Washington Post article on MoFi vs. Fremer vs. Esposito

Here's a link to a Washington Post article on the recent dustup with MoFi. The comments section (including posts by Michael Fremer) are interesting.

Disclaimer: This is a "public service announcement, a point Im adding since some forum members complained the last article I referenced here was "paywall protected", I'll note that, for those who are non-subscribers, free access to limited numbers of articles is available by registering (trade-off: The Post will deluge you with subscription offers)


Jim Davis spun the story well but if it gets into the court system the only winners will be the lawyers

So the old process that degrades after so many copies resulting in loss of quality that buyers can hear but is saved by digital means which more accurately maintains the quality of the original is not good enough for those who now want to sue. 

Talk about clinging to the past. 

All the best,

My post from August 6,2022:

"I have purchased vinyl that was cut from digital--like Steven Wilson remasters that are excellent. I’m not against such a purchase. But with MoFi, we were lied to--flat out. The One Steps contain an insert that purports to provide all of the steps in the reproduction chain. The insert and advertising were designed to extract more $ from the customer due, in whole or part, to what the consumer was led to believe was the purity of the process. Most importantly, MoFi knew that if it revealed that DSD was part of the process, some customers would avoid the purchase and others would not pay the enhanced price--so they purposely left that information out. Most state Consumer Fraud Acts provide that such an omission is a violation subjecting MoFi to enhanced damages on an individual or class action basis.

I suggest that MoFi offer exchange refunds or credits to any customer who wants to return a digital One Step to avoid such liability. Just sayin."


To elaborate today------

As a legal matter, the issue is not whether you or I can tell the difference between a Mobile Fidelity pressing directly from tape or with a DSD conversion with any particular record. It is about whether the purchaser was misled by the seller and was damaged.

Let’s look at it from this point of view:

Was the product sold as advertised? No.

Did the insert and public explanation claiming to show every step of the process cause me and others to make the purchase at the enhanced price? Yes

Would I or other purchasers have made the purchase had we known of the DSD conversion? For many, No.


Mobile Fidelity has obtained $ from me and other record buyers allowing them to make a profit through misleading advertising.

That's all that is required in a consumer fraud case.

+1 @gpgr4blu 


I'm a Physician.  I am not a fan of lawsuits.  However if it deters companies going forward from actively misleading people to make a buck, then it has a purpose.

My vinyl was tainted by A/D/A conversion(s).  There ought to be a law!  Maybe us audiophiles need to take the law in our own hands -- YEEHAW!!!