Thanks Mahler - and I loved your embedded in a slab of petroleum and extracted with a needle reference!
The MoFi Mess and TAS rolling over for them
Totally disgusted with TAS opinions on the mofi mess. They're basically saying it was okay to dupe us. Jonathan Valin actually says as long as it sounds good...
What a sell out to the audiophile community. TAS is nothing but a glorified product catalogue for their advertisers.
93 responses Add your response
@yoyoyaya I figured you were being sarcastic but I felt an urge to complete the circle. I have really enjoyed the help you gave me in my Direct Drive thread. @wolf_garcia I lost respect for Stone when he declared all non MQA DACs were obsolete |
For many years now, I've considered The Absolute Sound simply to be a "high end" boutique magazine like the fancy design & fancy boating - mega yacht publications. They're fun to look at & see what's out there but offer little to no objectivity on what they review even though TAS has made an effort to regularly cover more reasonably priced stuff in recent years. How can you truly learn anything useful from a review that doesn't mention what ancillary equipment is being used & never makes any direct comparisons to similarly equipment in design/ build and/ or price? The only occasional exception is Steven Stone who can be better at that & now seems to primarily focus on "bargain priced" equipment which I think is appreciated by many of us. It's to bad too because I think many of the TAS writers do know a great deal about hi fi & have lots of experience that would be helpful to many of us. |
I’ve been reading both of these mags for years and not taking them so seriously as to harsh my entertainment mellow. Who cares really? If you need another Magico rave there ya go! The only thing recently that brought me unbridled happiness and glee was when 2 of my own pieces of gear made the Class A designation in Stereophile...a Freya and a Pass XA-25...so I’m TOTALLY in agreement there. Fremer, who if nothing else provides a detailed 156 step guide to azimuth setup requiring microscopes and other bits of lab gear ad nauseum, once gave a rave review to the utterly worthless $200 Synergistic Research "PHT" (phony hyper trash?) turntable accessory aluminum jujubes, and proceeded to never mention using them again. I prefer actual jujubes as at least they’re edible. If your own ears can’t help you choose gear and you wait breathlessly for each A’sound or S’phile issue for guidance...well...that’s OK. Otherwise you can only hope for entertaining reading and some music reviews. Speaking of which, some AS reviewer noted Joni Mitchel’s guitar sounded very different from James Taylor’s on the classic Blue album. Outraged, I sent a message telling them she was primarily playing an Appalachian Dulcimer. Outraged! |
Anyone who has been around this hobby long enough to remember Stereophile and TAS from the early years (1980s) understands and is sickened by what has happened to these publications. Unfortunately, it's part of a broader trend infecting journalism and society as a whole--it's all about the money. I used to enjoy reading TAS when it was pint sized and packed full of informative reviews that were (somewhat) balanced and took pains to inform readers rather than shower products with useless accolades. There were thought provoking essays on music and hifi and strict prohibitions on the use of quotes in advertising. There were ethical standards designed to promote integrity within the field. Look what we have now--pretty pictures, sensational headlines, and useless content. Is it any wonder they "rolled over" for a company whose products are routinely advertised in their pages? As someone mentioned, they give away the magazine to boost their subscription numbers so they can charge more for the ads. The manufacturers pay those inflated ad prices with the understanding that their products will receive positive exposure. It works for everyone--except us. Why do I continue to subscribe? The record reviews and the rare instance when a review will mention a recording I may be interested in buying. Where it took me weeks to get through an issue in the late 1980s now I'm done in an hour. |
The TAS and STEREOPHILE are just ENTERTAINMENT too me! BLISSHIFI said it all, $$ talks! I thought the 1-Steps I bought (Fragile, Blood, Portrait) sounded sterile, JUST LIKE CDs on VINYL! I shrugged it off as the product was deliberately equalized for lesser than full range highly accurate and transparent systems than my Sound Lab Maj 845s or SASHAs driven by a ARC REF 5SE/PHONO 2SE/REF 150/SOTA NOVA/SME IV.VI/dyna vt-1s). I have pristine OGs of Fragile (bought as a teen in 71) and a small label DG Portrait. These OGs may not have the vinyl of the one step, but on my system they sound correct and just more real than the MoFi VINYL CDs! |
Yeah, not buying MoFi products anymore. If a brand lies to its customers and responds as MoFi has, then it's a sign that they really don't give sh**. A lot of people don't understand how important public trust is to a brand. The power of a brand is its product and its message. If they lie...they tarnish the brand. They lost me forever. I gladly paid the premium...specifically to get true analog. If you make me pay a premium for something I'm not getting, then I will be mad. Then if you say you were doing me a favor all these years and I should get over it. Yeah, see how far that will take you What a bunch of morons. Someone needs a grt a better PR solution. |
What I have found interesting about the MoFi issue is the level of indignation - and even outright anger - that it has prompted from some. And I have to wonder: Have any of them actually ever bought any MoFi LPs? It will be interesting to see if the suit by Tuttle, Collman is granted Class Action status, and to what extent plaintiffs can show damage. |
Wow, in must be national "kick TAS in the nuts day." I subscribe to both Stereophile and TAS, and prefer TAS. Any publication that is selling advertising space to a company and reviewing their products, is not going to be capable of stating the unvarnished facts. As long as one understands that both of these mags will be very enjoyable. If you can't deal with that, why waste your money on a subscription. |
@mahler123. I was being polite in not stating the obvious - that the motivation for pressing a digital file into a piece of plastic is profit. There's nothing inherently wrong with a profit motive but passing off a digital product as purely analogue is another thing altogether - literally and metaphorically. |
Gave up my subs to TAS and Stereophile a few years back. Too much BS. The Mofi mess? Could care less. Fermer and all the so-called experts? Could care less what they say/think. They don’t have my ears, budget, room, or taste, so it’s irrelevant to me. Never thought Mofis sounded that good…bloated bass, no top end air…only bought a handful over the years. Got a couple that sound ok. Analogue Productions and Music on Vinyl much better to me. Journalism today? What a joke. |
I heartily concur with every post here, except with the MoFi defender. @yoyoyaya The reason why MoFi won’t release DSD files in native format is because the Analog or Die! Crowd won’t shell out $125 for a 40 minute download. They prefer those files embedded in a slab of petroleum and extracted with with a needle. However, they prefer to pretend that those files are purely analog. The relationship between review magazines and manufacturers is truly incestuous. |
No @hotei, and no one is saying that. But their ethical behavior over the past 15 or so years certainly has been. It doesn't matter anymore, there are plenty of audiophile LP reissue companies putting out fantastic product: Analogue Productions, Speakers Corner, Vinyl Me Please, Intervention Records, Sam Records, Run Out Groove, Light In The Attic, Jackpot Records (a new label out of Portland, Oregon), Blue Note, Exhibit Records, Anti Records, a dozen more. |
What do you expect from an audio magazine that gives every product they review a glowing review, the best of the best. This MoFi issue just makes my point that hires digital sounds as good or better than analog, that's why I sold everything analog years ago. Back to Valin and Fremer: these 2 reviewers are so biased in their fields, you just can't read any of their reviews. Valin is biased toward Magnepan speakers which I think sound pretty bad for the money especially the 30.7's and he is biased toward analog. Which brings me to framer which is off the wall biased toward analog. I have read Fremers reviews on non-analog products and his bias comes out in these reviews, can't red them, These are the reasons I cancelled my subscription |
The whole digital debacle is an issue that could be forgiven over time, but MoFi putting themselves on a pedestal as industry leaders of audiophile vinyl is grossly overstated. The last several years of MoFi pressings I purchased have been hit and miss at best. The quality control is non-existent. I have received some truly horrendous sounding/looking albums. This is an area they need to prioritize first. |
"The proof is in the pudding" is a featherweight re-write of "the end justifies the means." It is amazing that JV, the TAS editorial staff, the Stereophile editorial staff, et al. are so amazingly ignorant of even the most basic foundational principles of ethics. I began writing a reply to the JV stupidity, only to realize I could not dumb down ethical reasoning to a sufficient level to address the inanities that comprise his "defense." And yet, I guess I'm part of the problem: I still subscribe to both mags, because I really want to learn more about technological developments in the audiophile universe.
|
@bdp24 I’m sure they coughed up big bucks for Fremer to lower his standards and dumb down his reviews to TAS’ “standards.” Sad really. |
Facts known by most, not all. 1. Mobile Fidelity owns & distributes a number of audio brands: https://mofidistribution.com/our-brands/ 2. Mobile Fidelity is owned by Music Direct, who distributes and deals a whole lot more audio brands: I encourage people to flip through TAS and see what the percentage of ads come from one of the brands that are listed in the two links above and come to your conclusions on whether there is any true separation between church and state in the support for the brands covered in editorial vs the advertising. |
FWIW, why might you think that Sterophile and Absolute Sound practically give away subscriptions. Subscriptions don't pay for these magazines - mostly all they do is support the readership numbers the rags need to keep advertisers on the hook. They serve the manufacturers not the public. They have lacked any credibility for years (if they ever had that much to begin with). A few 'honest' reviewers have published therein but, IMHO, not often in The Absolute Sound, at least in post Pearson days. On-line reviewers can be just as crass and often they are - their names would be obvious to anyone paying attention. Reminds me of the old saying about Time/Look magazines. Look is for those who can't read, Time is for those who can't think. Stereophile and The Absolute Sound would succeed as a composite of both.
|
To me, the MoFi debacle is a big reveal not only about a reissue house that cloaks itself in the mantle of "industry leader" but also about how incestuous the relationship is between the legacy press and industry. Valin's comment that you should show some gratitude for all MoFi did to keep vinyl alive during the nadir is false in two respects- MoFi was not churning out vinyl during the '90s (well, Anadisc, but that wasn't much) and oughts--(they didn't resume vinyl until much later); and that you owe them a debt of gratitude for this, once it was revealed that they were being deceptive. You are an ingrate unless you go along. The legacy press is tied at the hip to the manufacturers and other industry players; they are not focused on issues helpful to the consumer. This, to me, should be a eye-opener for anyone who relies on the mainstream audio press (such as it is) for accurate, truthful assessments about product. It is precisely why a record store owner was able to open up this can of worms. I was never much for watching YouTube videos about records or hi-fi, but that seems to be where a lot of audiophiles go now. And it doesn't bode well for the established audio press, especially as the demographic changes and loyal readers of the old TAS and Stereophile age out and younger buyers become more important. Shilling for manufacturer advertisers is not a formula for success. It takes us back to the early days when J.G. Holt started Stereophile because Stereo Review and others at the time refused to be critical. |
The articles were right inline with the soft-balled interview they conducted with Jim Davis. The interview was nothing more than a venue for MoFi to plead its case; there were no questions that pushed Davis on the lack of transparency and pricing. The articles effectively downplay the lack of transparency; and pricing gets sloughed off by Harley in 6 words. Valiin's statement in the editorial shows exactly TAS position: "My bottom line is this: After MoFi spent decades keeping the LP alive and kicking - releasing many, many sonic triumphs pver that span (including several of the One-Steps) - it would be worse than ungrateful of audiophiles not to show some charity here." "ungrateful of audiophiles" - guess everyone didn’t realize the largesse of Mofi. Valin certainly missed that Mofi produced records to make money.
|
