MoFi-Gate News: Articles, class action & digital/analog source list! 

Perhaps a vinyl is just more expensive material wise, production wise, storage and shipment wise. It is logic that a vinyl album is more expensive than a CD. but I understand your point.

@@Lasse3 in the 1980s, Vinyl was always significantly cheaper than CD. Average price for new vinyl back then was about $7.99 while a new CD could be minimum $12.00-15.00

@@DelmarToad wow i didn't know that! Being born in 1991 myself . Can inflation account for this? 😅

@@Lasse3 vinyl pressing plants were everywhere & you could join the Columbia House or RCA record club and get 12 records for $0.01. CD was a fancy new invention that wanted to charge premium prices.

@@DelmarToad Oh, funny how everything has been turned on it's head now.

Couldn’t have said it any better. The fact they they loved MOFI, and now they don’t, seems quite biased indeed and shows you how clownish some of these people are. I for one will continue to support MOFI because I love the sound. That’s why we buy what we buy. The love of the vinyl medium and the love for music sounding great. No matter what format.

Indeed. I agree that sometimes we are biased. The title of my first video on the affair was also referring to that!

I am flabbergasted by comments saying something like "what's the big deal, its how it sounds right?" If this were just about the music no one would care. It would all be a mute point. I, we, are angry because we wanted to support a record label that implied in their print, website, emails and on the jacket itself, that they were going the extra mile to cut a record from the original master tape. No other record label tried to mislead me over the last 10 years

@@whittierlibrarybookstore3708 No where on their website was that stated and on the jacket, people read the description and ‘Assumed’ what they thought was fully cut from analog tapes. Yes, misleading. Yes, consumers read it wrong.

I just have to add for clarity- the “source” of the vinyl record IS, in fact, from the analog master tape… however, the laquer was cut from a DSD copy of the master tape. Let’s keep the facts straight. These title are still, in fact, original master tape sourced.

They couldn’t because they don’t own the rights to the music.

Thanks man! Means a lot to me!❤️

No one is granting open ended licenses to audiophile labels on the sort of titles MoFi does.

@@scottwheeler2679 the CEO of MoFi unambiguously states (multiple times) that its decision to limit releases is based on DEMAND…NOT licensing. Combine that with the fact that limited editions are the preserve of AAA releases because of wear and tear on the master tape, when there’s no such limitation with a digital step, then the whole concept of digital-OneStep-limited-editions is BOGUS.

@@GodfreyMann Licencing cost is based on the nature of the product. Limited editions and specialty products are easier and less expensive to licence. Whether or not Mofi are able to get licenes for exactly the size of the limited edition they want to issue doesn't change the fact that the cost of the licence and therefore the cost of production per unit is contingent on the licence agreement which will include the quanity of the limited edition and the nature of the actual product for example a One Step being a unique product. OTOH when the major labels press their own non audiophile records there is no cost of licencing. They already own the title. So they can do so for less money and with no worries that their licencees are competing with their own in house product. The *concept* of one steps is to reduce the inherent noise and better preserve the musical information in the grooves in th vinyl by reducing the number generations in the process. So for those who actually understand that the process is NOT bogus. It actually make total sense given the FACT that the digital file they use is audibly transparent. You will not get a mastering chain that can bring you closer to the original audio signal comming off of the master analog tape. Whether or not you or anyone else *likes* the results has nothing to do with the objectively greater potential accuracy to the original analog master tape. Nor does it have anything to do with th real world added costs of these processes being used by Mofi to achieve a better quality product.

People liked the sound of the records and mofi said the digital transfer made the improvement. Your 45 CD is therefore anamazing piece of digital music and MoFi audiophiles agree. So the 'warm' analog myth is now dead and burried...ih BtW I own vinyl and CDs.

A record should not sell for more than $10. I can get CDs of excellent quality for far less and enjoy better produced music. Vinyl has its limitations and that is physical, whereas CDs can hold much more information. Besides, the lovers of classical music love CDs. I would not invest in vinyl. I predict it will die quickly. According to the lady at a record store, sales of physical media is dropping. The fact is that we are not living in the days where LPs were the main way of getting music. Today I can copy anything on a tiny device, and the music costs me nothing. I can bypass all blocks presented in programs on my computer. So simple, so very simple to work around it.

The vinyl is derived from CD!!! How much are you willing to pay for it?? 🤣🤣🤣

Great comment. I think this will turn out to be a major class action lawsuit that will force them to pay $ to consumers due to their intentional deception.

Trouble with original pressings done back in the 60 through the 80s are worth a lot, like way too much. I see old titles going for $60 and more. I don't even know the condition of these records. Even the record sleeve is in bad shape. This whole revival of vinyl is ill timed, a time when most people could not possibly care less. I have my 375 records from the past and about 300 CDs. Today many CDs cost no more than they did when first introduced. Vinyl is out of control. Maybe $10 a pop, not $20. I pay between $3 and $4 for the vast majority of vinal recordings. You pay $20 and more and get nothing more than what I got in the past. It's stupid what is going on.

I am afraid many will do that, and prices will hit the ceiling...but the important for me is that people experience a true analog release, possibly when the tapes and tape machines, lathes, pressing plants etc where FRESH!

@@anadialog Indeed. If I can be sure that I'm listening to a completely Analog release (Analogue Productions / Blue Note), then yes .. I'll buy them, for sure. .. but most modern pressings will have some digital step in the process. It's those I'm avoiding. EDIT: Written for my other RU-vid account. Sorry.

You do know that a fair number of AP records were cut from digital files right?

@@scottwheeler2679 Not according to Adrian from AP they aren't. Feel free to email them yourself for clarification.

@@kenworthing472 I don't need clarification. Chad admitted as much in his interview on 45 rpm Audiophile ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tmW_yfEBmVM.html

Some are very good! Especially those produced from who knew what they were doing (very few) like Telarc. We would need the same album for a fair comparison.

I agree!

It’s actually quite accurate since that is exactly what they do, use the original master recording

Yes, especially "original master" is supposed to be analogue tape.

​@@scottwheeler2679 But they pressed it with digital sources, by that analogy, every CD are also from master tape.

@@andrewlim7751 Some CDs are mastered from the original master tapes. There is no analogy.

I believe that digital is also in the chain with Gain 2. In fact, part of the vagueness stems from the highlighting of Gain 2 but neglecting to include the digital step. Bottom line is Mofi has gone digital and will most likely stay that way since they believe it produces better sound quality.

Right here: anadialog-gear.creator-spring.com/ that design is out of production for now

I agree, and they do to since that is what they are saying, DSD256 is very neutral. Better invest in a good DAC! Now it's true that the analog passage adds new euphoric harmonics but...not for that price!

The vinyl will sound different. If you wanted the most transparent copy of the analog tape you should have been buying digital to begin with

@@drewyoung2102 That is true. I have spent A LOT more on my vinyl playback gear than on my digital play back gear.

Agree, they are over priced for certain

I think Jim Davis still thinks we are all stupid. You hit the nail on the head, it’s the cost along with the advertisement. What almost totally invalidates Jim Davis’s argument is the 40,000 copies of Michael Jackson Thriller at 100.00 a pop. This record and volume is what got them in trouble in the first place and if the are a good Stewart of the finite resource, 40,000, really, stop it Jim Davis, just stop it. Will I be part of any lawsuits, probably not, this was greed, 40,000 at 100.00 a pop is 4 million dollars. People started to question this in terms of Michael 45RPM and Mike Esposito and it blew up in their face. I wonder what this will do to future sales and collectors value, but I have to say that MoFi became its own enemy, some of us as audiophiles did this to ourselves by drawing hard lines in the sand with the Vinyl vs Digital debate and let’s be honest despite the price and the deception, some people are feeling pretty stupid to find out that they hated digital and have been listening to it all along. I listen to all formats and my collection is based around mostly originals, with audiophile pressing in their as comparison. I like all aspects of vinyl from the artist to the writers, the sidemen, the producers, mastering engineers and the photography. I have cassettes, reel to reel, cd, blue Ray audio, streaming through tidal. There are CDs and streaming that sound better than vinyl and there is vinyl that sounds better. I drew no hard line, but I’m not stupid enough to not understand MoFi’s deceptive practices and pricing is the main issue. I own Mofi pressings and One Steps, along with Craft Recordings, Music on Vinyl, Analogue Production and Bluenote Tone Poet and their Classic series. When it comes to companies it is the greed that usually bring them down and Mofi thought that doing the interview with Mike Esposito, a novice and not a journalist, they could control the narrative, but this thing has grown legs of its own to appear in the Washington Post and stupid statements by Jim Davis isn’t helping. I think Mofi will suffer loses, but will survive overall, but this will hurt Music Direct’s sales because some people can’t separate one part of the process from the other and some will want no part of neither. Music Direct and the company as a hold has to reduce prices and be transparent because companies like Bluenote with the Tone Poet stuff and Music on Vinyl have paved the path for doing so. How is that Kuzbass Stabi R and did you sell your Technics 1200g? Keep up the good work and I’m always interested in your prospective.

Do you understand why one steps cost 125 dollars? Did you raise a stink when MoFi released The Nightfly?

@@scottwheeler2679 Nightfly was a digital recording. I knew what I was buying. As far as I’m concerned one steps are a 75 dollar record, tops. Imagine what couldn’t stand the weather would’ve sounded like if the source had been analog? Oh wait, I know. It would sound like the AS 45 pressing.

We keep missing the point here. It is not the cost of the product that counts, it is the quantity of copies you can make and sell. I keep using the Thriller example because it's fitting. They are/were about to sell 40.000 copies of that album, that is a 100$ one-step album. With that type of income you completely cut all expenses and make 10 times the income Analog Productions is making for the same album. All because they are cutting from digital and played on the fact that everyone thought it was analog. The only thing that could have saved them or at least reduce the impact of their forgery was a decent price tag.

@@billsoutherland5499 But there are many people here saying that these one steps were not worth the price because they were mastered from a digital file. And yet no one whined about The Nightfly being the same price as other One Steps when it came out.

@@anadialog That is absurd, the cost of the product completely counts when a maker has to set the retail price. And since all of Mofi's catalog is licenced it is the licence that determines how many copies are made, not the technology.And there is no cutting the cost of having to cut new lacquers for every 500 copies by having a larger edition. At least not in any meaningful way. Thriller at 40,000 copies needed about 400 lacquers to be cut to fulfill th limied edition number. That is a huge part of the cost of the product and no one discounts for quantites.and lastly the Mofi one steps were not forgeries.

I have only one SACD from them...this is what happened: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xtIdGDk4g0M.html

I get your point but I’m home s is happened g literally at the expense of MoFi

Guido!

The fact is that digital on Analog media, like tape and vinyl, just sounds better than its native file. Harmonic distortion makes it more pleasant to the ear.

@@anadialog Interesting, thanks

They didn’t charge for a “pure” process whatever that means. No mastering chain to lacquer is “pure” they charge for the work that goes into their mastering and for their cost of licensing and production. In the case of the one steps they charge for the extra cost of doing one step stampers.

That's the delusion, right there. There is no pure waveform. Vinyl has severe technical limitations. What actually happened is that technicians learned to manipulate the sound recordings within the envelope, to create pressings that sounded good to people's ears.

@@audioupgrades One of several dellusions.

🤣

Ella Fitzgerald for Memorex tapes.

That is just ridiculous. Inhope nobody falls for that, especially now! Get an original NM copy of 1970, I saw them on Discigs for as little as 15€ and most importantly it will sound much, much better than the MoFi.

GoldenEar Triton Reference

I live in Italy...I hear ya!

I don’t think it will, not appreciably anyway. Despite this controversy, MOFI still Carrie’s the same process and associated costs to produce their offerings. My guess is they’ll simply offer less of them knowing fewer folks will be interested. So instead of limited edition of 5000, it’ll be limited to 2000… and folks all about the sound will snap ‘em up quickly.

There is a link in the video description!

Here it is! www.pure-neo.io/music/sonically-oustanding-vinyl-reissues

Maybe this can help you: go to discogs and order an original pressing. It will sound better than the MoFi version, it will be much cheaper (clearly less cheaper than a few months ago) and the original thing, when it came out. A piece of history.

@@anadialog I actually have two original pressings. I just thought that the one-step versions were supposed to have the best sound. I think I'm going to cancel the pre-order. Thanks.

@@anadialog how do you know the original pressing will sound better than the MoFi version? have you heard the MoFi version?

I think you should investigate on enjoy. Not many were that in to MoFi, including myself. I only have 6 or 7 while I have dozens of Analogue Productions for example or speakers corner or pure pleasure etc etc

Good point.

Indeed. Another problem that is little addressed is the analog to digital converters sound signature (sure, also analog equipment does, but in a different way). I did DSD vs PCM recordings from vinyl with my RME converter, everything sounded the same after.

The digital step doesn’t change the sound. If you want the original sound seek out flat hi res digital transfers. You won’t get it from vinyl and you won’t get it from mastering engineers that tweak the source signal to get better sound

​@@scottwheeler2679 I respect your opinion, any subjective point of view, depends on our personal experience and our biases. If your ears don't find any difference between digital and analog reproduction it's ok and you may not be interested in to AAA sources. "Original Master recording" legend In the top of an album, suggests that no post production mastering or tweaks have been added to the recording. Even if I find Digital transfers from the master recordings, the sound will depend on my DAC. So the topic is not about my turntable, DAC or player, is about the recording and the source. It's like stating that digital watches are more precise than automatic watches, after selling thousands of quartz watches at the price of automatics. The craftsmanship, the devotion to tradition and the whole experience is different. In that case we could even build a DAC that looks like a turntable and claim that nobody needs a turntable anymore. Surely this is very controversial, every single person has different approaches to this hobby, every single one of them are valid.

@@anadialog +1👍

Audible transparency is not a matter of subjective opinion. It’s objective. Either there is an audible difference or there is not. MoFi did use the original master tapes. And the trade mark does not suggest they ever did flat transfers. That goes for other audiophile labels including ones that have the word “analog” in their brand name.

Unbelievable! What's even more sad is that a lot of people are ok with this because it sounds good (to them). Apart from the fact that you can claim that only of you have listened to an o.g. but in any case this is not the point. The point is deception and high prices for a premium object which is just a digital copy.

@@anadialog Exactly!! Whether I like the sound of the Mofi pressing or not, is irrelevant. But the fact that I don't just adds insult to injury 🙈

Got'em! 😎

John, this is one of the side problems that we must face and argue BUT it does not regard MoFi. We must keep focus on the problem IMO. Personally, as stated all over the place in my channel, I have no problem with digitally sourced records. In my recent video on the best sounding records used as test discs, I also included a Mark Avenue record which are all from digital! I never liked very much MoFi, not even the old records very much. In fact I have all together less than 10. I also have a SACD, which is so bad It's unbelievable. But that is another story, which usually can find here if you interested: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xtIdGDk4g0M.html FIY I also did a detailed video on DSD with a special test: if interested once again here is the link: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-eu5I-z7f6is.html

Yes, I presented it the other way around. Thanks for pointing that out.

Greed. Chad Kassem isn't s normal business man. First if all he is a customer and an audiophile like us. Money is good, but he takes much more pleasure in reissueing an album he loves and wants to share that with everybody. Only that kind of passion brings that amazing quality.

And now the AP 45 rpm Kind Of Blue is $150!!!😢

...and they can't ask 125$ for it! ;-)

It’s not vinyl. Doesn’t have vinyl sound. Doesn’t have the sound of my vinyl rig

No. Three step is the norm. One steps are very unusual and a lot more cost

@@scottwheeler2679 Maybe it was the norm. When tape were used. And they they archived metal parts to be able to make more stampers from them at a later time. But for every big artist/group (Michael Jackson, Beatles, Miles Davis and so on) there is probably 1000 other artists/groups today including those that make electronic music on computers. (And you can simply go online and order a run as low quantanty as 300/500 records.) We have a digital master today and cutting a lacquer (or DMM) from that today or 50 years in the future will give us the same results so why would we store that majority of metal parts for when we can store the digital master instead. That is the old and obsolete way to do it and only logical to do when you have higher number of LPs that's going to be produced and from a tape. For example it makes sense that Bernie Grundman cut a lacquer from tape and they make metal parts from that lacquer and archive it. For old big artists. Those small artists of today that are big enough to give out a record to their smaller audience and want give some of them the choice to be able to be able to by their album on a LP. They that only need a ~500 copies for distribution to some record stores and selling online. Why should LP manufacturer NOT do one-step when they get such order to produce ~500 LPs from a digital master? Should they put more work into the order and make more steps with unnecessary metal parts also needs to be archived also? All that cost money. (There we disagree but yes it will COST more IF you make a more costly choice, for example making a large run of thriller 40 000 LP and want to use one step then you need to cut ~80 lacquers that is not the norm. Yes that is not the NORMAL use case for one step. I try to give you example of a normal use case.) When they can offer a lower price to the record labels by doing one step. And all record labels need to do is archive the digital master and that is what they need to do anyway. So IF the need to make another batch (reissue) there is no problem/issue. (But I have not the data my self and it is second hand information. Maybe you have data/information from a pressing plant that they do one steps seldom?)

@@AmazonasBiotop 3 step pressing was and still is the norm. There have been just a small handful of one step pressings in the history of records. Off the top of my head aside from Mofi I can cite two other examples. A premium version of their recordings offered by Waterlilly back in the 90s and one new record just released by Impex. What other records can you cite that were one steps?

@@scottwheeler2679 That is hard to find out as the example with MOFI shows clearly that those types of details are not something that are any transparency around and are not documented. But a quick search I found fluance (of some reason..) and a pressing plant that is straight from the horse mouth. That they both point out that the 3 step has the advantage that the father is a backup AND for larger runs. (That is WHY and the benefits of 3 step) When digital do not need a physical backup and both of them say a stamper last 500-1000 copies. So if you only want to make ~500 copies then I would be very surprised if a customer that is ordering a batch of ~500 copies are willing to pay for extra work and materials like doing extra plating to get a mother from the father and then again extra plating to get a stamper (son) from that mother just to get hold of stampers.. that they already had (father)! Plus unnecessary storing a father without any reason (totally unnecessary). Those time and material consuming platings is better used to plate two other lacquers and then you can make 3 different albums with the same effort and materials IF their releases are somewhere 500-1000 LPs. As you see a better use of resources and more income for pressing plants and lower price for record labels. So probably the one step is predominant today with modern music and there is no way that we can extract that info from our shelfs of LPs or top of our head, in my humble opinion. From fluance.com: "You can do a multiple step process that creates backups of that lacquer if you do larger runs of that record. The 1-step process creates a stamper which allows you to press about 1,000 records depending on if you are pressing on 140 gram or 180 gram vinyl. A 2-step process creates a “mother” which is a backup of the master and can create 7 or 8 stampers and a 3-step process creates “father” which is a backup of the backup master." (Below gzvinyl is calling it two step that MOFI calls one step.) Gzvinyl.com record manufacturer: "Alternatively, manufacturers can use a two-step process, where the father, the first nickel plate created, is used as the stamper. The three-step process outlined above, however, is industry best practice, as it reserves the father plate as a backup in the likely case that the mother degrades while making stampers." And GZ also state: "This stamper can then be used to press 500-1000 vinyl records. It is possible to produce several stampers from 1 mother repeatedly after several years, which is advantageous both for higher quantity pressings as well as for reissues."

@@AmazonasBiotop No, it's not hard to find out. Not sure what you mean by "Mofi shows clearly those types of details are not something that are any transparency around and are not documented." I honestly don't know what you are trying to say here

Please, provide proof that MoFi doesn’t go to Sony to record from the analog master tapes to DSD with MoFi’s own equipment.

@@tamstutz921 You can't prove a negative, so it's actually you, or Mofi, that has to prove that it happens.

@@audioupgrades False. The statement “it’s a lie” is a positive allegation. Prove it.

Kevin Gray says there are serious sound problems with both 64 and 128, but 256 seems to have solved it, so in his opinion, big difference in sound quality.

@@fearlessflyersfpv420 He's referencing noise shaping for DSD. Noise in the audible band is shifted high above audible frequencies and then filtered out. Some people don't like the theory of that but it's no practical problem.

Yes insightful....this has turned into a big gaping mess.

Although I think that SACD (DSD64) are a shame in audio I do think that native DSD128 and 256 recordings are very good. Probably becaus SACDs are mixed in PCM. In any case what I intended is not 4 times better in overall sonics but 4 times better the resolution.

Not just in the Audiophile community.... Bass players and guitarist are taking out a class action lawsuit on Fender for over charging for their guitars. It would appear "Squier Guitars" (which are considerably cheaper) are equally as good and in some cases better than the equivalent Fender models. For those that don't know... Squier (a company owned by Fender USA) offer budget range versions of Fender guitars and basses, made to the same physical "blueprint", but to a "lower spec" and manufactured out in the Far East. Also, it looks like Fender are laying off workers as a result.

It is about authenticity. The product is not what it was advertised as being. I would rather have an all analog early pressing than a digital record. If I wanted digital playback, I would stream from a hi res service for a fraction of the price. If you gave your wife a fake diamond ring and implied it was a diamond, you better believe she will be upset when/if she finds out it is not authentic. If you gave her a fake ring and told her up front, the outcome would be different. Same could be said about mofi. I don’t understand why so many people are missing this point. Mofi knew they were misleading people and charged the premium price for a digital record.

@@mikearbia5272 Yes, I understand that completely. (Never dupe the wife, Ha) I definitely believe there was an intent to mislead the customer by MoFi's part but we will see. Time will tell.

It was never about authenticity until people found out MoFi was using digital files. You will not find a single post on any audiophile forum or in any MoFi review that mentions “authenticity” it was about sound quality until customers who loved these same MoFi releases for their great sound found out there was a digital step

@@scottwheeler2679 for some of us it is 100% about authenticity. I never believed mofi records were the be all end all reissues. They charge a premium for a glorified SACD.

Desolating. Probably true but I do hope the community, labels and consumers learn also a positive lesson from this and not just forget or is this to pull the cord even further.

Thanks. 1) Yes, but they are part of the same game. That is what people need to know and in fact they got both sued. 2) Well, yes, but not exclusively. In fact, 40.000 copies for Thriller is all but a limited production. That is absolutely not their goal. In fact, that is also why they introduced digital. They could have sticked with analog like all other companies and ask even higher prices. Look at ERC lacquers. Insane! That is true branding and luxury. 3) Good point. But that does not justify the complete digital shift of the entire production, which allows you to make as many copies that you want if the license allows it and, more importantly, you will not face those costs anymore (master tape insurance or traveling expenses, conversion, mastering etc etc.). Once done you have it for ever and for the next 40.000 copies you just need to pay royalties and normal production expenses. P.S. Brother in Arms was also recorded in analog, which according to several it is even better. 4) Incorrect. Actually it is less labor-intensive and it is less expensive exactly because you are jumping two passages, BUT you can make a very limited number of copies hence you must do the whole process several times to reach high numbers only from THAT point of view it is more expensive, BUT that is why they re-introduced the one-step, because they can use digital and start over again as many times they want. If you use master tapes together with the one-step process they would have produced just a "handful" of copies, which is why other audiophile labels have limited editions. So yes, at the end of the day it is expensive because you have do it several times but not the process itself. With more than 40,000 copies per edition, once again, you are safe from productions costs. Nevertheless, you keep adopting a 100$ or 125$ price tag for each release. Not fair for customers not fair for smaller labels. 5) I did not say it is the same thing and in fact I said it is better because they don't cut lacquers but copper, which is already very different. I did an entire video on the topic, I know what it is and how it works. The point is that DMM is a one-step process and labels who use that do not make all this hype around it and certainly don't ask those prices for their LIMITED releases. That is the message there.

@@anadialog I'm generally in agreement with all that you are saying. The essence of my comment was/is that in general, a company is free to charge whatever they want for their product and some of us may look at it with hesitation because of the impact on our pocket books. FOMO is inherently unhealthy from my perspective as a consumer but I choose not to judge others for making that part of their business plan. Some have issues with ERC's model, but at the end of the day, its ERC's choice in how they choose to be in business. At the end of the day, this MOFI issue is all about transparency - once we have transparency then we can all judge for ourselves whether the product justifies the asking price. Today, I would only buy a MOFI record knowing that (a) there won't be an all analog version of a particular release any time in the near future (b) the original mint copy is out of my price reach or (c) the MOFI version is superior to the OG version even cut from Digital. Thanks again for all your videos.

Music Direct does not own MoFi. Licenses are limited.

Among what is digitally available, it probably is even though DSD noise shaping gives me the shivers...a good compromise could be DAT! ;-)

...and Paul says, that the vinyl sounds better, even if he does not understand why 😅

I bet you have bought digital vinyl ;)

@@fearlessflyersfpv420 Nope!

@@mr.george7687 You seem sure, but I wonder ;) ....