MoFi controversy

@twoleftears Interesting article. Plenty of opportunity to mention that their modified Studer contains an analog to digital converter and why they do the transfer this way, but no mention of it at all.

In the youtube video with the MoFi mastering engineers after the story broke, they say they get a better source to work with by converting to a 4x DSD file than they would if they made a tape to tape copy.

I think the reason this is such a big deal to some people is their almost religious conviction that digital is bad and that if it so much as touches the music, it contaminates the music irredeemably.  The fact that many of these people were "fooled" by the MoFi releases makes it such a betrayal to such belief.  

I don't care how they achieve a nice sounding release.  I find decent most, but not all, of the MoFi reissues I've heard, and that includes both their CD/SACD releases and vinyl albums.  Is it their mastering, or their technology, or access to decent source material, or quality manufacturing, or a combination of all these factors?  I would bet it is the combination.

I could not care less about this brouhaha, as I have already said, but tomcy quoted the following above, from the MoFi website. "First and foremost, we only utilize first generation original master recordings as source material for our releases."  If I were a lawyer (g*d forbid) arguing this issue in court, I would take the position that DSD-encoded music is in the category of "recordings".  Therefore, there is no deception surrounding tape vs SACD or 4XSACD.  The deception is around the definition of "first generation original master recordings". I am actually quite confident that they are getting better results with their technique than they could hope to achieve with a true first generation master tape, where the music was captured on tape 20 and much more years ago. And that's why they do it.

I'm a huge digital fan. I have tons of SACDs and Digital Hi-rez files. I'm also a vinyl collector. I think MoFi is now doing the right thing and all should be good. 

MoFi can change the narrative about digital since so many find their versions of LPs are the best. For myself, an owner of many Mofi regular and One Steps, it's a mixed bag. However, that, I'm sure has more to do with the sonic "flavor" from the mastering tweaks and my taste vs the quality of the master transfer. 

In my opinion, before all the hubub, I was starting to think MoFi was turning into a "Monster Cable" of audiophile record producers. Tons of pre-order announcements (sometimes years ahead of time), and tons of major, one-step releases. "We'll put the MoFi name on many things, records, gear, record cleaning...you name it....people will buy it all up". I think this controversy will make MoFi stronger in the long run and rethink placing their name on just anything.

1. This is about misleading marketing practices...not which one sounds the best. A One Step could be made from an 8-track tape dub and may be the best sounding ever. However, the box needs to say the source and signal chain for such expensive pressings.

Why isn’t it about which one sounds the best? It certainly is for me.

Is it OK if less expensive pressings don’t have all the details of how they were made? Do food manufacturers tell you what the artificial and natural flavors they use are? That leaves a lot of room for unknown sources in the food we eat, doesn’t it? But people are ready to blow a blood vessel over how a record is made?

This "controversy" reminds me of many discussions I’ve heard over the years about the use of Photoshop and other image manipulation tools. The "true believers" insist that you "get it right" in the camera (as if there isn’t a computer in all the cameras now). Others are more concerned with the end result than the process. If the end result is pleasing and the process doesn’t obviously affect the quality of the end product in a negative way, why does it matter?