Tuttle et al v Audiophile Music Direct

[Confused]

59 minutes ago, firedog said:

People who are upset should just send in their LP and get their money back. Yeah, you got deceived. Get over it. You aren't suffering from PTSD because of it. Drop the suit.

Or digitize the LP, then send it back for refund.

 

That'll teach 'em!

[Confused]

13 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

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

I can recall a time in the early 90's when my mates and I were looking though CD collections trying to find discs that were DDD, because these would be the latest technology and sound the best. This seemed very important at the time.

 

Typically they were not the best sounding, but this was more to do with the actual music on the discs than anything else.

[Confused]

8 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

An additional note: My views on this have zero to do with trusting the man, or supporting companies over consumers or any of that. To me it can be summed up by this, the view from the top is always best. 
 

None of us has the top view on how MoFi creates products. We don’t know why decisions are made. We think we know the best way to do things, but these beliefs are based on what? Most certainly not the album MoFi is working on right now. 
 

There’s a time to trust the professionals and buy the album to see if you like it. 
 

MoFi could use DSD for the sole reason that it’s easier to make thousands more albums, even though it sounds worse. However, people have said these one step albums are the best sounding vinyl records of these releases, ever made. I think the professionals got it right. 

I agree with much of what you are saying, but I feel that it does miss the point a little. MoFi actually make a point of saying quite a lot about how they produce their products, that is, providing a huge amount of technical detail. We could consider this useful technical information, or we could consider it to be marketing. MoF lied to save analogue fanatics from themselves, but I do not think this is a good thing for the industry overall, it is just pandering to outdated biases and dogma to larger profits

 

Taking a tiny fraction of the technical information provided by MoFi, we see this:

 

Just as Mobile Fidelity pioneered the Ultra High-Quality Record (UHQR) with JVC in the 1980s, UD1S again represents another state-of-the-art advance in the record-manufacturing process. MFSL engineers begin with the original master tapes and meticulously cut a set of lacquers. These lacquers are used to create a very fragile, pristine UD1S stamper called a "convert."

 

Morph into this:

 

Just as Mobile Fidelity pioneered the Ultra High-Quality Record (UHQR) with JVC in the 1980s, UD1S again represents another state-of-the-art advance in the record-manufacturing process. MFSL engineers begin with the original master tapes, painstakingly transfer them to DSD 256, and meticulously cut a set of lacquers. These lacquers are used to create a very fragile, pristine UD1S stamper called a "convert."

 

In the first paragraph, mention of the DSD step is omitted. Judging by the full amount of other technical detail provided, this is almost certainly deliberate. You could say that it is lying by omission.

 

Why do they include the DSD step? A combination of the fact that they have to, and this is the best sounding solution.

 

Why did they omit the DSD step from the original technical description? To sell more records, because they know some of their customers would have this notion that a digital step is a negative for sound quality.

 

For me, it would have been much better if MoFi had been up front and honest about all of this. They would have sold less records though. 

 

Speculation, but I can easily imagine that if MoFi had been up from about this, some analogue evangelists would have listened to the said recordings and declared that they could hear the damage the nasty digital DSD step had introduced.

 

So more records were sold. Some that purchased the records feel cheated. After all, nobody likes to be lied to, nobody likes to fall for the lie then part with hard earned money. 

 

The above is then mixed up with the analogue versus digital debate. Ha - MoFi only lied to you because they think you are too stupid to understand that a DSD step is necessary and would be audibly transparent to the source. But you listened to it and never noticed!

 

My view is that MoFi lied by omission and that this was a quite deliberate move to sell more product at a fairly high price. I also believe that they did this in full knowledge of the current state of the digital versus analogue debate. All would have been fine if they had got away with it.

 

That said, maybe now this is all out in the open, MoFi are honest now, some analogue fans might be a little more aware as to just how good modern DSD or DXD transfers can be.

 

I think moving the analogue versus digital debate on a little is important. So maybe this MoFi debacle will ultimately prove to be beneficial, as a quite wonderful unintended consequence.

 

Last week I was reading about some master tapes. Apparently it is believed that these tapes are now so fragile that they can now only be played once, and then they will be destroyed by the act of playback itself. The big question is how to save recordings like this. How to treat the tapes before their last play, what is the best machine to play them on, and indeed what format to use for the transfer? DSD, DXD, something else? Once we have that digital transfer, at least this can be stored, copied, backed up, and it could last for ever. But if the transfer can only be done once, we need to be sure the best method for transfer is used.

 

Maybe analogue evangelists of old will now start to think about DSD transfers as being a technological god send for saving those precious old analogue masters.

 

We might look back on all this as a very good thing.

 

 

[Confused]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

At some point in our lives we have to trust other people. The people I trust have proven themselves to me and I’ve often reached the same conclusions as them on other matters. Not bulletproof logic, but plenty good for me and this hobby I so enjoy.  
 

Provenance has zero to do with sound quality. That’s a hill I’ll die on. For example, we have the full provenance of Jack White’s album A Letter Home. An AAA recording for sure. Even direct to disc!

 

The above I agree with.

 

That said, we also need to establish who not to trust.

 

As an example, I do not trust Bob Stuart that much. In the past, I think I would trusted much of what he might say, but not now, any past trust or respect I might have had for the man is now lost. I think he has lied about MQA. Even if he one day came clean about MQA, I still think I would not trust him, he lied once, why should I believe him in the future?

 

As for MoFi, personally I would trust them to produce a good sounding product. I understand why they did what they did and can rationalise that it was actually for good reason. I guess for me this is the difference with our Bob, the reasons and the quality of the end product are different. Others might not think the same way. 

 

Others might think that they have been lied to by MoFi once, so why should they believe them in the future? Trust is lost.

 

I guess as @Ivingsuggests, people will make up their own mind based on the data available. It will not always be the same conclusion though.

[Confused]

5 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

The core of it is a company being dishonest about its products. Yes, their customers may have been wrong in some of their beliefs, but that does not give the company a pass. 

 

Audiophiles are easily fooled and taken advantage of, and it has nothing to do with digital or analog. In fact, ironically, many manufacturers of digital audio products claim that they provide "analog" sound. Here is an example:

"The May DAC is here! over 3 years waiting and tremendous R&D to achieve a new level of performance and sound quality that sets a new standard. Ultimate endgame DAC. Natural Analog sound with no compromise.Having the best measurements of NOS R2R Dacs. And delivering our intoxicating sound signature that HoloAudio is known for."

There is nothing to be learned about digital versus analog in the MoFi story. Both analog and digital have issues, and the MoFi debate does nothing to help us understand them. 

 

I guess that from a technical perspectives, all DACs have an analogue sound. (or at least they do when amplified and connected to speakers)

 

It is just that in the subjective world "sounds digital" is typically a negative comment, and "sounds analogue" is a more positive.

 

I do agree in so far that a better understanding of why things sound natural ("analogue") or not so natural ("digital") would be a very good thing.

[Confused]

2 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

Yes. Analog and digital "sound" are thrown around constantly and as a result have become meaningless. You can see it in this very thread. It's a popular opinion here, and elsewhere, that vinyl sounds pleasant because it adds lots of distortion. But then when DAC manufacturers and many of their customers praise "analog" sounding DACs does it mean that those DACs are adding distortion too ? 

 

 

All forms of musical reproduction add distortion.

 

I think the problem is that a lot of terms are "weaponised" in some audio / forum discussions.

 

Anyone who states that that vinyl sounds pleasant because it adds "lots of distortion" is almost certainly trying to wind up someone who likes vinyl reproduction. The fact is, those that like the sound of vinyl like it because they find it natural, which implies that vinyl reproduction is largely arcuate, albeit with some distortion.

 

All DACs have some distortion, and yes, I have seen cases where on line discussions have been along the lines of "you only like the sound of R2R DACs because of the distortion they add." Again, this is usually in the context of someone who does not like R2R DACs winding up someone who does.

 

Even the term "accurate" is weaponised by some, take any form or reproduction that might include some form of distortion, and someone can come in with "well you might like this kind of distortion, I prefer accurate myself."

 

I could go on.

 

Personally, I am more with @JoeWhipon this one, I prefer it if it sounds natural.

 

The question is, what sounds natural? If we can take away the weaponising of terns and discuss more sensibly, we might find that some types of distortion can actually make audio reproduction sound "natural".

 

I have heard theories that digital reproduction can sound unnatural because it is so accurate. As an example, I know someone who has a theory that highly accurate digital reproduction can more easily invoke comb filtering effects, which to a degree fail to manifest with vinyl reproduction. 

 

I know someone who placed his turntable in a small room adjacent to his listening area, to remove the TT from environmental feedback effects. He found that it actually sounded better in the listening room, so he moved it back. He was quite honest about why the TT might sound better back in the listening room, but to him it did indeed sound more natural.

 

Can vinyl sound better sometimes because it adds a touch of crosstalk? To me, subjectively, I believe this to be true. I would count this in the "euphonic distortion" category. Of course, it is a distortion, euphonic or not, and many would come back with the "if you like the sound of distortion, etc, I prefer accurate."

 

What I would say is that you can typically judge how such terms are used are used on forums and elsewhere in order to gauge if the poster is trying to say something useful, or is just winding folk up.

 

I think a more open debate regarding what does actually sound natural and why, without the typical digital / analogue type infighting  would be very welcome.

 

Just to be clear, this post is a kind of general observation of the nature of the debate on forums, it is not aimed specifically at yourself or anyone else posting in this thread.