MoFi controversy

Not to stoke a digital vs analog debate…but I think it’s entirely reasonable to think that in many peoples stereos, especially if they have worked on improving their turntable/arm/cart/preamp front end, that a $100.00 Mofi pressed using a digital master could still sound better than the $30.00 SACD.  So many variables.

You make some good points. $125 is a lot of money for a 12-inch album sleeve and the cachet of the vinyl experience. I phrase it that way because:

What other features of this product would benefit the consumer should the sound be comparable (or inferior) to a digital copy, since the source is digital from the get-go?

People like what they like, and can spend their money however they see fit.  I’m not sure it is fair to smear MoFi as some dishonest company. Had they explicitly stated their products were purely analog then, sure, this charge would be valid.

It is worth pondering as an audio person the cost/benefit ratio of many vinyl purchases.  Analog is great.  Sometimes we just want an album on vinyl, and may be fine with a $30 vinyl copy that was sourced from digital.  I think it’s fair to say, “my willingness to spend a high premium for a particular album is based on having a purely analog experience.” For me, personally, this is why I pay the big bucks for certain albums because it will be inherently different (and perhaps notably superior) to its digital counterpart.

@jdm11 - I think the physical interface with vinyl will always sound different than with a digital source, but the dynamic range of the two forms of media can also have a significant impact on the sound.

The dynamic range on SACD is significantly higher than vinyl, so an analog recording that was mastered for vinyl can be put on SACD, but the opposite is not true.  If a recording is mastered for SACD and uses the full dynamic range it must be compressed to be put on vinyl.

Paul from PS Audio had an interesting video on this topic where he explained several of the ways that audio can be compressed to fit on vinyl.  If done well it brings the bass levels up and results in a warmer and richer sound that is often associated with vinyl.

Failure to disclose certain information certainly isn't telling the truth. Whether that bothers one or not is for them to decide. I'd be interested in what SPARS code on jacket states.

@atmasphere and anyone else who might know. You mentioned when you were cutting LPs:

digital release files are compressed since there is an expectation they will be played in a car

Is this still true today, especially for modern high resolution digital files, for instance those that are offered on hdtracks or on SACD? I know most modern pop music still doesn’t have high dynamic range, even when pressed to vinyl, but there are still a number of productions across genres that strive to preserve the integrity of this range.

If what @mceljo is saying is true about SACDs having greater dynamic range than vinyl (which seems plausible), and say the digital playback chain (clocking, DAC’s digital chip and digital implementation, the DAC’s analog stage, low noise, etc) is of a reference quality, then this would mean that there really is no benefit to playing the vinyl version of same mastering regardless of how great the pressing quality is, unless the listener prefers how their cartridge and phono stage sounds over their DAC or “prefer the distortion characteristics built in to record playback that are pleasing” as @jallan says, right?

Under these specific circumstances, there is really no possible benefit to the vinyl? Or am I missing other variables to consider?

I’m not trying to argue this in a “one is better than the other” manner, but just trying to understand the full picture for consideration. Thanks.