Do Mobile Fidelity Vinyl Re-issues Have a Digital Step in the Process?

[facten]

Respectfully, a “timely article” that isn’t a complete article that actually discusses the real issue is irresponsible journalism at best. TAS and MoFi both knwe the real issue at hand. Yet, it wasn’t covered?

Read post #916, seems like the intent was to come to MOFI's defense.

 

[PeterA]

WBF doesn’t have anywhere near the reach or breadth of content that we provide. We reach 1.3 million unique audiophiles every month. In addition our writing team is the most experienced at evaluating equipment of any publication.

Lee,

I am counted as being on your email lists but I choose to read WBF. I used to continue to receive your magazines long after I discontinued my subscription. I prefer user feedback and comparative reviews so find more value here. Some enjoy both. I can not say how many read but do not join audio forums. Perhaps Steve and Ron know those numbers. I do enjoy discussing things with people around the globe. I do think that there are many experienced and knowledgeable hobbyists who share very insightful opinions about sound, set up, technology, gear, and music. I can not say who is more experienced at doing that. The market is sorting it all out and readers make their choices.

 

[Audire]

Another thought…

For the Mofi haters out there, the lack of transparency is a big issue and I understand that.

For more thoughtful observers, the technical comments make this a more innocent mistake by MFSL imho:

1. They were having much difficulty obtaining the tapes. An onsite tape transfer was a good solution.
2. 4xDSD offers extremely good fidelity to live events (I do in fact do professional recordings in DSD) and is very close to capturing everything on that master tape.

So the technical elements that Robert and Jonathan covered are germane to the discussion.

The resulting sound in any event has been superb. This is not worth filing a class action lawsuit over and hurting one of the industry’s best companies.

Innocent mistake? MoFi did this to the Audiophile community for over 10 years! There’s absolutely nothing innocent about it:

(1) MoFi purposely placed deceiving images on their website to promote their products (#722).
(2) MoFi purposely worded their own website stating their vinyl was from the Master Tapes (#722).

False marketing, false statements, false images, and false emails to customers. Read the entire thread and you will see numerous facts to substantiate this statement. This wasn’t any “innocent mistake.“

 

[bonzo75]

"We can debate whether the questions were hard or soft..." Ron did just that and more. The more is probably what triggered Tima to respond. The more part reflects questioning the motive and integrity of TAS in not asking questions that Ron thinks should have been asked. Who is Ron? Same question asked by a different person could have resulted a different consequence.

after reading Lee’s #916, I can only regret Ron didn’t go at him harder

 

[bonzo75]

Another thought…

For the Mofi haters out there, the lack of transparency is a big issue and I understand that.

For more thoughtful observers, the technical comments make this a more innocent mistake by MFSL imho:

1. They were having much difficulty obtaining the tapes. An onsite tape transfer was a good solution.
2. 4xDSD offers extremely good fidelity to live events (I do in fact do professional recordings in DSD) and is very close to capturing everything on that master tape.

So the technical elements that Robert and Jonathan covered are germane to the discussion.

The resulting sound in any event has been superb. This is not worth filing a class action lawsuit over and hurting one of the industry’s best companies.

Everyone please read the above again - The business lead of TAS just called "thoughtless" those who thought MoFi were unethical

 

[Ron Resnick]

The “chinese wall” refers to eliminating pressure from sales to influence editorial and vice versa. I can show numerous examples where we review products that don’t advertise with us in TAS or hifi+. I can speak to examples where our reviewers got too close to manufacturers and were let go because of that closeness. I can talk to creating new offerings but it being challenging because we cannot promise a review in TAS or hifi+ because that is the editor’s call. I can speak to losing advertising because a review was not possible because an editor had concerns about a limited dealer network.

And I can speak to manufacturer’s threatening to end advertising because they did not like a single word in a review or because they did not get a cover.

It would be far easier on the team to run a “pay to play” approach but that would destroy our reputation for doing objective equipment evaluations based on what our reviewers honestly hear. That would create media content that offers far less value to our digital and print readers.

Thank you for this reply, Lee.

Yes, the situations you are describing all point toward the absolute sound’s sensitivity to ensuring that editorial decisions and reviews are not influenced by advertising.

 

[Lee]

Everyone please read the above again - The business lead of TAS just called "thoughtless" those who thought MoFi were unethical

I am concerned that some are twisting my wirds here.

I said it looks more innocent once you understand the technical reasons for the quad DSD.

Also, I said those that understand the technical and business reasons (ie. lack of ability to get masters to Sebastopol) then it looks like a reasonable approach.

I am not saying that Mofi handled this change in approach right. If they had discussed the new mastering approach at the start then I think their customers would have been fine with it.

This is just my personal opinion.

 

[Steve williams]

Perhaps it is just me but I am bothered to read a post by an ambulance chaser here on WBF looking to solicit cases. This is not what WBF is about IMHO

 

[Steve williams]

I have removed the contact info as I believe we are better than this. Our discussion is long and fruitful but when a lawyer interjects to solicit cases I have to strongly object.

 

[Iving]

If they had discussed the new mastering approach at the start

but they didn't

then I think their customers would have been fine with it

... except those who bought what they reasonably understood was AAA because they wanted analogue musical experiences.

Did MoFi really think that category of customer was a negligible one in number or in significance. Of course not.

 

[bonzo75]

Also, I said those that understand the technical and business reasons (ie. lack of ability to get masters to Sebastopol) then it looks like a reasonable approach.

You really must think these guys are thoughtless to buy that

 

[facten]

I am concerned that some are twisting my wirds here.

I said it looks more innocent once you understand the technical reasons for the quad DSD.

Also, I said those that understand the technical and business reasons (ie. lack of ability to get masters to Sebastopol) then it looks like a reasonable approach.

I am not saying that Mofi handled this change in approach right. If they had discussed the new mastering approach at the start then I think their customers would have been fine with it.

This is just my personal opinion.

Sorry, it is one thing to have a reasonable approach to creating what you think is the best solution and outcome given circumstancess and telling people purchasing your product something different. Guess though I'm just one of the thoughtless observers.

 

[Steve williams]

Good call Steve.
I was curious who retained the firm.

None of my business and I don't care. To me this was the worst spam post this forum has endured in its 12 years of existence. This is an audio forum not a place for attorney ambulance chasers

 

[Lee]

I have removed the contact info as I believe we are better than this. Our discussion is long and fruitful but when a lawyer interjects to solicit cases I have to strongly object.

Thank you!

 

[microstrip]

I see the competition between WBF and TAS as really being about the quality of content each provides. WBF has an advantage because of reach and a broader base of contributors. It also has increasing participation from industry with the option of direct communication. News breaks just as quickly. Finally, it is free to the consumers. I happen to value the interaction made possible in real time and the ability to meet new hobbyists, at least virtually, from around the world and learn what they are doing. There is a much greater breadth of systems and equipment and music.

Peter,

You must be joking. I like WBF and the points you refer, but we can't compare numbers and information content of a small enthusiastic audio forum with TAS.

If you were a TAS reader you would see that a single issue of TAS covers more equipment than one year of WBF. Surely they have no real interest in unobtainium, DIY or vintage gear - they cover the current high-end industry.

IMHO WBF and magazines are complementary, not competitors.

 

[PeterA]

Peter,

You must be joking. I like WBF and the points you refer, but we can't compare numbers and information content of a small enthusiastic audio forum with TAS.

If you were a TAS reader you would see that a single issue of TAS covers more equipment than one year of WBF. Surely they have no real interest in unobtainium, DIY or vintage gear - they cover the current high-end industry.

IMHO WBF and magazines are complementary, not competitors.

No, I am not joking. I agree they have no interest in vintage or do it yourself or any of the other non-main stream approaches to the hobby because those things don’t sell advertisements. However, I suspect WBF has a broad reach. I wrote about David‘s Diatone speakers. People from around the world contacted him because they read my report and suddenly samples for sale on various locations dried up and you can’t find them now. I strongly suspect many more people read this forum than actively participate in it, but I can not prove it. When Zerostargeneral makes a recommendation for some LP on eBay it disappears within minutes.

There are manufacturers here who contact potential customers and sell their products. The forum is essentially their marketing arm and communications platform. On what do you base your conclusion that this forum is “small “? What does small even mean? Do you have any numbers to back that claim up?

 

[Audire]

Peter,

You must be joking. I like WBF and the points you refer, but we can't compare numbers and information content of a small enthusiastic audio forum with TAS.

If you were a TAS reader you would see that a single issue of TAS covers more equipment than one year of WBF. Surely they have no real interest in unobtainium, DIY or vintage gear - they cover the current high-end industry.

IMHO WBF and magazines are complementary, not competitors.

I agree with Peter on this issue. Let’s just make up an example of some Magico M3 speakers. In a magazine article you will normally read the reviewer’s impressions of the M3s played with one set of cables and set of amps, etc. On the other hand, on WTB the M3s might be paired with a variety of gear. So, for me personally WTB gives a wider view of the actual sound in different systems. So, while both may be valuable the WTB opinions carry more weight for me personally.

 

[microstrip]

No, I am not joking. I agree they have no interest in vintage or do it yourself or any of the other non-main stream approaches to the hobby because those things don’t sell advertisements. However, I suspect WBF has a broad reach. I wrote about David‘s Diatone speakers. People from around the world contacted him because they read my report and suddenly samples for sale on various locations dried up and you can’t find them now. I strongly suspect many more people read this forum than actively participate in it, but I can not prove it. When Zerostargeneral makes a recommendation for some LP on eBay it disappears within minutes.

There are manufacturers here who contact potential customers and sell their products. The forum is essentially their marketing arm and communications platform. On what do you base your conclusion that this forum is “small “? What does small even mean? Do you have any numbers to back that claim up?

Sorry Peter, I could prove it using data from website traffic analyzers but I am not interested in debating such data on WBF - and I only have private access to such tools, I am not supposed to share such data.

We had threads on such topic - see https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/what-is-the-best-engine-site-for-ranking-websites.18031/ for example.

IMHO if our esteemed members in the industry would just depend on the business carried with WBF consumers, most of them would starve!

 

[microstrip]

I agree with Peter on this issue. Let’s just make up an example of some Magico M3 speakers. In a magazine article you will normally read the reviewer’s impressions of the M3s played with one set of cables and set of amps, etc. On the other hand, on WTB the M3s might be paired with a variety of gear. So, for me personally WTB gives a wider view of the actual sound in different systems. So, while both may be valuable the WTB opinions carry more weight for me personally.

I was just addressing Peter points on numbers (quantity), not on the type of information.

 

[Tango]

Start another thread and have a go at it. Steve cutting in earlier was good vision.