LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  July 2007

ARSCLIST July 2007

Subject:

Re: LP pressing question

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 3 Jul 2007 05:47:13 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (95 lines)

Well, I can say how test pressings were used at Mercury Living Presence, cannot speak for others 
because I never heard the details first-hand but I bet most other classical shops operated the same 
way.

Test pressings were a tool to make sure the master was correctly plated and production parts were 
not carrying defects. Plus, since RCA pressed the MLP records (superior plant, superior vinyl 
compounds, Mercury plants never got up to snuff until Philips took them over), this was a way to 
make sure the plant was doing exactly what they said they would do.

Test pressings were distributed to the producer, the engineer and the mastering guys. Everyone was 
encouraged to at least spot-check and the producer listened to every test pressing all the way 
through, comparing with notes made during the mastering session.

Now, the fact is that production LPs don't sound as good as the test pressings, which is why I asked 
my original question -- what makes the production LPs generally noisier and less punchy? I'm 
assuming that the plants pulled out the "maker's mark compound" biscuits for the test pressing and 
that production itself wore down the stampers and mothers, and perhaps the simple act of being 
quickly sleeved effects production vinyl.

Back in ye olde days, a test LP would arrive as a white-label affair, identifiable only by the 
cutting marks, in a rice-paper-like sleeve in a paper envelope. There was a separate test press for 
each side of a production LP. The general way things worked at Mercury, a clerical person would 
pencil in the catalog number on the white label and distribute copies, including one for the files. 
When the QC listening was done, it was done with a stop-watch so that times could be known for 
problem, which were noted. Visual inspection was also done and vinyl "zits" or clearly-visible 
groove problems were measured from edge and noted. The rejection rate was somewhere south of 10% 
most of the time.

The same care was taken with mono, because mono out-sold stereo even with classical music until the 
mid-60's when retailers stopped carrying both formats (see John Eargle's JAES article).
-------------------------------
Stereo/Mono Disc Compatibility: A Survey of the Problems
Volume 17 Number 3 pp. 276-281; June 1969

The record industry is now phasing out the mono disc, and the subject of compatibility has once 
again been raise as it was with the introduction of the stereo disc ten years ago. Then, the problem 
centered largely around stylus-groove relationships and considerations of trackability; this time 
the problem is mainly concerned with the way a pair of stereo channels combine to yield a suitable 
mono channel.
Author:   Eargle, J. M.
E-lib Location: (CD aes3)   /jrnl6877/1969/6797.pdf
-------------------------------
available at www.aes.org

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "phillip holmes" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 1:24 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] LP pressing question


> I've been told by collectors and people that were in the business, that test pressings were 
> pressed in very low numbers, IE, 100-200 copies for the musicians, A&R people, producer, big wigs, 
> and the like.  Every test pressing I've seen had a plain white label with just the bare basics 
> typed or handwritten, and I only have 2 major label test pressings and 3-4 "audiophile" test 
> pressings.  The jacket had a pasted on (typed or handwritten) note with just the basics--tracks 
> and artist stuff.  If anyone wants a picture, I'll send one.  But it's impossible to confuse a 
> white label promo with a test pressing.  Obviously, the idea of the test pressing is to give fair 
> warning about what's going to be on the record.  It supposedly gave the musicians the opportunity 
> to sign off on the final product, but this really was a micromanagement tool for the front office 
> types.  I can imagine some imbecile in management spitting his coffee all over the board room 
> table while listening to Black Sabbath for the first time.  "Fairies wear boots?  What the hell is 
> this crap?  Who signed these bozos?  I need to fire the A&R department".
> Phillip
>
>
>>
>>
>>                             Roger
>>
>> Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Why do most test pressings that I've heard sound 
>> better than a bought-in-store version of the LP? Did the plants do something special for the test 
>> pressing or use a "brewer's choice" biscuit compound or is it more a random chance of having a 
>> further-down-the-production-run copy in a store and thus worn stampers? Where I've been able to 
>> compare a master laquer to a test pressing to a bought-in-store version of the same 
>> cut/matrix/whatever, the test pressing usually sounds pretty darn close to the first cut but the 
>> production disk sounds inferior, usually lower s/n ratio and noisier surface. This was less true 
>> in the one case I've been able to compare all 3 for a modern LP reissue and I assume it's because 
>> a modern reissue that appears at retail will be pressed with more care on better vinyl and fewer 
>> copies will be made per stamper, but I might be wrong on that.
>>
>> In some older examples, late 50's and early 60's, the retail version vinyl seems to definitely be 
>> a different compound from the test pressing, which more resembles modern, "softer" 
>> quieter-playing compounds.
>>
>> -- Tom Fine
>>
>>
>>        ---------------------------------
>> Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally,  mobile search that gives answers, not web links.
>>
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager