The MoFi Mess and TAS rolling over for them

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.

A well known audio designer and manufacturer writing in another forum has accused TAS of corruption on more than one occasion.  So all of this is no surprise.

But why post this here instead of at Analog?

TAS is nothing but a glorified product catalogue for their advertisers.

Big +1.  TAS reviews read like product ads and nothing more.  Shameful and utterly useless drivel. 

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. 

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.