Washington Post article on MoFi vs. Fremer vs. Esposito


Here's a link to a Washington Post article on the recent dustup with MoFi. The comments section (including posts by Michael Fremer) are interesting.

Disclaimer: This is a "public service announcement, a point Im adding since some forum members complained the last article I referenced here was "paywall protected", I'll note that, for those who are non-subscribers, free access to limited numbers of articles is available by registering (trade-off: The Post will deluge you with subscription offers)

kacomess

Showing 1 response by whart

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.