[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] 78 & LP tests
Many 78 tests were made from masters rather than stampers. The compounds
used for tests were initailly quieter but usually oxidised badly. Some
suviving tests were used for the wear test- being played 50 times, and are
noisy as a consequence.
However, they have much more presence. The two additional plates that gave
us the stamper also took out some of the immediacy.
I wonder if this might not have been the case with some LPs as well.
Incidentally, aother reason for making test pressings was to check
centering.
Steve Smolian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Fine" <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 5:47 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] LP pressing question
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" <insuranceman@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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 <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database:
269.9.14/884 - Release Date: 7/2/2007 3:35 PM