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

[microstrip]

AAA vinyl and DSD vinyl on a high end system in open court? Can you imagine? What great exposure.

Although it would be funny to watch, IMHO no judge would allow such theater - MoFi lawyers would easily flood him with reports on scientific evidence that the DSD step is not audible and audiophiles that do not care about scientific evidence do not have anything to share!

IMHO all they can be accused is false marketing claims, unless some WBF member risks going there with evidence of health damage due to digitalitis!

 

[microstrip]

I’m only interested in what consumer law is in the Nineth Circuit Court of Appeals in the United States. I’m going to push the topic of what is a reasonable consumer until the horse is dead and the vultures pick the bones clean. Then move on to the next problem the plaintiffs have in these cases.

I came up with case law to dismiss these cases, laid up with a badly sprained ankle and my iPhone. Think of what I can do at the office with real tools.

Iving, I love ya, so I have to ask why do we want to clean up the industry and restore consumer confidence?

Although I see your legal point, IMHO spreading this case a long time in courts will not restore consumer confidence in the high-end, on the contrary. Besides the more common consumer aspects the high-end always self-regulated it self, IMHO going in specific regulations is a poor move.

Can you be more clear on what you mean by "until the horse is dead and the vultures pick the bones clean" ?

 

[Bruce B]

I was an expert witness in an insurance case some years ago about the "sound and value of master tapes" that were lost. I had to dumb it way down to the jury because none were audiophiles... This case would be much harder to prove in regards to sonic degradation, but false advertisement is easy!

 

[Rt66indierock]

I hear you - that you have doubts about the legal credentials of the plaintiffs.

I am no lawyer (but then nor are you?) - far less any expert on US legal precedents of any kind - but I do see on this very page evidence of money expended on class recruitment. The swelling of indignation at large, moreover, might/must land somewhere.

Not sure how to read your love letter! You refer tongue-in-cheek to audio consumer causes at large? Or imply that one man shouldn't stretch his ambitions ...

For me - I love my records. I love them because they are of their time. I have as many CDs as records. But the latter are for my education and my convenience. What I am saying is that I would listen to Jazz on shellac. Led Zepp. on era-congruent vinyl. If I could think instantly of a modern artist I liked, I would listen to a CD or a download. I own maybe a dozen MFSL LPs - likely all pre-digits. If I had bought any MoFi vinyl reissues since c. 2007, and only now discovered their DSD-infection, I'd want recompense of the moral kind. MoFi should pay a fitting price by losing a legal case so that the probability of providers sharking consumers in the future is constrained. I don't accept that people like me - a reasonably well-informed music lover - should have discerned anyway that MoFi records as they were marketed were not AAA. The folly argument should be tested - at least.

I don’t care about indignation; I have created it and dispelled it many times in my life. So, a law firm or two spends a few bucks to file a case. It is just a cost of doing business. It may be hard and expensive to provide evidence of damages though.

I enjoy your posts is all I meant. But if you enjoy production single malts which are blends from the same distillery, I secretly hope they are slipping in the odd batch from a distillery down the street when they need to keep the quality and taste consistent.

 

[Iving]

if you enjoy production single malts which are blends from the same distillery, I secretly hope they are slipping in the odd batch from a distillery down the street when they need to keep the quality and taste consistent.

This a US case law instance – supposedly generalisable to vinyl ostensibly AAA but actually digits on plastic?

Or reference to the "blend" of [A, D] sources and steps en route to a retail product? We all know that people can be fooled. Audiophiles know about expectation bias and cognitive dissonance. We are all susceptible, although I do think it's a matter of individual differences/personality that some people are more suggestible than others. A vinyl record is either “pure” in the sense of digits-free (cf. AAA) – or it is not. Incidentally I just cannot fathom in my own intelligence why anyone would play digits mechanically rather than just send them to a DAC. But more to the point, people who like analogue experiences because they are analogue have invested (a lot of) money in MoFi retail products under false pretences. One can scorn “indignation”; however, the right sort of “indignation” may form the “proper” basis for legal judgements. I hope so in this case.

 

[davidavdavid]

Mobile Fidelity Lawsuit #2: -> STILES v MOBILE FIDELITY SOUND LAB, INC.

The complaint in this second class action lawsuit is different inasmuch as the plaintiff resides in North Carolina and the laws being cited as having been breached are:

• Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
• North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act

The latter best known as the NC UDTPA can be interpreted very broadly proving both Judge and if it comes to it, Jury with rather a wide latitude.

Moreover, the complaint filed in this lawsuit is far more detailed and informational than the initial class-action lawsuit filed in Washington State's 9th District. It is rather thorough providing the court and readers of the complaint with graphics: photographs, charts and tables.

I am linking to the complaint below:

stiles-v-mobile-fidelity-sound-lab-inc.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[Rt66indierock]

DEPOSE STEVE GUTTENBERG!

 

[Ron Resnick]

Mobile Fidelity Lawsuit #2: -> STILES v MOBILE FIDELITY SOUND LAB, INC.

stiles-v-mobile-fidelity-sound-lab-inc.pdf

drive.google.com

Paragraph 28 states that notes on a Mo-Fi record sleeve represents that: “Sonic artifacts present are a product of the original master tape.” I had not seen this representation before. Is the digital transfer step a “sonic artifact”? Can it be a sonic artifact if most people cannot detect it?

There are some interesting allegations about digital in this complaint. Paragraph 44 discusses how the conversion from analog to digital involves compression, and results in the loss of the very highest frequencies and the very lowest frequencies:





This certainly is a controversial point! Perhaps the author is confused and is talking about conversion to a low resolution format like mp3?

In Paragraph 86 Jim Davis’ answers to the absolute sound’s questions are used against him.

 

[Joe Whip]

A product of the original master tape to me is clear enough Even if a bit vague. Yes the original master tape was used in making the record even if it was captured digitally. In other words, a safety master or second gen tape copy or worse was not used.

 

[Ron Resnick]

A product of the original master tape to me is clear enough Even if a bit vague. Yes the original master tape was used in making the record even if it was captured digitally. In other words, a safety master or second gen tape copy or worse was not used.

I agree. This is why I find “mastered from the original analog master tapes” is not the best argument or the best evidence for the plaintiffs in these cases.

 

[Rt66indierock]

Paragraph 28 states that notes on a Mo-Fi record sleeve represents that: “Sonic artifacts present are a product of the original master tape.” I had not seen this representation before. Is the digital transfer step a “sonic artifact”? Can it be a sonic artifact if most people cannot detect it?

There are some interesting allegations about digital in this complaint. Paragraph 44 discusses how the conversion from analog to digital involves compression, and results in the loss of the very highest frequencies and the very lowest frequencies:



View attachment 97149

This certainly is a controversial point! Perhaps the author is confused and is talking about conversion to a low resolution format like mp3?

In Paragraph 86 Jim Davis’ answers to the absolute sound’s questions are used against him.

The author is an award-winning journalist, worked for Klipsch in marketing capacity and now works for another marketing company. I’m not buying she is confused. I’ve seen the same misrepresentations since I got involved in high end audio in 2016. These misrepresentations are deliberate.

 

[Rt66indierock]

This a US case law instance – supposedly generalisable to vinyl ostensibly AAA but actually digits on plastic?

Or reference to the "blend" of [A, D] sources and steps en route to a retail product? We all know that people can be fooled. Audiophiles know about expectation bias and cognitive dissonance. We are all susceptible, although I do think it's a matter of individual differences/personality that some people are more suggestible than others. A vinyl record is either “pure” in the sense of digits-free (cf. AAA) – or it is not. Incidentally I just cannot fathom in my own intelligence why anyone would play digits mechanically rather than just send them to a DAC. But more to the point, people who like analogue experiences because they are analogue have invested (a lot of) money in MoFi retail products under false pretences. One can scorn “indignation”; however, the right sort of “indignation” may form the “proper” basis for legal judgements. I hope so in this case.

When you buy a record, you are buying a piece of plastic, made from petroleum, with grooves cut in it to reproduce sound on device that requires frequent maintenance. And some packaging to protect it until you wear out the grooves.

 

[Rt66indierock]

Mobile Fidelity Lawsuit #2: -> STILES v MOBILE FIDELITY SOUND LAB, INC.

The complaint in this second class action lawsuit is different inasmuch as the plaintiff resides in North Carolina and the laws being cited as having been breached are:

• Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
• North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act

The latter best known as the NC UDTPA can be interpreted very broadly proving both Judge and if it comes to it, Jury with rather a wide latitude.

Moreover, the complaint filed in this lawsuit is far more detailed and informational than the initial class-action lawsuit filed in Washington State's 9th District. It is rather thorough providing the court and readers of the complaint with graphics: photographs, charts and tables.

I am linking to the complaint below:

stiles-v-mobile-fidelity-sound-lab-inc.pdf

drive.google.com

No, they provided marketing fluff from a marketing person, Devon Dean and a former audio equipment salesman who now writes about audio Steve Guttenberg.

 

[Gregm]

Paragraph 28 states that notes on a Mo-Fi record sleeve represents that: “Sonic artifacts present are a product of the original master tape.” I had not seen this representation before. Is the digital transfer step a “sonic artifact”? Can it be a sonic artifact if most people cannot detect it?

There are some interesting allegations about digital in this complaint. Paragraph 44 discusses how the conversion from analog to digital involves compression, and results in the loss of the very highest frequencies and the very lowest frequencies:



View attachment 97149

This certainly is a controversial point! Perhaps the author is confused and is talking about conversion to a low resolution format like mp3?

In Paragraph 86 Jim Davis’ answers to the absolute sound’s questions are used against him.

“Sonic artifacts present are a product of the original master tape.” could mean that artefacts - if any - were in the original recording, not introduced during during the transferring process.

As to the lossy nature of digital copies, DSD does use powerful filters over 20-25kHz because of the noise -- but DXD, for example, can go up to 176 kHz etc, before filtering. The is well beyond human audibility. I didn't know tapes have content so high up...

 

[Ron Resnick]

These misrepresentations are deliberate.

I think it is imprudent to post a conclusion like this without knowing the results of the discovery process.

 

[Rt66indierock]

I think it is imprudent to post a conclusion like this without knowing the results of the discovery process.

Ron, this the same gargage I've seen at audio show seminars for years. Putting it in a pleading for this case changes nothing.

 

[microstrip]

Paragraph 28 states that notes on a Mo-Fi record sleeve represents that: “Sonic artifacts present are a product of the original master tape.” I had not seen this representation before. Is the digital transfer step a “sonic artifact”? Can it be a sonic artifact if most people cannot detect it?

There are some interesting allegations about digital in this complaint. Paragraph 44 discusses how the conversion from analog to digital involves compression, and results in the loss of the very highest frequencies and the very lowest frequencies:



View attachment 97149

This certainly is a controversial point! Perhaps the author is confused and is talking about conversion to a low resolution format like mp3?

In Paragraph 86 Jim Davis’ answers to the absolute sound’s questions are used against him.

Well, I was just going to post on similar points. As far as I could see, the only reasonable argument is that the collectible value of the recordings is affected. A pity that these lawyers are technically ignorant and seem not to know what is DSD, showing the misleading classic picture of the digital steps that was use by digitalphobes of the 80's!

 

[wart]

Digitalphobia has firm ground - RBCD. Lawyers are exaggerating but it's the case then lawyers just do their job.
As for me Mofi always had shiny, loud HF - some declick, depop and some mastering of DSD could be done either. Maybe just a little, maybe not.

 

[adrianywu]

Needs to engage Fremer as the expert witness to prove that the additional 1 more digital step is audible and detrimental to biological and mental health.

You don't want to know how your sausages were made.

 

[adrianywu]

He could be forced to take a hearing test !

A friend of mine is deaf as a doornail, but he can tell when someone changes speaker cables (or so he claims).