Mobile Fidelity Settlement Update

and yet the dog keeps barking…..

@tomic601 , who were you grunting at and referring to as the barking dog? That would make you the petulant thug/ hog right? If you were referring to someone here as the barking dog? Clarify what you meant.

You could have disagreed without name calling, but, the colors came out apparently.

I wouldn’t be surprised if people send back for a refund and they scratch the records invalid before. Just like companies that make you crack the lp before a refund. Beware of secondary mofi records with etchings of “F… You” or “All analog my a..” Lol

my only complaint is I feel bad for the people that bought mofi records way above retail years ago that collected all analog records and now see that those records went down in value because of this debacle. The secondary market did take a hit over this and it’s a bummer for those people.

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.  

Maybe they were running short on their kids tuition this year.

All the best,
Nonoise

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.  

I did like the video explaining recording.it is very educational

deep-333 calling someone low class, how rich.

Just a simple question here.  How many people here think that the MoFi LPs they purchased that have a digital stage sound better than the same files when played in the purely digital domain?  And why do they think that they sound better through a lp based system?

@deep_333 Are you referring to me ? i didn’t file a claim with MoFi. I suggest even a child might offer to retract such a petulant immature post. 

and yet the dog keeps barking…..

"1,000 LP’s means 1,000 times the master tape is played." Wow! @texbychoice, you need to read up on the subject, you’re embarrassing yourself.

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.

Eitherway, I no longer have any skin in this (no longer a vinyl guy) and all my vinyl sht is sitting in storage.. Discovering Levinson ’s Masterclass software was the final nail on the vinyl coffin.

"1,000 LP’s means 1,000 times the master tape is played." Wow! @texbychoice, you need to read up on the subject, you’re embarrassing yourself.

Stamper! Wow! (Flutter Crapper)

 there is this thing called a stamper…… suggest the soapbox ignorant do a whisker of homework about the process…

All the best,
Nonoise

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.  

@cleeds there were quotes around it, and it was meant as a joke mostly. I don't own any "titles". 

grislybutter

... if they have great ears and 10K-100K etc system how come they didn't hear the digital "pollution"/limitations in those recordings?

You're the first person I've heard claim that the records were plagued with "digital pollution." Which titles do you own, @grislybutter?

I am somewhat confused: if they have great ears and 10K-100K etc system how come they didn't hear the digital "pollution"/limitations in those recordings?

People should be ashamed. A bunch of slackers wanting something for nothing. America.

+5000

Even before all these frivolous lawsuits, vinyl bozos will on average return 6 copies of a pressing before they found their 'perfect' copy, 

@texbychoice  it doesn't matter if you think an all analog process is inferior, people should get what was advertised.

@secretguy  I don't think anyone should get anything more than their money back if they choose. 

People should be ashamed. A bunch of slackers wanting something for nothing. America.

@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.

@texbychoice  so it's okay to lie to your customers,  good to know you wouldn't care if a business lied to you. I don't think people who bought the 1 step albums should get more than their money back including any shipping. Mobile fidelity should have just been honest with people.

@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.

I called my friend at Music direct .Some uds1 are analog like Bill Evans Sunday at Village Vanguard.So you can’t return this? It is not included on the lawsuit. In a month those returns  probably will be for sale.

@texbychoice the process is called 1 step and was supposed to be all analog.  You would be okay with sausage that was advertised to be all pork, but it had 50% turkey in it?

A few weeks ago I received a letter containing info on the 10% credit I had available to use on the Music Direct website for the MoFi LP’s I chose to keep. A few days ago I received an email with a return authorization label to send MD the LP I elected to return for a refund.

I don't consider the digital step to necessarily be a deal breaker, but most of my MoFi's are AAA. I also have a fair number of MoFi SACD's, which sound great.

I’ve owned several Mofi records over the years mostly from teh 80’s. Nice quality packaging and heavy vinyl but suspected they were digitally mastered all along just by listening. Oh well. I could care less how made really only teh overall quality of teh product you pay a premium for and how good the final product sounded. They always sounded different than same album’s original analog releases, maybe in some cases better, others not. Depends on specifc copies compared to. But lying to consumers is never a good thing and should be dealt with as needed.

This should be the worst thing that ever happens to us. Amen!

Hi guys. I did this video while having a little fun editing, trying to bring some more perspective and light on the substance of the MOFI debacle from a sound engineering & Audiophile therapy point of view. Maybe you will find it interesting!
See it here and let me know what is wrong with it! 😁

@stjernholm , that was a good video...On the same note, your gear reviews are top notch, authentic, humorous and entertaining btw (a pleasant change from the sea of YT drones droning away).

Benjie did you send it back to Music Direct?

My chance to have Bill Evans UDs 1. And if Iam lucky who knows maybe uds1 Santana  Abraxas. Will see? 😀

I received an email notice yesterday to mail back my MOFI 1-Steps. I was sent a shipping label for the return. They stated that as soon as they receive the albums a cash refund will be sent to me. I just dropped off the albums at the Post Office and they are on their way back. Very happy this issue in finally being resolved. 

I have been waiting a long time to get my money back for the "Santana Abraxas 1-Step".

Since I visit Music Direct a lot. I know the guy in charge of their return vynil.I gave him the list I want to buy for $150 each I am willing to pay or maybe more.Iam waiting for the James Taylor uds1 release.

A lab diamond is absolutely real. But people pay twice as much for mined diamonds because… they just do. I wouldn’t want to pay for a mined diamond, find out it’s a lab diamond and then get told “it’s just as good.” But in truth, all you can do is refund people’s money. You can’t be compensated for emotional distress in a case like this. And yes, lawyers clean up with class actions.

@stjernholm 

Great presentation and overview on the reality of master tapes.

Also great attitude adjustment: Just enjoy the music!

Hi guys.  I did this video while having a little fun editing, trying to bring some more perspective and light on the substance of the MOFI debacle from a sound engineering & Audiophile therapy point of view.  Maybe you will find it interesting! 
See it here and let me know what is wrong with it! 😁 

Kind Regards,

Morten

chrisoshea

I agree that it is not equivalent in the sense that it is not "on all fours". However, it was a clear misrepresentation and/or concealment that caused buyers to pay more for something that did not have the pure provenance (AAA) represented by the advertisements and the literature that came with the record. Under many State statutes, that action alone constitutes an actionable consumer fraud.

It’s difficult to imagine how your damages could exceed what you’d spent.

In addition...a lot of the titles are worth WAY more on the secondary market than what was spent at retail.

I can’t believe anyone, (including the naysayers) would send back a copy of Santana Abraxas One-Step that is now worth over well over $2K. If so, please let me buy it. I’ll even give you $50 more that you paid. 😁

Like my dad used to say..."Money talks, BS walks"...

johnk

it's basically just a 10% off sale for returning customers lol.

There's still time to file an objection with the court, if you're not happy. As it stands, you'd be eligible for a full refund. It's difficult to imagine how your damages could exceed what you'd spent.

So it's basically just a 10% off sale for returning customers lol.

I have not had time to read the terms of the settlement other than a brief summary-- but I will certainly consider returns.

gpgr4blu

I would not have purchased any of my MoFi Step 1 albums--for which I paid a premium-- had I known there was a digital step.

Will you be returning the LPs for a refund under the terms of the settlement?

Misrepresentation in inducing a purchase is actionable. I would not have purchased any of my MoFi Step 1 albums--for which I paid a premium-- had I known there was a digital step. It matters not that some of them sound very good. It's a matter of  misrepresentation of provenance.

Now let's say you buy your wife a $100 replica of a $2,500 Louis Vuitton bag for Christmas and tell her it's real. She and her friends think it's real. Then one day she walks into a Louis Vuitton store and finds out that the only way the experts can tell the difference between the real and this particular fake is that there are 8 stitches inside of an interior pocket of the fake and 10 in the real version. She empties the bag and counts 8 stitches in hers.  Your defense--wifey couldn't tell the difference and none of wifey's friends will ever be able to tell the difference.

What are the odds that wifey says--"I'm good with that --I forgive you."

The whole point was charging people high prices for something they were misled into thinking they were getting, but actually were not. Not about sound quality, it's about getting what you are paying premium prices for. 

In todays world what is the most a grievous crime your can inflict on an individual? You can’t hurt their feelings. These people are self proclaimed music experts that were exposed to be novice listeners. When they were exposed to their friends that they could not tell the difference in the recording it hurt their feelings and now a full refund is not just compensation. They need to be made whole for their feelings, and lawyers have more billable hours telling them they had their feelings hurt.