Washington Post article on MoFi vs. Fremer vs. Esposito

@oldaudiophile 

My aunt used to head up the accounting department at London Records and I once asked her who owned the master tapes, she said that varies from artist to artist, even contract by contract for an individual artist.  She also said that she remembered, at times when a pressing was beyond end of life, they sometimes had to remaster an album, so they could recut the pressings.

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.

While I never bought any MoFi LP’s, I’ve bought quite a few newer release LP’s made years or decades after the CD, manufactured by the same company that manufactured the CD and made from the digital tapes.  I play the CD and the LP in immediate succession, and the LP always sounds a lot better…so, while MoFi might have acted like a MoFo, I don’t think their actions have necessarily detracted from the SQ experienced.

Sad but not surprising if true. However, I’ve never been that impressed by Mofi…they’ve seemed dubious since the”half speed master” days…and their  recent expensive reissues I’ve purchased are inferior to the originals.

To me…Mofi is pure hype and I would not be surprised if they were knowingly deceiving.

The biggest crime is …some people are apologists for them…saying “oh well they’ve done the best they can”…which would be fine if their business model and inflated profit was not entirely based on their use (and mysterious/exclusive access to) key master tapes.

Your opinion may differ.

MoFi was never a big part of my diet. I had quite a few of the old MoFi catalog that I bought new back in the day, and in most cases, the records sounded fiddled with-- some did have more bass, which worked fine when I was running a mini-HQD system, but you can hear the difference between the old MoFi and the "right" OG--sometimes just a bog standard US issue, without a lot of trouble.

I bought a few One Steps and a couple of Chad’s UHQRs more for curiosity than anything else. Other than checking that they weren’t damaged on arrival, I have not really played them at length, let alone compared them to other copies I have.

I think the "limited edition" "deluxe" vinyl is marketed to capture those who don’t want to go to the trouble of messing with older copies, dealing with sorting through different pressings, and having to come to grips with the condition and grading of old records. They are intended to appeal to someone who wants a "definitive" edition and is willing to pay for it. The marketing (and MoFi is not unique in this) also plays upon the FOMO, and gotta have it. Abraxas One Step is now $2,000 in the secondary market- a boon for flippers or someone who bought 2 copies, one to keep, another to flip.

I think what MoFi did was appalling, as I said upthread. Whether they can restore their customer base’s confidence is a different question. Some people won’t care. They have been cagey about this since it was revealed, but if it was no big deal, why did they not only fail to reveal it, but make affirmative representations, in writing and on video, that it was "all analog"? I think people will be more skeptical now, even where analog is overtly claimed. Where it is not, the assumption is there is digital sourcing or process.

There is an interesting sub-discussion within the SHoffman thread (huge, like over 700 pages) over the "road not travelled." If MoFi had introduced Abraxas, the first One-Step, by explaining that a combination of things: their ability to capture on 4xDSD a transparent copy of a true master, not a safety or copy tape, their proprietary mastering gear, tricked out by the late Tim de Paravicini, their ability to master the record to extract the most, plus the elimination of a couple metal plate steps in manufacturing and their "better" vinyl formula---led to a qualitative improvement in SQ, they were at little risk- they pressed, I think, only 2,500 copies of this first One Step; given the reception to that record, word of mouth (and positive reviews) would have done the rest.

FWIW, the 4xDSD process is not limited to the One Steps. The company is currently correcting source info on the new and forthcoming releases and is supposed to correct their back catalog as well. 

I don’t know if it will be a turning point for the industry, but it seems like many people are using this as an example of the analog or die! camp not being able to tell the difference. I don’t know about that-- I have records that were taken from a digital source- King Crimson’s Live in Toronto 2016 sounds wonderful, and I listened to it the night after hearing them in a 2,000 seat hall. I can’t play as loud, or scale to full size of that hall at home, but sonically, a very convincing reproduction.

This is an embarrassment, not only for MoFi, but to some extent, the legacy audio press.