart of the matter is that MoFi decided that DSD256 could be characterized as an "analog" source, when they probably believed it was "indistinguishable from analog".

 

People purchased what they believed was "AAA" vinyl.  But it wasn't.  MoFi only sells SACDs, not DSD256 files.

 

I, for one, would love to get my hands on the DSD256 files they used to cut the lacquers.  That those files are not available to consumers is the real travesty.

[Samuel T Cogley]

16 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

The complaint says they are audiophiles, strike one, they bought expensive vinyl records, strike two.

 

I think this is quite humorous, but I also understand many will not share this sentiment.  😎

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, Rt66indierock said:

 

Are those people reasonable consumers?

 

I'm torn.  Most vinyl aficionados that I've met seem to believe they understand the tech behind how modern vinyl (especially vinyl sourced from pre-digital masters) is made.

 

But I'm struggling to understand how they thought it was possible that MoFi was taking multiple passes at a master tape every time the Ultradisc One-Step "Convert" wore out.  Anyone who has been around any vintage master tapes know how fragile they are and know that you typically get one, and only one opportunity to capture it.

 

It makes me wonder if any alleged "AAA" vinyl from the modern age is legit.

 

Put another way...

 

Before the class action lawsuit:

 

 

After the class action lawsuit:

 

 

See the difference?

[Samuel T Cogley]

I suppose the lawsuit will determine how "dishonest" they were.  The gullibility of consumers is also in play here.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 hour ago, PeterG said:

Stuff like this does not go to trial.  It will settle with MoFi offering returns and/or store credits, plus legal fees.

 

But really...if they offered full refunds if original purchasers shipped vinyl back, would many take it?  Unlikely--these are magnificent albums in both music and sound quality.  Your replacement copy of Kind of Blue will not sound as good

 

To me, the bigger takeaway from the whole thing is that people will hopefully begin to understand how valuable the master tape for Kind of Blue is (for example) and how unrealistic it is to expect regular "revisits" to vintage master tapes in general for perpetual better sounding "audiophile" versions into the sales pipeline.  At some point, and we're likely already there on many titles, the last digital capture will become the de facto master.

 

I say again I'd love to hear some of those DSD256 captures that MoFi worked from.  I'll bet the blow the vinyl out of the water! 😎

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

The MQA debate exposed that providence or authenticity of master recordings is not documented well enough to rely on.

 

+100!

 

And look at the way HDTracks avoids any discussions of provenance like the plague! 

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

The Vinyl Aficionados' embrace of digital sources (there seems to be near-unanimous acclaim for MoFi's product) is a significant milestone in audiophilia.

 

So we're Post-Fremer now?

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 hours ago, Norton said:

Unless you accept the likely reality that MoFi customers are in turn a vanishingly small % of what you term “vinyl aficionados”.

 

People paying $100+ for Santana's Abraxas seem to be a bit larger than this "vanishingly small %" you suggest.

 

Isn't unexpectedly high demand for these "Ultradisc One-Step" releases what blew the lid off this in the first place?

[Samuel T Cogley]

I'm a little confused by the consensus that MoFi buyers are an outlier of the general vinyl-buying public.

 

Aren't (digitally-sourced) new vinyl LPs already priced like $40-$50?  MoFi is just double this, not like 10x.

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

16 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

How big is the vinyl market? Last year about a billion dollars and MOFI's sales were nine mllion dollars last year. 

 

People spent a billion dollars on digitally-sourced vinyl last year?  Madness!

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 minutes ago, PeterG said:

Much of what my kids enjoy about vinyl is the physical media/sensation.  That's completely understandable

 

Two years ago, there was a nice young woman who set up a booth at a local farmer's market to type out things on index cards using an old (sorry, "vintage") typewriter.  My bafflement about that and digitally-sourced vinyl is about equal.  🙂

[Samuel T Cogley]

26 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

I think people who are reacting incredulously are doing it because it is more about dogma than sound quality or listening.

 

Vinyl sounds better than the digital files that made it?  That's what I call dogma!!!

[Samuel T Cogley]

5 minutes ago, Gonzbull said:

Vinyl sounds different than the digital files that made it obviously. The Mastering process is very different for vinyl. I like them both. I can't understand why people get all twisted about all this. Like you, I would absolutely love to get my hands on the DSD files that were used for cutting. It would sound entirely different due to the Mastering however and the playback process. Also pretty obvious. Some people like the sound of vinyl, which when done properly is glorious. Same as with digital. Vinyl can sound better than the digital files that made it. Digital can also sound worse than the digital files that made it. 

 

 

 

With all due respect, this is mumbo-jumbo.

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

 

@Samuel T Cogley So you'd be happy with MQA, then?  😉 You can certainly take well recorded digital files and master or otherwise DSP them to sound bad.  I don't think that's controversial at all.  The Clash's London Calling is one example I can think of where I prefer listening to my original LP versus the compressed digital remaster. I've often referred to my preference for the LP versions of the Who's Tommy and Steely Dan's Gaucho.

 

Now do I think well done digital can sound better? Absolutely - there are many instances in which I prefer the digital remaster to my original LP (Giles Martin's Sergeant Pepper and Abbey Road, and the Plangent-processed The Wild, The Innocent, and the E Street Shuffle from Bruce Springsteen being a few examples of the latter).

 

Let's get back to the topic.

 

DSD files are notoriously difficult to process with regards to simple (for PCM) steps like EQ and gain trim.  So perhaps the inverse RIAA curve was applied using hardware, or there were/are derivative PCM files that were actually used to cut the lacquer.

 

Loudness Wars is a red herring in this context.

 

The point, to me, is that digital files are being used to cut lacquer in almost all cases today.  Having decades of experience with vinyl, I would much prefer the digital files without the added mechanical distortion that is inherent in vinyl tech.  It's just that simple.  And I will never subscribe to the notion that a cutting lathe "improves" the sound quality of the signal feeding it.  Sure, I understand why people (especially people who paid $$$$$ for their vinyl rig) want to believe that "vinyl sounds better".  But as with many things in audiophilia, it's a delusion.

 

 

[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.

 

 

[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.