Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab has been cutting vinyl from digital since a long, long time ago...

I would add price and grade inflation to that as well. You can inspect a record in a store, I guess test play it on whatever turntable the store has if it offers that, but--in Austin-- though there are a number of record stores, I don't shop in them for older records.
I had a lot of records before I moved to Texas, like you, many, most bought back in the day. When I resumed hi-fi in around 2006 after an almost ten year break, I did start upgrading some copies. It was easier then, say 15 years ago. The Vinyl Resurgence™ hadn't really started.
If someone is trying to start now, I'd tell them that it is a commitment (of time/money/effort), requires research, patience, some disappointments, involves some moments of joy and that part of it is the "hunt." There are stories associated in my mind with certain copies. Like you, I have multiple copies of some records- either because I deliberately sought out a variant for comparison purposes or because I liked the record and would just buy another copy-- usually cheap.
All of this answers part of the question of why people rely on the integrity of the reissue houses, particularly in an inflated market for desirable older copies. They want to buy from a trusted source. They don't want to bother with used and possibly chewed up examples.
As to where we go from here, I think the easiest answer is to see what happens in the market in the next six months. Some people may not have the luxury of disposable income in today's economy- they may be tightening their belts for reasons other than MoFi's deception. Others, as evidenced here, may be fed up on principle, and yet others may not care a whit. We have no way to ascertain how that will impact MoFi's business. We might have a sense of it in six months or a year.

 

Kevin Gray

 

Which double-blind scientific tests are you referring to?

 

I may have misunderstood Fremer, but I believe he was referring there only to a specific situation involving Sony/Columbia products, for which the master tapes could not be obtained (by MFSL). I also believe that when he said he "covered" for MFSL, his choice of words was poor, and that he did not mean quite what you're taking it to mean. He does also say in that YT interview that, in an old (unspecified) album review, he did mention the fact that MFSL was unable to obtain and use the original master tapes, but that he didn't want to "keep pounding it home" in subsequent reviews, presumably (my presumption) regarding only those releases where the original master tapes were not available to MFSL. In other words, he wasn't quite "covering" for MFSL; he was refraining from mentioning the absence of the original master tape as the direct source only (I believe) in those instances where MFSL was prohibited from obtaining the tape, the thinking on Fremer's part being that it would be unreasonable to slam MFSL for using digital when they had no ability to use the original master tape. Could it be argued that Fremer, given his reputation (analog) and his audience, should have stated in every single review where it was applicable that the cutting source was digital? Sure, but that's something about which reasonable people might disagree.

When exactly did he do that in relation to that news becoming public via other sources? In the YT interview, he said that he held off talking about that particular issue for quite some time after he knew about it.

 

I hated it - someone stabbed me in the eyes and put cheese in my ears.

 

Prior to. He deleted the tweet not long afterward.

IMHO, someone who only says AAA is what needs to happen at every turn, specifically staying mum on digital sources for such high-priced records (that he got for free) is a huge disservice to his supporters at best and a big conflict of interest at worst.

 

I watched the entire 90 minute livestream this morning and enjoyed the hell out of it. Lots of fun!

 

But that was only because he'd received a press release (albeit an unofficial press release), so he commented on it, and then when asked to take it down by the company, he did so. Nothing wrong or inconsistent with any of that, right?

I agree, and I'd like to think that I'd have done differently if I'd been in his shoes.

 

As watching the livestream I began searching for the Gold Kevin Gray tube cut of War Greatest Hits. I’ve haven’t bought it yet, but listening to my NM original as I type which sounds mind blowing fantastic I’m not positive this could be beat. Sorry for the unrelated tangent, lol!

 

Well, that's what he says. He's contradicted himself so often that it's next to impossible to determine what is true and what is complete BS. I wish that weren't the case so we could get an accurate read on the situation and his complicity or lack thereof. We only have his word which unfortunately, to me, doesn't count for anything.

 

I wish someone would do a simple poll....

If MOFI had informed the buying public that they used a digital copy before lacquering, how would it affect your decision?

1. I would not have purchased their vinyl with a digital step.
2. I still would have purchased their vinyl with the digital step.

I would choose number two. After cruising thru this thread, guess the majority would pick number one.

 

Since some of these limited run titles are competing against the same title being sold by the label, I’m guessing the label only agreed to a low number.

 

For what it's worth, while I respect Fremer's level of knowledge about and passion for vinyl, I don't regard everything he says as being reliable, nor am I enamored of his personality, though it can be entertaining at times.

 

Probably not because I don’t know if the press and influencers would be able to give praise to something sourced from hi res digital.

 

It’s too new and raw for the poll to mean much…doing it in a month when the initial shock and anger has worn off would be a more accurate poll. I think like you number one would still be the winner but I bet it wouldn’t be as one sided as it would be today.

 

That would be impossible question for me to give an answer to, I just don't know. Obviously I can get more common titles in more abundance and clean copies over time. But I also buy new copies the same way, at least many times as two of them. A lot of it was me just wanting to get them home and see if there is a difference in many records, and there is. Also being on websites like this I started to find out others don't have the resources I do in my area. So I started to always buy some records and keep a stockpile of what people were looking for, at least in the music I like. This way I could also help others out instead of them going to eBay or discogs getting ripped off.

 

I am eagerly awaiting the MoFi or AP release of the S/T "Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem." That could be worth the big dough.

 

For the same price though especially the One Steps?

 

Of course! You are 100% right but, I am also 100% right. And you are 100% wrong, but I am also 100% wrong... all subjective - I do have an idea that the consensus is that they are good records... hence my forgetting to add IMHO and my daring to affirm so; consensus is a nice and fast test against your subjective judgement. If there is consensus, you are onto something.

No bubble burst, I am right; same as you are!


v

 

Oh ****, Mingus One Step out for delivery today!!! Sweeeeeet!

 

No need for a poll as there is data which proves the case one way or another. Look at our record collections.

My collection has digital and analogue sourced records. The analogue sourced (or what I believed to be analogue) skews towards the more expensive end. I don’t believe that I have knowingly paid more than £40 on a digitally sourced record. The split between analogue and digitally sourced is around 50-50.

 

Depends. From my own research, most major audiophile labels have done at least one or two releases that were either taken from previous digital transfers, or used incorrect master tapes, or added a digital step. AF, AP, MoFi, DCC. Not that the engineers didn't do the best with what they were allowed to use, but these things happen.

 

So I've watch a few trends change in record buying, are the AAA only crowd going to start to just buy old pressed records?

There was a time that was mostly all we had, then as the resergency had grown so did the availability of more new records. Now it's like they are putting everything out again other than Mitch Miller and Barbra Streisand. But I would say the majority of new records are digitally sourced.

 

I don't follow your logic at all.
When it comes to the product they are selling, everything comes down to sound quality.
At least for me it does and I would think that it would for many others who bought their vinyl. Assuming the sound quality is not changed at all or changed negligibly, I would not care how many digital steps were inserted into the process.
The main thrust of their description of the process was the plating and how the product's sound quality was the best around due to that.
Take KFC for instance.....didn't they keep their formula a secret for a very long time?
I think just the opposite of you.....if the digital step did not change the sound of the end product in any way, they had no duty to inform the public of that step. If it did, that would change the whole picture if they had not informed the public of that step considering the buying public could go to other producers for the product. In fact, any other part of the process that significantly degrades the sound should have probably been divulged by the company.
To summarize, IMO they had no duty to divulge part of the process which may have affected the purchase decisions of the public if that process had no effect on the quality of the final product. None of this would be happening if they went the route of KFC. I bet their sales would not have suffered if they had kept the process a secret. The word of the amazing quality of the vinyl would have been passed around in the audiophile community as it did without the knowledge of the digital step.