advertisement


The Quality of Pressings

kjb

kjb

Proof reading not always a strength
Following @poco a poco and I's discussion of recent Red Hook releases, @gavreid 's shared frustration with some recent pressings and @guydarryl 's suggestion of a dedicated thread it seems a thread focused on good and problematic pressing might be useful

I wrote to Red Hook and the key points from their very courteous and appreciative response

The lacquers are cut at Emil Berliner,
The 180g LPs are manufactured at Record Industry - the same plant that presses all the ECM releases.
The issue may be with the (card) inner sleeve.

I was impressed that they got back to me and within 24 hours. I should also add that my second copy of the Wadada Leo Smith/ Amina Claudine Myers record was much improved on the first one.

As the producer at Red Hook, Sun Chung, worked at ECM for 10 years i wasn't surprised they used similar pressing plant. The main difference is that ECM always use a decent quality inner sleeve so that may be the difference.

My feeling is that if a label puts so much effort into making a great sounding recording they also need to look at how this experienced by the consumer. I had a quick chat with Matthew Halsall after seeing a show last year. I asked about the delay in getting copies of An Ever Changing View ( Mine arrived on the day of the show) and he said they'd returned the first batch as the quality wasnt up to the standard they expect. From my experience this has been reflected int he quality of all of the Gondwana recordings I've bought although they, too, often use a card inner - but not as stiff card as Red Hook.

So - any other thoughts on the science and art of pressing vinyl?
 
Agree that card inners are bad news. I think firms choose them because you can make a nice looking package with them - artwork, credits and so on - but they're terrible for the record.

I bought a sealed record on Discogs a while back that had been out of print for a couple of years (obscure free jazz) and it was covered in crap from the pressing plant. All that crud in a card sleeve pressed against the vinyl left a lot of marks. Cleaning it several times removed most (but not all) of the clicks but it still looks terrible.

If it was new I'd have returned it but it's not the seller's fault the pressing plant made a mess of it.

I wish labels would use poly-lined sleeves or even the cheap Nagaoka knock-offs that I use.
 
Record Industry default is anti static inners , card inners are at customers request to save a few cents
RI is the pressing plant owned by MOV music on vinyl
www.recordindustry.com

Prices - Record Industry

An order can have so many variations
www.recordindustry.com www.recordindustry.com
 
Bespoke printed lyric or picture inners are vastly more expensive than poly or paper inners, and that is what is being discussed here.

Obviously problematic from a record care perspective, but that has been the case since they were introduced way, way back. To be honest I’ve no idea when that was, and it’s an interesting question! What was the first? They’ve certainly been around as long as I’ve been buying records, e.g. The Slider (1972) had a printed card inner, though I’m struggling to think of anything much earlier, e.g. Electric Warrior was printed paper, not hard card. I’m sure there is stuff before that, but my brain isn’t flashing them back at me right now. I can’t bring to mind anything in the ‘60s or before, they all tended to be in paper or poly sleeves with printed inserts.

By the end of the ‘70s printed card inners were commonplace, one almost felt short-changed if a rock/pop album didn’t have one. I was buying poly inners back in the late-70s, e.g. for Yes, Genesis, Kraftwerk, Tubeway Army etc that came in card sleeves. I always realised you should only take the record out of them once very carefully, otherwise surface hairlines etc were inevitable. I like them though, all part of the packaging. Actually makes my collection a lot more valuable too as I’ve got all the Factory and new-wave stuff etc that came in card inners in really clean condition as I always stuck it straight in a Nagaoka or whatever.

The very worst were late-80s, early-90s as vinyl had been cost-cut so much it had lost the raised run-in and label profile so was trashed by card inners so much faster. So hard to find clean copies of say ZTT (Frankie, Propaganda etc) Peter Gabriel’s So etc. Just wrecked by the inners. Early-00 180g albums could be as bad too.

PS One thing that really annoys me with current pressings with printed card inners is just how many come creased or with seam-splits. Some pressing plant staff are really cack-handed. That knocks a grade off. If I’m buying new I want a genuine NM grade.
 
Putting aside the care in the physical manufacture of records, the QC by the producer/owner/artist is equally important. I've heard the Sam Records (France) rejected a whole bunch of Pallas pressings of one of his reissues, examining them one-by-one. He switched to Optimal after that (can you believe that!).
 
Kevin & All,
@kjb got to Red Hook before my own message to them.
Well if what they say is correct then the information, supposed theirs at the end of the Trackingangle review is slightly confusing . It says *Record Industry, Netherlands’ which is this pressing plant: https://www.recordindustry.com/ which is correct for ECM pressing. (I thought at first they were indicating RTI USA.) I have quite a few ECM vinyl pressings of various vintages, but never a pressing anywhere as bad as this. All my ECM’s have come in poly inner liners. I also dislike card inners only and could well blame that, but I have records that have remained in their card only inners for years and are not as bad as this pressing. I think I have replaced them all now will the premium MoFi or Spincare inners.
This pressing or the card inner are strange in that it seems to probably Still shedding bits of vinyl as having had 3 trips through my Degritter at firs all the clicks were gone, but now I am finding some coming back? There is something defiantly wrong with the QA here at this plant because not only is my pressing problematic, but side two’s record centre label on my copy is bubbled up all over by about 5mm. I thought at first two labels one on top of the other that I have found in the past, but that is not the case here.
As Hockman says Sam Records did QA the QAers and changed plants. I think Red Hook needs to do the same as it is such a shame to produce such a good recording that highlights the music and artistry of the musicians.
Jim
@poco a poco
 
hockman said:
Putting aside the care in the physical manufacture of records, the QC by the producer/owner/artist is equally important. I've heard the Sam Records (France) rejected a whole bunch of Pallas pressings of one of his reissues, examining them one-by-one. He switched to Optimal after that (can you believe that!).
Click to expand...
Fred couldn't get Pallas to press small numbers any longer and he switched to Optimal. I believe his QC procedure was on the Optimal pressings and he was rejecting as many as 50% in the covid period but he might have been doing the same sort of thing for the earlier pressings too. He has since teamed up with a new French sole operator. He's done some good interviews with Captain Phoenix on YT
 
gavreid said:
Presumably they were that bit cheaper than a gatefold, possibly a bit more than a paper insert. In the UK, say, an EMI pressing with a G&L sleeve would have been expensive in the early 70s and some companies cheaped out e.g. Tamla Motown
Click to expand...

I think it is largely independent as many records had/have both. I‘m still struggling to think of anything before The Slider (July ‘72) with a printed card inner, but after that they became really common on rock/pop albums, e.g. Yes Close To The Edge (Sept 72) had a textured gatefold sleeve and card lyric inner. From then on it was widespread, almost expected on rock/pop. Right through punk and new wave too, e.g. X-Ray Spex Germ-Free, Buzzcocks Another Music, Slits Cut, TRB Power, Costello This Year’s etc etc all had card inners. Just part of rock/pop packaging IMO. Gatefolds were less popular during punk, but the hefty gloss laminated sleeves of things like Cut, Germ-Free etc were certainly not cheap or cost-cut in any way.

They’ve always been pretty rough card inside too, e.g. good luck funding unmarked copies of Kraftwerk’s TEE, Man Machine, Slits, Gang Of Four, Floyd from WYWH onwards, Factory etc unless the original buyer did what I did and went straight to poly inners on day of purchase. Back then the only poly inners I could find easily were from WH Smiths and branded as such. I used to slice one side off so they fitted in the card inner. Still dig out a record from my collection in them now and again, though I swap them out for fresh Nags now. They did their job well. I’d hate to have to replace some of my records, it is all but impossible to find stuff undamaged by 40+ years in card inners.

PS No idea why What’s Going On didn’t get a gatefold when say Innervisions did. I have that linked copy and it is a great sounding record, they got the cut right. The sleeve is textured too, which is always an add-on cost.
 
gavreid said:
Fred couldn't get Pallas to press small numbers any longer and he switched to Optimal. I believe his QC procedure was on the Optimal pressings and he was rejecting as many as 50% in the covid period but he might have been doing the same sort of thing for the earlier pressings too. He has since teamed up with a new French sole operator.
Click to expand...
Checking every record by hand when it gets back from the plant is fine if you only do a few releases a year limited to 2000 copies. Doesn't really scale though.

OT but David Weiss has also been quite critical of Sam Records for not paying artists much. Though in fairness we don't know the details and a low print run isn't going to generate a lot of income.
 
paulfromcamden said:
Checking every record by hand when it gets back from the plant is fine if you only do a few releases a year limited to 2000 copies. Doesn't really scale though.
Click to expand...
Most of the records that we all buy don't have huge runs either!! I doubt the plants do any real QC based on my experience, probably just a few random samples. Sam records is remarkable but I think that's likely to be only the stock passing through his own shop.
 
gavreid said:
Most of the records that we all buy don't have huge runs either!! I doubt the plants do any real QC based on my experience, probably just a few random samples. Sam records is remarkable but I think that's likely to be only the stock passing through his own shop.
Click to expand...

One problem historically is the time-gap between test pressing and actual press, e.g. a band/label can approve a white-label test press only to find when the record was actually mass-produced they misaligned the stampers resulting in eccentricity. There is usually a good week or two approval time and no way is a pressing plant going to keep a press sitting unused for that time, so the stampers are taken off, stored, and then refitted when given the OK. FWIW pretty much every band I know, and I knew quite a few, all approved their test pressings.

As for short runs it amazes me just how many cover variations there are these days. I understand colour variations are simple, just a matter of loading different vinyl mixes into the press during a run and remembering which is where when shipping, but different cover designs for just 300 or so copies seems very expensive. I’m thinking of Dinked Editions etc here, also some Rough Trade Exclusives etc, often entirely different covers. As an example the recently announced Ezra Collective album has a gatefold sleeve and printed inners as an option. That is a whole different print-run! Covers were never a cheap part of making a record IME.
 
Tony L said:
I think it is largely independent as many records had/have both. I‘m still struggling to think of anything before The Slider (July ‘72) with a printed card inner,
Click to expand...
The first vinyl records were released without inners at all before they realised the need for something so it was well understood that card was harsh on pvc records. The first inners were paper, as they had used on the old shellac records, before a British company invented the poly- lined paper sleeve in the late 50s. Therefore, they knew that paper was problematic too. Rice paper was another option. There's no doubt that the heavy card was just part of the marketing in the 70s, clearly that wasn't a cost saving!
 
gavreid said:
The first vinyl record were released without inners at all before they realised the need for something so it was well understood that card was harsh on records.
Click to expand...

I’d want to see that qualified. I’m a dealer who deals (or at least used to) in classical vinyl and have seen, sold, and in some cases have to hand some very early Decca LXT and HMV ASD records from the early ‘50s when both companies started pressing vinyl records. It may possibly be the case with very, very early ALPs that came in the cloth-bound gatefold ‘Nipper’ sleeves which have a die-cut card inner inside as the inner gatefold, but even then I suspect they shipped with a poly-bag inside. I’ve not seen enough of these to know for sure.

This is probably the oldest vinyl album I own:

53801696666_32c56da592_b.jpg


A 1st issue of ALP1051 from 1953.

53802026539_870cdb33b7_b.jpg


This is the inner-gatefold. My suspicion is there was a poly-bag here originally, but it may have been served-up straight into the card. It is certainly very hard to find this range in good condition. This one is about a VG+.

Certainly by the time ALPs had proper picture sleeves they had poly inners, e.g. these rather valuable Tureck Bach Goldbergs, the poly inners are correct, though have a Nag inside:

6910566418_78a0a0e6f3_c.jpg


I have never seen a Decca LXT without a poly inner unless someone has stolen it (which is very common as a lot of more collectable vinyl used the same type).

Things may have been very different in America, though old Columbia ‘six-eye’ monos certainly came in a poly bag with a perforated top, i.e. the cover wasn’t shrink-wrapped/sealed, but the record was in a bag inside. These are often lost to time as they get a bit manky.
 
These HMV's from the mid-50s are the earliest I have, CLP Verve Series and worth diddly squat, as you know Tony! This one is 1956 and even then they had those lovely heavy paper, poly lined sleeves. Patent Applied For (which makes them sound better ;). The slightly later ones have a British patent number but state Foreign Patents Pending,) Still a quality item but not made to ALP standards!



and these 1959 retaining the same quality and artwork worth a bit more. By about 61 the stock for the inner was thinner and they advertised other releases but in colour!

 
I've just had a second email from Red Hook saying they will "make the necessary changes to the inner protective sleeve". I guess that will also apply to any represses but obviously not to the current stock. It's good to get such positive response from a label.

I don't think I've been put off buying any other current records from them but I may do so via Amazon so if there are any issues they can be dealt with through a simple exchange.
 
gavreid said:
These HMV's from the mid-50s are the earliest I have, CLP Verve Series and worth diddly squat, as you know Tony! This one is 1956 and even then they had those lovely heavy paper, poly lined sleeves. Patent Applied For (which makes them sound better ;)) Still a quality item but not made to ALP standards!

Click to expand...

They are really nice records IMO. As you say undervalued in the grand scheme of things, but I don’t let genuinely nice copies go for less than £15 these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top