Is "virgin vinyl" still being used?*

I'm referring to the one that the MFSL used to press their LPs ..or are they still doing it (sorry, I haven't bought any of their "modern" releases on LP-the last one I bought was..."Time Passages in the late 80s-, so I may be talking out of my behind!)

And if MFSL are doing it , why are there no other companies using it?
That would add a LOT of value and make it more "marketable".

 

I think it is just getting harder and harder to find virgins these days.

 

Something to do with the chemicals being used in the pellets. It was outlawed. Deemed toxic. IIRC.

 

It's been reported here in the forum that JVC no longer has the formula that was used for the vinyl in the MFSL pressings of the 80's (like the Beatles box).
I suspect even if they had the formula, that the raw materials to make it are no longer available.

Derek

 

I'm not an expert but I did get to tour the Quality Record Plant recently and have to say as a a bit of an enviornmentalist, with the huge amounts of recyclable Streisand and Zamfir records out there, if people who know the right way to mix recycled and new material to make a good record I'm ok. At least bad records get put to some use.

 

Did you see any of those records at QRP, for recycling? What recycling of vinyl did they do?

 

I didn't read that as saying Quality actually had old Streisand and other used vinyl on hand, ready for re-cycle.

 

I always thought 'virgin vinyl' was just a particular name applied to newly prepared vinyl...used by that one audiophile company.

But there were always variants to 'new' vinyl ingredients - even back in the day. So there is no single vinyl record 'formula.' Besides the recycled vinyl aspect took on mythical status. The phenomenal output of records being made in the 70's simply could not be met by a supply of 'recycled' vinyl. Yet the myth persists.

 

So is it the JVC "Super-Vinyl" that produced the translucent effect in old MoFi's and Quiex that's no longer being made? Or do they just now all add enough pigmentation that current audiophile vinyl is opaque?

 

Beat me to it.

 

"Virgin vinyl" was never used as a brand name for JVC's proprietary formula. It was just used as marketing copy by MoFi, because back in the late '70s and early '80s the major labels were manufacturing terrible pressings on thin, recycled vinyl. (The recycling wasn't unheard of before that time, of course, but the practice became endemic near the end of vinyl's primacy as a music format.)

 

A good example of the persistence of the myth.

While there is no doubt that some recycled vinyl was being used for newly manufactured records, this was far from being as common as people assert. I bought records (100's) in the 70's & 80's and rarely ever found defective pressings. And I was as picky then as I am now about what I play.

No one I am aware of has ever presented any information to support this mass recycle story or plausibly explain it how such a program would have even been viable logistically or economically.

The return of defective vinyl, when considering that tens of millions of records were being shipped to all corners of the continent, would have been expensive and problematic in and of itself, and likely negate the savings potential. I worked with an engineer in the 1980's who was previously involved in the manufacture of vinyl (a record nut too, thats how we hit it off). I recall asking him at times about the vinyl recycle issue, but he was unaware of any such program, although he conceded that it probably was occurring to some extent. One viable way may have been to simply take pressing defects as they came off the presses or hadn't left the plant yet, and recycle those. But unless the defect rate was 50% or better.... the numbers simply don't add up.

 

Not here. This forum is full of virgins!

 

Wow, I was in high school in the early '80s and buying plenty of vinyl, and I remember tons of awful pressings on lightweight, frequently warped and frequently noisy vinyl. Columbia pressings were especially bad -- I can recall returning multiple copies of Elvis Costello records like Almost Blue and Blood & Chocolate. Anecdotal, yes, but based on a lot of experience.

And I say this speaking as someone who almost NEVER has any problem with new LPs being made today. I'm always nonplussed by all the people on this forum complaining about lousy pressings. IMO, much, much more care is being taken today than back then.

Funny that you would say "the return of defective vinyl... would have been expensive and problematic" as if it's some kind of proof of your viewpoint. Because it's true beyond question that, once the CD format came along, the major labels were keen to kill the LP in no small part because the new format had almost no problems with returns -- completely solving the significant issues they were having with vinyl manufacturing costs and a high rate of returned merchandise.

 

Its hard to rely on our personal experiences, true. But they are relevant. I frequented music stores in the 70's and 80's, as an active vinyl buyer. I had friends that owned or worked in music stores although I never worked in one myself. I used to speak with people about the issues of the day as well, but never recall the issue being a major problem. In the US the most popular albums were being made in the millions. Not only was much of it being mass produced but the product HAD to be available quickly, so there was a time pressure component to manufacturing. Records were not like hand built speakers where you expect a high degree of quality control. And where is all this defectively made vinyl? Then as now, I see it occasionally but its not common. Certainly it didn't all get returned....er...recycled.

The point I make about the logistical & economical aspect is a valid one that no one has ever answered. Its not proof per se, I'm not claiming it is. The issue of what constitutes 'recycled vinyl' has never even been defined. Is this at the vinyl manufacturer or supplier level? The record label level? the pressing plant, the merchandise wholesaler? the final outlets? Its all just one big fuzzy issue, repeated over and over like a mantra: "records of the 70's / 80's were made with recycled vinyl." Ask a question about it?...you get the mantra; "yes, but records of the 70's / 80's were made with recycled vinyl." Talk about a point presented as proof!

As vinyl was distributed out to tens of thousands of outlets and sub-outlets across the US & Canada, the issue of returning defective pressings is a valid question to ask. I worked in manufacturing back then and even spent a year as a shipping /receiving lead. I knew enough about the logistics of returning merchandise that I had questions how a mass return like this could have been handled. Its merely one of several questions I have for those who cling to the "records of the 70's / 80's were made with recycled vinyl" assertions.

 

Well, I have no proof as to which labels or records of the time may have been recycled or not. Perhaps you're right and the recycling issue was overblown, I don't know. But it is safe to say that, both in my experience and by general consensus, the quality of major label vinyl manufacturing during that period was poor. That is why MoFi and other audiophile labels of the time specifically touted the quality of their vinyl (whether or not the whole idea of "virgin vinyl" was a red herring).

 

And yet returned they were...

I worked in a small "Mom & Pop" record store in the early 80's and we returned SCORES of returned records taken back as defective in some fashion (Warped, scratched from the factory, wrong discs in the sleeves, etc.) Most were returned directly to the record companies. (Distributors and one-stops were in the middle of being phased out at the time.) Where did all those returns wind up after they got back to the record companies?

Well...I too remember getting lots of thin, noisy, rotten pressings in the 70's/80's. A *lot* of them had what I and many others felt were label remnants from regrind which caused bad skipping and bad pops. You could SEE the paper bits not just stuck in the groove, but actually a part of the groove.

I don't think it was any myth, or blown out of proportion. If it wasn't true a machine like this wouldn't have been offered for sale:

http://books.google.com/books?id=8U...weHyPXVDg&ved=0CE4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

They had a loud machine that makes "re-grind" vinyl pellets though I don't know if it goes in to all or some pressing and what percentage is that reground vinyl, yet the people who were doing this are all subject matter experts so I defer to on these matters.

 

There's also this article...

http://books.google.com/books?id=EA...ge6ienRAQ&ved=0CF4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false


It was widespread, at first because of the oil crisis and then later, because why stop an efficient cost cutting measure? It didn't matter that it became a viscious cycle for them.

 

I know it occurred. Vinyl sales and their infusion into mainstream America had reached heights that were unheard of only a decade before. As I mentioned, not only were production figures vastly larger, but the product had to be made available as soon as possible.

But again - what exactly is "SCORES"? What percentage are you talking about? And where did you ship them too? And from there....where did they go? From people I talked with at the time, returns were a very small percentage.

I remember returning several copies of records in the 70's that, years later, I realized were just a record that my hi-fi at the time couldn't track. They'd skip on one portion. Knowing the fickleness of the public when it comes to merchandise - I'd hazard that 50% or more of returns were utterly unwarranted and not due to a defective product - but a defective buyer.

 

It was long, long ago, but a 50% return rate for the store I worked in would not be that far off. Especially for 45's.

Though, as you say, most of those returns were due to "operator error" I'll chartiably say, and not because of defective product. I'll even go on to say about only 20% of the returns to the store were because of true, defective product. (Sadly, a LOT of the customers weren't even aware that you needed to change the stylus on a regular basis.) Most of the customers were (as was always the cliche) teenage girls, so you smiled, tried to impart a little helpful advice, and collected the returned discs in a pile knowing on Friday you'll be busy boxing and sending them out by that afternoon's mail pickup.

I remember boxing up all the LP's separated by label and sending them directly to the label's returns department. They all had them. Columbia/CBS, Capitol, RCA, MCA, Warners...independent labels were usually sent back to the one-stop or local distributor though. 45's usually went back to the one-stop. Where they went after that is anybody's guess. I always assumed when the LP's got back to the labels returns section, the discs would be pulled from the sleeves and tossed in the machines like I linked to. I also suspected the 45's were just put back into circulation by the one-stops because we always had the worst return issues with them. I have no proof of that though.

 

A 50% return rate is shocking for a small business, especially if they had to absorb the cost of return shipping. I can say I never heard figures anywhere near that high although admittedly, its been over three decades now and I forget what the return percentage I heard.

Most 45s were made of styrene, not vinyl, unfortunately. So who knows with those what happened.

Quite a number of labels did not manufacture the vinyl pucks for pressing and almost certainly not vinyl in its raw form, but rather, bought from those respective suppliers. So I'm not certain what those labels would have done with the returns they did receive - whether they moved them on or not.

I know there was some recycling going on, I even remember reading about the issue in something like Billboard magazine back when, but how exactly and to what extent this was occurring is something I've never found much useful or factual information on. Its almost all anecdotal and rarely consistent with my own experiences in the day. As I mentioned, and even today, a lot of returns were/are unwarranted. Remember the 'turntables' most people had back then.