GZ Vinyl "Quality Control" (or lack of) see pics!!

"This is issue is only visible issue, this does not affect the music negatively. We are not able to identify this issues in-house because when we press the records they look absolutelly perfect, these marks appear after futher handling (vibrations during transport, pulling out the records from inner sleeve, handling etc.) therefore there is no way for our quality control how to identify this issue."

Sorry, totally do not buy this. Does not pass the smell test. As usually happens, the basic problem- customers receiving totally crap LPs-- gets buries under an avalanche of explanation, which looks awfully similar to obfuscation. Meanwhile, customers continue to receive crappy records. Keep in mind: this is all about money. People want to grab theirs while this vinyl boom is going on. If delivering substandard product produces a buck more in profit, customers will continue to get substandard product. Once it is over, the pressing plant can go back to being a dairy barn or pottery shed, or whatever is the next thing.

 

No snorting coke,considering that powder on the record.

 

I have lots of GZ pressings including RHCP, Black Sabbath, Metallica, Pearl Jam etc.
In most cases i didn't have any problems with their pressings! But the new Pearl Jam Album LB i returned to the seller because of a bad scratch on the b-side!

 

I work as a mastering engineer for a record company in Germany who make all his pressings at GZ - and they are really great !!! I always get the test pressings to check that stuff. The only issue is the loudness level. For my taste, the records could be a bit louder, but both the vinyl quality and the cuttings are excellent !!!

 

Naaa....more likely powdered sugar from some good buchty. I'm convinced I became diabetic from overdosing on Czech buchty.

 

lol, I was a sucker for the cukrarna and these makovy-smetanovy kolac:

 

Any idea who Dependent Records Germany uses for pressings? I have Front Line Assembly's latest and it's fantastic, no info in the wax

 

No Mak here. It was one of the few Czech staples that repulsed me. My wife will tell you, if we visited someone and the only goodies they offered involved that poppy-mush I got real upset.

 

I actually tried playing one of these the other day. There was much less surface noise on it than any GZ pressing I own...

 

I just got Mike Oldfield's 'Five Miles Out' in the post today. The recording is now owned by Universal and is pressed at GZ Vinyl. At first glance, the record 'looks' perfect but as I looked closely, my copy was dusty thus causing minor audible scratches on the new vinyl. The grooves are also off-centre. I am not sending it back to the supplier, but I will have to buy another copy as I feel embarrassed returning it. However the vinyl itself is clean, no lumps and very little surface noise but the scratches just spoil the whole package. I will see what the next copy will be like and I'll keep you posted.....
As regards to their reply, I also think that it is a load of BS. Should Universal know what is going on, or is it an 'I don't care' approach?? This, to me, is like history repeating. There is no excuse now as the demand is much less than when it was back in the 80's. But why is this happening all over again? I AM disappointed, really.

 

The trouble is,you never know who pressed a record,until you actually buy it and open it.I recently bought my second only GZ pressed record,New by Paul McCartney.None of the last four McCartney LPs I got were from GZ.Did GZ press the entire run of New?Is all Universal vinyl now done by GZ?

And yes Concord is a Universal label.
Side 1 is fine,side 2 has a few audible hairlines,the very same white powder,and some definite non fill.The first time I had encountered this in a record.I don't wan't to return it,I'm afraid to get a copy that's even worse.

Nothing like this with EMI,even in the 90s when they were pressing so little vinyl.

 

Yes, I think that is the case. We should all email Universal and tell them to stop using GZ. I know I have.

 

Why do you feel embarrassed returning it? By buying a second copy you are only exacerbating the problem. Take it back to the shop, get them to open up a second copy and if it's better (which I very much doubt btw) swap it for that one.

Shouldn't be too hard???

 

In my experience, these days, many new records have to be cleaned. GZ is probably worse than, say, RTI, Pallas, or a couple of French MPO I've gotten recently.
So, try cleaning it, and do the scratches (I'm guessing you mean 'click') remain?

 

Yes they do, if you go back to the first post in this thread, all the pics that I posted were brand new records AFTER they had been cleaned. Which frankly, is just appalling.

 

I told them that as early as 2008 and they couldn't care less. Guess GZ is much cheaper than Pallas. Which was Universal's go to plant only ten years ago I usually avoid anything GZ especially reissues of old albums. I mean... why would anyone who wants a Mike Oldfield album from the 80's want to buy a crappy, digitally sourced GZ pressing when there are lots of fantastic vintage, near mint US or UK pressings of that very same album out there? And cheap too? Last week I accidentally bought a GZ pressed record, "Sun Structures" by Temples, and in alll fairness have to admit that it looks and sounds good. But generally I have to repeat that Universal continuing to use GZ is a total dealbreaker. Just shows that they know very little about vinyl...

 

Practically all the GZ pressings I have purchased over the past year or so have been near perfect. Obviously they vary and some have a little surface noise while a number of recent pressings are dead silent when you place the stylus in the run in. I think the only complaint has been one or two warped copies. Faults are generally one offs and a replacement turns out fine. My copy of Five Miles Out is flawless. The new FMO and Crisis are fine sounding but are from the recent remix/remaster. Some of the more recent digital remasters appear to be of a high standard that make them worthy alternatives to that elusive mint original. The vinyl and pressing quality is usually better than originals which has to be balanced against that extra something all analogue sound has. As far as needing to clean new vinyl is concerned I have found Pallas worst due to higher static levels which instantly attract a lot of surface dust.

GZ are getting an unfair wrap here. Obviously Pallas are still superior given the same mastering but the gap is not that wide these days. For some reason I prefer the sound of GZ digitally sourced vinyl to that of Record Industry (MOV). Also most Pallas product I have is premium priced 'audiophile' pressings from which a better standard is expected. Most GZ product is 'budget' priced (£15 or under from Amazon).

 

Wow! That's quite disgraceful…..

 

They are not getting an unfair rap.
True., I have only bought two GZVinyl releases, but both of them were terrible. They didn't even look like records. The sort of thing, that when you take them out of the sleeves, you immediately think 'Oh no, WHAT is wrong with this??'
I would rather that no new vinyl was produced to be 'budget' (if £15 can be called budget??) if it means that GZVinyl are used.
I won't buy any album I know to be pressed by them. I was thinking of the Temples album, but as I see upthread that it is pressed by GZ, I will now buy the Fat Possum release via Amazon.com
It's good to hear that they have upped their game, but I would rather GZ weren't used.

 

I bought three johnny cash american recordings reissues (2,3,5), 2 has a massive wrap, 5 has terrible non fill issues on side two from the fourth track onwards, 3 is ok. all were pressed at GZ.

 

I strongly disagree with you. Any pressing plant that can continually churn out such utter garbage deserves everything they get. These are not 'one off's' in my case. Litterally everything I have bought over the past few years that has come from GZ has varied from 'substandard' to 'completely unplayable junk'. They deserve everything they get, especially after trying to fob me off with their BS excuses and complete disregard for their lack of quality control.

Absolutely NOTHING that I have bought that originates from GZ is a clean, shiny, noise free record. At best some are passable after a few cleans, and I literally mean a few cleans. I had to clean my Dexy's LP three times before the surface noise was tolerable, and that was one of the better ones.

I sincerely hope they go out of business. They are utter crap.

 

Come on, tell us what you really think!

 

Oh, about MOV. In my experience their pressings are good. The problem with MOV is the digital source, not the pressing.
MOV's product fulfills the basic function of a record, they play without problems.
With GZ, the problem is the pressing. They struggle to consistently produce a product that plays without problems.

 

If GZ closed there would be a severe shortage of world pressing capacity and far less vinyl titles would be released. It looks like some buyers have had extremely bad luck or GZ have messed up certain pressing runs. Part of this has to be the fault of record labels who don't bother to ensure they get acceptable test pressings before production commences. Recent Universal GZ pressings from experience have been excellent. GZ are certainly capable of good product on a much more frequent basis than Rainbo and United.

 

Ah, right - yeah, that's really bad. I don't seem to have a ton of GZ pressings, but I have and have had some, most of which are colored vinyl and are acceptable. A couple have clicks here and there; one has no clicks but a whooshing kind of noise between tracks; another one from 2006 is perfect in every way. I have or had some early '00s pressings from them (I think, anyway) that were clean and dead silent. Maybe they've gotten worse?