[millerdog]

should I pay more for mofi vinyl? I am confused.
sorry mods....didn't know where to post this.
md

 

[chadbang]

Undoubtedly better sounding! Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs were one of the first audiophile recording manufacturers and I don't think they've ever been matched. To begin with, they always made their albums and cds from the original master tapes. I don't know the genius who did their actually mastering, but boy was he good at making his transfers shine! MFSL also only used the highest quality Japanese vinyl known for low noise. All around, the company always produced albums that sound far better than LPs produced by record company (produced en masse). I used to save up my money, and it was always a thrilling treat to take home a MFSL album! I think they used to cost three times the price of a normal album, but it was always well worth it. Now, they are an audiophile collectable and I believe still well worth the expense.MFSL basic went out of business for two reasons: high production costs and a small market of audiphiles willing to pay and the introduction of the cd. Personally, I never thought their gold cd warranted to extra expense, although, back then, I'm sure they were mastered better. Some people think that the sonic differences between mass manufactured cds and MFSL's cds was not as obvious as the better quality of their albums - which led to their demise.
Of course I'm not recommending anyone drop a couple hundred on a seal "Dark Side of the Moon", but you can still pick up used MFSL cheap on ebay if you get lucky. Even a used one should still give you an idea of how good they sound.

 

[pigmode]

.

 

[pigmode]

You mean this? I bought this at the old Audio Center at Ward.

 

[akshobhyavajra]

MoFi LPs may at times be quite good, but should not be overrated. There are many fine quality 180 gram and 200 gram pressings available NEW - depending on your music taste. Companies like Analogue Productions, Audio Quest, Classic Records, DCC and Reference Recordings produce excellent re-issues and originals.

MFSL is often purchased by "collectors" who don't necessarily have a great interest in music or sonics - rather they collect for the sake of collecting.

As such a sealed half-speed copy of DSOTM did in fact go for over $700 on ePAY recently. In like manner a 1s/3s pressing of ALEXANDER GIBSON - WITCHES BREW (LSC-2225) went for over $180 - even though the cover was shot and the vinyl was NOT mint. Obviously a collector - since you can get a better sounding NEW 200 gram pressing for only $27 (better sounding since they are virgin vinyl - meaning that NO regrind, i.e. ground-up, melted-down defective records, excess material taken from the very edges of the blanks after pressing, is added. These materials usually contribute to surface noise...

MFSL is sometimes hit or miss in terms of sonic quality - though I have not heard a bad recording. Kind of like DGG - never bad, but not necessarily exceptional.

My $0.02 worth...

~Michael~

 

[Audio Redneck]

One to avoid: Manhattan Transfer Live. I don't own this album and the reason I don't is that Steve Hoffman, who engineered the issue, warned me off of it. He wanted to make it a double album set and management said keep it on one disk. Its almost 30 minutes of music per side and he said it wasn't one their better products.

I'm only throughing this out because of my source and because I know you like Manhattan Transfer.

 

[gloco]

Quote:

Originally posted by pigmode You mean this? I bought this at the old Audio Center at Ward.

That looks like it. Does it mention MFSL on the back at all? I have a pile of MFSL Beatles vinyl>cd transfers, they sound hella sweet.

 

[millerdog]

Thanks for the replies. I think I'll just try to get one off ebay and compare.
I've seen the new 180/200gm releases too, but they cost some scripts. The MFSLs I've seen on ebay are more affordable for me.
Gettin into vinyl is almost as bad as choosing hardware

md

 

[gloco]

Quote:

Originally posted by millerdog Thanks for the replies. I think I'll just try to get one off ebay and compare. I've seen the new 180/200gm releases too, but they cost some scripts. The MFSLs I've seen on ebay are more affordable for me. Gettin into vinyl is almost as bad as choosing hardware md

hehe, good luck, hopefully you'll win a few. If your into the Police try getting some HQ vinyl releases of there's, they sound mighty fine.

 

[mkmelt]

"I don't know the genius who did their actually mastering, but boy was he good at making his transfers shine!"

The mastering genius behind many of the MFSL LPs was Stan Ricker of the JVC Mastering Center in CA. Stan also was at the controls of the mastering lathe than was used for many of the Telarc LPs of the same period. If you look at the inner runout groove of many of the early MFSL and Telarc discs, you can see where Stan scratched his initials "S.R." into the lacquer.

I understand that Stan was recently coaxed out of retirement and back into the mastering lab to create some new reissues by some of the audiophile labels that have emerged over the past few years.

I recently sold my collection of 15 MFSL LPs to my brother-in-law, because I was not listening to them, having switched to CDs long ago. Soon after selling my collection, I got interested in analog recordings again, but in reel to reel tape not in LPs.

For more than 20 years, analog reel to reel audio tape was the high fidelity medium of choice, only falling victim to the larger consumer demand that valued the convenience of 8-Track tape and cassette tape over sound quality and cost of the reel tape format.

I believe that many of the reel tapes in my collection sound better than the same 60s and 70s album release on LP, MFSL reissue or otherwise, ever will. If you ever are fortunate enough to hear a good quality factory reel to reel tape played through a high quality system, I think most would agree with me.

The equivalent genius for factory tape duplication of reel to reel tapes during this period are largely unknown engineers. It is accepted that the engineers at Ampex in Elk Grive, IL consistently did a better job at duplicating tapes than most other duplicating labs of the time. If you wanted the best possible transfer of your latest masterpiece from studio tape to 4-track reel to reel, you wanted the crew at Ampex to do the transfer and duplication.

 

[millerdog]

Interesting mkmelt,
I just got a tape deck and am considering going RTR. I was thinking of RTR for some really long recording mixes, but since I can also do MP3s, well, I am not quite sure if it's worth the trouble. Still deciding on how much I like analog compared to cds.
md

 

[mkmelt]

If your musical tastes include 50s, 60s and 70s rock, pop, and jazz music, and you already have a reel to reel player in good working order, then by all means seek out some factory recorded reel to reel tapes.

Compared to LPs, reel tapes don't have:

ticks, pops, or scratches

groove noise

inner groove distortion

cartridge tracking error

tonearm tracking error

phone equalization errors

phono stage noise and hum

Also, assuming starting with a two channel mixdown master of the same recording, there are fewer than half of the steps needed to duplicate this master to 4-track tape, than to master an LP record. So your end product is only 3 generations removed from the original, instead of 6 or more for an LP. Each step in the duplication chain adds noise and distortion, and degrades the original waveform to some degree.

Most 60s LPs had the bass frequencies EQ'd off of the LP mastering tape, or summed to mono in a phantom center channel, because the average consumer phonograph cartridge of the period could not handle low frequency signals cut into a record without jumping out of the record groove. The result is that many vintage 60s rock recording released on vinyl are bass shy. This bass rolloff was not necessary for going to reel tape, and many of the factory reel tapes have huge levels of bass energy recorded onto them. Even CDs, if they started with the EQ'd LP master, lacks the definition and punch of some of my analog recordings released on reel to reel tape. Reel tapes also have a greater frequency response and dynamic range than LPs, even greater than the range on audiophile LPs.

The audible nasties on reel tape are few:

Tape hiss, usually less noticable at 7-1/2 inches per second record/playback speed than at 3-3/4, but the difference is not that great and many of my best sounding reel tapes were recorded at the slower speed. Tape hiss is usually only audible during the quietest passages and is less distracting than the random ticks and pops frequently heard on LPs.

Print through. Sometimes you can hear a sound imprint of the previous or next layer of tape overlayed onto the part being played, due to the magnetic properties of recording tape.

Drops outs. Surprizingly few for tapes that are in some cased 40 years old.

So far, I have been able to find most, but not all, of my favorite recordings from this period on reel tape. A few, such as DSOM, as far as I can tell were never released in the ree- to-reel tape format (DSOM was released in 8-track and cassette format along with vinyl). The others, I keep scouting eBay hoping to find.

 

[zowie]

MoFi vinyl is overrated. Their pressings are noisy, worse than some regular pressingss. They give you this B.S. about not filing the masters to preserve transients. How come DCC, Analogue Productions and Classics sound just as good, without the tics.

R2R was the highest fidelity home medium, but it was never people's top choice. Too expensive (machines and tapes), too much trouble, and too easy to damage tapes, and of course sticky-shed syndrome. And now we have excellent CD recorders, DAT, MD, PC recording, etc. available, and fantastic sounding vinyl playback. If you're already invested in the R2R format that's one thing, but I don't recommend anyone first get into it today, now that there are superior choices, unless it's just for nostalgia.

 

[mkmelt]

My comments were in response to Millerdog, who said he already had a reel to reel tape deck. My suggestion would be to make a list of your top ten or so albums from the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, and seek out factory manufactured copies of these recordings on reel tape.

If you do then you will hear, in some cases for the first time, what these classics sounded like to the engineers mixing these tracks. This is especially true when listening with a good pair of headphones, and a headphone amp. You can sometimes hear amazing details and recorded ambience that was captured on these tapes. If you compare with standard CDs, much of this ambient information is not audible if it is there at all.

I don't know about how SACDs sound compared to analog reel tapes, but hope to do a listening comparison soon using the Rolling Stones SACDs and some of my Stones recordings on reel tape including: Aftermath, Beggar's Banquet, Let it Bleed, and Sticky Fingers.

I recently got to hear my reel tape of Let it Bleed played through a pair of outstanding 805 type SET tube amplifiers (45 watts/channel in triode). The soundstage of the chorus of You Can't Always Get What You Want sounded better than ever, and I was able to discern for the first time that there were two separate vocal chorus tracks in the mix of the refrain on this song, one with female voices and one with male voices. I never noticed that before, and I have owned versions of this song on both the LP and CD over the years. I am curious to hear if the SACD can provide a similar level of reproduction. Kind of made me a believer that the buzz about SET tube amplifiers may not be all hype.

 

[smokey]

After having rescued my vinyl collection from the garage, I went surfing for info regarding the collectibility of my old MoFis, CBS Half-Speeds, etc. I found the following link that provides an excellent comparison of regular issues and MoFi issues of the same record.

http://www.soundstage.com/synergize/synergize081999.htm

Quite an interesting read.