What labels do you think have the best pressings??

the3rdstreamthe3rdstream 1,980 Posts
edited August 2005 in Record Collecting
MPS[/b]anything on mps sounds good, so warm and clear, even when shit is scratched up, and even the basf/mps US pressings are just as good to me ECM[/b]no matter what you think of the music they put out their pressings are way above average anything pressed in japan[/b]like most things, the japanese always do it better
«1

  Comments


  • JLRJLR 3,835 Posts
    MPS[/b]
    anything on mps sounds good, so warm and clear, even when shit is scratched up, and even the basf/mps US pressings are just as good to me
    ECM[/b]
    no matter what you think of the music they put out their pressings are way above average
    anything pressed in japan[/b]
    like most things, the japanese always do it better

    Co-sign on ECM, plus I always find ECM records to be in MINT condition, even the covers.

  • hcrinkhcrink 8,729 Posts
    the earlier Impulse! pressings are real nice. Old Blue Notes too.

  • SupergoodSupergood 1,213 Posts
    Most Moder Soul mastered by Wally Traugott at Capitol Studios in the early 80's sounds crystal clear to these ears. Most of the LPs he worked on were released by Capitol, but I've seen his name on numerous Elektra LPs as well.



    SG

  • TheMackTheMack 3,414 Posts
    RCA batches

  • DORDOR Two Ron Toe 9,896 Posts
    Nowadayz, anyone thats still pressing using virgin vinyl. Mostly the Brits & Japanese.

  • CTI[/b]

  • TheMackTheMack 3,414 Posts
    i always thought most CTI's sucked! they all have a nasty hiss in the presing

  • SwayzeSwayze 14,705 Posts
    folkways everytime. super thick vinyl, and extra cardboard to keep it straight.

  • JLRJLR 3,835 Posts
    CTI[/b]

    CTI is a mixed bag for me. Some sound great, others suck. My "La Cuna" sounds thin and lifeless.

  • the earlier Impulse! pressings are real nice. Old Blue Notes too.

    i totally agree on the early impulse mono releases, blue note iam not so sure on, their ok but never stands out to me

    found a mono one of these the other day for $2

    alamode fuck yeah!

  • Birdman9Birdman9 5,417 Posts
    the earlier Impulse! pressings are real nice. Old Blue Notes too.

    i totally agree on the early impulse mono releases, blue note iam not so sure on, their ok but never stands out to me

    found a mono one of these the other day for $2

    alamode fuck yeah!

    Blue Note mono pressings sound great if you find them in clean shape....hell, even sketchy they jump out of the speakers.

    Japanese direct-to-disc pressings are clear as a bell.

  • GropeGrope 2,970 Posts
    MPS[/b]
    anything on mps sounds good, so warm and clear, even when shit is scratched up, and even the basf/mps US pressings are just as good to me

    CONFRIMED! Also EMI! And Spiegelei! Those Germans were skilled at times!

  • CONFRIMED! Also EMI! And Spiegelei! Those Germans were skilled at times!
    german engineering at its finest!

  • DJ_NevilleCDJ_NevilleC 1,922 Posts
    For the thickest, fattest sound I prefer:


  • basically, europe and japan make the quality shit. and sometimes america. but never china and the latin american stuff can be spotty at best. i like

    actuel
    toshiba
    ring
    fmp
    blue note

  • basically, europe and japan make the quality shit. and sometimes america. but never china and the latin american stuff can be spotty at best. i like

    dare we even mention jamaica, where they clean the plates with dirty socks

  • BaptBapt 2,503 Posts
    Dream Merchant
    Souljazz Records



  • These dudes take their pressings seriously

  • BamboucheBambouche 1,484 Posts




    These dudes take their pressings seriously





    Beyond seriously.



    We're trying to finish a record for release that will be recorded, mixed, mastered, and pressed entirely in the analog domain, and I'm finding Albini's knowledge very helpful.





    For example, who else answers questions so thoroughly:





    I have a couple of conditions I think need to be met before I can consider

    a mastering house or engineer to be "professional":



    1) must not laugh at clients

    2) must have 20 years experience at the professional level

    3) must have significant experience cutting vinyl masters

    4) must be able to accommodate all playback formats (1/2-inch, 1/4-inch,

    mono, stereo...) -- saying "I can rent a machine if I have to..." doesn't

    count

    5) must have exceptional transfer equipment (eq, routing, monitoring)

    6) must have a lathe that can be run at the time of the session (not a

    bulk/batch setup)

    7) DMM capability is a clincher

    8) advance-head playback (no DDL) is also a clincher



    #1 is just common decency. #2 is so I can get references and an oral

    history of experiences, and so the engineer will have already encountered

    and solved any problems that may come up. #3 makes sure the engineer

    doesn't attribute sound qualities to vinyl playback that aren't part of the

    process, and because it familiarizes him with all of the compromises and

    adjustments necessary for any playback system. #4 is to ensure that

    playback of any format will be integrated into the system (not a makeshift

    add-on). #5 makes sense. #6 avoids the cost, time and expense of a

    secondary session, and avoids blame shifting ("it wasn't me, it was the

    lacquer guy..."). #7 implies quite a bit. Before a facility was DMM

    licensed, every step of the process (noise performance, lathe calibration,

    cutter condition, amplifier drive, condition of copper blanks, chip

    removal...) had to be vetted by DG (who held the copyright to the process)

    and checked prior to each cut. This is the sort of seal of approval that

    can't be cheated. #8 is a nicety that isn't trivial.



    If I had to reccommend a single facility in the world, it would be Abbey

    Road's mastering suite. They get checks on all eight. They are also very

    reasonable in cost.



    If I had to reccommend a single US facility, it would be John Golden

    Mastering. John gets 1 through 6, and has been able to handle everything

    I've ever thrown at him, no matter how demanding, delicate or weird (yes,

    even mono). Track record counts for a lot with me.





    My standards, while high, can be met, and at reasonable cost. One reason

    our studio hasn't ventured into mastering is that to do it "right" (by me)

    would require an investment of, say, a million dollars, and I can hire a

    place I respect for less than $200 an hour.



    Your question about thickness is a manufacturing (not mastering)

    consideration, and is less important than other general quality issues

    related to manufacturing. For what it's worth, RTI makes excellent

    pressings in several weights. EMI used to make good pressings in the UK,

    but have recently sold their plant for its real estate value. I am going to

    be getting some pressings from MPO in France, and I will let you know how

    they are.



    Side length is related to program complexity, volume, stereo width and bass content. Wide stereo, loud volume and high bass content all enlarge the grooves, shortening the allowable playback time. A large number of bands(needle-drop "lands" between tracks) also decreases program time. For worst case conditions, a conservative LP side length is 18 minutes. With "normal"program, you should be able to get 20 minutes with minimal compromise. With DMM you get a tiny improvement in total time (perhaps a minute) or output level (perhaps a dB). Run longer than that, and you have to compromise sound quality, volume or stereo width. With mono or very quiet reproduction, you could conceivably get 30 minutes on a side.



    The "computer" (normally an analog system that uses several derivatives of the program to generate a drive signal) which moves the cutter to create space for each groove needs to hear the audio one revolution in advance of the cutter. To facilitate that, the program audio can either be delayed by a DDL (a necessity for DAT or other digital playback systems) or the computer audio can be taken from an advance head on the tape deck. This is the preferred method, obviously, as it avoids an otherwise unnecessary A-D-A conversion.



    There is slightly better sound quality possible on 12-inch 45 rpm than

    33rpm up to about 12 minutes a side, all else being equal. Half-speed

    mastering was experimented with for a while, and the transient response of the system did improve, but the bass response suffered. Virtually no

    playback machines could maintain useable response down to 10Hz, and all the eq points had to be divided, as did the RIAA equalizer. The cutters also

    had trouble at ultra-low frequencies.



    DMM is better than lacquer in noise performance, groove deformation-related crosstalk and transient response (this may be related to better cutter damping and drive in the high-power system required for DMM). DMM-certified plating plants are also required to get certification, although normal plating can be done from DMM coppers with no penalty other than the withholding of the "DMM" trademark on the final product.



    A record stamper can be made directly from a DMM master. Since press runs are so small now, record companies routinely master from original master tapes, whereas in the distant past, "production masters" (incorporating eq and other changes) were used for cutting. A modern DMM vinyl pressing is 3 generations from the original master in this scenario.



    In the "old days," a pressed record would be made from a stamper made from a "mother" (positive electroplate), made from a "strike-off" (a negative electroplate), made from a lacquer, made from the DDL throughput of a "production master" made from an original master. That's a 7th generation copy.



    Record manufacturing nowadays can be much better than in vinyl's heyday.



    -steve albini

  • SoulOnIceSoulOnIce 13,027 Posts
    Co-Sign on RCA.

    I find 60's/early 70's pressings on Mercury are fantastic - and also have that magic ability to play near perfect even when it looks like someone had a yay party on the vinyl. Amy/Mala/Bell stuff, too.

    Oh, and 60's Atlantic OG's.

    Alot of Stax stuff sounds like ASS.

  • COOK

  • BamboucheBambouche 1,484 Posts
    COOK

    She's never gonna marry you if you keep barking orders like that!


  • For as old as most of the stuff I have on Specialty...it sounds great.

  • actuel

    Actually, Actuels are some of the worst pressed records of all time.
    Anyone with the triple Silva, go ahead and put on side 5 and listen to THAT mastering distortion.
    I've bought these sealed many times and they look worked from the git-go.

  • chrischris 287 Posts
    actuel

    interestingly, i've found the pressings from these 2 companies to be generally terrible.

  • SoulOnIceSoulOnIce 13,027 Posts
    actuel

    interestingly, i've found the pressings from these 2 companies to be generally terrible.

    It's funny, I "hate" Dynaflex pressings just because they look & feel like shit - but those fuckers can sound nice. I got old Bowie LP's that sound like some DAT master shit, fer real. Pre-Dynaflex RCA pressings play pretty sweet, too.

  • LamontLamont 1,089 Posts
    There is slightly better sound quality possible on 12-inch 45 rpm than
    33rpm up to about 12 minutes a side, all else being equal.

    actual, actual real to real truth ?

  • RAWKUS

  • SupergoodSupergood 1,213 Posts
    actuel

    interestingly, i've found the pressings from these 2 companies to be generally terrible.

    It's funny, I "hate" Dynaflex pressings just because they look & feel like shit - but those fuckers can sound nice. I got old Bowie LP's that sound like some DAT master shit, fer real. Pre-Dynaflex RCA pressings play pretty sweet, too.

    True...my Ronnie McNeir 1972 RCA dynaflex has sparkling clear sound. One of the better sounding LPs I have.

    SG

  • Brunswick, UK DECCA/Columbia, white/golden EMI
Sign In or Register to comment.