From: utzoo!decvax!wivax!linus!genradbo!mitccc!rpk
Newsgroups: net.records
Title: Record Quality
Article-I.D.: mitccc.207
Posted: Thu Dec  2 14:12:18 1982
Received: Tue Dec  7 02:27:31 1982

Does anybody have any opinions as to the ``physical'' quality of
phonograph records and its relation to various record companies ?  Even
though American pressings of records are not very good, there is still
is lot of room for variation from awful (I have bought BROKEN records
twice in the past year) to poor (pops/clicks on every copy) to ok. 
What I'd like to hear are the reputations of various record companies in
this area.  Of course, it's sometimes hard to make a correlations, as
sometimes a record company will contract out to more than one pressing
plant (RCA and Capitol, I know, have their own).  Sometimes, a specific
record will have pressing problems (I heard that this was true of a
Fleetwood Mac album, either ``Tusk'' or ``Rumours,'' most likely the
former).

Personally, I think the noisiest records I own are on Mercury, which is
perplexing, since the quality of their classical recordings in the early
60s (the Living Presence series, using just two mikes) is renowned. 
Arista ain't too hot, either.  CBS (Columbia, Epic, Portrait, etc.) tends
to be ok, which was not always the case a few years ago.

Import pressings, especially from Japan, tend to be better.  For
example, the two British Mercury pressings I own are quite satisfactory,
in contrast to their American cousins.  However, I don't think Deutsche
Grammophon is all that spectacular, consider the cost of the records and
the progam material on them.  British singles tend to be tinny, with
Polydor being the worst case.  However, albums are almost always superior
to the American verions.  Canadian pressings aren't very different from the
American ones, and are usually not as good.

			Not afraid to eat polyvinylchloride,
			Robert P. Krajewski
			UUCP: ...!genradbo!mitccc!rpk
			ARPA: RpK@MC