Jump to content
IGNORED

Tuttle et al v Audiophile Music Direct


Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Axiom05 said:

Tony Faulkner made some great recordings, he was a talented recording engineer. His views on recording formats were more controversial and, as I see it, not exactly based on a firm knowledge of the technology. He could make a great sounding recording regardless of the format used.

Do you by chance have access to the recording above, do you think it sounds great?

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

It might look that way to someone not well versed in American Law. But the plaintiffs must show they are reasonable consumers. As I noted earlier this will prove difficult.

 

I don't know where the lawsuit was filed, but, in the Ninth Circuit, when applying California state law, the standard is what the reasonable targeted consumer believes after seeing the representation in question.  By that standard, what audiophiles think about the representations is indeed the relevant calculus. 

 

Obviously, the analysis might be different in other jurisdictions, but, were I a plaintiff's class action attorney looking at filing a lawsuit against a company advertising and selling nationwide, I would pick among the many potential forums very carefully. 

Living room:  Synology 218+ NAS > NUC 10 i7 > HQP Embedded > xfinity Xfi Router > Netgear GS348 Switch > Sonore Optical Module Deluxe > Sonore Signature Rendu SE Optical Tier 2 > Okto DAC 8 Stereo > Topping Pre90 Preamp > Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini > Revel F32 Concertas

 

Computer Desk System: Synology DS-218+ NAS > Dell XPS 8930/NUC 10 i7  > HQP Desktop > xfinity Xfi Router > EtherRegen > ultraRendu > Topping D90 DAC > Audioengine A5+'s

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Rt66indierock said:

It might look that way to someone not well versed in American Law. But the plaintiffs must show they are reasonable consumers.

Sorry guys but for me someone who's buying an AAA LP and expects all 3 production stages to be analogue is a quite reasonable person.

He wouldn't be one if he was buying eg an AAD vinyl but I guess there may be something wrong with this logic at least according to American law.. 😎

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, PeterG said:

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. 

Don't forget that there are most probably many guys who believe that digital is the Antichrist of audio among them.. ;-)

 

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

Sorry guys but for me someone who's buying an AAA LP and expects all 3 production stages to be analogue is a quite reasonable person.

He wouldn't be one if he was buying eg an AAD vinyl but I guess there may be something wrong with this logic at least according to American law.. 😎

So you switched to the Good side, well done!

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Rexp said:

Do you by chance have access to the recording above, do you think it sounds great?

Sorry, I am not familiar with that recording. It appears to be a soundtrack from a movie and that is a whole different can of worms. Soundtracks are often recorded under completely different conditions than a standard album. My guess is that would probably not be a good example of what Tony Faulkner was capable of.

Main System: [Synology DS216, Rpi-4b LMS (pCP)], Holo Audio Red, Ayre QX-5 Twenty, Ayre KX-5 Twenty, Ayre VX-5 Twenty, Revel Ultima Studio2, Iconoclast speaker cables & interconnects, RealTraps acoustic treatments

Living Room: Sonore ultraRendu, Ayre QB-9DSD, Simaudio MOON 340iX, B&W 802 Diamond

Link to comment
16 hours ago, Mike Rubin said:

I don't know where the lawsuit was filed, but, in the Ninth Circuit, when applying California state law, the standard is what the reasonable targeted consumer believes after seeing the representation in question.  By that standard, what audiophiles think about the representations is indeed the relevant calculus. 

 

Obviously, the analysis might be different in other jurisdictions, but, were I a plaintiff's class action attorney looking at filing a lawsuit against a company advertising and selling nationwide, I would pick among the many potential forums very carefully. 

 

Mike, you haven’t read Moore v Traders Joe’s, 9th Circuit 2021 from an objective viewpoint. Was a significant portion market misled by Mobile Fidelities claims? If we learned anything from the MQA debate it is there are a lot people who doubt the providence of master tapes.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Time to air some common knowledge about reasonable consumers.

 

Record labels are not trusted.

 

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

 

Examples

In the complaint The Doobie Brothers Captain and Me is cited and I doubt the original master was used. I might believe a late 70’s or early 80’s remaster. Warner routinely discarded original masters after reissues and remastering.

Workingman’s Dead and American Beauty were remastered by Mickey Hart and the original tapes were thrown away. Priceless American heritage lost forever.

The Nightfly by Donald Fagan was recorded in a digital format and the MOFI albums say Original Master Recording. Maybe it was but we can be sure? It was obvious MQA Ltd used a different master when they processed it.

 

Every reasonable consumer of limited release vinyl albums has reason to doubt any claim of an all-analog chain.  Your example will be shown to be unreasonable.

I hear you.

What I mean is that a customer who buys a canned ham and expects ham inside the can (not eg a tuna or bs) for me is a reasonable customer. Same with music material described as eg AAA or Original Master Recording.

From my point of view customer buying an LP isn't obliged to know about eg the whole MQA debate or companies problems or cheating practices as far as eg original master tapes are regarded. OTOH a company is obliged to deliver what they promise to deliver on the product label or anywhere else (eg ham, not tuna or original master AAA LP not a DAA one).

It's as simple as that.

:-)

 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, firedog said:

They are offering refunds, so it's hard to see the point of the suit and what possible damages could be awarded. 

If they are worth more on the secondary market than the original price, it seems like a claim of damages/harm by the purchasers is not very strong. 

+1 Didn't read it earlier. Seems that MoFi itself didn't regard their customers objections as ..unreasonable :-)

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, sphinxsix said:

+1 Didn't read it earlier. Seems that MoFi itself didn't regard their customers objections as ..unreasonable :-)

 

 

Or they are calling the complainers' bluff 😉

 

Still waiting to hear a person say they've found better sounding vinyl...

Link to comment

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 :~)

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...