Tuttle et al v Audiophile Music Direct

[botrytis]

32 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Vinyl sounds better than the digital files that made it?  That's what I call dogma!!!

 

Many do believe it.

[Gonzbull]

31 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Vinyl sounds better than the digital files that made it?  That's what I call dogma!!!

Vinyl sounds different than the digital files that made it obviously. The Mastering process is very different for vinyl. I like them both. I can't understand why people get all twisted about all this. Like you, I would absolutely love to get my hands on the DSD files that were used for cutting. It would sound entirely different due to the Mastering however and the playback process. Also pretty obvious. Some people like the sound of vinyl, which when done properly is glorious. Same as with digital. Vinyl can sound better than the digital files that made it. Digital can also sound worse than the digital files that made it. 

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

5 minutes ago, Gonzbull said:

Vinyl sounds different than the digital files that made it obviously. The Mastering process is very different for vinyl. I like them both. I can't understand why people get all twisted about all this. Like you, I would absolutely love to get my hands on the DSD files that were used for cutting. It would sound entirely different due to the Mastering however and the playback process. Also pretty obvious. Some people like the sound of vinyl, which when done properly is glorious. Same as with digital. Vinyl can sound better than the digital files that made it. Digital can also sound worse than the digital files that made it. 

 

 

 

With all due respect, this is mumbo-jumbo.

 

[Gonzbull]

6 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

With all due respect, this is mumbo-jumbo.

 

Well what I'm trying to say is I think its crazy to compare the two. Vinyl is not better than digital and vice versa. Its totally possible to end up with a better sounding Vinyl master from the same digital source. This is what Mofi did without disclosing. Personally, I don't care how its done as long as it sounds good. I spend all day writing, recording, mixing and mastering music so its the last thing I think about when i just want to relax and listen. 95% of my listening is done digitally. The only albums I prefer on Vinyl in my collection are OK Computer and Apex Twins Syro. Absolutely great Vinyl masters. So yeah I think people like Fremer who put down digital are missing a lot. Same as folk who think vinyl is nothing more than needles and plastic.     

[Jud]

59 minutes ago, Gonzbull said:

Digital can also sound worse than the digital files that made it. 

 

 

 

52 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

With all due respect, this is mumbo-jumbo.

 

 

@Samuel T Cogley So you'd be happy with MQA, then?  😉 You can certainly take well recorded digital files and master or otherwise DSP them to sound bad.  I don't think that's controversial at all.  The Clash's London Calling is one example I can think of where I prefer listening to my original LP versus the compressed digital remaster. I've often referred to my preference for the LP versions of the Who's Tommy and Steely Dan's Gaucho.

 

Now do I think well done digital can sound better? Absolutely - there are many instances in which I prefer the digital remaster to my original LP (Giles Martin's Sergeant Pepper and Abbey Road, and the Plangent-processed The Wild, The Innocent, and the E Street Shuffle from Bruce Springsteen being a few examples of the latter).

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

 

@Samuel T Cogley So you'd be happy with MQA, then?  😉 You can certainly take well recorded digital files and master or otherwise DSP them to sound bad.  I don't think that's controversial at all.  The Clash's London Calling is one example I can think of where I prefer listening to my original LP versus the compressed digital remaster. I've often referred to my preference for the LP versions of the Who's Tommy and Steely Dan's Gaucho.

 

Now do I think well done digital can sound better? Absolutely - there are many instances in which I prefer the digital remaster to my original LP (Giles Martin's Sergeant Pepper and Abbey Road, and the Plangent-processed The Wild, The Innocent, and the E Street Shuffle from Bruce Springsteen being a few examples of the latter).

 

Let's get back to the topic.

 

DSD files are notoriously difficult to process with regards to simple (for PCM) steps like EQ and gain trim.  So perhaps the inverse RIAA curve was applied using hardware, or there were/are derivative PCM files that were actually used to cut the lacquer.

 

Loudness Wars is a red herring in this context.

 

The point, to me, is that digital files are being used to cut lacquer in almost all cases today.  Having decades of experience with vinyl, I would much prefer the digital files without the added mechanical distortion that is inherent in vinyl tech.  It's just that simple.  And I will never subscribe to the notion that a cutting lathe "improves" the sound quality of the signal feeding it.  Sure, I understand why people (especially people who paid $$$$$ for their vinyl rig) want to believe that "vinyl sounds better".  But as with many things in audiophilia, it's a delusion.

 

 

[Jud]

4 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Let's get back to the topic.

 

DSD files are notoriously difficult to process with regards to simple (for PCM) steps like EQ and gain trim.  So perhaps the inverse RIAA curve was applied using hardware, or there were/are derivative PCM files that were actually used to cut the lacquer.

 

Loudness Wars is a red herring in this context.

 

The point, to me, is that digital files are being used to cut lacquer in almost all cases today.  Having decades of experience with vinyl, I would much prefer the digital files without the added mechanical distortion that is inherent in vinyl tech.  It's just that simple.  And I will never subscribe to the notion that a cutting lathe "improves" the sound quality of the signal feeding it.  Sure, I understand why people (especially people who paid $$$$$ for their vinyl rig) want to believe that "vinyl sounds better".  But as with many things in audiophilia, it's a delusion.

 

Loudness Wars and other unfortunate decisions in digital remastering can I think contribute to a feeling, technically unsupported though it is, that analog and vinyl are uniformly better. Once someone has that predisposition, it can be hard to convince them otherwise.

[Jud]

I'm going to make two contradictory arguments here.

 

First: It's rather insane for people to get hung up on digital vs. analog. Artists famous among audiophiles use both as tools to get the sound they want. Guy Fletcher's blog posts, a delightful insight into Mark Knopfler's recording process, help to illustrate this point.  Here's one example: https://www.markknopfler.com/morenews/guys-studio-diary-2022-part-2/

 

Second: Given that digital and analog do sound different, perhaps it's not totally crazy for people like the plaintiffs here to feel that using a digital step alters the final sound in a way they don't like.  (But all the folks asking what the damages are, etc., are probably not wrong about the likely outcome.)

[Account Closed]

42 minutes ago, Jud said:

I'm going to make two contradictory arguments here.

 

First: It's rather insane for people to get hung up on digital vs. analog. Artists famous among audiophiles use both as tools to get the sound they want. Guy Fletcher's blog posts, a delightful insight into Mark Knopfler's recording process, help to illustrate this point.  Here's one example: https://www.markknopfler.com/morenews/guys-studio-diary-2022-part-2/

 

Second: Given that digital and analog do sound different, perhaps it's not totally crazy for people like the plaintiffs here to feel that using a digital step alters the final sound in a way they don't like.  (But all the folks asking what the damages are, etc., are probably not wrong about the likely outcome.)

As to your second point. They only decided that they didn't like the digital step when the found out about it. When they did not know about the digital step these were the great sounding records ever pressed. i will only say that it is hypocritical at best but I am actually thinking a much stronger word and sentiment.

[fas42]

Interesting that people think that vinyl and digital "sound different". Yes, sub-par vinyl playback and sub-par digital playback most certainly are distinct creatures, and vinyl will always give itself away with the odd groove noise; but IME well optimised vinyl and digital both do the job very well of providing a window onto the captured musical event ... which happens to be unique, from the POV of the performers, . So, assuming that one's goal is to hear what the recording actually contains, rather than how one's particular rig tarts up, or disturbs, what you hear, then decent 'transparency' will deliver the same goods ...

 

I just recently had the experience of hearing a lot of very early, and to me unknown, David Bowie tracks, on variety of LPs; some of the vinyl albums had quite a bit of track noise, but the music still came through. I have none of his early stuff, so was lent a CD which contained the same tracks as I and my friend had just heard, via a needle only. Back on my system, played it - yep, there was the same music, and sense of the song ... the only difference that was really significant was that the pops and crackles were now absent.

[Jud]

2 hours ago, bobflood said:

As to your second point. They only decided that they didn't like the digital step when the found out about it. When they did not know about the digital step these were the great sounding records ever pressed. i will only say that it is hypocritical at best but I am actually thinking a much stronger word and sentiment.

 

Back when I tried Tidal and MQA, there were MQA albums whose sound I didn't mind (others I very much did). Should that have prevented me from feeling that the albums I didn't mind might well have been even better without the MQA process?

 

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.  (Since it's rather difficult to make analog copies audibly indistinguishable from the originals, it's hard to argue those albums would not have sounded different, and perhaps more to these listeners' preference, with an analog step substituted for the digital one.)

[Norton]

12 hours ago, bobflood said:

As to your second point. They only decided that they didn't like the digital step when the found out about it. When they did not know about the digital step these were the great sounding records ever pressed. i will only say that it is hypocritical at best but I am actually thinking a much stronger word and sentiment.

Not sure who "they" are in this context - all MoFi vinyl customers or just a handful of individuals?

 

MoFi vinyl is a luxury product sold on the basis of provenance (or perhaps to be fair in this case assumptions as to provenance that MoFi were aware of and didn't correct ) and just like other products so sold, buyers may be disgruntled when they discover that provenance is not the case, even if the use value is unaffected.   I don't see that as hypocritical. 

[PeterG]

9 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Back when I tried Tidal and MQA, there were MQA albums whose sound I didn't mind (others I very much did). Should that have prevented me from feeling that the albums I didn't mind might well have been even better without the MQA process?

 

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.  (Since it's rather difficult to make analog copies audibly indistinguishable from the originals, it's hard to argue those albums would not have sounded different, and perhaps more to these listeners' preference, with an analog step substituted for the digital one.)

 

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

 

 

[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.

 

[JoeWhip]

Hard to argue with feelings and beliefs. We will never know one way or the other. I will say that at least with DXD, the transfer I have heard sounds transparent to the tape I heard. Not sure about DSD  as I have not heard one.

[botrytis]

47 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

CAN'T argue with feelings and beliefs. We will never know one way or the other. I will say that at least with DXD, the transfer I have heard sounds transparent to the tape I heard. Not sure about DSD  as I have not heard one.

 

I fixed it for you. 

[Jud]

I think, as I imagine the majority of people in this thread do, that digital has greater copy fidelity than analog. That gives rise to the feeling that the plaintiffs in this suit must be wrongheaded for claiming to prefer something less true to the original.

 

However, in the "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" department: As noted in an earlier comment, Mark Knopfler, whose recordings have often been used as audiophile demos, runs tracks through various analog decks to get particular sounds. He's far from the only one. And there are vanishingly few recordings that are faithful renderings of a band playing together in the studio.  Several people involved with recording have commented over the years in this forum and others that you really wouldn't like so-called "flat transfers" if you heard them.

 

Even recordings of classical ensembles and acoustic jazz involve mic-ing and mixing choices. (I remember a Linn recording of a piano concerto I refer to as "The Attack of the 70-Foot Piano" because the producer decided the soundstage of the piano on the recording should be precisely as wide as that of the symphony orchestra.)

 

So we are all coming at recordings from a standpoint of personal preference. I don't feel personal preference versus absolute fidelity can be the basis on which we say the plaintiffs in this suit are wrongheaded.

 

After saying all this, though, I don't think an attempted class action lawsuit is the best way to resolve the plaintiffs' objections.

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

I think, as I imagine the majority of people in this thread do, that digital has greater copy fidelity than analog. That gives rise to the feeling that the plaintiffs in this suit must be wrongheaded for claiming to prefer something less true to the original.

 

However, in the "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" department: As noted in an earlier comment, Mark Knopfler, whose recordings have often been used as audiophile demos, runs tracks through various analog decks to get particular sounds. He's far from the only one. And there are vanishingly few recordings that are faithful renderings of a band playing together in the studio.  Several people involved with recording have commented over the years in this forum and others that you really wouldn't like so-called "flat transfers" if you heard them.

 

Even recordings of classical ensembles and acoustic jazz involve mic-ing and mixing choices. (I remember a Linn recording of a piano concerto I refer to as "The Attack of the 70-Foot Piano" because the producer decided the soundstage of the piano on the recording should be precisely as wide as that of the symphony orchestra.)

 

So we are all coming at recordings from a standpoint of personal preference. I don't feel personal preference versus absolute fidelity can be the basis on which we say the plaintiffs in this suit are wrongheaded.

 

After saying all this, though, I don't think an attempted class action lawsuit is the best way to resolve the plaintiffs' objections.

 

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.

 

As far as recordings, mixings, and masterings: 99% of us don't know shit. We pretend we do. If you ever read books by people who actually make records, most of them do massive amounts of alterations to the sound that originally is recorded on the tape or the file. And play with all sorts of stuff pre-recording to alter that sound that gets recorded.  Including classical recordings. And that's all the way back to the 1950's. Including many of your favorite records that you think sound "natural". Guess what? They don't. If they did, you'd hate them.

 

What we should want is an LP or disc or file that accurately reflects what the artist intended. And hope we have a system that accurately plays it back (or colors the sound how we like it colored). That's why the MOFI thing makes me chuckle. MOFI tested and figured out that the most accurate way to make a record from tape (as they couldn't take the tape home to manufacture LPs) was to use a DSD 256 master copy of the tape. Read what their CEO said about their LP production process. Pretty clear they know what they are doing and take it very seriously. 

Doesn't matter what audiophiles think they know about record making and what sounds best. They don't actually know. 

And neither do lots of writers and critics. 

 

[GregWormald]

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.)

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

So we are all coming at recordings from a standpoint of personal preference. I don't feel personal preference versus absolute fidelity can be the basis on which we say the plaintiffs in this suit are wrongheaded.

 

It took quite a few pages to arrive at this conclusion. 

 

Perhaps we could take it a step further and realize that two playback systems are not going to achieve absolute fidelity (a synonym for "accuracy") either - there are always tradeoffs and compromises that have to be made.

 

The compromises of an analog system are obvious  - and have been mentioned in the previous posts - but it seems many are living with the belief that digital systems are superior on all aspects. Hence the knee-jerk reaction to take the MoFi issue as an example to prove a point. 

 

Is it so easy to dismiss the many audiophiles (and non-audiophiles) who do see value in analog playback? 

 

Simply comparing the same record played from a full analog rig against a digitized version (or digital release) is not, IMO, sufficient to reach a conclusion.

[firedog]

22 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.)

Everything you say is true. But they are offering people their money back. That should be all that's necessary.

[Jud]

29 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.

 

As far as recordings, mixings, and masterings: 99% of us don't know shit. We pretend we do. If you ever read books by people who actually make records, most of them do massive amounts of alterations to the sound that originally is recorded on the tape or the file. And play with all sorts of stuff pre-recording to alter that sound that gets recorded.  Including classical recordings. And that's all the way back to the 1950's. Including many of your favorite records that you think sound "natural". Guess what? They don't. If they did, you'd hate them.

 

What we should want is an LP or disc or file that accurately reflects what the artist intended. And hope we have a system that accurately plays it back (or colors the sound how we like it colored). That's why the MOFI thing makes me chuckle. MOFI tested and figured out that the most accurate way to make a record from tape (as they couldn't take the tape home to manufacture LPs) was to use a DSD 256 master copy of the tape. Read what their CEO said about their LP production process. Pretty clear they know what they are doing and take it very seriously. 

Doesn't matter what audiophiles think they know about record making and what sounds best. They don't actually know. 

And neither do lots of writers and critics. 

 

Indeed, if you check out recording forums online or publications like Sound On Sound, there are heated discussions over terms I never see here, like ITB (in the box, computer software) vs. OTB (outboard processing).

[Jud]

29 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

Is it so easy to dismiss the many audiophiles (and non-audiophiles) who do see value in analog playback?

 

Actually it is, if you think of it as simply having a different personal preference rather than making a value judgment against some illusory notion of perfection.

 

I'm very happy to have a turntable to play my old LPs, and some of them have sound I prefer to the digital remasters. But overall my preference is for digital - I'm not buying new vinyl.

[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. 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

8 minutes ago, Jud said:

Actually it is, if you think of it as simply having a different personal preference rather than making a value judgment against some illusory notion of perfection

 

I am not the one making value judgements here or even claiming there will ever be perfection... However, to put it differently, I think it is interesting to understand what people hear and why.i don't believe that vinyl lovers "like distortion" to be a sufficient explanation. 

 

8 minutes ago, Jud said:

I'm very happy to have a turntable to play my old LPs, and some of them have sound I prefer to the digital remasters. But overall my preference is for digital - I'm not buying new vinyl.

 

Same here.