AudioCircle
Audio/Video Gear and Systems => The Vinyl Circle => Topic started by: jsaliga on 5 Nov 2009, 11:34 pm
-
I'm starting this topic because the subject has been on my mind a lot. Last year I nearly gave up on buying new vinyl because I was caught in a hailstorm of bad pressings, most of them pressed by RTI. I thought it would be helpful if everyone shared their experience with different reissue labels. I'm buying more new vinyl than ever these days, but that is only because things seemed to have improved a lot in the last 12 months. But there have still been some stinkers. In this topic I am not interested in talking about mastering, only physical defects and pressing quality. The best mastering in the world won't do you lick of good if it was pressed by the Snap, Crackle, and Pop label.
Here's a label by label run down of how things have gone for me, with the labels graded according to overall quality of the vinyl pressings.
A+ Speakers Corner - Easily the most consistent where high quality of pressings is concerned. I own many Speakers Corner reissues and have only had one with a physical defect of any kind. I sent it back and the replacement was fine. I am always impressed by the look and feel of their records. I have never had one that had sloppy triming jobs and the dead wax areas are always nice and clean. They look like high quality pressings and they play like it. They are not quite as quiet as Classic Records QUIEX 200g pressings -- but then Speakers Corner doesn't have the quality control problems that seemed to plague Classic Records over the years. In my opinion at $30+ per LP one should expect high quality pressings. Pops and clicks are what one might expect from albums bought from the bargain bin.
A Music Matters - Their Blue Note reissues on 45 RPM 180g vinyl have been excellent overall. I had to send two back out of the 18 that I own, and it took months for me to get a replacement Kenny Drew album (which is why I didn't give MM an A+). I also really appreciate the heavy gatefold jackets of Music Matters pressings. True, you throw down $50 or more for one of these things, but at least the package feels like it is well made. I can't say the same for Analogue Productions on their Blue Note 45 reissues. But this all about the quality of the vinyl. I've been very happy with Music Matters.
F 4 Men with Beards - What a goofy name for a vinyl reissue label. I got excited when I found out about the artists they were licensed to reissue: Aretha Franklin, Nina Simone, Dusty Springfield, and a truckload of others that I would have gladly bought. Sadly, I have bought 8 albums on this label and the only one that was a nice clean pressing was Dusty Springfield - Dusty In Memphis. The rest sounded like a bowl of Rice Krispies. I won't waste my time with another album from this label.
C Classic Records - I have had a love-hate relationship with Classic Records for years. I love them because I managed to get the complete Led Zeppelin 200g reissue set without a single problem on any of those LPs. For that I am really grateful. I hate Classic Records because I have had more defective vinyl bearing the QUIEX 200g label than all other reissue labels combined. I fall into the same patterns with Classic Records. I buy three or four albums and they are all fine. So then I have confidence that the worst of their QC problems are behind them and will order $300 or so of their LPs, and the order will show up and half of them are defective. Some have scratches on them right out of the sleeve. So now I limit my orders to only a few titles here and there no matter how many I might want. I do this because now my policy is to not buy more vinyl than I can play test within the return window. I failed to do that once and got stuck with $250 in bad vinyl -- all of it from Classic Records. I would really like to give CR a higher grade, but as recently as two months ago I ordered six 200g Everest 35mm reissues on Classic and 3 of them had major defects and had to go back. The last five or so LPs have been very nice...but I am not confident that this will be a recurring experience. I don't know if Classic Records is still having RTI do their pressings...but something needs to be done because quality control is still a problem. I wish Classic Records would drop 200g pressings in favor of 180g vinyl.
A+ Pure Pleasure Records - If I am not mistaken PPR is part of the Speakers Corner family of labels and these records, like SC, are pressed in Germany. My experience has been very similar to SC though I have not bought nearly as many LPs on this label. But for the dozen or so I do have the quality of pressings has been very high.
B Analogue Productions - This is another case where I will beat up on RTI a bit. When I first started buying Analogue Productions Fantasy 45 series a lot of the vinyl was showing up with discolorations -- white streaks running through the vinyl. Some of the folks on Vinyl Asylum were speculating that RTI was putting the vinyl into the inner sleeves before the records were properly cooled and there was some color bleed through. I don't know if this was true or not. I do know that it did not impact the sound as far as I could tell, but you don't expect to get sloppy looking pressings for $50 each. Having said that, the AP Blue Note reissues I have been receiving now have plastic inner sleeves, and overall the vinyl seems to be of higher quality and better trimmed. There has been a steady improvement in quality with AP and they deserve credit for it. The last few dozen albums I have bought bearing their label have been quite nice indeed.
A+ Warner - Not a vinyl reissue label per se, but Warner Music has had a pretty successful vinyl reissue series. I don't own them all but have about 15 of them or so, remastered by Steve Hoffman and pressed at RTI on 180g vinyl. So it isn't like RTI isn't capable of pressing nice clean vinyl.
A- Rhino - I own many Rhino vinyl reissues and again they use RTI and I have not had any problems with bad pressings unitl now. I recently purchased the Genesis 1970-1975 Rhino boxed set and there are two LPs in it with pressing defects so it has to go back.
A Universal Japan - I almost forgot about these 200g Japanese pressings. I own 10 of them and so far I have not had any problems with physical defects. My favorites among these are the 200g pressings of Steely Dan's Aja and Nick Drake's Pink Moon. But $50 is a lot to pay for a 200g 33 LP, otherwise I would own a lot more of them.
A+ Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs - I have had very good experience with MFSL. I own about 45 titles on vinyl and only have an issue with one where there are a few light pops. I have generally been impressed with their mastering and choice of titles. Right now I am jazzed about the Elvis Costello reissues, and already have My Aim is True, love it, and can't wait for This Years Model and Armed Forces.
B- Sundazed - I don't own very many Sundazed titles, but I have been buying recently from their catalog and own about 14 titles. Not many, but enough for me to comment about their quality. I am grading them here strictly on the quality of the pressings. I can't say that I found any with serious defects...but I am marking them down a bit because every single Sundazed pressing I own is considerably noisier than new vinyl I buy from all other labels combined. I not sure what the issue is. Perhaps it is the quality of the vinyl that goes into their pressings or perhaps it has something to do with how the lacquer masters are cut. Recently Sundazed decided to abandon 180g pressings and have gone down to heavy vinyl (I think it is about 120g). I find the thickness of these lower weight records to be sufficient, and I really don't see any difference between these and the four or so Sundazed 180g pressings I own.
--Jerome
-
Great post! I don't have enough reissue stuff to rate them consistently.
I do have a nice The Who Tommy on Simply Vinyl, A- is my rating. It would be hard (but interesting) to have some kinda grid with individual albums and individual ratings and come up with consensus. Like metacritic.com for our own use.
I have a terrible copy of Carole King Tapestry on Classic. Bought it out of town and didn't listen to it for something like a year. Your comment about buying it and listening to it in the "return window" is a wise one!
Paul
-
I don't by a lot of new vinyl - too pricey compared to used. Here's my limited experience.
C - Classic Records - I have 3 Led Zeppelin Reissues one is really good, one OK, one has a ton of surface noise.
A - Sundazed Records - Various Link Wray albums and they all sound great.
A - AKARMA (Comet Records) - Blue Cheer "Vincebus Eruptum" sounds great, no issues.
The only of these that I was real familiar with was the Led Zeppelin stuff, and the other stuff is pretty primitive - so I don't know if my experience would cary over to other genres.
Jim C
-
I own four Simply Vinyl and three Sundazed pressings, but that's not enough for me grade either of them as a reissue label.
--Jerome
-
Great write up Jerome. I'm really getting disgusted with the piss poor quality control being dumped on us and the Record retailers (as of today). In addition to the 4 out of 7 defective LPs I had to return mentioned in the new vinyl thread, I just had another similar experience today.
Last night I found a NOS Neil Young Greendale boxset at a different store than the above experience. I've had this on my wish list for some time as it is one of my top 5 Neil Young albums. I bought it, took it home and sure enough the very first LP had a big scratch across it. WTF is going on? I can have some tolerance for this kind of crap with the basic high volume $12.99 stuff, but not when we are shelling out $50+ for a premium box set.
This morning I take the boxset back to the store and the guy behind the counter starts telling me that they typically do not take back defective LPs. WTF? He said the distributors are not allowing the stores to return or get credit for any defective LPs. They are a total loss for the retailer. He mentioned they even had to eat a full box shipment of LPs that was damaged in shipping and another that obviously sat in the sun too long and warped a bunch of the lps. He said it was total BS but that is what they have to deal with. This is a local independent record store in Portland, Oregon. He said they see a significant amount of defective LPs and hence the need to not refund or swap out for another copy. They actually had a sign at the counter indicating this (the first time I saw it) We both agreed it was total BS and he went ahead and just gave me a refund. We talked for about 10 minutes about what has been going on and he mentioned he was familiar with the SHF as well.
It's one thing for us as the consumer to go through the hassle of a defective return as long as we get a new product exchanged or refund. I feel really bad about the already struggling retailers at the end of the production food chain now being forced to suffer further due to the lack of proper business management and quality control starting at the pressing plants.
This gives me the idea of us all starting a thread to voice these concerns and make it known to the industry we are disgruntled and we can vote with our $$$. Maybe even boycott buying vinyl during the holidays to get their attention. I imagine the Steve Hoffman forum would be ideal place to propose starting a thread given the high volume and industry types that hang there.
Anybody interested in contributing to this if it gets started?
Thx
Kenreau
-
I just picked up the Yes, Relayer LP from Music Direct. The LP came opened. I suspect that they have been having the same problem and have decided to look at the pressing, before shipping. I think they will take defects (not entirely sure) but could you imagine the expense of all the shipping back and forth, shipping junk.
That is why buying used LPs has it's merits. You can take it out of it's sleeve, look for obvious damage, and usually your good to go.
I have been impressed with at least the handling of Rhino and Friday Music. Monument also has done a fantastic job. Can't say the same for Hollywood records. Buyer, beware.
Wayner :o
-
Are reissue LP's made from digital sources? Are they made from original molds?
What's the scoop with them? I always wondered how authentic they are in nature.
-
I have a terrible copy of Carole King Tapestry on Classic. Bought it out of town and didn't listen to it for something like a year. Your comment about buying it and listening to it in the "return window" is a wise one!
Paul
I have the Tapestry LP on my short list. Will have to reconsider now. Are you refering to clicks and pops or sound quality? Should I just stay away from it?
-
Are reissue LP's made from digital sources? Are they made from original molds?
What's the scoop with them? I always wondered how authentic they are in nature.
You can pretty much bet that the master is digital on stuff from the mid-eighties, at least as far as rock goes. I think there are a few "audiophile" labels that have the origianl master in the analog tape format.
I have no problem with an LP pressed from a digital master, as long as they did it right. There are problems at the cutter with dynamics and volume, which leaves the poor cutting engineer with a big headache.
Wayner
-
Great write up Jerome. I'm really getting disgusted with the piss poor quality control being dumped on us and the Record retailers (as of today). In addition to the 4 out of 7 defective LPs I had to return mentioned in the new vinyl thread, I just had another similar experience today.
I hear ya. It is what nearly drove me to stop buying new vinyl completely in 2008.
Last night I found a NOS Neil Young Greendale boxset at a different store than the above experience. I've had this on my wish list for some time as it is one of my top 5 Neil Young albums. I bought it, took it home and sure enough the very first LP had a big scratch across it. WTF is going on? I can have some tolerance for this kind of crap with the basic high volume $12.99 stuff, but not when we are shelling out $50+ for a premium box set.
This morning I take the boxset back to the store and the guy behind the counter starts telling me that they typically do not take back defective LPs. WTF? He said the distributors are not allowing the stores to return or get credit for any defective LPs. They are a total loss for the retailer. He mentioned they even had to eat a full box shipment of LPs that was damaged in shipping and another that obviously sat in the sun too long and warped a bunch of the lps. He said it was total BS but that is what they have to deal with. This is a local independent record store in Portland, Oregon. He said they see a significant amount of defective LPs and hence the need to not refund or swap out for another copy. They actually had a sign at the counter indicating this (the first time I saw it) We both agreed it was total BS and he went ahead and just gave me a refund. We talked for about 10 minutes about what has been going on and he mentioned he was familiar with the SHF as well.
I won't shop at local independents for the above reason. But if you want to shop at locals then I would check the consumer protection laws in your state. Hanging a sign saying they don't take returns on vinyl might not mean much if it runs afoul of the law. Never pay cash for vinyl, always use a credit card. That way you can dispute the charge if there is a problem with defective records later and the retailer refuses to take them back. I had a firm discussion with Acoustic Sounds last year after receiving a third consequtive order of $300 or more and nearly half of those records were bad. At first they said they would take back scratched records but not those with loud pops and clicks. I said that I failed to see the distinction: the first is damage caused after pressing and the second is a defect caused during pressing. Both are bad. I told them that if they did not take them all back and provide replacements that I would dispute the charges with my credit card issuer and this would be the last order I placed with them. I spend a lot of money on audiophile vinyl, perhaps as much as $2,000 to $5,000 per year. I don't believe for a second that Acoustic Sounds or any other vinyl dealer would miss that revenue. But if 10 or 20 other audiophiles were to walk then that would leave a lot of unsold inventory lying around in the warehouse. I was fairly certain that what large dealers don't want to see is a lot of customer dissatisfaction being aired out on public forums such as Audio Circle, Audio Asylum, and Head-Fi. They are especially concerned about vinyl products that are marketed and sold to audiophiles, because they have very high profit margins built into them. After that conversation with Acoustic Sounds I have never had a problem sending back a defective record. I have also had very good experiences with Elusive Disc and Soundstage Direct. Seth Frank at Soundstage Direct is particularly customer service oriented. I once expressed a concern to him about shipping delays and he took care of it. I have only had to send two records back to him but he never gave me a hard time about it. The bottom line: it is not worth driving a customer away who might spend hundreds, or thousands of dollars on vinyl over returns on a few bad records. I won't do business with anyone who doesn't see it this way.
I have also recently started buying some vinyl at Amazon.com. Their selection is not as vast as that of Acoustic Sounds, Elusive Disc, or Soundstage Direct. And I do have concerns with how Amazon packs vinyl for shipping: the records are loose in a largish box with some bubble wrap tossed in. They do not use boxes that are specifically designed for shipping records. However, I purchased about 40 LPs from them so far and have not had a problem with damage. And to Amazon.com's credit they do have a hassle-free return policy. What makes it worthwhile is that sometimes Amazon will offer really nice discounts on certain records. I just purchased a couple of Roxy Music LPs on 180g vinyl and got them from Amazon.com for $14.95 each when everyone else has them for $19.95, and since I have Amazon Prime I had my LPs two days later at no additional cost.
--Jerome
-
Are reissue LP's made from digital sources?
Not the reissues I am mostly interested in. Most of what I buy are jazz titles that were recorded on analog tape in the 1950s and 1960s, and rock albums that were also recorded on analog tape in the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s.
I know some vinyl reissue labels such as Simply Vinyl have been accused of using digital transfers of content that was originally recorded on tape, though I don't know if that is true and I don't own enough Simply Vinyl titles to really care. I also know that the Rolling Stones 180g vinyl reissues were sourced from DSD masters, but they have largely been very well received by critics.
--Jerome
-
Jerome, as was said.....good thread, thanks for starting.
As for my current experiences........well truthfully I don't know that they are any different than 'back in the day' 30 plus years ago. I got good and bad back then as well, now granted I wasn't paying $20-30 for boutigue, heavy pressing Lp's either. Some of my early 'Audiophile' pressings from Sheffield Labs and American Gramaphone remain to this day as my favorites.
Currently I will add an solid 'A' for Chad Kassems offerings from his Blue Heaven Studios (I love that Church !) and of course APO records.
Refrence Reocordings jazz recordings along with Kieth Johnson's 'miking excelence' desrves kudos as well
-
This is the part that gets confusing: If the LP is made from a digital master, doesn't that defeat the purpose? Wouldn't it be better to buy a CD?
Are reissue LP's made from digital sources? Are they made from original molds?
What's the scoop with them? I always wondered how authentic they are in nature.
You can pretty much bet that the master is digital on stuff from the mid-eighties, at least as far as rock goes. I think there are a few "audiophile" labels that have the origianl master in the analog tape format.
I have no problem with an LP pressed from a digital master, as long as they did it right. There are problems at the cutter with dynamics and volume, which leaves the poor cutting engineer with a big headache.
Wayner
-
... all whom it may concern:
A few years ago I cut a vinyl release of
a really big group, but I was never sent
a test pressing to approve. I finally got a
pressing, and either the plant had polished
the stamper too heavily and removed topend
or something went wrong with the
cut. I asked which approved master they
were comparing the test pressing to for
quality control, and I was told, none. The
moment I heard that I decided to sell our
lathe. I don't want my name going out
on records that are not properly quality
controlled. Today I send all projects that
need to be cut to Stan "The Man" Ricker
who knows what he is doing. I generally
send Stan 96kHz/24-bit masters on my
projects. This means the commercially
released vinyl can contain over an octave
more high frequencies than the compactdisc
version will have.
-
This is the part that gets confusing: If the LP is made from a digital master, doesn't that defeat the purpose? Wouldn't it be better to buy a CD?
Are reissue LP's made from digital sources? Are they made from original molds?
What's the scoop with them? I always wondered how authentic they are in nature.
You can pretty much bet that the master is digital on stuff from the mid-eighties, at least as far as rock goes. I think there are a few "audiophile" labels that have the origianl master in the analog tape format.
I have no problem with an LP pressed from a digital master, as long as they did it right. There are problems at the cutter with dynamics and volume, which leaves the poor cutting engineer with a big headache.
Wayner
Consumer CDs are compressed to the max so that they will play in everything from a cheap boom-box to the high end ultra system. The master digital file, tape, whatever, is usually at full range, therefore,, the only limitations to the digital domain are the things that are bothersome at record master cutting time, like loudness and dynamic range. A record is capable of 75db of dynamic range, a range that now may be higher then many of the commercially available CDs.
Wayner
-
This is the part that gets confusing: If the LP is made from a digital master, doesn't that defeat the purpose? Wouldn't it be better to buy a CD?
Are reissue LP's made from digital sources? Are they made from original molds?
What's the scoop with them? I always wondered how authentic they are in nature.
You can pretty much bet that the master is digital on stuff from the mid-eighties, at least as far as rock goes. I think there are a few "audiophile" labels that have the origianl master in the analog tape format.
I have no problem with an LP pressed from a digital master, as long as they did it right. There are problems at the cutter with dynamics and volume, which leaves the poor cutting engineer with a big headache.
Wayner
For additional related reading, do a search on The Rolling Stones {DSD} vinyl reissues from about 2 years ago. Those reissues used the same DSD (SACD) digital files as the source for cutting the vinyl with. I've heard three of these {DSD} sourced LPs and they sound fantastic (as does the SACD versions).
It is confusing seeing "digital" on LPs and I would speculate the early transition years (mid-1980's to mid-1991's?) it was reason to cringe. Garbage in - garbage out. Many vinyl pressings were made in ignorance using the same digital files from seedees directly reused for cutting vinyl. Today, in theory, it appears there is recognition by the manufactures the two formats are really two different animals and if done correctly, the vinyl can sound great. Imho, that is the big challenge right now.
Many bad examples of digital files used for vinyl are still being churned out unfortunatley. The Universal "Back to Black" series is a common one, at least where I am located in the NW, as they some how have a great retail outlet distribution setup. I've only read of one of the "B to B" title getting favorable comments (Hendrix - Are Your Experienced). I would speculate 9 out of 10 of their titles are garbage. Another label I've heard to stay away from is "Vinyl Lovers". That is why forums like this are so valuable.
Kenreau
-
I got one complaint that I hope you don't . . at the opening, right where you do NOT want it to be, on Miles' Kind of Blue from Classic Records, there is surface noise galore. After you get past that, things quiet down. The few other albums I have from them are very good.
-
What everyone is losing sight of is that has always been the way of the world with vinyl,
it's an imperfect media. It's just unfortunate we're taking it on the chin at these prices...
This is why vinyl has always been a love/hate thing and why I get grumpy when other
people in the industry just assume that because something is pressed on a slab of vinyl
it's going to be superior to digital. No one knows better than Kenreau that I'm totally committed
to analog, but it can be frustrating!
-
No one is losing sight of anything. If you are going to argue that people should expect to get stuck with defective records then please, don't post any further in this thread. And if some clarification would help then I am referring to records that are clearly damaged out of the jacket, have scratches, have gross pressing defects, or are warped.
If you have some specific experience with reissue labels and would you like to share that then by all means please do so. And that would include your experiences with dealers and how they handle defective returns. That is what I started this thread for. Some reissue labels are doing a better job than others and some dealers are doing a better job than others...talking about it here is information that people can use.
--Jerome
-
I just got back in to the vinyl camp in the past few months and the number of defective new pressings I've seen is disturbing. And they're not even pressed in China (yet). I think I have purchased about 20 new/sealed lps recently and the defective product rate is around 40% in my limited experience.
I can summarize my heartburn in 3 points, rolled up to one cycle;
1. the pressing plants are sloppy and apparently exercise minimal quality control (Pallas excluded)
2. the distribution system is acting like a dictatorship and forcing the retailers to eat unquestionably defective product. Is this practice acceptable in any other industry? I think a lot of the retailers, the independents in particular, are already hanging on by a thread.
3. a number of retailers, in reaction to the above, do not want to accept returns of defective pressings. This is total BS.
Not only is the music industry cranking out a lot of poor sound quality pressings, now they want everyone else to pay for their sloppy manufacturing business practices.
I'm still up for starting a thread someplace (SHF?) that voices the above concerns and helps bring attention to the raw deal the retailers are getting. Maybe suggest a vinyl buying boycott going into this Holiday season??? Unfortunately this hurts the retailers at the same time. I suppose if the pressing plants would just take responsibility for their defective products, that would be half the battle.
What say ye?
Kenreau
-
No one is losing sight of anything. If you are going to argue that people should expect to get stuck with defective records then please, don't post any further in this thread. And if some clarification would help then I am referring to records that are clearly damaged out of the jacket, have scratches, have gross pressing defects, or are warped.
If you have some specific experience with reissue labels and would you like to share that then by all means please do so. And that would include your experiences with dealers and how they handle defective returns. That is what I started this thread for. Some reissue labels are doing a better job than others and some dealers are doing a better job than others...talking about it here is information that people can use.
--Jerome
I'm not suggesting that you should expect to get stuck with anything. Fortunately, I've had great luck with buying these records and have dodged the bullet so far. Vinyl is problematic. It's a case by case subject. My favorite local retailer, Music Millenium gave me an exchange on the one bad record I bought this year, so I don't have any complaints.
I've also had excellent luck in dealing with Music Direct over the years, that's why they are the only software retailer I've taken advertising from. I know they stand behind their customers.
The music industry has always cranked out a lot of poor sounding records. I just don't understand why everyone thinks it's any different this time around? It's just that in the old days when the record companies sold 600 million records a year, they didn't mind throwing a few in the dumpster.
I would suggest if you are dealing with a local merchant, ask them what the return policy is before you plunk down your credit card. Ask them if you can open up the record before you take it home. If it's got obvious scratches or other visual defects, you stand a much better chance of exchanging it right on the spot in front of the vendor.
I've also seen a few records that looked a little scary, but after a pass or two with the record cleaning machine played just fine.
Most of the record pressing plants here and abroad are working to capacity these days. Hopefully, they will straighten it out, or the
"vinyl resurgence" will go away.
As far as sound quality on new vinyl goes, almost all of it unless they make a point to stress that they were produced from analog masters will still sound somewhat digital. Again, I don't understand all the excitement about buying a piece of vinyl that's been pressed from a digital master. I've heard a few good ones, but few and far inbetween.
Check who's mastering the records you're thinking about buying. If it's done by one of the five or six major guys, your chances are better that you'll get a good sounding record. Most of the indie stuff is produced in small studios with crap equipment. Chances of getting that stuff to sound awesome is slim to none. Last years Fleet Foxes record is a perfect example, it sounds way better on CD.
-
I just got back in to the vinyl camp in the past few months and the number of defective new pressings I've seen is disturbing. And they're not even pressed in China (yet). I think I have purchased about 20 new/sealed lps recently and the defective product rate is around 40% in my limited experience.
This is precisely the reason I started the topic. I went through the same thing the past three or so years. It hit a peak in 2008 and by that time I was ready to give up on new vinyl. My typical order is between $150 and $300. Yes, I buy a lot of vinyl and I mainly buy the expensive stuff. I won't go into why here since this thread has gone off-topic enough as it is. Here I am mostly concerned with physical defects/damage and not mastering. The latter is a matter of opinion regarding its quality, the former is a matter of fact.
If you are getting a high concentration of defective product from one dealer then it's time for you to change your buying habits. I had to do this last year. I was buying virtually all of my new vinyl from one dealer and the defect rate hit a staggering 30%. I now spread my orders around between three dealers that I trust and that also have fair return policies.
1. the pressing plants are sloppy and apparently exercise minimal quality control (Pallas excluded)
I think the pressing plants are very inconsistent and have shown a willingness to take shortcuts to increase production. This will invariably lead to quality problems. The only folks in a position to reign that in are the pressing plant's customers...and I don't mean us.
2. the distribution system is acting like a dictatorship and forcing the retailers to eat unquestionably defective product. Is this practice acceptable in any other industry? I think a lot of the retailers, the independents in particular, are already hanging on by a thread.
I don't know how true this is. I have heard it said the wholesale rates to dealers for pressed vinyl are factored for a certain defect rate. But I would imagine that this is a small number and will guess that the rate used is drawn from general manufacturing, which is typically 1.5%. If true it probably doesn't go far enough to compensate the retailers.
3. a number of retailers, in reaction to the above, do not want to accept returns of defective pressings. This is total BS.
Yes, it is total BS. But you have much more control over this situation than you might think. As I said before, buy all of your vinyl with a credit card. I have had dealers charged back on three occasions and also won a PayPal claim against another dealer on eBay. Is it a hassle? Absolutely. The only way to avoid a potential inconvenience is to not buy vinyl. A dealer is welcome to tell you they don't want your business, and it would be fair to inquire about their return policy in order to avoid a chargeback situation. But they do not get to decide what is acceptable quality...you do as long as you pay with a credit card.
I wanted people to talk about their specific experiences with different labels and dealers. Grading them, subjective as that may be, is useful. Someone can look over my report card and see that I gave Four Men With Beards a grade of F and then I explain why. Hopefully someone will see that and think twice about ordering a record from them. Perhaps someone else has had a more positive experience with this label than I have. I would like to know about that as well. I don't consider my opinion to be the last word on anything. Other labels, such as Classic Records, I am guarded about. If it wasn't for their abysmal quality control I would probably own 20 times the number of LPs from them that I do, and I already have many of their pressings.
I already know that vinyl is a tough love. Most of the people on this forum already know that too, and I don't believe for a minute that people here are so naive that they expect perfection from every single record. Many of us are "old school" and have been buying vinyl since the 1960s and 1970s. We know how things were back then. If only I could say that things are as good now...because I don't believe that they are. What people should expect is that in the course of their new vinyl buying they are going to get a few duds. Some people will have more or less than others. Some labels are cranking out pure crap pressings, if people come forward with their buying experiences, then that might just save someone else from a hassle. Complaining about vinyl in general doesn't really help anyone and that is not information that someone else can use.
Here are a few samples of what I am talking about....
Sample #1 of Classic Records Pressing Defects on 200 Gram Vinyl (http://www.indierockfan.net/music/Classic_Records_Quality_Issues.mp3)
Sample #2 of Classic Records Pressing Defects on 200 Gram Vinyl (http://www.indierockfan.net/music/More_Shoddy_Classic_Records_Vinyl.mp3)
No one should feel like they have to live with this after spending $32 for a record. I won't live with it and if a dealer refuses to take something like this back in exchange then that dealer can expect a credit card chargeback. It's that simple. So I am not talking about a little click, a brief pop, or other transient imperfection. I have very few records with tiny problems such as this. I don't consider surface noise a defect. The major issue I have is with records that have an obvious pressing defect that destroys entire tracks or more of the music, and no one should feel compelled to pay for that.
I will say that things have gotten much better for me this year. However, there remains a great deal of room for improvement. I still get occasional bad pressings from the usual suspects, but I can manage and deal with it because it does not represent the bulk of my buying.
--Jerome
-
Brother J'rome (*)- Jez want to thank you for your well thought out and thorough posts here. Your record catalog is quite another example of your high standards. Most impressive. Keep em coming. Thanks.
*inspired listening to some "Frosty" rite now.
-
Last years Fleet Foxes record is a perfect example, it sounds way better on CD.
I have the vinyl of the Fleet Foxes lp and I think it sounds great. No defects in the pressing. I also saw them in the Spokane Opera House, a venue with great acoustics and a brand new sound system and I believe the vinyl is a good reproduction of the band live. I do not own the CD so I can not make a comparison. However I do have the EP on both vinyl and CD and to my ears the vinyl sounds better. Again, no defects in the pressing either. Maybe I was lucky on the quality control.
I have had good luck with vinyl from Arts & Crafts records in Canada and Matador records. All of The New Pornographers records sound better on vinyl--more live-like than the CDs. It is interesting that The New Pornographers offer a hi res download of Challengers for "audiophiles."
I buy most of my records from a local retailer, 4000 Holes, and he will take back defective pressings. I think he puts them in the used bin because most distributors will not take them back. One of his distributors is Music Direct and they will accept returns of defective pressings. I have purchased from Music Direct and was able to return a defective pressing for replacement without any problem.
Part of the frustration is the price of vinyl today vs $3.98 and $4.98 in the 60's & 70's. Even with the fairly high percentage of defects, the quality is still better today than when the vinyl got really thin and was pliable.
Laura
-
What everyone is losing sight of is that has always been the way of the world with vinyl,
it's an imperfect media. It's just unfortunate we're taking it on the chin at these prices...
This is why vinyl has always been a love/hate thing and why I get grumpy when other
people in the industry just assume that because something is pressed on a slab of vinyl
it's going to be superior to digital. No one knows better than Kenreau that I'm totally committed
to analog, but it can be frustrating!
It is a real buyer beware format. Much more so than what I had anticipated before jumping back in to the pool. But the rewards, for the most part, outweigh the obstacle course of efforts.
And yes, I can vouch for Jeff's commitment to vinyl. Amazing and vast collection of albums and turntables. Hearing 200 gr slabs of Neil Youngs "Sugar Mountain: Live at Canterbury" in Jeff's studio was like being in the front row at the show. The best I've ever experienced.
Kenreau
-
4000 holes is a great record store! Hey, if you want a gift certificate for $25, pm me. My inlaws in spokane gave me one for Christmas last year and I know we'll never get up there again. Rather see it get some use!
-
I think the main reason for the inconsistency is the recent boom in vinyl demand and sales. For example, I pre-ordered Led Zeppelin's Mothership the the day I heard it announced. The pressing got pushed back several times, until they finally said it'll be pressed when its pressed.
According to the guys at Music Direct, there are very few record pressing plants, and most were already at full capacity or even backlogged.
From that, I'm assuming that the plants were far more interested in quantity than quantity. Get as much pressed and sold before the 'fad' ends. The more popular vinyl gets, the more artists are going to want their music on vinyl.
With the economy the way it is and the possibility of the demand dropping, I highly doubt anyone will take the risk and open a new plant. Until the demans drops and/or the plants catch up, the situation will probably stay the same. But without the demand, will artists continue to insist their music gets pressed on vinyl? I guess its a double edged sword.
When I first signed up for Music Direct's weekly e-mails about new vinyl releases about 6 years ago or so, there were a handful of upcoming releases. In the last 2 years or so, it seems like dozens every week. If their haven't been any new plants or expansions, keeping up could get pretty tough.
-
Check who's mastering the records you're thinking about buying. If it's done by one of the five or six major guys, your chances are better that you'll get a good sounding record. Most of the indie stuff is produced in small studios with crap equipment. Chances of getting that stuff to sound awesome is slim to none. Last years Fleet Foxes record is a perfect example, it sounds way better on CD.
That's a pretty bold generalization to make and one that is somewhat refutable. Obviously, in the independent world there are examples of people who have recorded low quality recordings out of necessity and cost considerations. At the other end of the spectrum, you have quite a few artists and labels out there who have been making high quality recordings and releasing high quality product while bucking the digital trend for the past three decades.
Let's just put it this way, in the independent & punk world, vinyl and multi-track analog reel-to-reel recording were never 'dead' and therefore never needed a 'revival'. You're simply seeing a number of major labels and artists on said labels jumping onto a bandwagon back towards releasing vinyl. Whereas, if you walked into any independent record store for the past 20 years, they were always well stocked with new LP and 7" releases.
I can site a number of examples of bands, studios, and recording engineers who have worked primarily with artists on independent labels that have been recording using multi-track analog reel-to-reel machines (Studer, Ampex, etc.) through analog mixing consoles (Neve, SSL, etc.), using quality outboard gear (mic-pres, compressors, etc.), and quality microphones that are hallmarks of high quality multi-track recording from the 60s through the early 80s. Some guys like Steve Albini (Electrical Audio) have been outspoken about fad based recording techniques such as abuse of compression in mixing and mastering which are directly responsible for the noticeable degradation in audio quality of current major label releases.
In addition, I know that back in the 80s through the 90s, a lot of independent labels used John Golden at K Disc who now runs his own mastering studio, Golden Mastering. Basically, K Disc was one of the big mastering studios, so they've been using people that mastered releases for major label releases. There's no special barrier preventing independent labels from shipping off the 2 track recording studio master off to a mastering studio for creating a master for re-production and most of the big ones are using the same people.
So to add to the list of things beyond the mastering engineer, it helps to be familiar with what studio the songs were recorded in, the recording engineer, and as well as where the release was pressed. If people are using the same digital master for vinyl and CD, and there is a notable difference, it more than likely has to do the vinyl mastering process, the plating process, or an issue at the pressing plant. A bad recording is a bad recording and will be bad whether the release is a CD or an LP record.
In addition, a number of labels use the same pressing plants. I know that a lot of indie labels have been using Rainbo and United Record Pressing for years. Rainbo, from their website, seems to have handled a number of major label artists. United Record Pressing has a pretty long history going back to being responsible for pressing releases on Motown. Again, the quality of the pressing plant for indies is probably on par with any larger label since there are only so many record pressing plants currently in existence.
Some additional details related to the record mastering, plating, and pressing process from Aardvark Mastering's website:
http://www.aardvarkmastering.com/proceed.htm
Sorry to take this OT, but I felt like this statement shouldn't be left unchallenged. I'll add something relevant to the conversation:
In this case, the issue seems to be a problem with tracking the quality of records by specific labels. However, in most instances the problems would be with the pressing plant. It'd be more interesting to find out which labels are using which plants (I would assume a label is using one plant for all their releases - hence the quality issues at a specific plant would carry over to all releases). Keeping track of labels serves a purpose, but tracking this back to the source could provide additional benefits, such as lobbying labels that are using plants that have quality issues to use a different pressing plant that appears to not have the same issues.
-
One to many bad records for Classic Records. :nono:
-
That's a pretty bold generalization to make and one that is somewhat refutable. Obviously, in the independent world there are examples of people who have recorded low quality recordings out of necessity and cost considerations. At the other end of the spectrum, you have quite a few artists and labels out there who have been making high quality recordings and releasing high quality product while bucking the digital trend for the past three decades.
I'm not talking about the past three decades, I'm talking about the past five years. Sorry, but I've heard precious little new stuff (not carefully produced audiophile pressings) that sounds awesome.
Let's just put it this way, in the independent & punk world, vinyl and multi-track analog reel-to-reel recording were never 'dead' and therefore never needed a 'revival'. You're simply seeing a number of major labels and artists on said labels jumping onto a bandwagon back towards releasing vinyl. Whereas, if you walked into any independent record store for the past 20 years, they were always well stocked with new LP and 7" releases.
Please name ONE punk record that is well recorded....
I can site a number of examples of bands, studios, and recording engineers who have worked primarily with artists on independent labels that have been recording using multi-track analog reel-to-reel machines (Studer, Ampex, etc.) through analog mixing consoles (Neve, SSL, etc.), using quality outboard gear (mic-pres, compressors, etc.), and quality microphones that are hallmarks of high quality multi-track recording from the 60s through the early 80s. Some guys like Steve Albini (Electrical Audio) have been outspoken about fad based recording techniques such as abuse of compression in mixing and mastering which are directly responsible for the noticeable degradation in audio quality of current major label releases.
Again, let's have your long list of indie records produced in the last five years that are outstanding....
In addition, I know that back in the 80s through the 90s, a lot of independent labels used John Golden at K Disc who now runs his own mastering studio, Golden Mastering. Basically, K Disc was one of the big mastering studios, so they've been using people that mastered releases for major label releases. There's no special barrier preventing independent labels from shipping off the 2 track recording studio master off to a mastering studio for creating a master for re-production and most of the big ones are using the same people.
Actually, there is, and this reveals your general lack of knowledge about the record business. The barrier is that most record labels aren't going to ship off an irreplaceable master tape to a no name mastering house, because there is too much of a chance for things to go sideways. Call MoFi or Music Matters and ask them what kind of insurance bond they have to put up to get a copy of a good release.
So to add to the list of things beyond the mastering engineer, it helps to be familiar with what studio the songs were recorded in, the recording engineer, and as well as where the release was pressed. If people are using the same digital master for vinyl and CD, and there is a notable difference, it more than likely has to do the vinyl mastering process, the plating process, or an issue at the pressing plant. A bad recording is a bad recording and will be bad whether the release is a CD or an LP record.
Same point. If an engineer uses the same mastering for LP and CD, one format is going to be a loser, because Vinyl and CD have different requirements because of the media. Of course a bad recording will be a bad recording, but a good recording can be ruined by the wrong mastering. If this was not the case, there wouldn't be a whole industry built around audiophile remasters.
In addition, a number of labels use the same pressing plants. I know that a lot of indie labels have been using Rainbo and United Record Pressing for years. Rainbo, from their website, seems to have handled a number of major label artists. United Record Pressing has a pretty long history going back to being responsible for pressing releases on Motown. Again, the quality of the pressing plant for indies is probably on par with any larger label since there are only so many record pressing plants currently in existence.
Some additional details related to the record mastering, plating, and pressing process from Aardvark Mastering's website:
http://www.aardvarkmastering.com/proceed.htm
Sorry but Aaardvark mastering hasn't produced anything of note ever....
Sorry to take this OT, but I felt like this statement shouldn't be left unchallenged. I'll add something relevant to the conversation:
In this case, the issue seems to be a problem with tracking the quality of records by specific labels. However, in most instances the problems would be with the pressing plant. It'd be more interesting to find out which labels are using which plants (I would assume a label is using one plant for all their releases - hence the quality issues at a specific plant would carry over to all releases). Keeping track of labels serves a purpose, but tracking this back to the source could provide additional benefits, such as lobbying labels that are using plants that have quality issues to use a different pressing plant that appears to not have the same issues.
So what's relevant about this? Most of the decent vinyl is pressed at a small handful of places. Most of them are working 24 hours a day and things don't always go perfectly. Because most records are produced in such small quantity, there's less margin for error and less profit margin, hence the reason some retailers are more grumpy than others in regards to return policies.. There's only so many places to get a good record pressed these days. You can't "Lobby" labels to use "different" pressing plants, because there aren't any.
-
I began collecting vinyls two years ago. And I must admit that I have been rather disappointed with the quality of the new pressings. Some of my best sounding LPs are those pressed in 1950-1970. The new stuff are very unpredictable. Two examples of my latest disappointment are "Diana Krall's The Look of Love" from OMG ($40 a piece), and "Patricia Barber's Live: A Fortnight in France" by Mo-Fi ($50 a piece!). I have already owned the CD version and I was hoping the LPs would give me a better "chill", but these two are just too noisy (just like sample #2 below) for me.
Perhaps as a consumer we should demand and expect better product from the label. If we can send people to the moon, why can't we produce defect-free LPs on a more consistant basis.
Sample #1 of Classic Records Pressing Defects on 200 Gram Vinyl (http://www.indierockfan.net/music/Classic_Records_Quality_Issues.mp3)
Sample #2 of Classic Records Pressing Defects on 200 Gram Vinyl (http://www.indierockfan.net/music/More_Shoddy_Classic_Records_Vinyl.mp3)
--Jerome
-
What's up with off-center spindle holes? Is it so hard to get it centered? :x
-
"That's what she said!"
- Michael Scott
Regional Manager, Dunder Mifflin Scranton
-
I've yet to ever get a bad Classics LP, and I own many of them. I did have one once that had a heavilly distorted bass on one side, but it turned out tobe in my tonearm setp. On the otherhand I've had warpage problems with the Columbia reissues.
gary
-
I've yet to ever get a bad Classics LP, and I own many of them.
Then I think you have had extremely good fortune and should count your blessings.
Here is a new "Clarity Vinyl" title I just received today. If you aren't familar with this series these pressings are made from clear vinyl cut at 45RPM. Suffice it to say that I didn't expect to see this discoloration in Classic Records' flagship product. Thankfully the records sound good, and that no doubt is my greatest concern. But I still believe that the quality of their pressings is very uneven.
(http://www.indierockfan.net/pics/ClarityVinyl_Defect1.jpg)
(http://www.indierockfan.net/pics/ClarityVinyl_Defect2.jpg)
--Jerome