"New" Mobile Fidelity Vinyl Pressings

[Greg Beron / UHA]

Other people do too Greg and that logic escapes me also

I believe if someone thinks this way they are... doing it wrong.

Wrong tape, wrong deck, personal agenda, whatever.
How can you take the lovely clean tape then manipulate the bejesus out of it, squish it into some hot vinyl and not get distortions from the original tape???
IMPOSSIBLE.

 

[puroagave]

What then were those presses then that Chad bought from Classic Records?

i think his point was having a press set asside exclusivley for 200g stamping, which in the end was less profitable.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

to my ears the old rickie lee mobile sounds better the latest one.

I don't have that, but the WB 180-gram sounds very good to my ears.

 

[MylesBAstor]

to my ears the old stan ricker/jvc rickie lee mobile sounds better than the latest one.

The original UK sounded better than the US pressing of RLJ.

I was talking however about the early MOFIs.

Personally, I'm waiting for the 45 rpm release of RLJ.

 

[MylesBAstor]

i think his point was having a press set asside exclusivley for 200g stamping, which in the end was less profitable.

Ok that makes more sense.

Problem as I understand it was that Classic never got the hang of the 200 g press. What's even more annoying are the Clarity issues where the center hole is soooooooo..... tight can barely get record on the spindle. Pretty much 100 pct.

 

[DaveyF]

Why?

Profit.:b

 

[MylesBAstor]

Profit.:b

Not that they were trying to reach a wider audience?

 

[DaveyF]

Not that they were trying to reach a wider audience?

Wider audience= More Profit.

 

[hvbias]

One of the things that was apparent from the 'old' MoFi releases, of which I have quite a few - is their bumped up bass and treble. Comparing a MoFi from the early days to a good original pressing, the latter usually wins out. I don't own that many new MoFi LPs- I gather that they vary in SQ (now I'm not talking about pressing quality, but how the record has been mastered, perhaps what the source material is that it was taken from, and the EQ placed on it).
PS Pingu- I believe QRP does pressings for various labels, not just Chad's Analogue Productions.*
And what you are describing seems to have less to do with the pressing process and more with how the record was taken from source and mastered. See my comment above, re MoFi. I think the QRP of Tea was an Analog Productions record.

_______
*I may be mistaken here, for example the Verve reissues are licensed to AP. But the point about the mastering process and the source material is still valid; in other words, the complaint you describe may not be the pressing quality per se. FWIW, some of the records I have that were pressed by QRP sound outstanding.

The new Mofi is much better than the old Mofi. But they still make some peculiar choices when mastering. They've ranged from better than originals to significantly worse. As a vague general finding the new Mofi's do not have as much air in the higher frequencies compared to originals. Also if your system is transparent enough you can make out the master tapes haven't aged well in some instances.

Since they stay in print for a while I tend to wait a year or so and see what the reviews are like then. I think many of us (including myself) can suffer from new toy syndrome so when we get something new, psychologically we're "hearing things we haven't heard before", etc. Things may only truly reveal themselves with a more level headed listen down the line.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Wider audience= More Profit.

That's looking at the half empty glass of water. Besides what is evil about making money? Keeps them in business and keeps them pressing vinyl for all of us. Better than some of these companies that operate on a shoestring and could be out of business tomorrow.

 

[MylesBAstor]

The new Mofi is much better than the old Mofi.

Not in all cases. But in general so far yes. Bill and I mentioned some of the really good older pressings from MOFI earlier in the thread.

But they still make some peculiar choices when mastering.

Can you say AWB?

They've ranged from better than originals to significantly worse. As a vague general finding the new Mofi's do not have as much air in the higher frequencies compared to originals. Also if your system is transparent enough you can make out the master tapes haven't aged well in some instances.


Since they stay in print for a while I tend to wait a year or so and see what the reviews are like then. I think many of us (including myself) can suffer from new toy syndrome so when we get something new, psychologically we're "hearing things we haven't heard before", etc. Things may only truly reveal themselves with a more level headed listen down the line.

I find adjusting VTA helps the highs but also feel some of what you're talking about may just be Tim's electronics.

Hearing issues with the tape isn't unique to MOFI. Listen to the recent reissues of the Tony Bennett/Bill Evans album. The tape didn't fare well there either Such as great album that now that I thought about it have to find it and put it on today.

 

[Bill Hart]

Have you listened to some of the older MOFIs recently? I think they're better than we thought a decade or two ago.

I haven't done direct comparisons recently, but when I did the following comparisons in the last few years, here's what I found:
UHQR Tea vs. street bought pink label- the Island won;
Rickie Lee S/T- old MoFi v old UK pressing- UK won;
LZ II v old 'RL'- RL won, though noisier- (my RL copy is far from mint).
Old Dark Side - I don't have the early UK Harvest, so no meaningful comparo other than another Japanese pressing (not 'Pro Use' think it is 2d or 3d issue japanese);
White Album and Abbey Road v Parlaphones from Blue Box- like the latter better.
That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

 

[hvbias]

Not in all cases. But in general so far yes. Bill and I mentioned some of the really good older pressings from MOFI earlier in the thread.



Can you say AWB?



I find adjusting VTA helps the highs but also feel some of what you're talking about may just be Tim's electronics.

Hearing issues with the tape isn't unique to MOFI. Listen to the recent reissues of the Tony Bennett/Bill Evans album. The tape didn't fare well there either Such as great album that now that I thought about it have to find it and put it on today.

I haven't heard the AWB. My VTA is actually set for a 180 gram pressing, I don't adjust up or down for 200g or lighter pressings respectively, since it's a pain to find the "regular" setting again. I agree the tape issue isn't a problem that plagues only Mofi.

Some of the older Mofi pressings I've enjoyed- Led Zeppelin II, Yes Close to the Edge, Grateful Dead From the Mars Hotel and Brubeck's We're All Together Again For the First Time (Anadisc).

 

[hvbias]

I haven't done direct comparisons recently, but when I did the following comparisons in the last few years, here's what I found:
UHQR Tea vs. street bought pink label- the Island won;
Rickie Lee S/T- old MoFi v old UK pressing- UK won;
LZ II v old 'RL'- RL won, though noisier- (my RL copy is far from mint).
Old Dark Side - I don't have the early UK Harvest, so no meaningful comparo other than another Japanese pressing (not 'Pro Use' think it is 2d or 3d issue japanese);
White Album and Abbey Road v Parlaphones from Blue Box- like the latter better.
That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

Have you heard the recent AP reissue of Tea? I'd be interested to hear what you think of it compared to the UK Pink I.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I haven't heard the AWB. My VTA is actually set for a 180 gram pressing, I don't adjust up or down for 200g or lighter pressings respectively, since it's a pain to find the "regular" setting again. I agree the tape issue isn't a problem that plagues only Mofi.

Some of the older Mofi pressings I've enjoyed- Led Zeppelin II, Yes Close to the Edge, Grateful Dead From the Mars Hotel and Brubeck's We're All Together Again For the First Time (Anadisc).

See post #21!

 

[Bill Hart]

Have you heard the recent AP reissue of Tea? I'd be interested to hear what you think of it compared to the UK Pink I.

Nope, I seemed to recall mixed reviews of it, and since I already had enough copies to last me a lifetime or two, I figured the money was best spent elsewhere (on other records). Why, do you like it?

 

[hvbias]

See post #21!

Thanks, I have not heard any of those... not a big JMJ fan

Nope, I seemed to recall mixed reviews of it, and since I already had enough copies to last me a lifetime or two, I figured the money was best spent elsewhere (on other records). Why, do you like it?

I think the AP reissue sounds very good. The story is the original lacquers for both the US A&M and UK Island were done at Sterling Sound by Lee Hulko. However most people that have heard both say the UK is better. I've come across this a few times as well, presumably due to superior vinyl formulation used in the UK. Or different plating technique, who knows. I did have an original US pressing using that Sterling mastering and slightly preferred the AP reissue.

The AP SACD was met less favorably. To me it's not as natural sounding and a bit hard in the vocals.

 

[mep]

Have you heard the recent AP reissue of Tea? I'd be interested to hear what you think of it compared to the UK Pink I.

I don't know too many people who are thrilled with the AP reissue of Tea despite all of the hype including me. And no, I don't have the UK version to compare with.

 

[hvbias]

I don't know too many people who are thrilled with the AP reissue of Tea despite all of the hype including me. And no, I don't have the UK version to compare with.

I'll have to give this and the US original another listen with fresh ears. I didn't have my Quads at the time I purchased this one.

 

[mep]

I'll have to give this and the US original another listen with fresh ears. I didn't have my Quads at the time I purchased this one.

Please do and report back. I won't be surprised if your US original will sound much the better. Check out the dynamic range differences and how Cat's voice sounds from one LP to the next.