Date:         Tue, 3 Jul 2007 00:44:42 -0400
Reply-To:     Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         David Lennick <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: LP pressing question
Comments: To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

What is the proper term for a vinyl pressing made from old stampers, usually 
for audition purposes or possibly to use as a source in reissuing? 
Theoretically, one made from an unissued master could be a test, but should 
these just be referred to as vinyls? Lots of them turn up (thousands were made 
available to a Toronto dealer a couple of years ago, all 60s or 70s pressings 
from ARC stampers, many of them unissued takes).

dl

phillip holmes wrote:
> 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.
>>   
>