Behind The Scenes (May 1975)

AS ANYONE who reads this magazine is well aware, audiophilia is an insidious disease.

Everything starts off quite innocently -- a fellow loves good music and is blissfully happy with his appliance store, Queen Anne radio/phono console. He happens to visit a friend who has acquired a thing called a hi-fi component system. The friend plays his favorite symphony, and our music lover is literally stunned by the high quality of the reproduction. Of course, he must forthwith obtain one of these miraculous hi-fi rigs; he thus condemns himself to a lifetime quest for sonic perfection. As the disease progresses and his audio equipment becomes increasingly sophisticated, his critical faculties are honed to razor sharpness. Finally, this hapless creature comes to realize that his hi-fi system has reached such a degree of perfection, that now he has become the slave of the software. Thus, like so many others before him, with fanatic zeal he embarks on the never-ending search for good program material.

Well, we are all in the same boat, and from the stories I have been hearing about poor record quality, and a worsening trend in this direction, we're in heavy seas, mate, and maybe shipping a little water! In the past several years the hi-fi press has been flooded with letters from irate music lovers condemning the poor quality of phonograph records they have purchased. Their protests cover the whole catalog of miseries which can afflict phono discs. They are incensed by the pops, clicks, swishes, frying and crackling, buzzes, hums, and intrusive low frequency noises which are not part of the program. They are frustrated by records unplayable because of saddle, pinch, or dish warpage. They are bugged by eccentric spindle holes, such records being known in the trade as "swingers." In addition to these gross and obvious defects, there are the more subtle problems of tracking and attendant electronic distortions, which we will go into a little later on.

Needless to say, the letters from the victims of these discs are full of harrowing details of the travail they've been through trying to get playable copies of a particular recording, or to get some satisfaction from dealer or manufacturer. On a rough statistical basis, it would appear that these imperfect records are about evenly divided between pop and classical, and there is no particular bias between stereo records and the various quadraphonic formats. Nonetheless, because of the dynamics of classical recording, wherein pianissimo passages are common, thus more readily exposing noise problems, I would think the classical music fan is more frequently outraged, and more vocal about his record problems.

Almost invariably these letters of complaint castigate the products of practically every record company in the business. A growing trend seems to be that those who want the products of such companies as Deutsche Grammophon, Angel, and London/Decca are willing to pay up to several dollars premium per disc to get those which have been pressed in the country of origin. Some East and West coast dealers are specializing in this type of import. The rationale behind all this is the belief that the imported discs are heavier and thicker, therefore less prone to warpage, and that their surfaces are superior to records of these companies pressed in the United States. Whether these advantages of the imported discs really do exist is a moot point. London Records insists that their British and American pressings are identical. It is interesting to note that if you look in the pages of the British journals, The Gramophone and Hi-Fi News and Record Review, you will find the same irate letters from people condemning recordings purchased in London, manufactured by the very same DGG, EMI (Angel), Decca ( London), HMV, etc.! I have listened to domestic and foreign pressings of the same recording, and I have found them quite variable. Sometimes the foreign product was quieter, other times the US product was equally good. Still other times, both pressings were abominable. I must say, however, that on a statistical basis, the foreign pressings were consistently quieter and significantly better in the matter of warpage. I should mention that the records pressed by Philips of Holland were singled out for praise in the US and in England, and I certainly concur in this respect. I should also note that the AR speaker people recently issued a demonstration record which was pressed for AR, Inc. by the obscure Spanish company "Discos Ensayo." This has to be one of the most beautifully processed records I've ever encountered. I listened to an entire side without hearing a single pop or tick! Absolutely quiet, flawless surfaces.

There was some very low level noise in several of the cuts, but it was obvious the noise was in the tape master, not the result of processing. This pressing along with those from Phillips, show that superb record quality can be achieved.

I must say a word in defense of our American companies, who under the stress of an entirely different economic situation, nevertheless produce some very quiet pressings. The premier product from Columbia, the discs from the WEA group, and the new CD-4 compound of RCA are generally quite good. Warpage is one of the major problems of American discs, with the new thinner discs really becoming contorted! Okay, you say, we've heard all the horror stories. What is the problem? What is responsible for all these poor pressings? Don't the record companies care? In a large sense, it's the story of the old American hustle and bustle, our huge mass market for recordings, and our mania for mass-production efficiency. I hardly need dwell on the many other products in America which have undergone a gradual deterioration in quality, a sacrifice to higher output and more profits. The plain fact is that on the whole we process our pressings too rapidly. In our transfers from tape to the lacquer master, we have the precision lathes and the know-how, and we don't have to take our hats off to anybody.

In this respect we are as well off or better than those in similar situations in other countries. However, the precious master lacquer is electroplated too quickly at elevated voltages and temperatures, and the intervening steps and the subsequent metal are molded in the same fashion, too rapidly. This causes an excessive and quite rough build-up of metal crystals on the un modulated back of the record, and by the time we get to the nickel stamper, it is necessary to grind off these deposits so the stamper can fit intimately with the die in the press.

This causes tiny protuberances on the modulated surface, giving a sort of "orange peel" appearance. This is known as mold grain, and if your speaker has good enough low frequency response, it will be heard as an annoying rumble-like sound. In the heating/cooling cycle of the pressing, here again the culprit that gives rise to many of the noises is the "hurry up" syndrome. In general, if a pressing is cycled in, for example, 40 seconds, rather than 50 or 60 seconds, the disc is usually noisier. Quite obviously the reasoning here is that with the slower cycle there is less production per day. Pinch or "edge" warp is the most common warpage defect in records, and it is caused by the operators of non-automated presses removing the disc from the press while it is still too warm, and placing it on the stacking spindle with their fingers.

Finally we come to the matter of the compound used for the pressing. Basically, of course, it is vinyl with the addition of plasticizers, lubricants like lead sterate, and anti-static chemicals such as Catenac. The formulas vary but slightly from company to company. The use of a somewhat gritty filler was once fairly common, especially among the smaller companies, but this is rare now. There occurred until recently a shortage of vinyl because of the oil crisis, and this resulted in the use of some recycled vinyl. It is said that as much as 30 or 40 percent was used in some pressings.

Since recycled vinyl is chopped up old records, paper labels and all, even with careful filtration some particulate matter was bound to pass through and, needless to say, caused noise.

What can be done about poor pressing quality? Isn't the consumer entitled to a high quality record at today's high prices. Sure enough, but with the attitudes prevailing in this country, and our entrenched industries, change for the better is probably wishful thinking. Which is not to say that under certain circumstances, the record industry wouldn't be responsive to pleas for upgrading of pressing quality. The circumstances? Simple, friend. As with the imported discs, offer to pay the record companies a premium for a special high quality pressing. There is even a precedent for this, when many years ago Westminster Records issued their special "Lab Series" recordings for a dollar more than the standard product.

Call me a fink, and cast aspersions upon my head, but I honestly don't see any improvements happening in any other way. You've spent a lot of money on super-sensitive, high quality audio equipment. If you don't feed in the best source, it won't give you back in kind!

(Audio magazine, May 1975; Bert Whyte)

= = = =