I did a search and couldn't really find anything specific. Why do people hold these in high esteem? Are they that much better than records pressed at other plants? I must have missed something these past few years, because more and more I'm seeing a Monarch fetish. The cynical side of me thinks that it's a ploy to jack up prices on some records. Care to convince me otherwise?
Well, I just today received a Monarch of Sticky Fingers from a forum member's eBay auction, and it sounds incredible !!! Warmer, deeper bass and drums, clearer filthy guitars from Keith and Mick Taylor...
Sometimes Monarch got better sources from companies like Atlantic, Elektra and A&M. Other pressings plants may have gotten work parts with inferior mastering and/or from tape copies. In those cases, the Monarch's are definitely preferable. Also, Monarch vinyl is apparently different from the vinyl formulation used at other pressing plants. Shinier to the naked eye. It seems to have its own pleasing signature sound.
I discovered the Monarch 'thing' years ago when doing a lot of comparisons - so I touted their attributes when I find or sell extra records. Slowly but surely other people have given feedback saying 'jeez, no kidding.' Generally Monarchs have perceptibly better presence, you can sometimes even 'hear' the room they're recorded in, while vocals and highs are typically silkier and smoother, not so tipped up or hard sounding - even when compared against the same lacquer cutting pressed by a different facility. This is not 100% though as I've found cases where a Presswell or other plant beats out a Monarch. For example I spent a bunch of time listening to The Young Rascals and while nice sounding, the Presswells I had edged out the Monarchs and had better 'presence.' A great example of Monarch magic is The Mamas & Papas first LP - in mono. Literally every copy made by every plant has a slightly grainy, murky, or distorted quality to the vocals. The Monarch is a revelation; so clean and clear (for this recording).
What Raunchnroll says is very true. When I do a sonic shootout between different copies of an album from different plants, Monarch's are most often the winners. Sometimes they even stand tall or beat beloved UK pressings. I have a Monarch Teaser and the Firecat that I swear sounds "better" than a UK Pink Island.
In the 80s, the delta triangle and number indicate that the record was plated at Sheffield. Any relation to Monarch?
That's a good basic guideline. Also check for the 'MR' initials in a circle stamped in the deadwax. There are exceptions. Some records from the early 80s have the delta symbol followed by numbers, but were definitely not pressed by Monarch. I just looked at an Asia LP like that. Also I have a UK Joe Jackson LP that was made from the same metal parts as used for the Monarch pressing. The deadwax has a MR in a circle, but it's been crossed out, and the record itself appears to have been pressed in the UK.
I recall a post by WB saying that different companies used the Delta system. The 1960s and 70s Monarchs had plating by a company called ALCO.
Well...the SHM SACD was my " go-to " until I heard this Monarch...now I'm considering selling the SHM SACD...may not though, time will tell.
Also, seeing "MR" in a circle also indicates a Monarch mastering and plating at very least. There is a shinier tinge to their vinyl which is another easy clue you have a Monarch pressing.
I thought it was MO placed after the catalog number...or is that only sometimes? Jeez, I'm getting confused now.
There's often an -MO after the matrix number on Atlantic family discs ... but not always. I think those are the only labels that feature anything that obvious, though. Once you know what you're looking for you can often ID them by the label typeface (especially for ABC/Dunhill, Elektra and later White Whales)
The key is the "MR" in a circle stamped in the run-off area (sometimes this is very faint). The labels often have - MO as well. Raunch was one of the first (Sung could have been) to note this on the forum. Monarch pressed LPs are are often considerably better sounding than others as both these guys noted.
I have a few Monarch pressings (stereo and mono) of Introducing The Beatles. I find that they both sound better than other versions of the same LP that were manufactured at different pressing plants.
I discovered a difference when I got a WLP of Sticky Fingers. It was distinct in its sound compared to other early Atco copies. I posted my discoveries here and found out that James and other folks felt the same way about a variety of pressings, and had been sharing their experiences for some time. There are no hard and fast rules every LP is different. I have heard plenty of awesome Presswell pressings. I always though that perhaps it had something to do with the plant's location in LA. If the lacquers cut from the master tapes at a stufio out in LA, it was easy for them to be sent over and pressed, whereas the logistics of a copy tape made more sense for pressings plants in different regions. Obviously this doesn't explain all sonic differences as a lot of the time the same metal parts were sent out to a number of factories and the Monarch's still sound better. C
Yes, what explains a Monarch sounding better when it is obviously made from the same lacquer as a Presswell or Philips pressing (this occurs often on Atlantic)? I am guessing it had something to do with their vinyl formulation or the quality of the metal parts made for them. Or both. Or perhaps Monarch had smaller pressing runs. Even on the 'bay I see a lot more PR, RI, and CTH records than Monarch's. (These are on Atlantic LPs, which have clear pressing plant markings on the labels after the late 1960s.)
I recently looked at the Monarch factory on Google Maps it doesnt look to be a huge factory compared to the big Capitol and Columbia ones of the era.
