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

[bonzo75]

What's the motivation for attacking TAS ?

what was the motivation for attacking MoFi? What is the motivation when someone posts a report on a particular piece of equipment? if the report is interesting and valid, as was the MoFi thread, then I am not looking at the motivation. Personally I don’t think Ron had anything to do more than stimulate something interesting, but it does not matter if I am wrong and you are right…;”(btw he has also sucked up more than required to reviewers to get them to join forum discussions so it can be argued he is motivated to be nice to them so that they participate here).

Either way, if his questions to Lee are valid and/or Lee defends them properly that is all that matters. Lee said there are Chinese walls with all publications. Subscribers have the right to know from him at least for TAS. Just like with MoFi, it is not whether they have a digital step or not, it is about whether they are consistent with what they claim.

 

[Tango]

I don't see review publications and forums as exactly competitions.

Not exactly. They just provide contents for people to read. One hire someone to write contents and get question on ethic. The other dont even have to hire someone to write contents, not yet get question on ethic. But both have their way to promote contents for people to read and also get money from ads. Money is addictive and never shy to stimulate things to change.


Remark. I forgot to hit Post Reply about an hour ago. Then I realized Tima just responded.

 

[andromedaaudio]

If i was a writer the highest payer would get the highest praise lol .
The more money the better the product .

 

[bonzo75]

Not exactly. They just provide contents for people to read. One hire someone to write contents and get question on ethic. The other dont even have to hire someone to write contents, not yet get question on ethic. But both have their way to promote contents for people to read and also get money from ads. Money is addictive and never shy to stimulate things to change.


Remark. I forgot to hit Post Reply about an hour ago. Then I realized Tima just responded.

It is ok if someone wants to question Ron. But that doesn’t mean Ron shouldn’t question Lee. Lee made a statement all publications have a Chinese wall. Ron didn’t




also I think both will co-exist with readership. TAS, PF, Stereophile compete with each other for sure, and they get more harmed by forum reviews as people depend on consumers more than pro reviewers. But forums need those magazines for discussions. So while forums might be competing with each other I don’t see them trying to compete with the review publications. It is good for forums they exist

 

[zerostargeneral]

Having watched the Lee interview with Mark Spitz I find Lee a class act of a person.

Measured questions and answers abound without bias or cow dung marketing is for me the epitome of control.

To my mind there is no need to apply rigour in blame when finding out that poorly informed decisions sting the ego.

We are all responsible for our own purchasing choices regardless of what we are told we decide and act accordingly.

Tima you are an excellent source when writing as I intuit self reflection in your style.

Morricab and Andromeda have grown on me over time.

Kindest regards,G.

 

[Audire]

There is no Chinese Wall at WBF.



Don't have the balls go to the TAS site and attack Harley and Valin directly -- instead of shooting at Lee's feet? Lee is not an editor - he does not tell those editors what to say. Then you can run back here and tell everyone what you said at TAS. Like you did to Paul McGowan.

@Lee - I don't think you have to be accountable to him. I would not dignify this obnoxious hectoring with a response. Ginning up indignity within his own forum at a less-than-straightforward manufacturer is one thing, but then attacking another publication for insufficiently meeting his own level of self-righteousness in conversation with that manufacturer seems, in the battle for readership, highly self-interested.

It’s important to note that Lee choose to resurrect Ron’s older reply (#658) in this thread. He choose to engage Ron and not the other way around. And Lee specifically stated in post 893, “We can debate whether the questions were hard or soft …” And Ron’s next post (#894) does exactly that!

IMO the questions seemed very soft. The main controversy with MoFi / Music Direct is their dishonesty in marketing, not how their records are made. IMO, the questions seemed directed at vindicating MoFi insteading of addressing the main concern. As Ron stated, “Why no follow-up question such as: “If you preferred the sound of the digitally-converted vinyl all along, why didn’t you lead with sonic superiority in your marketing material as a competitive advantage of your digital conversion process?” This is a legit question!!!

I don't see Ron as attacking anyone, but asking legit questions about the content of an article. And IMO this is part and parcel of what a forum is for.

@tima your last paragraph above is not only disrespectful but a gross misrepresentation of the truth.

 

[Joe Whip]

Gee, if Ron is attacking Lee, it is with a pop gun whilst Tima is attacking Ron with a howitzer.

 

[facten]

It’s important to note that Lee choose to resurrect Ron’s older reply (#658) in this thread. He choose to engage Ron and not the other way around. And Lee specifically stated in post 893, “We can debate whether the questions were hard or soft …” And Ron’s next post (#894) does exactly that!

IMO the questions seemed very soft. The main controversy with MoFi / Music Direct is their dishonesty in marketing, not how their records are made. IMO, the questions seemed directed at vindicating MoFi insteading of addressing the main concern. As Ron stated, “Why no follow-up question such as: “If you preferred the sound of the digitally-converted vinyl all along, why didn’t you lead with sonic superiority in your marketing material as a competitive advantage of your digital conversion process?” This is a legit question!!!

I don't see Ron as attacking anyone, but asking legit questions about the content of an article. And IMO this is part and parcel of what a forum is for.

@tima your last paragraph above is not only disrespectful but a gross misrepresentation of the truth.

Well said and entirely on point.

Whatever the motivation, TAS soft-balled the questions instead of pressing the heart of the matter , a lack of Mofi transparency.

 

[Lee]

JV/RH: “Why does MoFi limit the number of copies it produces, particularly when you can cut as many lacquers as you want when you are cutting from a DSD file, and wear on the precious original mastertape isn’t an issue?”​

JD: Like many things in the more-complicated-than-it-appears music business, limits on production runs can be based on numerous factors, such as licensing agreements, paper management (jackets, boxes, etc.), and even material shortages. As some may be aware, the only factory in the U.S. producing lacquer blanks burned down several years ago. In the case of our One-Step releases, we based our limits on our estimates of demand. . . .

Why no follow-up question such as: “So there is no natural cap due to, for example, a limited number of lacquers or dubs from the original analog tape, and the limited edition numbering scheme is arbitrary and serves only to foster the illusion of scarcity value, as you simply set the edition size just above the maximum number of albums you think you can possibly sell?”

JV/RH: “The revelation that MoFi cuts from digital masters has suggested to many that the advantages of a purely analog chain are imaginary. How do you reply to that line of thinking?”​

JD: That’s a debate that has and may continue to go on for years. I can only speak for our process. We did extensive evaluations of all aspects of the mastering process and found that using our proprietary gear with these steps yields the best sonic results. In the end it’s up to each individual listener to make his or her own decision as to what sounds best. We feel the excellent reviews from so many of our customers and the press support our point of view. For that, we are grateful.

JV/RH’s question sounds like something asked of Vladimir Putin by Izvestia: “Many have suggested that decrepit, evil, Americansky capitalism may not offer a perfect life to every American. How do you reply to that line of thinking?”

Why no follow-up question such as: “If you preferred the sound of the digitally-converted vinyl all along, why didn’t you lead with sonic superiority in your marketing material as a competitive advantage of your digital conversion process?”

Seriously, Lee, why such softball phraseology, and why no blinkingly-obvious follow-up questions?

Ron,

I think you have a beef with Robert and Jonathan. I will defer to them but I do know we wanted to put out the article in a timely fashion as the controversy unfolded. I don’t know if we had time for additional questions.

 

[facten]

Ron,

I think you have a beef with Robert and Jonathan. I will defer to them but I do know we wanted to put out the article in a timely fashion as the controversy unfolded. I don’t know if we had time for additional questions.

Maybe they should have asked the lack of transparency questions which is the controversy in the allotted time

 

[Lee]

Dear Lee,

I am not asking you to speak on behalf of any audio magazine other than the absolute sound.

Between what and what — between who and whom — has a Chinese Wall been erected at the absolute sound?

Are the business management people, and are the reviewers, walled off from knowing who advertises in the magazine? Obviously not, because everyone sees the advertising.

Are the people in the advertising department walled off from knowing which brands are the subject of reviews? Probably not. (Even if people in the advertising department are walled off from knowing which advertisers are the subject of reviews being published that particular month, what does that even matter, because often the same advertisers have products reviewed every few months over and over, and often the same brands advertise month after month. So, inevitably, everybody learns which brands butter the magazine’s bread.)

A Chinese Wall requires rigid and auditable information barriers between individuals and between departments. It is much more than a memorandum in the file which says that reviewers should not be biased in favor of advertisers.

So who is Chinese Walled off from whom? What Chinese Wall procedures are in place?

What does it even mean to have a Chinese Wall in the context of the absolute sound’s business?

Thank you.

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.

 

[Lee]

By the way, I only responded late because a friend sent me a text message yesterday about Ron’s comments. I felt they were unfair so I responded.

 

[Lee]

Having watched the Lee interview with Mark Spitz I find Lee a class act of a person.

Measured questions and answers abound without bias or cow dung marketing is for me the epitome of control.

To my mind there is no need to apply rigour in blame when finding out that poorly informed decisions sting the ego.

We are all responsible for our own purchasing choices regardless of what we are told we decide and act accordingly.

Tima you are an excellent source when writing as I intuit self reflection in your style.

Morricab and Andromeda have grown on me over time.

Kindest regards,G.

Thanks G. Much appreciated.

 

[Lee]

A short comment on possible competition between TAS and WBF:

TAS and WBF are most definitely competitors. We make a substantial amount of money on digital advertising and create many banner ads and other types of online advertising including mailings to a huge email list. As long as WBF is selling banners, then they are a competitor.

However, our overall take is that the hobby suffers from a lack of awareness. Forum-based media companies may be adding value by raising awareness.

We are in discussions to do more celebrity and musician interviews with the hope of creating a bigger pie for everyone to have a slice of.

We have some great interviews coming up!

 

[Lee]

Maybe they should have asked the lack of transparency questions which is the controversy in the allotted time

That’s been covered to death. Having owner Jim Davis respond on the technical merits was a scoop for us.

 

[Lee]

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.

 

[Tango]

It is ok if someone wants to question Ron. But that doesn’t mean Ron shouldn’t question Lee. Lee made a statement all publications have a Chinese wall. Ron didn’t




also I think both will co-exist with readership. TAS, PF, Stereophile compete with each other for sure, and they get more harmed by forum reviews as people depend on consumers more than pro reviewers. But forums need those magazines for discussions. So while forums might be competing with each other I don’t see them trying to compete with the review publications. It is good for forums they exist

"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.

 

[PeterA]

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.

 

[Lee]

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.

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.

 

[Audire]

Ron,

I think you have a beef with Robert and Jonathan. I will defer to them but I do know we wanted to put out the article in a timely fashion as the controversy unfolded. I don’t know if we had time for additional questions.

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?