audioexchange

I couldn’t resist it – the email from music direct that announced the release of “The Nightfly” from Mobile Fidelity – using UltraDisc One Step. The ultimate luxury edition – even though I can’t stand 45rpm records (they sound great – but you no sooner sit down than you’re up again flipping the record). Bear in mind that I already have 2 vinyl versions (my original 80s record that still sounds great and a newer reissue that I received as a gift and haven’t played yet), 2 DVDA versions, 2 CDs and another vinyl copy in the “Cheap X-Mas” box set. It sounds good – (and I’ll talk about the one step process in a different post) yes – but that is not the point of my post.

As I eagerly awaited my copy of “The Nightfly”, I pondered how low a number I would get – surely below 1000, hopefully lower than 500. In fact, my copy is number 35xx – about as “collectable” as any random vinyl release (which probably number less than 5000). In early December I went to my local record shop and picked up a copy of U2’s “Songs of Experience” – superdeluxe box – numbered 12,xxx. A few minutes later, I went into the other, now closed, store – and there was a copy on the shelf – numbered 9xxx. Arrragh – that was 3000 copies later. For a moment, I pondered a return of the one I bought – and then realized how ridiculous the whole situation actually was. Firstly, if you believe in this numbered mumbo jumbo – only the first couple of hundred would be in any wall collectable – the lower the better. Second – what the heck does the number actually mean?

I have no idea how many copies of Super Deluxe Songs of Experience were produced – maybe 30 or 40K (maybe 13K!) – but the numbering must be specific to the box. There is no difference in boxing from one box to another, nor presumably anything inside the box except the vinyl records. So, if the numbering was to matter, then there would have to be a correlation between the number and the quality of the record. Does anybody really believe that box number 875 contains the 875th record pressed? Absolutely not – for all we know it was the 1875th record pressed – presuming the pressing plant(s) pressed up all of the albums in one large batch. The boxes were likely made and numbered elsewhere. Also, presuming that the stampers punch out fewer than 1000 albums each (maybe 500 or 600), even if they were sequential in pressing order, clearly album 1375 would be a fresher pressing than number 575. But, of course, if you believe in the whole “hot stamper” thing, then there is a massive difference in the quality of pressing from one to the next. So the number means NOTHING. I seem to be incapable of getting hold of any record with a low number – but I have a few Mobile Fidelity records that are numbered below 1000 and below 500 (Tom Waits and Crystal Gayle, Elvis Costello), some in the 1000s (Lynyrd Skyynrd, Allman Bros, Miles Davis) and some in the 10,000s (Bob Dylan – Blood On The Tracks). The lower numbered pressings don’t sound appreciably better to me. Moreover, I have records from the 1970s and 1980s that I bought back then, on 120g or 140g that sound significantly better than the modern 180g virgin vinyl (presumably digitally sourced) re-issue – where the number pressed would be fewer and the stampers more limited.

In conclusion, I think that the numbering of records (and don’t start me on SACDs) is a distraction that is of close to no significance with regard to the quality of the pressing and the sound of the album. Of course, if I ever get a MOFI with number 5 or 15 or 50, I might think otherwise…..

~ by Pat Neligan on January 12, 2018.

Posted in Uncategorized