There's an Audiophiliac imposter scamming my viewers, DON'T respond! I don't do giveaways or ask for money (except for my Patreon).

The issue is their dishonesty, not the results.

I feel cheated by MOFI, because customer pays a lot for the records. We all thought the price is justified due to the complex manufacturing prozess. Thats the lie.

Misleading customers on purpose can never end well. While I understand and appreciate why they might have made the decision to use the dsd process, to actually call the process the GAIN 2™ Ultra Analog™ System for Vinyl is misleading and they deserve all the criticism they are getting.

I don't care that it's digital, I own several Newvelle records pressings which are all digital. But, they're £50-60. The objection I have is the fact that I've paid the best part of £200 (by the time you add shipping and duty in the UK) for what I assumed was an all analogue pressing. Just sell me the 4x DSD file as a download. It'll save me tube and stylus life!

Steve, honesty vs deception is the issue. The MOFI records than I own sound the same as they did before. I have no doubt. However, my opinion of MOFI the company is different than before. The Original Master label on their records is blatant deception in addition to other marketing and lack of text. If you bought an amplifier that was named 30w Tube Amplifier and opened it up and found solid state, and the company said tube was just a trademark and the amp still sounds good, would that be cool?

Funny how industry "journalists" are trying to downplay this. Well since they get many releases for free (as promos) I guess they have nothing to complain about.

Steve I don’t think the point is the quality of sound. We all know they sound great. The point is that you are paying a premium for what you are told is something that it is not. It’s lying to the customer. As to your point about “do we need more bad news”. This is how many of us escape that other bad news. Peace

I don't care about the "purity" of the tape. The records sound great. It is the fact that they obfuscated the process and then charged a premium price under a false pretense. That's what is upsetting. BTW, I am keeping my Mofi's, but I might hesitate to buy more at the premium price.

It's a simple issue. They implied "all analog" and they traded on this. Turns out they mislead their customers. No wonder people feel betrayed. It's not a matter of resulting sonics, it's about a callous lack of transparency.

Steve, I think the point is that customers have been misled believing that were buying a product advertised as pure analogue and charged accordingly with very high prices. Nothing to do with sound quality. It’s about money

Boils down to this: did the company make false claims about their products and charge a premium based on those claims? If yes, why should the consumer believe anything the company says, ever?

The controversy is not about 'purity' or anything, but about the fact that they LIED!

it's not about the sound it's about corporate lying or misleading about the product. Most vinyl guys agree about the sound quality of MoFi (which is what matters the most), and i'm 100% sure that if MoFi never mislead consumers, this controversy would not exist, and people would just enjoy the great sound of their records.

I respect Steve and have been a subscriber for a number of years. However I agree with others that say he is missing the point on this one. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the records suddenly sound bad. Customers have made buying decisions (i.e. accepted a high purchase price) based on an understanding of what the product was. Had they known that the product was not end-to-end analogue, they might not have been willing to pay so much. They could sell their Mo-Fi records on, but will surely make a significant loss.

I don't care too much about the mastering chain. All MoFi ever had to do was say, "When available, we use the master tapes. If they're not available we use a proprietary process (occasionally digital, occasionally duplicated tapes, or whatever) it's private, and we stand by the sound quality." They ought to just admit it. Once the question was raised, their answers were evasive and dodgy. It has nothing to do with how their records sound....nor vinyl vs. digital.

I think you are missing the point on this one. From my pov, I'm certainly not arguing about the sound quality. But it's the fact they mislead customers to believe they were buying something they weren't.

Thanks, Steve. I like most of the MOFI records, but I agree that they should've specified that they were using a 4XDSD step. The records also should not cost $125 when you're cutting from DSD. It doesn't require the same time and manpower from what I can tell.

Not revealed as being "less than pure", the issue is have they been "less than honest". Strange how you, Fremer, Micallef, (I'm sure there are some other audio industry folks I missed) all seem to have missed the point. I don't think any is suggesting Mofi puts out a bad product. But you have to admit the marketing has been, at least, deceptive. IMHO. 👽✌️

It's the conscious lack of transparency that's the problem, so that they can sell these for $100+. I'm sure most agree that these sound great, regardless of the chain.

I personally think people were feeling ripped off because they believed to be buying an analog recording and of course it was mastered from a digital source and people bought it not knowing this And not being told this. myself would feel pretty peed off too especially after paying a premium price False advertising was involved as far as the customers were concerned

I'm unclear why you reference the outrage but don't refer to the source, and even go out of your way to not discuss it. Music Direct repeatedly lied either by omission or commission regarding the mastering chain of their products. PoetryonPlastic even identified a time they lied to you on this topic back in 2010 when you worked for CNET. Do you not care that they lied to you, and you gave their lies your support by publishing them? Last question, if the mastering chain doesn't matter, and 'purists' are misguided, then why did MoFi/Music Direct repeatedly lie precisely on this point?

It appears that most of us agree that (i) these LPs mostly sound great, (ii) but we thought they were AAA (because MoFi either explicitly said so or heavily implied it (depends on the album)) and they weren't. And while they sound great, they coulda sounded even better. Am I losing sleep over it? No. Do I plan to sue them? I do not. Is this a sky-is-falling-moment? It is not. It's just tacky, slimy, and cheesy. When you really look at all the places where they describe the mastering/cutting processes inside the LP, and you compare that with MoFi's shameful double-speak over the last two weeks, you realize this was a key component to how they sell these products; it's important to the MoFi narrative, not some immaterial detail that someone forgot to mention. As a regular buyer who preferred Chad's and Joe Harley's stuff anyway, I won't be buying any more MoFi LPs. And I don't think this is just going to blow over within the vinyl community. In fact, as an avid follower of this hobby, I can't think of a modern era debacle quite this bad, from a company's perspective. We consumers appreciate that there are many unknowns about an LP's provenance, but that makes credibility even more important. Losing 100% of your credibility is a big deal.

I think that you’re missing the point entirely Steve. Remember “ethics” or “integrity”. Not to mention , “deception”. They lied and charged premium for actually cutting corners. Not analog transfer that they advertised. So you don’t have problems with them charging ppl $100 for marketing lie? Interesting.

I haven't heard ANYONE say the albums aren't good. The problem is it was a lie, a scam, a con, a grift so that MoFi could charge more money. That is the issue.

I personally do not have a big investment in Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab’s products, but I do understand the argument and feel that it is a valid argument. If you are spending $150 on one album it’s hard to argue that these expensive box sets aren’t an investment. As an investment it would stand that people buying these as an investment are also hoping that their investment has the potential to go up in value - otherwise, if prices always dropped one could wait and buy them cheaper. However, one of the benefits of having an album that was sourced from the master tape (provided that master tapes degrade with time) then in theory you are getting “the best analog transfer” you will ever get. Now since finding out that these Mobile Fidelity records are sourced from a digital transfer, and digital transfers do not degrade like master tapes do then this “marketing lie” that people like you would like to dismiss actually effects the price on the secondary market. If you say well that isn’t what “true music fans care about” I would respond that that isn’t for you to decide. I would also say that there is nothing stopping them from repressing these digital records with 0% difference or degradation in sound as many times as they want. If you say well the sound hasn’t changed so get over it - would you have the same view if we were talking about a painting like a Picasso - if you bought a Picasso painting thinking it is an original, enjoyed it as such, then found out that it was a reproduction and then was told, your eyes haven’t changed and you enjoyed it before you knew it was a fake so you are being petty - I don’t think anyone would take this stance. This is a big deal for the industry and should be treated as such - in my opinion. Love your videos but strongly disagree with you on this point.

Steve the issue is not if these MoFi LPs sound good or not, they sound great. The issue is that MoFi is selling a product at a premium in a desiving way as if they cut their products directly from the analog tape. They knew that if they were transparent about the process they wouldn't have been able to sell those albums at those prices so they decided to be opaque from the get go.

Steve, I think you are missing the real sticking point here, which is honesty and integrity. I could care less what is in the signal chain if the end result sounds good. I just don’t want to be mislead or lied to about what that chain is. If I buy a product and find out after the fact it was not what it was claimed to be, that manufacturer or reseller looses my trust and I will not patronize them again. For example, let’s say Mrs. Audiophiliac buys some fabric to make a shirt for you. That fabric was sold to her as 100% pure silk. During the sewing process she somehow discovers the fabric is actually 30% Rayon. Would she be displeased…..?

I am impressed with what they can do with DSD, and 4 times DSD is probably pretty amazing, and they can fix things that you can't fix in analog but... In a market where all analog is of such well known importance to the consumer, to evade clarity around the subject is really not ok. My Mofi records says master with the ultra analog gain 2 system. They were getting away with a level of deception and got called out on it.

I agree with others, Steve missed the point. The issue is Mobile Fidelity mislead its customers. I could care less if it is digital or analog. As Duke Ellington says, "If it sounds good, it IS good." Just be honest about the process. What is so hard about that? Chad Kassem and his Analog Productions label is always upfront about the entire process. All analog. If it is not the original master or it is digital, he tells the customer.

It’s pretty straightforward really from my perspective. They purposely misled their customers, through their own marketing material, and did not correct anyone who spoke about their product as being all analog. That is a complete breach of trust. I will be keeping my Bob Dylan MOFIs as they are the best copies I have heard. That does not mean I am okay with being purposely misled about the product I’ve been buying.

Unfortunately, we will start seeing the "name brand" audiophile writers coming out with "the end sound that matters analog or digital" one by one (similar to MQA). I do not blame them one bit. Let's face it, if it were not for MoFi/Music Direct, Audioquest, and Upscale Audio, the advertising revenue for the two large US Audiophile publications would be dismal. The fact is the "deception part" of the messaging. MOST buy a $125 One Step to be closest to the analog source. If the DSD sounds better is irrelevant. It's the fact that MOST thought they were buying a PURE analog mastering chain. I think the writers know this and are trying to twist the argument a tad. Anyway, I do not expect the writers to say anything any different.

This has NOTHING to do with the sound of their production. This has to do with Marketing Omissions. In 2017 they did a video where they said the Vinyl IS AAA, when it is not. They are commanding prices of an AAA when there is a DSD step in the process. Why not have that in their literature??? OMISSION in marketing is the problem not sound of their products

The process of transferring a master mix tape to to a lathe master is even more complicated than Steve implies in this video. As an engineer who's career began in the all analog era, I understood that the mastering process was, as a producer I worked with at the time called it, like sailing boat-very nuanced. The mastering engineer must make eq adjustments as the lathe cut to deal with the loss of treble and bass as you get closer to the center. For that reason, a tape safety was made during this process frequently on 1/4 inch tape at 15ips which is half the speed of the master. ALL subsequent pressings were made from that eqed safety master and the original mix master was stored in the vault. Never forget that none of the major record labels could give a damn about audio quality from the recording session to the final pressing. Sad but true.

I think Steve might be slightly missing the point here: Its not a digital vs analog issue. It’s an ethical one

Thanks Steve. How would you feel if you were sold a tchesky record (of which you are a big fan as mentioned in a lot of your videos) with the assumption that it was recorded in a church, but years after you discover it was recorded as individual tracks in different studios? Regardless of Sound quality, wouldn't this annoy you at some level ? How about lab grown meat burger using a farm regular meat ? I think (and apologies if this upsets you) big figures in Audio world like yourself should line-up with consumers in calling any manufacturer or record label doing such practices, "The Audiophiliac" not really caring about it gives MOFI and others more confidence to keep and innovate and such practices in an already niche market. Thanks again

In my opinion: 1) It's about a deceptive component that convinced a lot of Audiophiles and Music Lovers the MoFi products were from pure Analogue masters, with no digital processing. 2) However, you had to know there was digital processing ( DSD) with most of it, regardless of which physical media. 3) A large portion of Audiophiles have hung their hats, and egos: on this whole Analogue vs. Digital thing. Now they feel betrayed, as well as humiliated. I have several MoFi CD's. Most sound incredibly beautiful. I have no interest in dumping

I stream so this doesn’t personally impact me but here are my thoughts. From an audio standpoint Steve is correct, but MOFI is part of a second hobby, the collecting and trading of records. MOFI’s own promotion materials state, “MOFI engineers begin with the original master tapes and meticulously cut a set of lacquers…every UDIS pressing serves as an immaculate replica of the lacquer sourced.” People in the record collecting hobby relied on this statement to justify paying the higher prices that MOFI asked or, give the low numbers of product available, higher prices on the secondary market. Would the collectors have paid these prices had they known that “the original master tape” as actually a digital copy? As another commented wrote, when you buy a classic car thinking it’s all original and find out that it does not have the original engine the car is worth less than you thought it was, even if there is no difference in the driving experience. Jerry Seinfeld was sued recently when he sold a Porsche that he thought was original and it was not.

If they, Mofi, are proud on what they could achieve in terms of sound quality with their methods and procedures - and trusting the recognition they got, they can be proud - then why not tell it? Why hide under ambiguous wordings, trying to avoid the d-word under all circumstances? There was a deliberate decision to do so, and they must have had a reason for this. This didn’t happen accidentally, this was a decision weighing pros and cons. If sound quality is all that counts, then what did they fear?

Hey Steve, if the sound’s great, I’m good with it. And I don’t mind great sounding records that have a digital step. For me, it’s MOFI’s obvious deception of their customers. Takes a lot more marketing (and money) to earn customers back than it does to make them. Leadership has nearly missed their opportunity to apologize for the deception. This is business school 101.

It’s amazing to me people don’t understand collecting and prices. I’ve only got 2 Mofi s so I’m far from a serious collector but let me put it in car speak. If I sold you a numbers matching “70 SS Chevelle for you to find out the engine block was from a “71 you should be pissed. Is it a Chevrolet?, Does it still make you grin? Does it snap your head back when flooring it? Yes yes and yes. But it’s not numbers matching therefore not worth the price paid.

I still like my MOFIs and they are some of the best sounding recordings I own. The thing that does bother me is that they know that audiophiles prefer analogue transfers and they did thier best to remain vague about their transfer process. They allowed their customers to assume the products were all analogue when they were not.

I dont mind digital in the production steps but please charge accordingly, not $125.

The problem for mofi is their lack of transparency,which made them get away with overpricing their records. Also,Chad Kassem from Analogue Productions said it best; “the question is not whether your album sounds great, it’s whether it can sound even better when using an original analogue tape without digital conversion”.

People who defend MoFi here are missing the point. Main issue is misrepresentation of the product and charging premium for it. Imagine you bought a Ferrari, and it drives great and gives you pleasure. Later you discover that instead of Ferrari engine they installed a Toyota engine with similar amount of horse powers. Would you be upset or would you say - who cares, it still drives great? Would you go back to Ferrari and demand to have a real Ferrari engine or would you keep the car as is and "enjoy it"?

The records all sound as good today as they did when we thought they were AAA cuts, but that’s not the point. Mobile Fidelity was disingenuous in their marketing and sold us high-priced goods under false pretense. If they truly believed that cutting lacquers from DSD transfers resulted in the best possible quality, they could have made that clear and even made that a selling point. Instead they consciously omitted that step in all of their materials that detail the mastering chain. The printed inserts packed into their (ahem) “one-step” releases show an illustration of a tape reel to represent the master with an arrow that points directly to the lacquer. We now know that is a lie, as it should show a hard-drive in between those steps to indicate the interim step of digitizing the tapes. So, yeah, the records may still sound great but that doesn’t change the fact that they aren’t what Mo-Fi advertised them as being.

Steve this is one of your best videos ever the way you explained how the recording sessions we’re done and how master tapes were produced was extremely informative.

To me it wasn't so much an issue that they were doing that, rather the branding and labeling that was a bit misleading. Example - the latest Bowie reissue of Ziggy Stardust plainly states that it was cut from a 192k transfer right there on the cover obi strip for the whole world to see. To my ears it sounds amazing. So the sound quality isn't most peoples' gripe, it was that almost all vinyl enthusiasts assumed that if it said "Original Master Recording", and the original master was a tape, that tape is what it would be cut from directly. Also, there is the whole other topic of the marketing term "One Step". Now we know it really means "Two Step". The whole concept of "One Step" was that every step in a production chain adds or subtracts from the fidelity. They are adding a transfer step. Now, how much does that transfer step add or subtract? Probably very little. However it could be argued that using the father/mother method of vinyl production wasn't that deleterious either. Most vinyl enthusiasts weren't the ones getting obsessed with steps or the number of them, that was MoFi themselves. You could buy the one step for $100/$120 or the regular father/mother version for $50/60. So if they were going to make a big deal (and expensive) out of "steps" and then purposely omitted one of those steps from their marketing material - that was pretty disingenuous to say the least. As the old saying goes - The coverup is worse than the crime.

It's obvious deception. I am surprised you don't find this is so wrong. They know what they are doing.

Here's a statement from their web-site:"First and foremost, we only utilize first generation original master recordings as source material for our releases." Maybe they do sound good, even if they're digitally sourced, but this is a lie and they should cop to it. Think about the 75th anniversary Blue Notes vs. the 80th anniversary and Classic series, let alone the Tone Poet series. The 75th anniversary LPs are fine, but for the 80th and Tone Poet series, BN released some stuff they had already done 5 years earlier on digitally sourced LPs. This time time it was all analogue. Lots of us believe analogue in the mastering chain, from beginning to end, is better. Maybe we're wrong, but MoFi based its marketing on our assumption. Sorry, but this is just not acceptable, whatever the quality of the releases.

It's not about people thinking they sound bad. It's about MoFi misleading the buyers. They knew if they published that there was a digital step involved they couldn't sell as many. What if your Cornwall's were nothing more than Panasonic Thrusters on the inside? Would you still like them or be upset that you were misled? I own zero One Steps. For me, the biggest fall out from this is the "oh well" attitude from reviewers I once trusted.

They mislead us. The records still sound the same. But they let us believe for years there was no digital in the chain. Not selling my MOFI's. But the bloom is off the rose when it comes to all these audiophile reissues.

Is it DSD or LSD? I always get the two mixed up.

This goes beyond an "oops" or "misstep", you gotta be kidding.

Misleading, deceptive , manipulative, are all adjectives that come to mind over this. Yeah the records sound great, but people were lead to believe they were getting something special for $125 even though they didn’t say it was all analog. They led people to believe it and made no effort to correct it, they profited off of it. People were knowingly duped. Pretty sucky if you ask me.

This is purely about mis-selling of MOFI products to us all. Their business practices have opened them up to losing a significant proportion of their previously loyal customer base and possible class action-type lawsuits. The high quality sound engineering is not disputed. Trust has been lost and that will be difficult to recover.

I like Steve and love his channel, but think he missed the point on this one. It’s simply about transparency- not sound. If you pay your own money and believe it to be one thing, snake oil or not, you want to know that the ingredients are honest. It’s not that it may sound better or be “superior” it’s about trusting the company or individual you are dealing with. Mofi was deceptive. They may sound great, but they flat out were sketchy. That’s just disappointing.

The point you're missing Steve is that a lot of audiophiles are convinced that A. It's all about the music B. Analog is superior to digital C. Digital imparts a sound that ruins music D. Digital loses something that can never be retrieved E. They can hear the difference If you believe those five things (which I personally do not) then any step that converts the recording to a digital form loses the full content and beauty of the analog recording. And if you believe that, then why would you ever buy a vinyl record that was made with a digital step in the process? If the master is a 4X DSD file and you want the best possible sound, why wouldn't you just buy 4X DSD files? And why would those 4X DSD files need to cost so much? Do you really not understand that this controversy means, for audiophiles who ascribe to the beliefs listed above, that vinyl with a digital step in the process is essentially a waste of time because it's categorically not really the best possible sound quality? Again let me state, I don't believe in the idea that analog is better than digital. I don't even believe it's "all about the music " I think stereo is fun because of the equipment and the technology, and good music is a nice perk of the hobby. I'm a HiFi nerd who likes playing with the stuff as much as he likes music. I'd gladly own any of those MoFi records because I know they're well made, but I get my records from less expensive sources most of the time. There's no way I'm ever going to pay those prices for vinyl, certainly not for the sound "quality." If I want what I believe is going to be the best possible sound quality, at least as far as medium is concerned, I'll just buy a high res digital copy. If you look at the controversy and you have any concern for sound quality, this pretty much kills any reason to buy vinyl from them, no matter what angle you look at it from. Either digital is better in which case you should go ahead and buy digital files, or analog is better in which case these records don't qualify, or it doesn't matter in which case there's no reason to spend over $100 on a record. Again for clarity, I'm in the "what sounds good to me is ultimately all that matters" mindset. But that means I'm not going to spend that much money for something I could get for far less. The value of a really well made record obviously remains, regardless of whether or not a digital phase is employed in the production, but for many people, the primary impetus to buy the MoFi One-Step pressings was to have a pure analog copy. If you are one of those people, this is a punch in the gut and I can absolutely see why people are upset about it. It doesn't make sense for me to tell them to just stop caring because I don't share their priorities.

I’m annoyed and feel duped! I wouldn’t mind a a digital step like they do if the recording sounded great. I just don’t like the sneaky way they did not tell us. The head of marketing should be fired.

Thank you for another wonderful lecture, professor. Made my day :)

It‘s missleading advertisement if you tell people, who buy records for over 100bucks, you are using the mastertapes and put them „in one step“ on vinyl, and you actually use a dsd file. It‘s as wrong as selling non organic food as organic.

Hey Steve, this vid spurred a question: With all the master tapes that are apparently floating around in the world, is it possible that there are master tapes still in existence from Steely Dan and others that were lost in the Universal fire a few years back? Just curious. It would be awesome if there are still copies of those analog gems floating around.

Thanks, Steve! Excellent as always. The things of which you speak are precisely why I enjoy the old Sheffield lab direct to disk recordings of the 70's-80's. Though there are not that many, I really like hearing (as close as possible) that which was played & recorded, without some audio engineer tweaking and twisting things to get the sound he wants. I do not want a "middle man's" impressions or interpretation of what the music should sound like, and it's hard to find those kinds of recordings today.

Hey Steve, hope all is well, thank you for taking the time to make these great informative videos,so the first step 1 I purchased was Yes- Fragile all I can say is that the vinyl was noisy on my low #ed pressing even after a good cleaning, for people who are willing to pay the bucks mofi commands they should at least have better quality control I’d figure I’d try another one which was Santana- Abraxas & yes that one sounds incredible So my outcome is if they sound up to audiophile standards TO ME then the source they are cut from does not bother me as long as they make my system shine

Yes, There are fall worst things going on in the world, and people talk about them on political websites. This is being spoken about in the vinyl community and they feel they were purposely deceived. What MOFI did was simply fraud and that is wrong. Some of the people who purchased these albums had to make budget sacrifices to do so. Don't tell me that the people at MOFI, didn't know that the majority of the purchasers were being made with the belief that they were 100% analog. I think what MOFI did should be against the law.

I just want to add one thing, for music recorded in the pre-digital age, before 1980, perhaps the best way to buy a 100% pure analog LP is go for original pressings! For a lot of folks analog "purity" is crucial, it seems. I get that for sure. I personally go for older pressings when the price and condition are inline.

I am all for analog but it is funny that almost everyone (some claim they heard it) did not notice the digital in the sound for decades.

I wonder how this will be handled in Stereophile magazine. MoFi is a major advertiser.

They charge a AAA price, that’s undeniable.

So you missed school on the day when it was taught that it is wrong to lie? Or is it the fact that they have been caught lying.

nice you mention rudy van gelder...man! those early 60's (and late 50's) jazz albums recorded in his NJ studio are simply legendary!!

Thank you, Steve. Great explanation on what the mastering engineer does and what mastering is. I completely agree with your assessment of the situation.

I don't own Mo-Fi vinyl simply because of the price. I imagine existing owners are getting uptight because far too many have bought the Mo-Fi LPs in part because they see it as them as the best of the best and therefore an investment and I suspect they now feel less confident about their investment in Mo-Fi albums. I buy LPs to play and enjoy, not as an investment and as we know (or should know) the value of any investment can fall as easily as it can rise.

I like "some" MoFi pressings, I'm nowhere near the camp that feels a certain label is the definitive pressing of whatever. I care about the sound, I don't care who presses it or how, if it's from the original tapes, yay. That being said, some time ago, MoFi did give a small explanation of their pressings. Silver labels were mastered from the "Best available source", while Original Master Recordings were "Mastered from the original analog tapes whenever possible", both of those statements while being accurate, leave a lot of grey area, but again, I don't need to know ALL the gory details of "how". It should be interesting to see how this plays out. In my opinion, it'll blow over and the greater majority of people will continue to purchase MoFi pressings. Look at it this way, so many complain about after market pricing of variant vinyl from RSD, but, someone is still buying them at overinflated pricing. There will be those who swear them off for whatever reason, I think the "marketing" spin being delivered over the years is what may bother the "purists" in the hobby. Again, it's not occupying my time enough to care, I still look for the best sounding album, yes, I'm not a fan of the companies marketing method, but we'll see how strong the convictions of the consumer end up being.

You're missing the point Rudy van Gilder wasn't misleading anybody when he made records because he wanted to sell them for high profits Mofi misrepresented their product made them in small quantities and charged an enormous amount for records that should have been selling for considerably less.

Does the Mofi experience show that the sound of vinyl has more (or all) to do with the downstream playback system rather than analogue (continuous) vs digital (broken up) signal? That’s a bit of a shock.

I think a potentially good outcome from this “Broohaha” is that MoFi have now agreed to include a “SPARS”-like code on their record covers to identify how their records are made. Chad Kassem has said Analogue Productions will also do this. To this end Intervention Records (and I’m sure others) already have a label on their covers indicating their record is 100% analog. Having the audiophile record labels universally display a standardised code and be absolutely transparent about their manufacturing process would be a great outcome. It won’t change the sound of the records, but at least we’ll know exactly what we are buying.

A pragmatic view: If I’m buying vinyl…I want it to be all analogue. Otherwise there is no need to have it on vinyl simply because vinyl is a medium that takes up a lot of space……and I’m running out of space after many, many years of collecting. So if you can make such a great record from your digital file, just sell me the file in some digital format….don’t imply that its all analogue; and forgo all the “one step”, 180 gram silent vinyl, ornate boxes, heavy tip-on jackets, and foil lettering histrionics. Just sell me the digital file at a much cheaper price point.

I'm befuddled how shady, unethical advertising practices, if not downright lies, are not bothersome. If I were to find out that the burgers I have raved about for years was horse meat instead of beef, I wouldn't just think, "Oh, well that was tasty, so I'm good with it." My thought would be that I as a consumer have a right to know what I'm getting for my money, and not to have half-truths made and false assumptions supported by the businesses I patronize. FWIW, I only have a few Mo-Fi records, and I have no issue with them, so I personally have no dog in the fight. But shouldn't the cost to produce the LPs also reduce the costs involved, and thus the costs they charge the consumer?

Steve, there are only two questions that require(d) an honest answer from MoFi: a) Were customers 'willfully' deceived' by Mofi? Which it now appears they were. And b) would the reissues sound better if they were 'all analogue? The answer to which would be, "Quite possibly." This reminds me of another famous controversy: Is there real beef in a McDonald's hamburger? Which it turns out the answer was "Not much." And would the burger taste better if there were? The answer being the same: Quite possibly.

The placebo effect comes to vinyl.

The end result doesn’t have anything to do with it. They misrepresented their product and charged for it. False advertising. That is the problem and destroyed my respect for the company.

Thanks for great vid. It so refreshing to hear you ask the main question of how did record sound BEFORE and how does it sound AFTER learning about mofi's mastering? I think all this drama is more about audiophile egos than actual quality of mofi and digital. It wasn't an issue at all 3 weeks ago.

Hi Steve, 1. Yes, certainly if a person feels that there has been some misrepresentation, then that’s for them to work through or act on. 2. After watching today’s “Audiophiliac” installment, I paused and said to myself, Wow! That was a TED talk quality presentation. And that’s why I stay subscribed.

Deal with the past and proceed with caution as a consumer. Since you mention the Stones/ABKCO SACDs, the DSD sourced vinyl cut at that time (mastered by RL) is considered some of the best sounding pressings of those albums... but they are labeled as digitally sourced

I find it interesting that the analog purists that claim they can tell the difference between analog and digital, loved these lps thinking they were all analog.

I may get some eye rolls with this, but when I purchased the Simon and Garfunkel one-step of Bridge overTroubled Waters and listened to it, I suspected that the nearly non-existent background noise sans hiss was suspect. I still have the album because the sound is superb! My thought then was that it was bumped to digital at some point, because that is the only way to virtually completely remove background noise; that is usually done through a program like Adobe Audition, which I use professionally. The digital process and noise removal is a compromise, but in most cases much more tolerable than tape hiss! I DO understand some people feeling deceived, and Mo-Fi will need to tactfully deal with it for those people. As far as Santana's Abraxas is concerned, I was not able to get the one-step, but instead I purchased the SACD. Now that I know that it was bumped to DSD, I feel that I saved almost one-hundred dollars by paying $35 for something that is just as good as the one-step, without pops resulting from dust landing on the record! And yes, I am also a vinyl junkie, but get over it people!!!

I still haven't heard an apology from MoFi. I think the FTC should look into MoFi's questionable practices.

I really rate the sound of the Mofi albums I have and will still buy more. But it’s wrong how they’ve let us believe that the records are all analog . Reckon the prices of the albums should now be less

I am not upset considering that I only buy vintage LP, some of them like DG labels were proud to show "digital recording" on the cover !-) For the rest I had always prefer SACD or CD with DSD upsampling. So I am not surprised that MOFI followed the same path to cut they records...I tried to record SACD on audio tape and the result was surprisingly good. The only bad news is for analog snob willing to pay fortune on some good LP DSD sourced recordings and refuse to admit how good and mature digital sound is today (flac/cd/sacd). The LP business and hype was very lucrative, now it seems that CD/SACD are back in popularity regarding physical collection...and this is the "bad "news for silver discs lovers like me because prices will go up now. Hopefully I already built my dream collection during these last years.

Steve, madee a little sad that you entirely missed the point that people are upset. It's purely that they've been intentionally misled, no one is questioning the quality of the UD1S pressings, merely that MoFi had clearly stated they were AAA pressings which wasnt true. Therefor should they cost $125 which people are paying on the understanding that a AAA copy is far harder to produce than one from a digital copy.

For us Canadians, some of these Mofi releases are closing in on 200 bucks! It says "Ultra Analog". But it's anything but so we have a right to be pissed..... Scammed

Axiom: There is no transparent recording medium not even dsd. We don't know for cerain that the mofi dsd master files are no worse than an analogue master tape. It's not an abstract "purity test" because a doubt remains that introducing digital has resulted in degradation of the sound. When your paying thousands for a one step transfer you have the right to know that the process is all analogue which is what mofi claim it is. Don't forget that fact. If it isn't all analogue, then mofi has to prove that there has been no degradation. The only reason they use dsd is because a dsd master never wears out unlike an original master tape. If you don't pay for your mofi records and get given free comps, it is very easy to say I don't give a crap how they're mastered.

I'm a digital guy. I find the whole thing kind of humorous.

I love their SACDs. I feel it gets me close to that master tape than vinyl , more often than vinyl does.

Hi stev am just wandering if you had a chance to look at the polk l800 am interested to know what you think

It’s the final sound that matters but I feel misled like many people. Steve, for the first time you sound like your speaking with a corporate mouth. The corporation just kept digging a hole of misrepresentation IMO. My MoFi’s all sound the same but you know what they did.

Terrible take IMO. I could care less if they have a DSD step. The question is why did Mofi avoid making it clear that’s what they do in their literature and make customers believe it’s all analogue. I think you avoided that question as well in your video and just made the point you knew the people at Mofi and they’re good guys. Strange take that a reviewer doesn’t believe in transparency.

I have four albums on CD. Two of them are Pink Floyd - The Wall and Sting - Nothing like the sun. Is it the same with the CD.s to or? Love to look at the 24 kt Gold...

I enjoyed hearing your take and stories on this subject! Just like a Mastering Engineer's opinion of how it sounds, I decide with my own ears! :)