And that is the trouble with our hobby I reckon. We are encouraged to spend our money down that rabbit hole whether it’s on music or equipment just on a maybe.
2 Likes
It’s kind of hard to beat “superb”. Let’s say you had 3 records, cut from:
- the original master tape
- a DSD256 capture of the above tape
- a CD quality down-conversion of the above DSD256 capture
If you didn’t know which one’s which, would you be able to tell? And would you be surprised if highly praised records turned out to be cut from CD masters?
The problem is they sold people on the premise that they were delivering the analogue one. Whether you can hear the difference isn’t relevant.
I say this because imagine a scenario in which Qobuz had been upsampling all their catalogue from CD to save costs.
A lot of people argue you can’t hear the difference between lossless vs lossy, or high res vs lossless. Irrelevant, people would still be furious because the product they were paying for was advertised and heavily leaned on the high res aspect.
Imagine you bought a 4K Blu-ray . You sat down and watched it, loved it and thought the quality was fantastic. Then you discover the file on the disc is actually 1080P. It doesn’t change the fact that you loved the film and you even liked the way it looked.
The problem is the company told you it was 4K and charged you for the privilege. The regular blu ray is much cheaper.
3 Likes
Them and just about every other Hi-Fi accessory peddler I reckon. We are open wallets.
1 Like
Don’t disagree, the practice is rampant. Makes it all the more infuriating that it is so prevalent.
2 Likes
Yes we all agree they sound great, that is not the issue at hand however.
I totally agree; when you say you do something, you better do it, whether or not it matters. That being said, I do question the reasoning behind buying records for the sole purpose of being all-analog. If it sounds great, and if it’s demonstrably not distinguishable from a record cut from a digital copy of the same analog master, it’s just frivolous. To me, the all-analog claim is just an artificial way to stand out.
1 Like
That’s fair enough, no doubt plenty of people would agree with this whole heartedly. That being said, it’s not the issue.
There are plenty of people that swear by all sorts of formats, devices and techniques. I can’t tell the difference between High Res and a lossless file but I’m not going to say they shouldn’t have the option.
If they want to pay for it because they think it sounds better, that’s their money and they can do whatever they want.
I can just buy a regular digital file, they can buy the high res. I don’t see a problem here. If you don’t like something then just don’t buy it.
You are absolutely bang on about them using that as a way to stand out and that goes to the actual problem. They knew exactly how people perceive analogue and used that to boost sales.
False advertising is always a terrible practice, regardless of whether we value the product in question or not.
If they had string between two cans for the recording would people argue about the quality of string?
1 Like
String or twine? Twine sounds terrible but string sings! 
4 Likes
In the 1980s a sticker, “digitally mastered”, was a sign of quality. If Mofi uses something like that on their 1step vinyl nowadays, they would sell close to nothing. This was the reason they lied so bluntly about their production process. The vinyl crowd would not pay $125 for a SACD pressed on vinyl.
2 Likes
I understand why some are upset but don’t share the outrage.
There is no HiFi equipment in the world that can make a poor quality recording sound brilliant but a good quality recording can sound good on any equipment.
So in order to ensure I enjoy the music - let alone justify the cost of my HiFi equipment - I only buy good quality releases (whether that be vinyl or cd or download).
One of the sources my personal buying experience has caused me to trust is MoFi. That hasn’t changed. I absolutely enjoy the way they engineer their releases. even though I understand that each vinyl disc pressed from the master they use is very slightly less like that master than the disc they pressed immediately before it. I actually don’t care what it is they chose to do to the Master in order to be able to deliver to me an enjoyable recording.
MoFi’s business may be badly hurt by this and if so, so be it. But I bet we don’t now see a flood of used MoFi’s hitting the market. I reckon that those who have bought, will keep.
2 Likes
Kevin, I agree it is confusing! People are upset that MoFi was misleading not that the sound quality was bad. I think MoFi do possibly the best job of mastering and providing best possible end LP to the customers.
I surmise it a bit like this: You pay more for organic produce but you later find that the shop selling the organic produce is actually just selling you regular produce that they have sorted so the fresher produce is marked organic and the day old is marked regular. Does it really matter?
Organic vs. regular obviously matters a lot more than digital vs. analog.
Yes I hope for most people that organic is more important than analog, just an analogy for Mofi’s (alleged actions).
False or misleading advertising is simply that.
I agree that what MoFi said about their Mastering now looks to have been, frankly, misleading; and I agree with Michael Fremer that their cover-up was Watergate-esq in that it may well turn out to be more damaging than the original misdemeanour. But I am still not outraged and I still do not feel scammed.
To answer your question, for me, no, it doesn’t matter.
For those who bought and feel aggrieved, however, it’s a real shame their enjoyment has been spoiled; and if they feel they need redress, well, fair enough.
Regarding those who never bought but are screaming and shouting about it, I feel little other than very, very tired. We’re at war in all but name, we have a couple of over-privileged idiots scrapping over who gets to be our next Prime Minister, we can’t organise a ferry to France and the trains are on strike. Be angry, but not about this.
3 Likes
Maybe we should start another thread: The Ups and Downs of Buying Vinyl in the Digital Age
1 Like
AES conducted double blind testing of DSD vs PCM recordings. The listening panel was guessing as listener preferences were equally likely to pick DSD or PCM track. The listening panel consisted of audio production professionals, recording and mastering engineers.
Either technique is capable of making recordings free of audible artifacts. DSD offers the advantage of simpler sampling electronics which is why it is used in all but the most demanding applications.
1 Like
I’m not very bothered by all of this. My vinyls sound great. However, I listen to digital the most because of the convenience. If they’re going through DSD256 to get to the vinyl, I wish I had the option to download the DSD files directly. While the vinyl may be a very close approximation of the DSD, why not also release the DSD files?
2 Likes
They did, on SACD I believe. Does seem very odd that they have these DSD files and they don’t just sell them. Especially given they have an audience that would buy them.