MoFi v/s UHQR


I admit that I never doubted MoFi releases but also knew I was never fully satisfied.  I loved the packaging and it just feels good owning a limited release of a special album.  Since the uncovering of their digital step I have bought a few UHQR albums and really feel they are superior.  I had not owned one prior to the controversy.  What are other vinyl lovers doing?  Are you still ordering the UD1S releases?

dhite71

++++1 bdp24 - totally agree that you HAVE to look at who did the mastering. For re-mastered versions of whatever on whatever label, I always look. My personal fav is Stan Ricker. - he did Gino Vanelli; Miles Davis and many, many others - Discogs has a full listing. Some of my fav and best sounding albums are stuff he did in the 70's, 80's....  And some labels are better/more consistent than others, IMHO AP is the best, MoFI a close second. Pure Pleasure is also good and a couple of other labels our of UK, Germany, France, Italy. But you have to do your homework and use your own ears, as YMMV for sure depending on your system.

That’s interesting.  I listen primarily to classical but Tea for the Tillerman was one of my favorite pop albums in my teens.  I always wondered at people who thought that Digital sounded awful (in Classical, imo, digital blows away analog about 99% of the time), but when I heard the CD version of Tea then I understood.  I wondered if there many pop albums similarly afflicted.  Bro 24 explanation is revealing 

Grundman got the master tape from Island ... he discovered an amazing fact: the tapes were made without employing Dolby noise reduction. In spite of that fact, all precious issues of the album (on both LP and CD) had been made assuming Dolby WAS employed.

That sounds far-fetched. How would Grundman even know how previous versions from the masters were made? Do you have any reference for this claim, @bdp24 ??

Sorry, but it seems that the train has gone off the tracks...

First, gross generalizations about SQ are entirely inappropriate and misleading. The SQ of both of these companies' LPs are highly variable, and for logical reasons.  Neither company participated in the original recordings (microphone selection, placement, cables, amps, boards, studio modifications, distances, etc.) 

Furthermore, over time the personnel and equipment used to remaster recordings changed - especially for MoFi, which has been in business longer (1977) than AP (1992). 

It is helpful to compare individual releases, even compares eras, but to discount the entire company's product-line is absurd. 

I own MoFi LPs that are superior to some AP releases, and vice-versa.  Not convinced?  Remember when the MoFi release of Abraxas was touted as the BEST REMASTERED LP EVER!  Later - many of the same folks, upon learning it included a digital clean-up step, declared it unworthy (Micky...?).   Either the digital-step was an improvement (or at least did-no-harm), or many self-proclaimed Audiophiles have selective memory-loss.

On the other side of the coin, the AP release of The Wonderful Sounds of Female Vocals was a dog - until AP fixed the production issues and replaced the bad records with better ones (upon request).  I have a good copy. 

IMO, the SQ on many AP releases are 'good, but not great': The same can be said for MoFi, Speakers Corner, TACET, Sheffield Labs, Impex, King, RR, etc...

On the MoFi side, many great LPs, including 1-Step, and many dogs as well.  Still, Stan Ricker and Bernie Grundman did some great work, but the portfolio varies. 

Bottom line - it would be wise to provide specific comments and criticisms - generalizations about the SQ of audiophile LPs lack creditability.

 

 

 

@cleeds: The information regarding the Dolby issue came from Bernie Grundman, Chad Kassem, and Michael Fremer. Fremer posted a video on his Analog Corner website telling the story, which was subsequently further discussed with Grundman in another video.

A number of years back Fremer got a call from Grundman, informing him of the situation. The Tea For The Tillerman tape boxes were marked indicating that Dolby noise reduction had NOT been used in the recording of the album, so Bernie mastered the LP for release by Chad Kassem on his Analogue Productions record label without the Dolby playback circuit engaged. He told Fremer that when so mastered, the resulting sound was very bright, far brighter than the Island copy of the LP Fremer had supplied him with for a reference (comparing a new remaster with the original is very common in high end mastering).

Grundman sent Fremer a test pressing, asking him if he thought the remaster should be made with the high frequencies decreased somewhat, as he didn’t think audiophiles would like the sound of the LP mastered "flat". Fremer said no, to cut the lacquer flat, brightness and all. Hearing that first lacquer is when Fremer realized the characteristic sound of the Ovation guitar used on the album was muted, lacking it’s inherent "bite". As I said above, I heard the high frequency sheen of the drumset cymbals missing, along with the overtones of the snare drum, toms, and bass drum.

The first pressing "pink label" Island LP had been on Harry Pearson’s Super Disc list for years, and I assumed the problem I heard with my copy of the LP was a result of it being a later "sunray" Island label pressing. Nope, the Island LP (as well as the U.S.A. pressing) had been incorrectly mastered with the Dolby noise reduction circuit engaged, reducing the frequency response with a declining slope as frequency rose.

The Analogue Productions pressing of Tea For The Tillerman album is THE Version to own. By the way, it was also Grundman who discovered the mistake made in the mastering of the Kind Of Blue album, for it’s entire history! That topic was also discussed by Grundman, Fremer, and Kassem in a long YouTube video.