Tuttle et al v Audiophile Music Direct

[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. 

[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. 
 

 

[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. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

In the audio realm, this doesn't always work out. Rick Rubin has produced masterpieces that show the recording artist to advantage (Johnny Cash) and stuff that is so compressed as to be borderline unlistenable (Red Hot Chile Peppers). We can play the same game with lots of producers, and some artists.

Absolutely, but I believe it’s the best way. 
 

If Analogue Productions releases an album, I will bet it’s the best version of that album I’ve ever heard. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

10 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

This reminds me of Winston Churchill's remark about democracy, in which he said it was the worst form of government ever invented by humans - except for all the others. 🙂

 

Absolutely there are issues with putting information out there and just saying "Let people make up their own minds." But I'm hard pressed to think of a better alternative. Knowing music is the product of people or companies you trust is information - information that's particularly significant to you (and to many others). Provenance is significant information to some in this thread (and to many others).

 

Much as we'd like to tell other folks what's important, they'll insist on having their own opinions about what they prefer. 🙂

That’s where my balance argument comes into play. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Iving said:

But mostly this post is to say that I think I know where you want to go when you say it's about the people. An old-fashioned notion perhaps. A counterculture one these days. An uphill effort given how the world has become more obsessed with money than principles in recent decades. You want to highlight good workmanship. The honour of the handshake and the value of one's word and so on.

I love it! Thanks for trying to understand my position :~)

 

4 minutes ago, Iving said:

MoFi's DSD vinyl records have done nothing but reverse this/your cause.

No. It proves my case. Many people believe the end product was the best. Let the engineers figure out how to make the best albums. MoFi knows what it’s doing. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Iving said:

 

Well it serves me right for being nice. I completely disagree with you!

I love that even more. A friendly disagreement is how many of us learn and enrich our lives. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

No way on God's earth am I convinced "it's about the people" if those same people have conned me or anybody else.

 

Not ever.

Your statement relies on people. They deceived you. Now you know not to trust them. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

Well not literally in this case since I am not a victim.

 

My point is that MoFi (or any other business) if dishonest especially large scale results in a somewhat generalised scepticism in the market as a whole.

 

Tarring with the same brush whether justified or not.

 

The commercial climate is affected.

Understood. This also shows why some information can be a disservice. We all can be foolish about what we think makes the best recording, product, or whatever. We tar all products with the same brush. AAA, DSD, ESS chips, etc…

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Mike Rubin said:

Let’s say that you are correct.  
 

Does that mean that today’s consumers should be expected to be aware that there must be a digital step added to the production when a very detailed disclosure of the production process omits that fact?  
 

If they should be, it wouldn’t be news that MoFi used digital processing because everyone would know they must have, right?  And, if that were the case, I honestly have no idea why this disclosure caught pretty much the entire industry offguard, because it should have been public knowledge years ago, regardless of what the advertising said or omitted.

That’s an interesting take. I like it. The one part I’m unsure of is if consumers were willfully blind to it and people like to pile on when “rich guys” get screwed. 
 

I don’t think anyone really knows the status of any specific tape until it comes out of storage. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

People (including me) tend to confuse personal knowledge with what everyone should know.

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

40 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

This is the environment of the American consumer.

This is the environment of the American consumer. 
 

[The Computer Audiophile]

After seeing so many releases tout use of the/a “master tape” over the years, I assumed they were all in decent shape. I thought the tape deterioration talk was overblown. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

48 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

Maybe this is a great time to flat-DSD analogue masters - and we music lovers can be grateful that this has happened.

 

Those who have performed this valuable service could try to recoup their costs by selling digital products n steps away from that flat-DSD, advertising their products according to the principles which justify their engineering decisions. People will know what they are buying. Might even be a customer myself.

 

If they think's there's enough demand they could also sell DSD vinyl - advertising it as exactly that. I wouldn't buy it but so what. Many others might like to scrape a needle across digits stamped onto plastic.

 

The last thing that should happen is that DSD vinyl should be sold by stealth - to unsuspecting buyers - whether you think they are foolish or otherwise for not suspecting tape deterioration so advanced that "Original Master Recordings" are not possible - Figure 1 doesn't support a broad folly argument.

 

So there are no grounds for apologies from plaintiffs - no.

 

Is a refund an adequate response the correct way around?

 

I think the net outcome of this will be that MoFi will lose a lawsuit.

 

Their reputation will be broken and their best engineers will migrate elsewhere.

 

There will be scepticism in the industry until someone makes an honest job of preserving analogue masters in digital format(s).

 

A good thing waiting to happen ...

Why DSD flat transfers? Are you using the logic that less is more, rather than going by what nearly all professionals say about flat transfers?

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

First and only time in America was a very short stopover in New York ... I felt I was partaking in an episode of The Twilight Zone ...

We felt the same way when you walked off the plane. 
 

 

Only kidding Frank :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

This is like spending millions of dollars of one's own money on a political campaign to win a job that pays a hundred thousand. There is more at play than meets the eye. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

Aha - a price and a fudge on right and wrong ...

I don't understand. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

This statement doesn't make sense to me. The tape is not known as the original master recording. The tape is known as the master tape. Please correct me if I'm wrong. 

 

"The production of a vinyl record begins with a studio recording. Specifically, a
musician will record an album at a studio, and the songs on the album will be preserved and
finalized on an analog tape. This tape is known as the “original master recording.”"

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Iving said:

 

That's OK

I guess it's OK if you're trying to score points with a wider audience, but is a bit ridiculous if you're trying to communicate with me and I don't understand. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

Looks like an invitation to get lost in the weeds.

I've never heard anyone refer to a master tape as an original master recording, and I assumed OMR was used because it's the original recording not matter what medium it's on. It wasn't remixed or re-recorded. 

 

A recording isn't a. tape. A recording is the capture of a performance. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Iving said:

 

That's insulting to me.

 

You're an intelligent man. I think you do/can understand perfectly well the difference between right and wrong per se and expediency.

I don't understand what "a price and a fudge on right and wrong" means. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Iving said:

 

Anyway has nothing to do with the heart of the matter. Getting lost in the weeds. See you later.

 

One man's weeds, is another man's details.