Tuttle et al v Audiophile Music Direct

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 hours ago, Rexp said:

Oh dear, you didn't watch the YT review of Kind of Blue I posted 🖕

This is your one warning. Next time you’re banned. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

This is a first world problem of the highest order. MoFi produced the best sounding versions of albums, ever made (according to MF), people love(d) them. When they find out the albums were created in a way at odds with the marketing, they want damages. 
 

I’m struggling to see the harm / damage done, other than to egos. Count me out of the group of people who sue companies, not based on harm, but based on marketing claims that weren’t 100% literal truth. 
 

If the albums were marketed to cure hearing damage and they caused additional damage, then I get it. This just isn’t the case here. Consumers actually benefitted. Unless, they are collectors of AAA vinyl for no other purpose than it being AAA vinyl. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Perhaps there’s a positive side to this MoFi kerfuffle. People should now understand the benefits and quality of digital audio. I know it’s like pushing a kid down a hill on his bike, but some of us learned the hard/forced way. Vinyl lovers have now learned, through no fault or effort of their own, that digital is good. 

 

I’d spend $100 on the same MoFi package if it contained a USB stick of the DSD256 album, rather than the plastic disc. Sell these in limited quantities if that’s all the record label will license. 
 

 

Printing a digital file onto a piece of plastic and dragging a needle over it, absolutely can’t increase accuracy. 
 

P.S. I wonder what the hipsters who collect vinyl would think if it was called plastic. I fear the connotation would be too much to handle :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

14 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

 

 

So if you spent $100 for a USB advertised as containing a DSD master material but in reality with an upsampled CD rip of an album instead (you call such situation 'marketing claim' but for me it's simply a company's lie and selling something different from an advertised product), you'd be ok with that (?)

 

This happens all the time, however it isn’t as cut and dry as your example. we don’t need analogies here, we have the exact thing that happened. 
 

Look at some of the releases on NativeDSD.com. DSD1024 created from a DSD256 or DXD master. No deception involved in marketing though. 
 

 

MoFi actually improved the product through a digital process. Everyone said the product was improved. 

 

I think the real issue is that it strikes at the heart of the analog community. I’m not saying this in any negative way. This community has believed for years that AAA is the best way. Now it must question what it once believed. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

My favorite band Pearl Jam released many 24/96 concert albums. These were captured at 24/48. Creating the 24/96 was done through an analog console. D to A then A to D. Not my idea of purity, but the engineers liked the sound this way the best. I was originally upset, but only because I had some concept in my head that it shouldn’t have been done this way. 
 

The view from the top is always best. Most of us are looking up from the bottom, through funhouse mirrored glasses, and pontificating that we know what should’ve been done. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

In a way, MoFi was doing what CNN and Fox News do. Catering to its audience, even if the company knows better. If MoFi said it used digital, the audience would’ve rejected it, even though the end result was better. MoFi told the audience what it wanted to hear, and delivered an outstanding product. I guess it was the best of both worlds while the audience was only listening to the albums. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

To quote @Jud from another thread, I think a civil version of this will play a role as well …

 

On 7/14/2022 at 10:16 PM, Jud said:

rich guys losing money they can afford don't rank high on regulators' or prosecutors' priority lists

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, PeterG said:

 

Thanks, counselor.  Another question for Judge Joe--if a mint MoFi album sells for more on Discogs today than customers paid when the album was released, were customers harmed?

Their egos were harmed, pocketbooks unharmed. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

If anything, I’d say calling it one-step is kind of comical. I see multiple steps being advertised, even before the kerfuffle. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

20 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

Sure but it doesn't mean that it should. It does happen because no-one sues companies for such practices. 

Like I said, if a product label says "ham", there should be ham inside, not tuna, if it says "real leather"  the shoes should be made of it not of plastic, otherwise there is an obvious reason for suing the producer. Why should music be a 'worse' product than ham or a pair of shoes.?

I'm personally very glad those guys have sued MoFi, maybe not only MoFi but also others will think twice before they do similar thing in the future.

 

Agree. This must have hurt 😎

 

Honest question, did MoFi explicitly say no digital was used in the process?

[The Computer Audiophile]

14 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

AFAIK they claimed the source of the mentioned LPs were original master tapes.

(I linked to The Washington Post article earlier).

 

The ultimate source has to be the master tape, as that’s what all subsequent tapes or records or digital comes from 🙂

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, bobflood said:

This whole nonsense boils down to process not outcome. There is the advertised music on the vinyl. The music came from the master tape. The music sounds great. No issue here. It would be like someone being offended if a product was supposedly "hand made" and then finding out that a machine had to be used in one step.

Agree. This makes the injury for plaintiffs very hard to quantify. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, musicjunkie917 said:

 

It's called  "One-Step" because the vinyl thew consumer ends up with is only "one step" from the lacquer instead of three steps.....

Ah. Nice. At least that’s still true. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, sphinxsix said:

Why do I know your replies before you reply.? 😂

 

But you are wrong..

the ultimate source is..

Big Bang.

 

😎

Ha!

[The Computer Audiophile]

I also see the term “Original Master Recording” rather than master tape. Enough wiggle room there to drive a bus through. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Samuel T Cogley said:

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

 

This would really be something. I just have a feeling it will somehow be twisted into a negative. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Norton said:

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

Even if not a MoFi customer, the fact that the MoFi products have such a great reputation and that the mainstream press (WaPo) has written about the digital source, this may have a larger effect on more than just a niche reissue label's customers base.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I wonder if the digital-step vinyl will become vinyl aficionados' guilty pleasure albums that they all have, but keep on a separate shelf, and only play in secret.

 

It takes a special kind of masochist to own the best sounding version of an album, but stop enjoying it, or sell it, because of how it was made.  

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 hours ago, Gonzbull said:

I understand what you're saying but I personally disagree. I'm a media composer so I work with both analog and digital audio daily. I predominantly listen to music digitally via Audirvana and its awesome. Sometimes I like to play a record and that is awesome too. Its a different process where there actually is one. Going through a record collection, the turntable, seeing something physical make music, etc. I'm not looking for accuracy at all. in fact its the inaccuracy that makes it what it is.

 

My father has a collection of over 6000 records. He played them daily and I got to choose whenever I wanted. Everything from Queen to the Muppet Show. That sound is still in my head. You can't get that sound from Digital or a crappy turntable setup. If I were to choose, I'd go digital as I really like the fidelity. When Im old and have inherited my dads collection, can't wait.

 

 

I love the story, but don’t see what you disagree with me about. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

Correct, and MoFi has a very limited catalog, consisting mostly of pop, so the appeal is obviously limited. 

 

This MoFi debacle has exposed audiophiles to the general public. 

 

It is indeed easy to ridicule those who have purchased MoFi albums and won't listen to them any longer because they are "digital". You know something has to be wrong when you are paying 60$ for a high quality 45 rpm version of "Raising Hell". I would really get a kick out of seeing an "audiophile" version of the Ramones' debut album, for example. But this is no more pathetic than those who state that they come to appreciate classical music because they listen to it in surround sound. 

 

Edit: it's out there! https://bighouseguitars.com/products/the-ramones-ramones-lp-remastered

You’re on your high horse again and will not be allowed to derail this thread. 
 

If you have a problem with me because I enjoy classical music in Atmos, start a new thread and let’s discuss why people are supposed to enjoy things the way you enjoy them. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, PeterG said:

 

You seem to be arguing that we should be able tp chose each recording's attributes from a cafeteria menu?   

 

 

I think he was making this point ->
 

10 hours ago, Jud said:

The point is that though these folks thought the MoFi albums sounded good, that doesn't preclude them from feeling they would have liked the sound of those albums more had they not gone through a digital step.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

43 minutes ago, GregWormald said:

IMO it's all really simple:

People paid a premium price for something that wasn't what was advertised.

 

If I ordered a Beef Wellington at a restaurant and was charged a Beef Wellington price I'd be p*ssed if I got a sausage roll, no matter how good it tasted.

 

If they were so sure they made the best sounding recordings why not just say that, instead of lying?

 

It's up to the individual what they want to do with their records, but isn't false advertising a crime? (Unless you're a politician, of course.)

I'd say it's a touch different. You ordered Beef Wellington from The Johnson Farm, but you received Beef Wellington from the Anderson Farm down the road. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I think MoFI should rename these from One Step to One Digital Step :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

Or perhaps, We Left Out One Small Step :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

Either way, nobody is killing puppies or saving babies.