Mobile Fidelity Settlement Update

@invalid You are splitting hairs to the extreme. There is more difference in LP quality introduced by master pressing disks wearing.  Let's sue all the LP manufacturers over that issue.  Grab some more freebies.

@invalid  by your logic an inferior quality LP is the preferred end product.  The all analog purists that started this ridiculous tempest in a teapot would happily pay a premium for an inferior product, Right?  Taste of the sausage is all that counts.  Beyond that, obsession over the process is an individual issue (problem!).  Don't like, or more accurately, don't understand the process - don't buy the product.  Move on with life. Far too little personal responsibility, far too much blaming others with the demand for compensation or validation of individual foibles.

Y'all need to deal with facts of this controversy.  After 1980 there was digital manipulation of every mix transferred to a Master Tape.  So an analog master tape from after 1980 transferred directly to vinyl today is not 100% analog.  Before 1980 you can find 100% analog tape masters that may or may not be in good condition.  If you have only 1 analog master tape and you perform a 100% analog transfer to vinyl, that master tape has to be used each time a single LP is produced.  1,000 LPs means 1,000 times the master tape is played, resulting in wear and degradation of something that could initially be fragile.  Good way to destroy a precious single copy of an all analog master tape from the 50s.  You analog enthusiasts should be well aware of that fact. But I guess it is more important for you to get your own "analog" LP now without concern about degrading or destroying the original master tape.  Screw anybody else today, tomorrow, or in another 50 years having the opportunity to enjoy a slice of history.  Unless, of course, you part with an LP from your "analog" collection for a tidy profit.  

MoFi made a technical choice to produce the best quality LP without destroying master tapes.  Plenty of information has been around for a long time about MoFi, their mission statement, and other claimed analog direct to LP producers.  A little homework is required to educate oneself and understand the entire context.  Too bad there has been little of that in this situation.  

I don’t think he meant that literally... But, mofi’s process has been the most foolproof w.r.t mitigating unnecessary abuse of the tape and offering the best fidelity on vinyl.

Bingo. There are factors of context involved.  MoFi decided on a process to minimize possible degradation and/or damage to original Master Tapes whether they are used once or multiple times.  The MoFi process for public consumption has been available since at least 2018, probably longer.  The nuts and bolts details are considered proprietary (intellectual property) so MoFi has every right to protect their investment in R&D.  The DSD step is mentioned in the public domain. The parties claiming damage apparently failed to read information readily available.

It was reported the first two parties claiming damage wanted a $10K each payment.  Quite a bit more than the cost of 1 or several LPs, so clearly looking for an undeserved payday.