Washington Post article on MoFi vs. Fremer vs. Esposito

Given the excellent reviews on the MoFi albums, the experts involved, and the astronomical bit rate now possible, I would say that gerryah930 is likely correct that "the digital masters probably sound better than the aged tapes."  Even though I don't own any MoFi albums, I have no doubt they sound fantastic, and as they say, "It's hard to argue with results."

In general, my preference is for clean original copies, as they were likely all analog (depending on the era) and produced when the tapes were in the best possible shape.  In the case of Thriller, which is cited in the article, a NM original can be had for less than $30, maybe even less than $20.  Given how good my copy sounds (which cost less than $5 more than 20 years ago), it's hard to believe it could be significantly improved on.  So the justification for the price of a one-step reissue isn't clear (at least not to me).

As the article mentioned through a quote, anyone who believed 40,000 copies of Michael Jackson's "Thriller" were all done through the "one-step" process needs help. They obviously don't understand the limitations of analogue tape. Put differently, most of us who are vinyl fans knew that digital was being used. Fremer wrote about this again, again, and again. Were you folks that are now complaining not reading?  Granted, the marketing terms and the one-step diagram ARE misleading. Absolutely. But the reality was there for all to see. 

As the article also points out, MoFi got rescued/revived after BR by Music Direct and though profitable now has only a "handful of full-time employees". Being a small operation without good management leads to this type of publicity debacle. 

Certainly Mofi didn't disclose info, but has sound quality suddenly diminished since the revelation? No, so what's the big deal if sound quality is value proposition here, only diminished value due to anti digital beliefs.

On the other hand can understand feeling of being duped, authenticity at this price level is critical. Goes to show honesty is always best policy. Wonder how this will affect mofi long term? Imagine digital masters all that will be left as analog tape continues to deteriorate.

Just curious!

Old master tapes, especially of famous albums & artists, are usually kept in temperature and/or environmentally controlled vaults ... are they not?  As such, doesn't that prevent or, at least, seriously mitigate aging & deterioration of the tape and recording quality over time?

Regardless, doesn't all of this debate really come down to sound quality or fidelity, regardless of how these recordings are engineered and reproduced? Even great vinyl recordings of old, from original master tapes, were subject to the quality of the PVC compounds used, quality of the pressing process, mold release compounds employed, environmental controls and quality control employed by various pressing plants, number of copies made, post-production storage & shipping methods employed, etc., etc., etc.

I just recently purchased a MoFi original master recording ultradisc one-step pressing of "Desperado" by Eagles. I haven't played it, yet, because I need to run it through my ultrasonic cleaning system. Nothing goes on my TT, now, without going through my ultrasonic cleaning system first.  I have an original pressing of "Desperado" that I purchased in 1972 and cleaned with my ultrasonic system last year. I cleaned it again this year, using a Degritter that I demoed.  Couldn't really tell any difference between my lash-up ultrasonic cleaning system and the Degritter, which is why I ultimately chose not to fork out 3 grand for the Degrittter (now, even more expensive). If Degritter lowers the price significantly, I may reconsider that position because of its sheer convenience and speed over my lash-up system. My original copy of "Desperado" and all my vinyl has always been lovingly cared for. "Desperado", one of my very favorite works, has always sounded great on my previous TT & sound system and on the new TT and system I have now. My original vinyl copy has been played many, many times. This is why I chose to spend so much money to buy this new pressing of it. The original pressing sounds noticeably better since ultrasonic cleaning. I'm anxious to see if this new MoFi pressing will live up to my expectations after I run it through my cleaning system. If any of you are interested in my two cents on this, I'll be happy to oblige.

As for the justifiability of the retail cost(s) involved in replacing your most treasured recordings with ones with quality fidelity that will truly knock your socks off, that all comes down to how much that really means to you, doesn't it? Isn't that why audiophiles spend so much money on their toys?