MoFi controversy

@ghasley I agree in that the final product is what it is, it hasn't suddenly morphed into something it wasn't prior to this knowledge. Still, people do deserve being given this knowledge prior to purchase.

I presume beyond this, any anger or dissatisfaction may be due to an analog bias by those who can't come to terms with digital as valid competitor to analog. For them kind of like double blind test in which they couldn't differentiate between digital and analog source, kinda bothers the ego.

I don't get using digital in analog chain, much prefer my vinyl analog mastered. To pay these prices for analog/digital hybrid doesn't make sense. Get a real nice streaming/cd setup and hear these recordings with both excellent sound quality and at reasonable cost.

MOfi’s statement: “utilizing original master tapes” would not be misleading if those master rapes are digital.  

Only in a literal sense, wink, wink, nod, nod. They know their market is people looking for finest analog reproduction, digital masters makes it something different. These are now hybrid recordings and should be marketed thusly.

And I have vinyl mastered or remastered digitally, does not have unique sound qualities of my thousands of full chain analog vinyl.

Failure to disclose certain information certainly isn't telling the truth. Whether that bothers one or not is for them to decide. I'd be interested in what SPARS code on jacket states.

@theaudioamp The masses may not have been screaming, but I've been telling myself this for many years now, Alex seems to be in same boat.

I'm not saying the old or new vinyl objectively better or worse, it just sounds different, and I'd agree it sounds more like my digital than the old vinyl. Vinyl and digital sound different on my vinyl and digital setups, so they do have different sound qualities, at least in my setup. And I'd bet vast majority of those with both setups find them to sound different.

I'm not judging one as better than other, Iove my streaming setup, rarely listen to vinyl anymore, digital is great. This is not about digital vs analog.

Guess its up to each individual to make cost/benefit analysis in this and every transaction.

@alexberger Probably 90% of my vinyl (over 3,500) is 1950's-80's recordings purchased in 1980's. Certainly sound different than my newer reissues, can't be sure if this due to remixing or adding digital to process. I'd just say more sterile sound quality, less warmth and naturalness vs original recordings. I much prefer my digital setup for newer recordings.

@theaudioamp Hard to say, amongst my vinyl collection are hot stampers, can imagine many more very early generation masters as vast majority of 3.5K vinyl collection is from the era it was first released in. I'm thinking most of difference I hear between old and new vinyl is from both differences in recording studios and mastering chain. I have a ton of 50's and 60's recordings, tube recording studio equipment, very little multi tracking. this sounds very different from late 60's into 80's vinyl, multi tracking, ss recording equipment. The much later vinyl I own does improve on most of the late 60's thru 80's vinyl, for the reasons you stated above. The earlier stuff I prefer on early vinyl, I like the warmth, resonance, natural qualities of those recordings, specifically on vinyl. I'm not going to complain about how digital does these recordings either, sound great as well. For most  recordings late 60's on up, in order of preference, best being last, old vinyl, new vinyl, digital streaming. Keep in mind these are my individual preferences played back on my individual vinyl and streaming systems.

For me, in general, these late 60's-80's recordings benefit from remastering and being played back via digital, I'm sure this has much to do with superiority of my steaming vs vinyl setups, but I also believe much of the remastering is done with digital playback in mind. I assume past 1980's recordings all being done digitally.

I get why some are ticked, and I understand suit has been instituted. What are the financial harms here, are Mofi recordings now worth less? For those individuals who own Mofi recordings, what do you estimate your harms are worth? Is the intention of suit to drive Mofi out of business?

I don't own any Mofi recordings, but I've mostly only heard positives in regard to sound quality. If sound quality hasn't suddenly morphed into lesser sound quality,  there is absolutely no qualitative loss.  Now, if its the case value of Mofi recordings have suddenly depreciated, which would be due solely to mass perceptive bias of digital inferiority,  there would still be no qualitative losses involved.  Can one prove analog recordings with digital step involved have less inherent worth than those with no digital step? Not sure this has been proved in case of Mofi, let alone with any vinyl media.

Certainly, there has been some level of misrepresentation by Mofi. I understand there should be some measure of consequence for Mofi, What amount of money, assuming there are settlement monies involved should go to owners of Mofi recordings? In my view there is no loss in regard to this specific issue to individual Mofi recording  purchasers. I'd like to see any money settlement go to preservation/restoration of analog masters.