Tuttle et al v Audiophile Music Direct

[The Computer Audiophile]

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. 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

17 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Question for you: Does this tell you anything about how the product sounds in your system?

 

First of all, I did not ask for a lecture as to what makes a good DAC, and never expressed the view point than only good parts make a good DAC. 

 

Second of all, why would it matter what I would infer from that product description? The point is that it's there, with a profusion of technical detail that very few people understand. The manufacturer is explaining  why their product will achieve "new sonic heights". 

 

It's there for a simple reason: many audiophiles do take that into consideration. Is that a good thing? I don't know.

 

AudiophileStyle is itself a platform for many engineers to provide technical explanations. Do these engineers design their products based on what AudiophileStyle readers think are the right "parts" or "techniques", I don't know either. You would have to ask them. I'll assume they design their products based on what they think is best. 

 

But to phrase my initial question differently, since you did not find it necessary to answer it - if you were to find out that one of these engineers lied about their work on the forum, would they not be banned? Or would you blame your forum members instead? 

[The Computer Audiophile]

19 minutes ago, hopkins said:

AudiophileStyle is itself a platform for many engineers to provide technical explanations. Do these engineers design their products based on what AudiophileStyle readers think are the right "parts" or "techniques", I don't know either. You would have to ask them. I'll assume they design their products based on what they think is best. 

I know the answer to this question. Sometimes they design it how they want, other times they design it how the customer wants. I know one company that put in a Toslink input just because a reviewer wanted it on a previous product. 

 

19 minutes ago, hopkins said:

Second of all, why would it matter what I would infer from that product description?

That's the whole reason for the discussion. People want more details about MoFi releases or releases in general. I asked why. People believe it tells them something that is useful, but I don't believe it does. That's why I asked you what you can infer from al those marketing descriptors. 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That's the whole reason for the discussion. People want more details about MoFi releases or releases in general. I asked why. People believe it tells them something that is useful, but I don't believe it does. That's why I asked you what you can infer from al those marketing descriptors. 

 

Reading the content of this forum, it seems pretty obvious that many here take into account product descriptions to some extent. 

 

Whether the technical data is useful,  is a good question, but if it's there, it better be correct and honest, that's my opinion.

 

Whether you believe that full analog is useless, and that those who purchased those albums based on that criteria  got what they deserved does not change the fact that the company in question knowingly deceived its customers. 

 

That being said, you are right in reminding everyone that the end result is what counts. 

[fas42]

1 hour ago, hopkins said:

 

Second of all, why would it matter what I would infer from that product description? The point is that it's there, with a profusion of technical detail that very few people understand. The manufacturer is explaining  why their product will achieve "new sonic heights". 

 

 

It's curious that so few say, "it will be more accurate" - the latter is boring, implying an end in sight; far better to tantalise one's fantasies, beguiling the consumer to believe that there is indeed lots beyond, er, infinity ... .

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, hopkins said:

 

Reading the content of this forum, it seems pretty obvious that many here take into account product descriptions to some extent. 

 

Whether the technical data is useful,  is a good question, but if it's there, it better be correct and honest, that's my opinion.

 

Whether you believe that full analog is useless, and that those who purchased those albums based on that criteria  got what they deserved does not change the fact that the company in question knowingly deceived its customers. 

 

That being said, you are right in reminding everyone that the end result is what counts. 

To that we agree. 

[Jud]

I think the difficulty with saying it was OK to leave out information in this instance is that the impression it created was deceptive. MoFi's diagram of its process and the name "One Step" simply weren't true.

 

Legally speaking, I think that's enough to meet a particular element of a deceptive marketing case, but (to repeat something I've said earlier in the thread) I don't see what MoFi owes the consumers besides a refund.

 

Deciding to leave information out of your marketing because you don't want consumers getting into technical details they don't understand is a legitimate decision that consumers can choose to react to as they wish. Picking and choosing marketing information so as to leave consumers with a false impression of your product is not the same thing and is of course wrong.

[Jud]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Remember the THD+N wars? Turns out when people got that info, they though it mattered. Manufacturers sacrificed other parts of the design just to get lower THD+N. That’s what armchair engineers thought was important. Turns out, it wasn’t what they thought. 

 

I don't know how familiar I am with this story and would be interested to know more if you'd be willing to say something about it.

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I don't know how familiar I am with this story and would be interested to know more if you'd be willing to say something about it.

I messed up the abbreviation. THD wars, not THD+N. 

 

http://www.audiophileaddicts.com/2017/07/lower-distortion-often-doesnt-equal-better-sound-quality/

 

[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.

[Iving]

7 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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.

 

This is very difficult to read.

 

mQa?

 

Plus it's just not rational. Experts (like lawyers) disagree with each other.

 

We, in so far as we are legitimate stakeholders, weigh up the relevant information and make up our own minds (unless we choose to be brainless/unthinking about such matters - I have seen very few examples on this Forum).

 

7 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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

 

This is OK provided the product is not misrepresented.

 

7 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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.

 

This is very difficult to read.

 

1. I feel sure I have read at least a couple of instances of you also regarding vinyl with digits as anomalous (in so many words).

 

2. Based on what? How many MoFi DSD Albums have you heard? Did you listen to any benchmarks such as analogue-era first issues?

[Iving]

30 minutes ago, Confused said:

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.

 

I remember that too,  but was working hard the other way around - avoiding DDD!

[firedog]

13 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Not sure I live in the same world as you. 

 

I don't think anyone, other than the engineers working on Beyonce's new album, know how it was made. The world is not watching. The album wasn't produced to any spec. If on the other hand, the world demanded she release an album that was AAA, or they wouldn't purchase it, she would've produced an AAA album even if it sounded worse. 

 

Companies have to sell their goods. If the misguided public likes AAA solely because it says AAA, AAA is what they'll sell. 

She isn't one of my favorites, but I generally listen to her new albums as I consider her to be a touchstone and influencer of modern popular music.  Her recordings are also good tests of your system's ability to reproduce low bass and it's ability to reveal the layers of very dense recordings.

 

I'm sure the recordings go thru an amazingly complex process of multiple alterations, treatments, etc., and that lots of different people work on each track and different setups and studios are involved.

Nonetheless, she gets a uniform "sound" out of each album. 

I'd bet a lot of money it's exactly the sound she wanted.

That's all the consumer really needs to know. The details might interest some, but aren't going to actually tell you anything about the SQ.

 

I understand that for some classical, audiophile, and small band specialist recordings it's very important to some.  But again, we are pretty much fooling ourselves if we think that info really tells us much about what we hear in the final release product. We hear what the people involved want us to hear. 

[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.

 

 

[firedog]

5 hours ago, Jud said:

I think the difficulty with saying it was OK to leave out information in this instance is that the impression it created was deceptive. MoFi's diagram of its process and the name "One Step" simply weren't true.

 

Legally speaking, I think that's enough to meet a particular element of a deceptive marketing case, but (to repeat something I've said earlier in the thread) I don't see what MoFi owes the consumers besides a refund.

 

Deciding to leave information out of your marketing because you don't want consumers getting into technical details they don't understand is a legitimate decision that consumers can choose to react to as they wish. Picking and choosing marketing information so as to leave consumers with a false impression of your product is not the same thing and is of course wrong.

Reminds me of DAC manufacturers who refuse to disclose what chips they are using or even alter circuit boards so the names are erased. They've  been burned by armchair engineers who are sure a certain component is "meaningful" in how the entire device sounds. They don't disclose that information so that an entire device isn't rejected on the mistaken beliefs of audiophiles who are (mistakenly) certain that a certain part means an entire device will sound a certain way.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

With respect to manufacturers providing the customers "what they want" instead of "what they need", one could argue that there is some of that going on with "measurements", especially when it comes to digital audio, but also with amplifiers and speakers. I'm not "trolling" by saying this, its just part of the audio landscape today. This is true in many other fields than audio as well. 

 

Another comment: marketing has evolved, and in audio it has become very deeply tied to the technical features. You can't sell audio equipment simply by claiming that "It's toasted". 

 

 

 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

This one is brilliant and also relevant for audio. Vinyl may be the Carousel of audiophiles !

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 hours ago, Confused said:

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.

I was in that same boat! After a couple DDD albums I realized it had zero to do with sound quality. 

 

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Iving said:

 

This is very difficult to read.

 

mQa?

 

Plus it's just not rational. Experts (like lawyers) disagree with each other.

 

We, in so far as we are legitimate stakeholders, weigh up the relevant information and make up our own minds (unless we choose to be brainless/unthinking about such matters - I have seen very few examples on this Forum).

 

 

This is OK provided the product is not misrepresented.

 

 

This is very difficult to read.

 

1. I feel sure I have read at least a couple of instances of you also regarding vinyl with digits as anomalous (in so many words).

 

2. Based on what? How many MoFi DSD Albums have you heard? Did you listen to any benchmarks such as analogue-era first issues?

I absolutely believe you can’t make an album sound more accurate by printing it on plastic and dragging a needle across it. This shouldn’t be misconstrued as a digital step makes it worse. Perhaps it could in some cases or not. I trust those who have done this for decades to figure out how to make the best sounding albums. 
 

I base my belief that MoFi produced the best sounding versions of these albums, on the opinions of people I know, who have nearly every version, comparing them. 

[Iving]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I absolutely believe you can’t make an album sound more accurate by printing it on plastic and dragging a needle across it.

 

presume you mean digital album

 

yes - very much agree

 

there's another argument/elephant lurking here about release of digital alternatives - right from flat dsd to "steps" along the way to final product - and whilst the general buying public may be blithe about provenance i doubt that applies to most audiophiles who frequent this and peer forums.

 

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I trust those who have done this for decades to figure out how to make the best sounding albums. 
 

I base my belief that MoFi produced the best sounding versions of these albums, on the opinions of people I know, who have nearly every version, comparing them. 

 

OK but to my eyes your confidence in what other "people" say about MoFi DSD (second hand info) such that you can say "I think they got it right" sits at odds with your disparaging view of "people" who confuse provenance with sq ... and your view that listening/TBVO (first hand/own ears) is good and judging sq on external refs such as provenance bad.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Iving said:

OK but to my eyes your confidence in what other "people" say about MoFi DSD (second hand info) such that you can say "I think they got it right" sits at odds with your disparaging view of "people" who confuse provenance with sq ... and your view that listening/TBVO (first hand/own ears) is good and judging sq on external refs such as provenance bad.

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 entire album, which consists of covers of classic songs by artists Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, Willie Nelson, Gordon Lightfoot and others, was recorded in a refurbished 1947 Voice-o-Graph vinyl recording booth at Jack White's Third Man Records recording studio in Nashville, Tennessee.”

[The Computer Audiophile]

Some Motley Crue albums are DDD. Those sound about as good as Jack White’s AAA. Meaning, not so good. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I think the right approach is balanced. Some information for consumers is helpful. Some is a disservice. Some is of no consequence.

 

All information should be accurate. 
 

 

[Iving]

23 minutes 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.  

 

Trust in human affairs is a precious thing. Ask any marriage. 

 

Trust can be something earned, but is even more noble, arguably, when it may not have earned its stripes. Same way we love a friend or a spouse in spite of their falings - or even how they might have offended us.

 

Trust in Hi-Fi and Hi-Fi people. Well yes I kind of trust Linn for this and that - based on experience.

 

But mostly I want information to make up my own mind.

 

I don't want anybody making my decisions for me.

 

Above all else - I do not want to be deceived - especially hoodwinked for money.

 

I think most folks are in agreement with this whatever the vagaries of the US legal system.

 

It seems odd to me to promote the currency of trust in a thread about deception - whatever the legal outcomes.

 

23 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Provenance has zero to do with sound quality. That’s a hill I’ll die on.

 

No need I hope. Certainly not on my account!

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, Iving said:

But mostly I want information to make up my own mind.

This is the crux of my position. Deciding which information is useful in making up one’s mind is fraught with issues. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Much of the process documentation for recordings is for marketing and has nothing to do with ensuring a specific result. 
 

Ansel Adams with an iPhone 3 camera will shoot better photos than me with a new gigapixel camera. We could document the tech and the process, and neither would be beneficial for consumers, other than to prove its all about the people.