What labels do you think have the best pressings??
the3rdstream
1,980 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
Comments
Co-sign on ECM, plus I always find ECM records to be in MINT condition, even the covers.
SG
CTI is a mixed bag for me. Some sound great, others suck. My "La Cuna" sounds thin and lifeless.
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.
CONFRIMED! Also EMI! And Spiegelei! Those Germans were skilled at times!
actuel
toshiba
ring
fmp
blue note
dare we even mention jamaica, where they clean the plates with dirty socks
Souljazz Records
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
actual, actual real to real truth ?
True...my Ronnie McNeir 1972 RCA dynaflex has sparkling clear sound. One of the better sounding LPs I have.
SG