Definitive Audiophile pressings

A bunch of Mofi restocks last night. Dire Straight - self titled 45RPM, Santana III silver label, Sisters of Mercy Floodland silver label, KC and the Sunshine band, and B52s - Wild Planet.

Dylan - Desire supervinyl is sold out. Pressing number was so low because they are testing the viability of that price point, which has obviously now been proven. Future ones shouldn’t be as limited.
 
NathanRicaud said:
So how come this MOFI SuperVinyl is USD$50 cheaper the MOFI One Step!?
Click to expand...

Because both are made from super vinyl.

The one step has less steps between the laquer and stamper (one) than normal (3) which makes each stamper far more expensive.

The super vinyl is the normal stamping process but using the fancy vinyl formulation.
 
NathanRicaud said:
So how come this MOFI SuperVinyl is USD$50 cheaper the MOFI One Step!?
Click to expand...
This one uses the normal plating process, the only difference to the standard mofi is the vinyl used. I think they are using this and the Elvis Costello to test appetite for the increased prices on super vinyl and will probably reissue a bunch of titles with larger runs on super vinyl
 
Joe Mac said:
Here’s the explainer pic from my one step. The top process from that is the one used for the one steps and the bottom is for normal pressings, including these super vinyl presses.

View attachment 73787
Click to expand...
I don't know if the stamper is more expensive per se. Just that unlike with the normal method, once your stamper has been "used-up" then you have to re-cut on another lacquer to make another stamper, which would be more expensive since you need to pay a mastering engineer to cut again. So for a given limited run, the cost would be the same (or even slightly cheaper for the one-step since you don't need to plate more) BUT you can't recoup those costs in the future by making more stampers off the mother like you typically do in the normal process. So over the entire possible "progeny" for lack of a better term, of a given lacquer, it is effectively more expensive because your yield is 1 instead of the normal number from a father.

So I guess I'm just thinking out loud but the bottom line is, if you end up pressing more than one "convert" can produce in the run, it is more expensive. If only that amount ever gets pressed, it would be about the same. How much the mastering engineer charges is probably not equal to the markup at all, but I wonder how close it is!

Unless there is something different than basically stopping at the father step for one-step, that I haven't seen explained, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Is the "convert" plating step used by one-step significantly different than the normal father plating step? The way they describe it sounds the same, but maybe they use different metals or something. Silver and nickel don't sound too outrageous or expensive though.
 
Last edited:
dhodo said:
I don't know if the stamper is more expensive per se. Just that unlike with the normal method, once your stamper has been "used-up" then you have to re-cut on another lacquer to make another stamper, which would be more expensive since you need to pay a mastering engineer to cut again. So for a given limited run, the cost would be the same (or even slightly cheaper for the one-step since you don't need to plate more) BUT you can't recoup those costs in the future by making more stampers off the mother like you typically do in the normal process.

Unless there is something different than basically stopping at the father step for one-step, that I haven't seen explained, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Is the "convert" plating step used by one-step significantly different than the normal father plating step? The way they describe it sounds the same, but maybe they use different metals or something. Silver and nickel don't sound too outrageous or expensive though.
Click to expand...

The stamper as a product is more expensive as you are getting less of them from the same amount of lacquer, not that the materials in the stamper and necessarily more expensive. I'd like to think that the implication is pretty clear rather than droning on ad nauseam.
 
Joe Mac said:
The stamper as a product is more expensive as you are getting less of them from the same amount of lacquer, not that the materials in the stamper and necessarily more expensive. I'd like to think that the implication is pretty clear rather than droning on ad nauseam.
Click to expand...
Sure, it just depends on how many stampers they need for the run, which I'm not sure how many records they press vs how many they do per stamper. I don't imagine many people are under the impression that it actually accounts for the majority of the markup though. I think that is mostly the limited, exclusiveness.

Sorry for annoying you by thinking about the details out loud.
 
dhodo said:
Sure, it just depends on how many stampers they need for the run, which I'm not sure how many records they press vs how many they do per stamper. I don't imagine many people are under the impression that it actually accounts for the majority of the markup though. I think that is mostly the limited, exclusiveness.

Sorry for annoying you by thinking about the details out loud.
Click to expand...

Im not sure. They charge more for these which are limited to around 9k than the they did for the normal Dylan mono ones which were limited to 3k. Which was the same price as the stereo which was limited numbers without a quoted upper limit. If they were playing that game I’d say that they’d have much more stringently limited the one steps to something like 1k runs.

It makes me think that getting laquer cut is the expensive cost and that maximising the number of stampers from a laquer cuts the cost. Cutting out 2 steps from the process does get you exponentially less stampers from the same laquer, whether or not it improves quality (from the one step I have I’d say yes but would need more to say definitely).
 
Joe Mac said:
Im not sure. They charge more for these which are limited to around 9k than the they did for the normal Dylan mono ones which were limited to 3k. Which was the same price as the stereo which was limited numbers without a quoted upper limit. If they were playing that game I’d say that they’d have much more stringently limited the one steps to something like 1k runs.

It makes me think that getting laquer cut is the expensive cost and that maximising the number of stampers from a laquer cuts the cost. Cutting out 2 steps from the process does get you exponentially less stampers from the same laquer, whether or not it improves quality (from the one step I have I’d say yes but would need more to say definitely).
Click to expand...
I guess I am a lot more cynical about it when they are feeling out price points just for a vinyl formulation change with a $15 markup and it sells out fast for a Costello/Bacharach record. I think they are doing an excellent job taking advantage of a recent explosion in willingness to pay big bucks for even slightly limited audiophile vinyl.

I feel like if the cutting additional lacquers cost is close to the markup for one-step then those popular audiophile mastering guys must be rich beyond my wildest imagination.
 
dhodo said:
I guess I am a lot more cynical about it when they are feeling out price points just for a vinyl formulation change with a $15 markup and it sells out fast for a Costello/Bacharach record. I think they are doing an excellent job taking advantage of a recent explosion in willingness to pay big bucks for even slightly limited audiophile vinyl.

I feel like if the cutting additional lacquers cost is close to the markup for one-step then those popular audiophile mastering guys must be rich beyond my wildest imagination.
Click to expand...

I think it’s a little from column A and a little from column B.

The normal super vinyl that you referenced. I’d bet formulation costs a bit more. I’d also imagine that add a bit of snake oil tax. I think it’s a $25 mark up too ($49.99 to $74.99 for the 2LP 45s).

With the one step. The cost of the laquer is beyond just the cost of the mastering engineer cutting it and also involves the cost of the laquer itself for which one company has a market monopoly at current. If that was insignificant DMM would not need to exist. There will of course be an element snake oil tax too like above but I think there are also solid reasons why the process will be more expensive. I don’t think that they’ve been abusing charging for limitations. The price has been constant despite the run size and none of them have been super limited, even if I’d prefer things weren’t limited at all.
 
Joe Mac said:
I think it’s a little from column A and a little from column B.

The normal super vinyl that you referenced. I’d bet formulation costs a bit more. I’d also imagine that add a bit of snake oil tax. I think it’s a $25 mark up too ($49.99 to $74.99 for the 2LP 45s).

With the one step. The cost of the laquer is beyond just the cost of the mastering engineer cutting it and also involves the cost of the laquer itself for which one company has a market monopoly at current. If that was insignificant DMM would not need to exist. There will of course be an element snake oil tax too like above but I think there are also solid reasons why the process will be more expensive. I don’t think that they’ve been abusing charging for limitations. The price has been constant despite the run size and none of them have been super limited, even if I’d prefer things weren’t limited at all.
Click to expand...
Fair. Can't prove much without being in the vinyl manufacturing business or doing a lot more research than seems openly available.

I do think a lot more of it is in the snake oil column, especially as you bring up the new 2xLP prices, which is a markup of $15, which is far higher than any other 2xLP markup by other labels pressing at the same or similar plants outside of AP who raised theirs around the same time. You can say the lacquer might be more expensive, but if that is true then prices should rise similarly everywhere but DMM, which I haven't seen. I think this also explains why they are doing more new vinyl announcements for 2xLP 45rpm and this new SuperVinyl line than they are for 33rpm, I don't think that would be true if the profit margin on the 33 was the same.

I think it is great that they are becoming more successful and popular. I just wish that didn't lead to their market apparently shifting to a demo out of my price range when I would love to keep supporting their 33rpm price point.
 
dhodo said:
Fair. Can't prove much without being in the vinyl manufacturing business or doing a lot more research than seems openly available.

I do think a lot more of it is in the snake oil column, especially as you bring up the new 2xLP prices, which is a markup of $15, which is far higher than any other 2xLP markup by other labels pressing at the same or similar plants outside of AP who raised theirs around the same time. You can say the lacquer might be more expensive, but if that is true then prices should rise similarly everywhere but DMM, which I haven't seen. I think this also explains why they are doing more new vinyl announcements for 2xLP 45rpm and this new SuperVinyl line than they are for 33rpm, I don't think that would be true if the profit margin on the 33 was the same.

I think it is great that they are becoming more successful and popular. I just wish that didn't lead to their market apparently shifting to a demo out of my price range when I would love to keep supporting their 33rpm price point.
Click to expand...

They are still pressing 33s though and they’re around the $35 from the last time I bought? They haven’t disappeared. I kind of prefer their 45s if I’m honest. I view a MoFi or an AP as a luxury “treat” for album I love. I don’t see them as realistic proposition regularly. As such for those albums I can justify a price that I wouldn’t normally pay BUT if I’m paying that I want it so sound better, which to me the 45s do in comparison to the 33s.
 
Joe Mac said:
They are still pressing 33s though and they’re around the $35 from the last time I bought? They haven’t disappeared. I kind of prefer their 45s if I’m honest. I view a MoFi or an AP as a luxury “treat” for album I love. I don’t see them as realistic proposition regularly. As such for those albums I can justify a price that I wouldn’t normally pay BUT if I’m paying that I want it so sound better, which to me the 45s do in comparison to the 33s.
Click to expand...
Maybe I have missed some new non SuperVinyl 33 announcements, but at least around here many have been 45 only or SV.

Was just trying to state my observation that for some reason (to me it seems to be $$$) they are shifting to fancier than "just" 33 being their focus and they are raising prices quickly, including on just their upcharge for 2xLP, which doesn't really seem defensible to me, so I am less likely to support them.

My point being, their pricing in the past (even for 2xLP) was easier to describe as a reasonable purchase to consider and now they are moving hard for the "luxury treat" characterization and that is something I can't justify most of the time at this point in my life/financial situation. Especially not when I have a copy I'm happy with or a well regarded original or current reissue is available for 1/2 the price. For everyone that can justify the splurge, I'm glad they're excited about it. I'll try to stop reiterating this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top