Manufacturing of "record club" vinyl records

I have been buying records since the 70's. I have no idea why this is, but I can say emphatically that if I have a choice between a thicker album VS thin, in my experience the thicker one will always sound worse, usually due to noisy vinyl. That isn't my experience with newer vinyl, but it sure is for pressings pre 2000. I think maybe the thicker vinyl had a lot of regrind mixed in and that is why it seems so noisy. I am only talking about the quality of the vinyl itself, not the mastering. A great example is Motown. Most of their vinyl is pure garbage, and always heavy. But the thinner vinyl usually sounds fantastic...it even looks better. I have an amazing two disc Supremes hits compilation from 1967 that is just killer, and it is one of the only thin copies I have ever seen. My Stevie Wonder Musicquarium is on Motown thin vinyl and is simply stunning and quiet. Not so with their thicker vinyl. Would love to hear from someone in the know why this is. It can't be a coincidence....I have seen it far too often in my nearly forty years of collecting vinyl. ELO is another good example. I have numerous copies of Out of the Blue. All the thicker copies are noisy. My best one is thin, until I got a recent new copy as an import on 180G vinyl. That one is stunning. Obviously newer 180 gram vinyl is using much better quality vinyl in most cases.

 

^MOV did a nice job on that ELO album

 

I could be wrong but back in the 70's and 80's wasn't a lot of vinyl pressed on recycled vinyl? I know a lot of modern pressings of 180 gram and 200 gram vinyl are proudly labeled as "virgin vinyl". This could very easily explain the noisy heavy discs you have from Motown. I don't know, but just a guess. I also wonder if Columbia House had a back-pile of Shaun Cassidy vinyl that they couldn't get rid of so they recycled it to make other albums.

 

That's been my experience with the few American Record Club pressings I own.
King Crimson
Steely Dan (black ABC label - is this related to Atlantic somehow?)
Yes

 

IME and from what I've read, heavier vinyl does offer some sonic benefit but it must be slight and probably not worth the cost of the extra vinyl. Of course, its difficult to discern sound differences between the original release because most of the newer, thicker releases have been remastered (some digitally) and even if they use the same tape as the original releases, it has aged and probably doesn't sound the same either. I haven't noticed any more or less warping as related to the records' thickness but I do agree that there is a higher probability of thicker records warping simply because of the extra time needed to cool and if the pressing process is sped up, then more records will have warp issues - as well as non-fill, off-center holes, labels and of course, bad handling that results in dirt, fingerprints and scratches... .

Unfortunately, there just isn't enough manufacturing capacity to handle the demand at the moment but no worries - if the plants can't find or build new presses or keep up with QC issues, some folks will stop buying and demand will most certainly fall, giving the plants more time (and incentive) to devote to QC, thus better records for those of us who stick around... probably lower prices as well - at least for the short term.

As others mentioned, back in the early 70's, the record companies were dealing with the rising cost of oil and the result was high priced records with a lot of quality issues - at least in US. If I wanted a decent pressing, I had to buy an import (most often from Japan) at 3-4x the price but it was worth it because in the mid to late 70's, it was hard to find a domestic record that didn't have some issue... it really sucked! I also think that the record companies may have deliberately fouled the product in order to really set the stage for the CD. Its much easier to believe the hype and invest in a user-friendly player and 'indestructible' silver disc with 'perfect music forever' if every other record you buy is full of dirt and sounds like crap - I certainly bought into digital as soon as I could afford to. Luckily, I was too cheap to get rid of my records and eventually, the digital format's ease of use and lack of pops, ticks, etc. no longer trumped the sound of analogue to my ears and I was pulled back into vinyl and all the trouble seemed worth it again.

 

I've gotten several Capitol record club issues which are significantly different to the stock copy. Their catelog numbers begin with SMAS and labels are sometimes and older design and the vinyl weight is generally heavier. The mastering are generally done inhouse by capitol.

 

I think you are spot on. I just know that all things being equal, if I have a choice in the used bins of thick or thin vinyl ( from the era you cite, not newer) I will always go with thinner. I don't think the thickness has anything to do with anything, I just suspect the thicker stuff from that era was pretty much all recycled. That is the only thing that seems to explain it.

 

Interesting. I have been on a buying tear of Japanese vinyl from the 70's-80's. All of it has been thin, and all of it, unless there are worn issues, are dead quiet. Any issues I have had have nothing to do with the pressings. Almost all of it is much better mastered and at worst, seem to use the same master. Packaging is also far better. I have maybe 35 of them. I bet you have some amazing titles! Would love to read about a few of them. A great idea for a new thread?

 

------------------
I would tend to disagree on the thickness of vinyl as would most of the really thin dynagroove lps out there. I don't think that you need 180 gram, as 150 gram should give enough depth. I would also add that storing thin would take more care to insure it stays flat in a vertical cabinet. I would think not flat they will bend much more easily and be subject memory warp.

 

This thread went from Record Club Pressings to Thin vs. Thick Vinyl.

 

Yes, I thought about that when I was replying to the poster. I just started a new thread! Sorry for bringing it up here.

 

I have a couple records from the late 90's/early 2000's that proudly boast "Audiophile grade 150 gram". I guess they realized real audiophiles need that extra 30 grams. I think I only have one 200g LP. It drops onto the platter with a big thud like I'm dropping a sack of flour.

Oh, and I have a copy of the Grateful Dead's American Beauty from BMG record club. Sounds perfect to me.

 

I've only had a couple of Club pressings - Van Halen and an Iron Maiden. The Maiden, RCA pressing of Somewhere in Time, looked clean but was noisy after repeated cleanings. I got a beat-up original DMM that has its own noise problems but the sound is amazing (not to mention that the glossy cover and inner sleeve had nicer detail).

Van Halens were CRC, if I remember correctly. Fair warning and 1984. Fairly clean, sounded pretty good. I've since replaced them; I have a first press Fair Warning that sounds awesome. I didn't directly compare them, mind you. What I took away from these is that club pressings will do in a pinch.

 

Not a prob at all because I have noticed differences in vinyl from Columbia House/RCA and store bought vinyl. As stated in my first message of this thread I have two copies of Styx "Kilroy Was Here". The A&M version is much thinner than the Columbia House version. I haven't listened to compare and see which sounds better. I have played them both but never compared. Maybe I should make digital rips of them and then compare to see which one sounds better. I also have Billy Squier "Emotions In Motion" and it is an RCA Record club version (or BMG, whichever, probably RCA) and it sounds pretty good and it's very thin vinyl.

 

The only rule I would have is "How does it sound on your system?", other than that it doesn't matter. There have been some great vinyl pressed on reg thickness and some bad ones on 180 gram. I find the manufacturing process very interesting and, when I think about it, it really has no reason to sound as good as it does when you think about that diamond sitting in the grooves. Pretty miraculous science. I do think that the quality of the vinyl DOES matter and regrind will give you some static.

 

The Beatles recorded in the 70s and 80s?

 

Hmmmm. Chad Kassem....are you listening?

 

Great thread, by the way

 

Yes! That is correct. It was a dark period in vinyl's history and a stupid attempt by government for environmental policy. I once had to return 10 copies of Physical Graffiti in order to get a decent copy. That's how bad it got.

 

Yes-90125, CRC, a dandy of a listen: flat, dead quiet

 

Yes, you are correct (pun intended). My copy of 90125 is also from Columbia House. 90 % of what I ordered from Columbia House was on cassette. But 90215 was one of the few I ordered on vinyl. Most of the record club vinyl versions I own now is stuff I have aquired since 2012 when I got back into vinyl.

Something else I have noticed is that Styx "Caught In The Act" was made "cheaper" by RCA. I also have two copies of this album and the A&M version has "Styx" on the cover which is embossed in silver lettering and has a 3-D effect:



The inner sleeves are also glossy and higher quality paper. The RCA version has the "Styx" logo in gray, not silver and it doesn't have that raised 3-D effect:


The inner sleeves are non-slick, cheap paper with the same photos on the A&M release (and the above photo isn't the RCA version because the A&M logo is not on the record, the above photo is probably a foreign release). The RCA copy was given to me and I have not yet played it, mainly because it is a pretty crappy live album and I have it on CD so if I ever get the urge to listen to it I play the CD (the vinyl A&M version I purchased new when it was released when I was 13 or 14).

 

I put a sealed Def Leppard lp on eBay and the cover had a wrinkle in it on the front. Rather than it possibly selling and being damaged when the buyer opened it, I opened it and checked it. It has the RCA disclaimer on the back cover, Mercury labels, a machine stamped matrix number, and " IMP #1 in the trail-out. By the way, Visually?........... it looks stunning....... if it doesn't sell, I'll play it to see what it sounds like.

 

I was not old enough to buy them in the 60's, so bought them in the 80's. Guess what, they vinyl was always thin 100gm and sound great

 

I have never had a single issue in storing any of my 5500 odd LP's, thin or thick. Obviously simple common sense in storage helps but storing vinyl vertically is pretty simple for anyone.

You seem to be making a problem when there isn't one.

The grooves on a record are not very deep. That is why thin 100gm vinyl is more than thick enough to play vinyl on both sides.

Do you own any Beatles or Stones LP's? Have you ever had any issues in playing them? They are no more than 100gm's.
Saying 150gm vinyl gives better depth is factually incorrect. The grooves are exactly the same depth, be it 100gm, 120gm, 150gm, 180gm or 200gm. Only the vinyl is heavier and thicker.

As I said, the stylus does not care about the thickness of vinyl as it only tracks the grooves.

RCA Dynaflex is a completely separate issue and discussion. They physically changed the chemical formulation of vinyl to be softer as well as thinner. That is what caused all the issues, and it was discontinued.

 

---------
IYHO