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:

"Steven C. Barr(x)" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 3 Jul 2007 23:18:07 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (85 lines)

see end...
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>
> 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
>
I suspect there may be some confusion here, because some people may be thinking
of "test pressing" in its 78rpm sense...where test-pressing versions of unissued
takes were sometimes made. These also were made in some cases to see if
recordings
(or, if multiple takes still existed in "metal part" form) were suitable for
reissue on LP or in 78-album-set form. I have one of these...a pressed copy of
a vintage Ellington side with an "Internal Use" (or something to that effect)
white label, which bears "OK" and a set of initials.

As well, there are the "Altschuler pressings"...10" vinyl copies of unissued
78 takes, which (as I understand it) were sold to selected collectors...?

Steven C. Barr

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