Quality control (or the lack there of) with new vinyl (Anyone experience any of this, I have)

[EJ3]

Marc HenshallSeptember 8, 2020
Culture & Industry



Considering vinyl records are pitched as a premium or luxury product, the quality control of some new vinyl releases leaves much to be desired…
Pressing faults and the quality of new vinyl is a topic we’ve covered before. Sadly, there are several common faults to watch out for, which can be a cause for headache for many record enthusiasts.

To a certain degree, it’s the nature of the beast (within reason). But in my experience, the rate of faulty or poor quality pressings is far higher than it should be. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve encountered problems and had to return or replace a new record.

Here are some recent examples:
Tenth-anniversary re-issue of John Frusciante’s The Empyrean. It took me three attempts to get a copy that didn’t either have huge distortion on track four or have a deep scratch on the surface due to a rouge piece of vinyl making it into the record sleeve after trimming.
Alt-J – Relaxer. Little bubbles on the record surface that cause a clip or pop as the stylus runs through them.

Record Store Day 2020 release of Tyrannosaurus Rex Unicorn – the yellow vinyl has color contamination, meaning the surface isn’t entirely solid yellow. See close up pictures below. This is my most recent disappointment and is ultimately the straw that broke the camels back, leading to this article (or rant, depending on how you look at it).

Back to Black copy of Nirvana Nevermind. Pressed off-center…
Counting Crows – August and Everything After. Again, there is a tiny bubble on the record surface that causes a pop as the stylus runs through. After buying a few copies, I ended up settling for one of them where the bubble was located between two tracks. Better to have the bubble in the silence rather than disturbing the music.
Norah Jones – Come Away with Me. There is significant sibilance on this record, particularly on Norah’s vocal. My suspicion here is the mastering wasn’t explicitly handled for vinyl, and the original digital master doesn’t translate well to wax.
Threatening the Vinyl Revival
I appreciate there will always be the odd problem that slips through the net, and I also understand the huge strain placed on record plants to keep up with demand. Sales figures for new vinyl continue to rise, putting the limited amount of pressing plants under increased pressure. My fear is, if the subject of quality control isn’t addressed, it could threaten the resurgence in vinyl. Consumers will quickly lose patience if they feel they’re paying a premium for subpar quality. For example, I paid upwards of $40 for my recent copy of Unicorn (described above). And while there was nothing wrong with the actual pressing, color defects on a limited edition pressing simply isn’t good enough.
Thankfully, most retailers are understanding and will always accept a return or replacement for faulty records, but the process and time involved certainly takes the edge off the whole experience of buying a desirable product.
I’m not the only person to raise concerns over quality control, of course. For example, many YouTubers have expressed concerns and frustrations, including Frank Landry from Channel 33RMP, who claims there are “Still MAJOR quality control issues with new vinyl records” after receiving a heavily scratched copy of Ozzy Osbourne’s Ordinary Man.
Additionally, Brian from For the Record expressed in one video why he doesn’t buy that much new vinyl any more after battling with ongoing quality issues. “I have found that quality control for new vinyl pressings has been put on the backburner in lieu of getting them out as fast as humanly possible.”
He goes on claim that “one in maybe five or six new records I buy have nothing wrong with them, the other records have something wrong with them!” The most common issues he cites are bubbles on the record surface and off-center pressings – both of which I can vouch for as being a huge headache when buying new vinyl. Four out of five records is a bold claim, and it’s important to note that the video is almost two years old now. However, the fact remains, there are clearly some consistency and quality control issues at play.
Signs of Promise
It’s not all bad news. There is a strong determination across the industry to improve and uphold standards to secure a bright future for vinyl records as demand continues to grow. In a recent interview with mastering engineer Barry Grint, he revealed a promising development supporting quality control. “The RIAA have a working group looking to put together a standards document covering all aspects of record manufacture in terms of quality of pressing, printing, and becoming more environmentally friendly,” he explains. “However, the manufacture of records is a very organic process, and all factories cycle through peaks and troughs of quality. That doesn’t mean that suddenly the quality is disastrous, but that they work within a tolerance.”
Additionally, the recent formation of the Vinyl Alliance—a members-based organization working to “strengthen the position of vinyl records in a digital world”—is a positive development. The more the industry groups together under a shared mission, the greater our ability to address quality control problems.
Supporting the growth of record plant numbers and addressing broader supply chain issues will go a long way towards improving quality, as competition always raises quality standards. Here’s hoping the trend for new record plants continues, as consumers will soon vote with their feet if the quality continues to miss the mark.

 

[Robin L]

Stop. Please.

I was an employee of one record store or another for far too long. I was a collector of music on LP for longer than that. What you are describing is the Snafu with LP production right from the start. The most obvious flaw with LPs is on all LPs and there isn't a thing that can be done to fix it. I've probably said this too many times already, but the available energy in the groove at the end of an LP [or 45, or 78, or 16 rpm] side is 60% less than what was available at the start of the groove. One has to indulge in a great deal of self-hypnotism to convince oneself that the sound at the end of a record side is not horribly distorted. Thus 2LP sets at 45 rpm, making for more deadwax than groove in "Audiophile", collectible vinyl.

That said, if you're going to collect records, you are going to encounter more flawed product than just about anywhere else. There were LPs fitting your descriptions in 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985 and 1990, when LPs were effectively flushed out of the market for about 10-15 years. I started collecting LPs in 1970, working in records stores in 1975, worked in LP stores all the other dates cited. Many of the reasons why LPs are so flawed are inherent to the process, so the same mistakes are still being made and will always be made. If an LP actually sounds really good, it's a miracle, pretty much.

The advantage of the LP format comes from those things that make them the baseball cards of music and audio. As physical manifestations, shrines, participation trophies for the hero worship of musicians, LPs make far better altars. If you want the best sound, best to look elsewhere.

 

[EJ3]

RTR 1st gen masters don't have the problem in the groove you mention. I have those too. (but 15" reels are a little inconvenient). We all know that vinyl, like you mentioned, has limitations (and quite a bit more than you mentioned). But that doesn't justify bad quality control. On vinyl or anything else. There are a lot of things that only were on vinyl, RTR, 3/4 (or wider) tape, digital tape, all sorts of things. I posted this here because I presumed it was about vinyl, a sub category of analogue. And right at the top it says: Turntables, Phono Amplifiers, Cartridges. It does not say "better than anything else". I have been collecting records since the first Beatles 45's came out. So what! As well as almost every format since. So what! I also worked at radio and television stations. So what! I sold and made radio commercials. So what! I had my own radio show. So what! I ran sound for bands. So what! I recorded 60 piece bands. So what! You worked at record stores. So what! None of hose things that you or I have done have anything to do with bad quality control on some new LP's. If you have something against what others enjoy, why are you in this thread? I like it all. It's all interesting: live music and the process that gets it from a studio or live venue to my ears, whether analogue or digital. It just seems that some recent LP's that have encountered some issues that, while, yes, they occurred in the past, seem to occur more as a percentage of production than in times past. (based on my personal buying experiences as well as others). I have 78's from 1927 that, yeah, the sound isn't awesome but they are not noticeably off center. Things like a piece of vinyl in the record sleeve, I have never seen personally. I am not talking about the normal challenges to the recording. I use a 1988 Technics SL-M3 servo controlled linear tracking TT. It's easy to diss the recording to LP process but would you find a new off center automobile wheel acceptable? How 'bout a new scratched one? No? Same with a record.

 

[Wombat]

I encountered the same problems and more for over 20 years during the vinyl era. The CD was a godsend.

 

[Robin L]

RTR 1st gen masters don't have the problem in the groove you mention. I have those too. (but 15" reels are a little inconvenient). We all know that vinyl, like you mentioned, has limitations (and quite a bit more than you mentioned). But that doesn't justify bad quality control. On vinyl or anything else. There are a lot of things that only were on vinyl, RTR, 3/4 (or wider) tape, digital tape, all sorts of things. I posted this here because I presumed it was about vinyl, a sub category of analogue. And right at the top it says: Turntables, Phono Amplifiers, Cartridges. It does not say "better than anything else". I have been collecting records since the first Beatles 45's came out. So what! As well as almost every format since. So what! I also worked at radio and television stations. So what! I sold and made radio commercials. So what! I had my own radio show. So what! I ran sound for bands. So what! I recorded 60 piece bands. So what! You worked at record stores. So what! None of hose things that you or I have done have anything to do with bad quality control on some new LP's. If you have something against what others enjoy, why are you in this thread? I like it all. It's all interesting: live music and the process that gets it from a studio or live venue to my ears, whether analogue or digital. It just seems that some recent LP's that have encountered some issues that, while, yes, they occurred in the past, seem to occur more as a percentage of production than in times past. (based on my personal buying experiences as well as others). I have 78's from 1927 that, yeah, the sound isn't awesome but they are not noticeably off center. Things like a piece of vinyl in the record sleeve, I have never seen personally. I am not talking about the normal challenges to the recording. I use a 1988 Technics SL-M3 servo controlled linear tracking TT. It's easy to diss the recording to LP process but would you find a new off center automobile wheel acceptable? How 'bout a new scratched one? No? Same with a record.

A lot of what you're saying about your experiences applies to me as well. I recorded classical music, all sizes, had a radio show, and so on. I didn't only work at record stores. But because of experiences that include working in record stores, producing and DJ-ing radio shows, and collecting records, I realized that LP collection was a masochist's pursuit.

" I have 78's from 1927 that, yeah, the sound isn't awesome but they are not noticeably off center."

I have had LPs from 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990 and 2010 that were notably off center. Lots of them. That's what happens when one listens to a lot of music with sustained pitches that cross bar lines. Had plenty of 78s that were off-center as well. If one pays attention, one hears a lot more of them. Again, self-hypnosis is necessary to convince oneself that "this is fine" when listening to most LPs.

"Things like a piece of vinyl in the record sleeve, I have never seen personally. "

Mid-late 1970's, my first copy of the soundtrack to Ingmar Bergman's filmed "Magic Flute". [Yes I got other copies, no I couldn't order a new copy from Sweden at the time]. Big hunk of vinyl pressed onto the lead-in groove. Wasn't the only time I've encountered that specific defect. You forgot warped LPs, from the era of gas shortages and ultra-thin pressings. Loads of those. Tower records had us re-shrink those for folks who wouldn't notice the difference. Noisy surfaces? You bet. The Japanese pressings had the quietest surfaces, too bad about the shrill mastering. LPs done right [or at least as right as LPs ever get] are a rare thing.

As to why I pop in here with that opinion, no one told me I couldn't. I spent too much time playing LPs. I've moved on, along with most of the rest of the world. It would be good if LPs were manufactured to a higher standard, but they won't, mainly because good LPs are very hard to make, perfect ones are impossible and there have been no breakthroughs in manufacture.

 

[EJ3]

My first CD player (in the 80's sounded pretty good (Magnavox/Philips something or another single disk player). A few years later I made a mistake by giving it to someone & buying a new Sony 5 disk carousel one. That was the biggest audio mistake I ever made. It didn't matter what disk you put in, it was unlistenable to me. Almost non-existent low end and everything above that was harsh. Today my oppo 205 handles the disk duties and I am pretty happy with it. But I listen to a lot of both albums & CD's (40% & 40%) & the rest is: digital files, RTR, Cassette & FM. Unfortunately there is now a lot of dynamic range compression. Even at my primary home there is not a good enough signal to stream & when I go to my other place, there is no usable cell phone signal (but there are over 20 over the air HD TV channels).

 

[digitalfrost]

Any vinyl I buy usually ends up as a vinyl rip, so sooner or later I'll find out any imperfections. I've found an excellent store that will not only take back fautly vinyl but send me back tested vinyl (i.e. some poor guy had to listen to the whole record to make sure it was fine) in custom sleeves for each LP. I only buy from them.

Long story short. Find a good dealer and be happy if you care about quality.

 

[EJ3]

A lot of what you're saying about your experiences applies to me as well. I recorded classical music, all sizes, had a radio show, and so on. I didn't only work at record stores. But because of experiences that include working in record stores and collecting records, I realized that LP collection was a masochist's pursuit. As to why I pop in here with that opinion, no one told me I couldn't. I spent too much time playing LPs. I've moved on, along with most of the rest of the world.

I have lived outside of the USA (in mostly a third world situation) from 2001-2018. Well, I felt that I was being attacked for part of what I like (most music in most formats). There is terrible, bad, good, great & awesome. On some formats awesome is not really possible, but there isn't any real reason that bad quality control should make it less than good.

 

[Robin L]

My first CD player (in the 80's sounded pretty good (Magnavox/Philips something or another single disk player). A few years later I made a mistake by giving it to someone & buying a new Sony 5 disk carousel one. That was the biggest audio mistake I ever made. It didn't matter what disk you put in, it was unlistenable to me. Almost non-existent low end and everything above that was harsh. Today my oppo 205 handles the disk duties and I am pretty happy with it. But I listen to a lot of both albums & CD's (40% & 40%) & the rest is: digital files, RTR, Cassette & FM. Unfortunately there is now a lot of dynamic range compression. Even at my primary home there is not a good enough signal to stream & when I go to my other place, there is no usable cell phone signal (but there are over 20 over the air HD TV channels).

When I first encountered digital sound, I hated it. It took the experience of attempting to be a professional recording engineer that forced me to listen to music I knew from recordings without the artifacts of recording and playback interfering with the sound. Was then I realized that what I was hearing was a microphone feed, which colored the sound more than the recording device, and the obvious limitations of the playback gear. But when CDs first appeared, I thought a terrible mistake had happened. I was reading all the High-End periodicals I could at the time, as Tower was selling the bulk of them. I "knew", back then, that LPs were right and CDs were wrong. It took a long time to reverse polarity on that one.

 

[Robin L]

Any vinyl I buy usually ends up as a vinyl rip, so sooner or later I'll find out any imperfections. I've found an excellent store that will not only take back fautly vinyl but send me back tested vinyl (i.e. some poor guy had to listen to the whole record to make sure it was fine) in custom sleeves for each LP. I only buy from them.

Long story short. Find a good dealer and be happy if you care about quality.

That sounds close to ideal. The late Ron Pendorff had a record shop, Recollections, where he listened to all the LPs he sold for [international] auction at very high prices. He sold a lot of "Shaded Dogs" and "Living Presence" LPs to Japan via mail auctions. Had good playback gear, was an honest broker. Also had a thing for motorcycles.

More:

http://berkeleyplaques.org/e-plaque/ron-penndorf/

 

[EJ3]

The Japanese pressings had the quietest surfaces, too bad about the shrill mastering.

Yep, the quality of the vinyl itself was there (beat us again in the quality dept, this time not in automotive, although, in a stretch, oil was involved)
Shrill, like my second CD player. That was a shame.
Now we have high vinyl prices (because of demand, mostly by people who have equipment because it seems cool to have it) but seemingly less vinyl quality control.

 

[Robin L]

The Japanese pressings had the quietest surfaces, too bad about the shrill mastering.

Yep, the quality of the vinyl itself was there (beat us again in the quality dept, this time not in automotive, although, in a stretch, oil was involved)
Shrill, like my second CD player. That was a shame.

There was a record store in Westwood California, "Vogue Records", went there a lot in the late 1970's. They had rows and rows of Japanese pressings, every aspect of their production wonderful save their eccentric EQ. There were Verve jazz reissues at Rare Records, Glendale, mostly very fine, a little hot on top but otherwise about as good as it gets. I worked there for a year, madly getting Charlie Parker LPs, 78s and EPs. Wonderful store, they really had rare records, Edison cylinders, stacks of Caruso acoustic 78's, a wall of 45s that Doctor Demento would trawl through about once a week. They were the first place in town with Sheffield Labs Direct to Discs and Telarc LPs, mostly mastered from digital recordings.

Now we have high vinyl prices (because of demand, mostly by people who have equipment because it seems cool to have it) but seemingly less vinyl quality control.

I would hope someone could develop a process that absolutely guarantees perfectly centered LPs, seems like that should be an attainable goal. Pressing on really quiet vinyl makes it possible to cut at a low enough level to reduce the width of the groove without onerous surface noise. My Steve Hoffman pressing of the Billy Strayhorn/Duke Ellington "Nutcracker Suite" successfully did that. Helped that the sides were about 15 minutes long.

 

[EJ3]

When I first encountered digital sound, I hated it. It took the experience of attempting to be a professional recording engineer that forced me to listen to music I knew from recordings without the artifacts of recording and playback interfering with the sound. Was then I realized that what I was hearing was a microphone feed, which colored the sound more than the recording device, and the obvious limitations of the playback gear. But when CDs first appeared, I thought a terrible mistake had happened. I was reading all the High-End periodicals I could at the time, as Tower was selling the bulk of them. I "knew", back then, that LPs were right and CDs were wrong. It took a long time to reverse polarity on that one.

I thought that digital was neat but not necessarily better than vinyl except that Porsche (I was working for the factory as a QC in the early to mid 80's) started having Blaupunkt CD players in their cars. I still have one of those players laying around here somewhere. After I got my second CD player (a Sony) I thought that, if typical CD's can sound this bad, it won't make it. Obviously some folks had quite good CD players and by 88 they were really going strong. Then, later on folks found MP3 acceptable. I never owned anything in that format that wasn't just outright given to me (and I rarely listened to any of it, it mostly just gave me a headache after a few songs, whether over speakers or head phones or earbuds.). Portability trumped. Good sound did not seem to matter, it was how many songs can you have on your person. That is when I just quite listening to new stuff for a number of years. Only if I was in a place that had live bands did I pay attention to newer music. In these last several years the selection of quality has music gotten better. And now we get the shut down of dynamic range. In this field when something makes it better, something always comes along to make it worse in a different way.

 

[Robin L]

. . . In this field when something makes it better, something always comes along to make it worse in a different way.

Technological progress? My thought is that it's Philip K. Dick's world, we just "live" in it. Right now, listening to playback of Apple lossless files through very recent gear, I'm mostly happy. As far as I can tell, the sound is as good as any I've had in my house. But I've still got a little nostalgia for the record jackets and all the little things about collecting LPs, going to Leopold's and Tower, Rasputin's and Amoeba, all in a very short walk with maybe a slice from Blondie's in between.

 

[levimax]

Even if you manage to get a defect free record it is easy enough to damage it your self. One of my favorite things about vinyl is it eliminates the illusion of perfection that digital recordings promise but don't really deliver... At the end of rhe day recorded music is limited in many ways and the storage medium is one of the least important variables.

 

[restorer-john]

After I got my second CD player (a Sony) I thought that, if typical CD's can sound this bad, it won't make it. Obviously some folks had quite good CD players and by 88 they were really going strong.

CD players were never "shrill". It was the recordings or people's imagination. Much of the early CD content came from direct flat transfers of the master tape, so all CD was showing was how bad the recording was.

Where analog open reel was the source master, obviously there were A/D converters used and they may have attributed some sound of their own.

 

[Robin L]

CD players were never "shrill". It was the recordings or people's imagination. Much of the early CD content came from direct flat transfers of the master tape, so all CD was showing was how bad the recording was.

Where analog open reel was the source master, obviously there were A/D converters used and they may have attributed some sound of their own.

There were a lot of early CDs where the source tapes for the digital masters were second generation back up tapes, the first tape they could get their hands on. Simon and Garfunkel's first CD reissues, Aretha Franklin, many others, made from backup tapes. Also, some early digital recordings used microphones that had their peaky treble softened from analog tape artifacts like soft limiting and drooping treble in the recorders. Using the same microphones for digital production required some adjustment. Some early digital recordings are great, but there was an overabundance of treble in many productions of the eighties, analog or digital. I was making recordings with some of the early digital gear, like the Sony PCM 501 es converter used with a Betamax tape recorder. Late 1980s. That was a sonic mess.

I heard real sonic improvement using the 20-bit capable A/D in the tc electronics M 2000 I used in the mid-nineties. I don't think the real potential of digital was realized until 24/192 became a de-facto standard. Maybe not necessary for playback, but very helpful in production.

Sorry about the thread drift, but there was something different enough, jarring enough, about the sound of CDs compared to LPs back when CDs were introduced. Gear like the Sony PCM 501 was part of the reason why. Lack of experience with digital recording was another.

 

[EJ3]

My thought is that it's Philip K. Dick's world, we just "live" in it.

Been a while since I read any of his stuff, maybe it's re-read time.

 

[Sal1950]

CD players were never "shrill". It was the recordings or people's imagination. Much of the early CD content came from direct flat transfers of the master tape, so all CD was showing was how bad the recording was.

People weren't used to hearing exactly what the master sounded like, for better or worse.

@EJ3 , the "vinyl revival" was the result of some smart marketing by a large part of the audio industry. The saw CD's and later streaming as somewhat a sales dead end where records required a minimally a constant finanial reinvest since many parts of the chain wear out or the need for upgrades was easier to push since the mechanical nature itself hints at it's need.
Vinyls problems in manufacture and sound quality will always exist. If you want dependable, reliable, SOTA sound, stick to digital.

 

[EJ3]

CD players were never "shrill". It was the recordings or people's imagination. Much of the early CD content came from direct flat transfers of the master tape, so all CD was showing was how bad the recording was.

Where analog open reel was the source master, obviously there were A/D converters used and they may have attributed some sound of their own.

In my case, it was the same CD's that I had played on the somewhat more expensive (early 80's) Magnavox/Philips that sounded good (which sounded harsh or shrill on the mid 80's somewhat less expensive) Sony 5 disk carousel. Because I had given the Mag/Phil player to a friend that I spent the night at frequently, I was able to directly compare the 2. The SONY, which I expected to sound better because it was a SONY, definitely did not.