Washington Post article on MoFi vs. Fremer vs. Esposito


Here's a link to a Washington Post article on the recent dustup with MoFi. The comments section (including posts by Michael Fremer) are interesting.

Disclaimer: This is a "public service announcement, a point Im adding since some forum members complained the last article I referenced here was "paywall protected", I'll note that, for those who are non-subscribers, free access to limited numbers of articles is available by registering (trade-off: The Post will deluge you with subscription offers)

kacomess

What a fabulous....intervention.

What I do not understand is why the article did not mention that the vast majority of records are now recorded in digital. Only records recorded before 1981 are sure to be analog. 

MoFi is guilty of misrepresentation. But the fools are a certain journalist and his "only analog" following.  

@sns      I think the legal position is quite clear.  If MoFi states an LP is 'all analogue' or 'AAA' and it is not, they are guilty of misrepresentation.  If they say nothing then there is no cause of action since a misrepresentation has to be an actual statement and does not comprehend a failure to state something whether or not the something is important, or even critical for some.

It is not a question of 'harm done' although the value of the harm suffered will be the main determinant of the amount of damages, apart from any punitive or exemplary element.

You suggest the knowledge that an LP previously thought to be all analogue is not doesn't amount to harm done because the material on the LP has not changed.  This may not be the case, since the opinion of many audiophiles on sound quality is based at least partly on a psychological reaction to knowledge of the components of the system and the recording that reproduces that sound.

I have many MoFi records that are stated to be AAA and they probably are since they were all purchased more than 10 years ago.  They vary quite a lot in SQ, probably because of the state of the master tapes when they were copied and the quality of the engineering.  Some are amongst the best LP records ever issued.  The best I have for SQ is 'Beatles for Sale' where the capture of the harsh edge on Lennon's voice on lead vocals puts him right in front of me.  Magical, and I haven't heard that on any digital version.

I stopped buying MoFi partly because I have the ones I want but also partly because I noticed the average SQ was becoming poorer   That will be because MoFi weren't taking the scrupulous care they did at the start.  Like quite a few things in audio, the glory days are still the glory days.

@clearthinker You may or may not be correct on misrepresentation issue, suppose it depends on how expectations of purchasers presented in court.

 

I did mention the psychological bias in my post. And yes, Mofi could lose based on that bias. Psychological harms may indeed be inflicted and compensated by courts, I don't believe that fair.

 

I quit purchasing modern vinyl perhaps five or six years ago, have much vinyl from 50's-70's, many very high sound quality, assume from original or early generation masters, some hot stampers.

@sns    As to MoFi losing a case on the basis of alleged listener bias, I doubt the cleverest and most devious lawyer (even in the States) could prove a case, even on the balance of probabilities test, using evidence based on unprovable psychological listener bias.  I wonder if he would have to present double blind ABX tests in court?  Might get interesting.

Yeah, me too on modern vinyl.  MoFi at the start apart, I still think the glory days started with HMV and Decca and the development of the LP in the late 1950s and were largely gone by 1970.   Yes, I have 3000 odd of those.

What next? Cuban cigars with a smattering of North Carolina tobacco?
 Jim Davis’s response makes sense to me but some will call it spin.

All the best,
Nonoise