What Are The Reasons Why Quality Control Continues To Be An Issue at Various Pressing Plants?

The last five albums I've purchased (Rhino T. Rex, John Prines and Them Again on Sony Legacy) have all been perfect. Flat, centered and zero surface noise. This is probably the most consistent run I've had since I started buying new vinyl 25 years ago. Lucky!

 

Thanks for that, AE. That helps!

 

I'd love to see the topic of vinyl pressing quality (vs. sound quality) addressed in a fair, neutral poll.

Nothing wrong with griping and sharing your bad luck with others, but I suspect these grievance threads skew reality (and the numbers) by attracting the unhappiest vinyl buyers on an understandable mission to vent and a motive to exaggerate. Somewhere between "95 % of what I buy is flawed" and "Almost everything I buy is perfect" is a more accurate picture of vinyl QC.

 

I visited a small pressing plant in Brooklyn called Brooklyn Phono a few years ago. While I was there I watched records coming off the press and get QA'd. It seemed like very few passed their visual inspection. Those that failed had the labels punched out and the vinyl was shredded, melted down and recycled.

 

It’s more about what separates the good from the bad plants rather than griping.

 

From my understanding of the matter, there are many reasons some facilities have either a high variability in the quality of their output or a low baseline / release spec's for products.

Some plants are using older equipment that is prone to breakdown hence production falling behind schedule. Aside from the extra costs associated with this, this aged equipment is often forced to run above optimal output speeds to help compensate for the downtime and ship orders to hungry consumers.

Also, one needs to remember - at it's most basic level - these producers are melting polymers to create a relatively thin piece of polymer which has to have very exacting grooves set into it from molds. Not only is there very little room for deviation in the forming process, the polymer itself has varying physical and chemical properties which impact performance when forming. Also, somewhere in the process, there would be a compounding process which introduces other materials (such as color) into the process which also adds variability to the process.

Given the above, it's critical the producers have a robust quality assurance program in place which is a set of activities for ensuring quality in the processes by which LP's are designed and created. This would help ensure there are steps in place to ensure the LP produced is a first quality product. If they have not developed such a program or it's not complete or fit for purpose than they have little hope of creating a uniform first quality process on an on going basis.

They also must have a strong quality control program in place which consists of activities for ensuring quality in LP's produced. These activities focus on identifying defects in the actual LP's produced. This can include such tasks a visual inspection, random sampling etc.

While in this day and age neither of these are "rocket science" they do require knowledgeable people and funding to establish and manage on an ongoing basis. Continuous improvement of the QA, QC, and the underlying processes must also be undertaken. Again, the success of these requirements basically comes down to knowledge and funding.

This industry is becoming large enough that players should have realized that poor quality costs them money and lowering release specifications just to fill orders isn't going to be a good long-term strategy. At the end of the day, the pressing companies are the only ones who truly know why they release the quality of product they do. The scary part is that some out there may not even know why they do it as all they see is "more output (regardless of quality) = more Benjamin's in their pockets.

 

The hype that the labels use for 180 gram LPs is misleading. “Pressed on 180 gram audiophile vinyl”. So what? Doesn’t mean the album is going to sound “audiophile like”. It’s the same misleading hype as “mastered from the original analog tapes”.

 

Incapable manufacturing processes, poor engineering practices, bad raw materials and equipment... You can't inspect in quality and in general, it's more costly to make and ship defective product, than it does good stuff, in fact it will probably put them out of business.

 

Part of the problem is “they make them exactly like they used to”.

 

To your last question, a passionate audiophile runs QRP. He is aiming for the highest possible quality and it shows in each decision he makes.
Regarding Rainbo, I just received a stereo White Album pressed there and it is a really poor pressing.

 

I got lots of bad pressings in the '70's it's not just a modern phenomenon.

Mostly they were noisy and crackily but I saw my share of off center pressing. One was so bad there were no lead in grooves on one part of the record. The center hole was an Oval not circular. US Atlantic pressing of King Crimson Lizard. I bought the U.K. Import which was fine. I kept the Atlantic pressing for many years as a curiosity.

Rock records fared the worst. Jazz and classical were always better.

Decent record cleaning equipment can do wonders in removing noise.

I always buy records at places that accept returns. Most of the local shops don't take returns so it's strictly used records from them.

Impex has been a great label.

Classic records are hit and miss.

There are others that I won't bother buying because their reputations on these forums are shabby. Just not worth my time to screw around with it.

 

Does anyone know who UMG used to press The Carpenters Box Set. I’ve just had to arrange for all 12 albums that had a variety of problems to be replaced - it looks like there was a real problem with this set and UMG have acknowledged it, offering replacement discs.

 

With all the vast opinion differences that are hard to nail down in figures, the only impressions I come away with on this thread are that RTI is consistently more likely to be okay.... and Rainbo is consistently more likely to not be okay. Regardless of of qc at the relatively tiny moment of test pressing.

I haven't used RTI myself, but I guess next time, I will. It certainly gets a lot of thumbs up on the various pressing threads I browse.

 

I feel your pain! For the past number of years, if I know in advance (or have bad feeling about a particular record), I will not buy anything pressed at Rainbo, GZ Vinyl or URP. Those three are at the bottom of the league in terms of pressing quality. I have noticed however of late that even good and once reliable plants like Pallas, Record Industry and MPO are putting out a fair share of 'dreck' themselves.

Pallas, in my experience, is downright unreliable now. Years ago in the 90s and up to 2008 or so Pallas vinyl was consistently good and could be bought with confidence. Since then though, they seem to be plagued with 'non fill' issues and the most recent defect that I have come across is a type of warp that goes right across the record, not just the edge as would be usual. I have three such records. There is what I would describe as a type of 'speed bump' at one point on the record that covers the complete side. The stylus shows an upward movement at this point with each revolution. It can vary from mild to very nasty. I have James McMurtry's 'Complicated Game'and Willie Nile's 'If I Was A River' (both on Germany's Blue Rose label but pressed at Pallas) with this fault both purchased in Germany a month apart in 2015. The most recent problem Pallas pressing is Jackson Browne's 'Late For the Sky' reissue. This has instances of surface noise and has a 'pressed in warp' that cannot be fixed, same as the Blue Rose albums. Now surely, if there is even a modicum of Quality Control at Pallas, they are aware or should be aware of this fault? It cannot be just an odd record here and there. If you read Michael Fremer's postings on www.analogplanet.com on a regular basis, you may have seen a comparison that he did sometime last year where he compared the same record played on his Continuum Audio Caliburn turntable and a new Technics turntable (IFRC). The record that he used had exactly the type of fault that I described and guess what .. it was pressed at Pallas. Michael actually states that in the piece and there is video footage. So my experience is not a one off or the result of an exaggerated grievance as somebody speculates in a previous thread. Pallas is now on my 'Avoid List'. I know they had a fire some years back but its decline is very sad. They (Pallas) made a mess of the Neil Young 1-4 and 5-8 box sets too, with 'non fill' problems.

My copy of the Neil Young 2LP 'Harvest Moon' was one of the worst records I have got in over 45 years of buying records. This one was pressed at Record Industry who also used to be really good. Nowadays, I have my doubts about them too. QRP can produce good records but they are inconsistent with mild ticks and pops on many of their records. Recent QRP records with this problem include the Gillian Welch and David Rawlings albums they pressed. Not too bad to be fair, but a shame all the same. That operation is owned and operated by a committed audiophile who 'gets' the whole quality issue but even that plant has its problems from time to time. Is vinyl too difficult a format to manufacture well, consistently? The Japanese did it up to 1988 and any recently pressed Japan vinyl that I have bought has been absolutely fine. I believe the plant is Tokayasei.

In my experience, Optimal in Germany is still the most reliable plant around but is well capable of sending out defective product to the marketplace, just like all the others. It is notable that some American members here have had bad experiences with Optimal vinyl ... so have I but replacements have been fine. The recent reissue of Sun Kil Moon 'Ghosts of the Great Highway' which I bought on Friday last is the best new record I have got in the past six months and it was pressed at Optimal. I was able to inspect it before purchase as it is not sealed. The high gloss pressing I saw convinced me that it was the real deal and so it proved to be when I got home and played it.

For me, it has got to the point where I may take a break from buying new vinyl. Since September 2017 I have had quite a number of badly pressed records. To be honest, I hate taking back defective vinyl to my local store and it is happening now increasingly. It has to be down to the extreme pressure that the 'reliable' plants are under to get the product manufactured and out to the stores. Defective vinyl unfortunately is on the rise and it annoys me to waste my money on records that I won't ever listen to because of defects. Things were better 2 or 3 years ago I think, not perfect but better. Unless some more quality orientated pressing operations come on stream to relieve the pressure, I cannot see things getting better in the short term. I recently had to settle for the CD of Lucinda Williams' brilliant 'The Ghosts of Highway 20' album because the MPO (France) pressed vinyl was ruined by instances of 'non-fill'.

 

My most recent RTI LPs have been LUNA 'Penthouse' 2LP (RSD 2017) and John Prine 'John Prine' SYEOR Rhino 2017. Both were very good, I would have to say. However, it seems to me that even all of these quality orientated plants have bad days when things go wrong. I have an RTI Van Morrison 'Common One' Rhino U.S. reissue from a few years back which has bad surface noise on one section of the record. I think that you cannot say definitively that everything pressed at a particular plant is going to be good, all the time. Different people have different experiences. I like Optimal usually but if you read this thread you will find others who have found its vinyl to be defective very often. To use a well known American expression, buying new vinyl is a 'crap shoot'. It's a shame really because the experience of listening to a well pressed vinyl record is a pretty good one!

 

Well that could be part of a poll as well. I just trust broader numbers than the sway of the loudest complaints.

 

To add to this debate, one has to also be mindful of warpage and damage that could be the result of shipping practices. Many are ordering from online stores that ship out the product. I was receiving product that I know was caused by heat from some non climate controlled warehouse somewhere. It may not be the fault of the record pressing companies on every issue. Non fill and surface noise are obviously pressing problems, but I am no longer ordering any records during the summer months. In my opinion you are asking for trouble. UPS has no way of keeping those trucks cool during the hot summer days.

 

I have a lot of recent Optimal pressings in my collection - probably near 100 pressed in the last 3 or 4 years.
The biggest issue i've found is dishing, which makes me crazy because i have a Rega table without a clamp.

 

I don't agree there is any correlation between the amount of vinyl used for the pressing and chances it's warped.

180+ gram was common for decades before the oil crisis in the 1970s, Blue Note and other Jazz LP's in the early 1950's were 200 grams,
which is one reason some of the "audiophile" labels tried to mimic the feel of vintage vinyl in the first place.

Recently I heard an explanation from Furnace record plant owner Eric Astor that dishing is caused by cooling the vinyl too quickly.
Regardless of weight, if the press doesn't operate at the right temperature for the right amount of time, vinyl won't be flat and free of non-fill.

These problems are caused by some plants rushing the pressing cycles to improve efficiency, and others have older machines
without accurate sensors that depend on a crude timer to control the process that is subject to a lot of variables.
Especially in summer months, keeping cold water at the right temperature to supply the machines is a real problem in older plants.

 

There is a distinction needs to be made here - a lot of vintage vinyl was 180 grams or heavier.
Using weight as a feature and "invented to sell records" comes from the recent vinyl boom.

Jacket stickers saying things like "AUDIOPHILE 180 gram pressing" is marketing the
weight as a selling point, when before the 1970's that is just how much records weighed.
I don't personally believe there is any connection between the weight and how it sounds,
the marketing is a gimmick. But that doesn't make heavy weight vinyl bad, or give any
reason to not press a quality 180 gram modern vinyl record.

 

I was not aware of vintage vinyl being 180 grams. I had heard about the issue with cooling. I assume heavier vinyl takes longer to cool and therefore more chance of warping if packaged too soon.

 

When? I have been buying records for over 50 years now. Many of which I still own. None are similar to the 180 gram pressing that we now know. Some may be thicker than others but certainly not what we are talking about at this moment.

 

The MFSL pressings of the late 70’s were not 180 grams except for the UHQR which were more than 180 grams. Their regular pressings were no heavier than normal main stream pressings.

 

Here is a chart of Blue Note weights:

 

There are MANY variables in both the physical process and the chemistry at play. The process is also complicated by the reuse of the excess polymer trimmed when the record is proceed (edge trim) and the introduction of re-ground (repro) finished LP's that were rejected. This is why having a solid QA plan QC testing processes in place. Again - not rocket science in the modern world but it does require resources which translates into money. If they don't want to spend the money their quality won't improve. For some, they won't spend the money if they can sell the products they ship as they aren't looking long-term at their business and see no ROI in investing in quality