1. The new Carpenters recording with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra is now available for preorder! Use this link to preorder, and help us out at the same time. Thank you!

UMG Repressings - Any News

Discussion in 'A Song For You: The Carpenters Forum' started by Lover Of Great Music, Feb 25, 2018.

  1. Lover Of Great Music

    Lover Of Great Music Member Thread Starter

    Just use one blade from a pair of scissors to increase the spindle hole. Easy. I did it in a a couple of minutes on 5 of the albums that were tight.
  2. Rudy

    Rudy ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ Site Admin

    Reminder. As I mentioned in the other thread, the slightly torn label around the spindle hole is not a defect. As I also mentioned, most of the 180/200 gram records I sampled in that post have a mild amount of tearing. No store or manufacturer is ever going to take back something that is essentially a small cosmetic flaw. It is a by-product of manufacturing. The thicker vinyl is not as easy to press as the older, thinner records we grew up with. The stampers wear quicker, the cycle times are longer in the press since there is more vinyl to be melted, and there is a lot more stress on the machinery itself.

    There is also no mystery to the size of the spindle holes--yes, they might be a little more snug, but so many turntables out there have undersized spindles, this helps to reduce the "slop" that we have grown used to from having owned thousands of records made in the past 60+ years. Again, not a defect--it is what it is. The hole can be slightly enlarged if needed. But I see no need, and don't care to risk damaging the record. I have a few that are a little snug, but it's only a matter of giving it a little extra pull when I remove it--no big deal.

    Some turntable manufacturers make their spindle holes to different tolerances anyway, so there is no one single exact size to shoot for. (Keep in mind that older records were often played on changers, so it would not be uncommon for the hole to be worn slightly larger.) Of the four main turntables I own, two are more snug than others; in fact, one even made a point of having a slightly oversized spindle to accommodate the holes that were a little on the large side. (The downside is that my alignment protractors won't fit.)

    I've been buying "audiophile" reissues since the late 70s when Mobile Fidelity released their first batch of three MCA titles. I've seen it all--the good and the bad. Aside from Universal's cost cutting issues that caused this in the first place (basically, an epic failure at the pressing plant level), most of these "problems" are not considered problems at all. No single reissue label has ever promised a 100% perfect museum-quality replica of the original. Some have gone to great lengths to produce a really nice package (and they have the price tag to go along with it), but we can't expect to relive the past with a reissue and have exactly what we owned when an album was first released. That's totally unrealistic, and never will happen in the real world.

    My take on all this? If these "problems" are such an issue, and all the nitpicky things about the "quality" of everything is bothersome, then don't buy these records, or this set. Fair enough? :)
    byline, Jeff and Bobberman like this.
  3. Bobberman

    Bobberman Well-Known Member

    My thoughts exactly
  4. Murray

    Murray Well-Known Member

    Points taken Rudy. Beyond the obvious, legitimate defects that have been reported with some of these records (blobs of vinyl on playing surface, chipped edges, off-center pressing etc.), perhaps our expectations have become a little too high. I do recall that, back in the day, records were rarely perfect - an LP that played from beginning to end, without any audible anomalies at all, was the exception rather than the rule (I also have a few vintage LPs with unusually tight spindle holes!). We accepted the "flaws", because that's just the way it was, and we were used to it. Perhaps the dominance of digital music over the past 30+ years has spoiled us (yes, I know that digital has it's own share of problems, but crackles, pops, and surface noise are not among them)! :)

    Rudy, you mentioned the particular challenges with pressing 180/200g records. Am I correct in assuming that most of the presses in use today are vintage machinery, designed originally for thinner records? Are there sonic advantages to making records thicker, or could a thinner record pressed on high grade vinyl sound as good?
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2018
  5. All records made today are made on vintage presses. Rebuilt, refurbed but nevertheless vintage.

    My replacements from UMG arrived today, all in new album covers, looking exactly the same as if you were purchasing them as individual albums at retail.

    However my shipment was missing a replacement copy of The Singles 1969-1973, so I have contacted them again.
  6. I also have had confirmation that my replacements will be shipped from here in the U.K. rather than from the USA. This email also stated they are being pressed over here in the U.K. as well.
  7. newvillefan

    newvillefan Well-Known Member

    This is a major new development isn’t it?
  8. The last few communications from UMG have been promising: Unsolicited emails that REPRESSINGS for all are coming soon, but “The Singles” is back ordered and will be arriving later than the rest.
    So, good for them.
    Now just let’s hope the discs actually show up.
    I’ll believe it when ...

    What’s hilarious is that this fiasco actually inspired me to replace virtually all of my original LPs (excepting “Offering,” which couldn’t be more minty if I wanted — lucky, and broke, me) with still-sealed or near-mint original pressings — at a cost FAR-greater than this box set.

    One odd discovery during the costly replacement race:
    Every stateside issue of “Lovelines” (not so easy to find, BTW) skips through the opening track — two U.S. promos and one U.S. commercial release. All imports and even the much-maligned 180g version are fine. But not the domestic originals.
    Anyone else run into this?
    Just curious.

    Chris May likes this.
  9. I guess it is but I don’t know were the originals were pressed?, I don’t know if anyone actually has found out this information?. It will be interesting to compare matrix numbers to see if they are the same or different?. I have got one perfect original box set here to compare the dead wax information to.
  10. Song4uman

    Song4uman Well-Known Member

    Mine was missing The Singles. They are out and it will ship after March 9 or something like that. They is what I was told.
  11. tomswift2002

    tomswift2002 Well-Known Member

    [QUOTE="Mike Cidoni Lennox, post: 173530, member:]

    One odd discovery during the costly replacement race:
    Every stateside issue of “Lovelines” (not so easy to find, BTW) skips through the opening track — two U.S. promos and one U.S. commercial release. All imports and even the much-maligned 180g version are fine. But not the domestic originals.
    Anyone else run into this?
    Just curious.


    As I recall, back in the 80’s “Lovelines” had the same issue. I’m pretty sure that my Columbia House LP had the same issue. I wonder if Universal just reused the 80’s metal master for the new “Lovelines”?
  12. Rick-An Ordinary Fool

    Rick-An Ordinary Fool Well-Known Member

    I have the original Lovelines LP and don't remember any skip on that first track. Where on that track is this skip?
  13. Rick-An Ordinary Fool

    Rick-An Ordinary Fool Well-Known Member

    I just had the chance to play my original Lovelines LP....I haven't played it for a while. I see what your saying however I'm not sure it's a technical skip. I seems more like they crammed too much music (length of time) on side 1 which leaves very little run in and run out. Therefore when the stylus cues up and sits down on side 1 it jumps to a second or two into the song. I wouldn't say that's a technical skip, it seems more like a defect in that too much run time on side 1, if you look at the run in and run out it leaves very little room.

    The run in is also very close to the edge of the LP, not allowing for much room, quickly comparing the Passage LP which has a bit more run in before the 1 track starts. Looking closer you can see only 3 lines on the run in for Lovelines LP vs 4 lines on Passage LP. Ironically it does the same thing on side 2 of Lovelines LP.
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2018
  14. Song4uman

    Song4uman Well-Known Member

    My original does skip. It is in the intro if I remember correctly
  15. Harry

    Harry Charter A&M Corner Member Moderator

    No problems with my original LOVELINES LP. It's a nice pressing on translucent vinyl.
    Bobberman likes this.
  16. Rick-An Ordinary Fool

    Rick-An Ordinary Fool Well-Known Member

    Yeah it's not a skip, it's the intro that doesn't cue up correctly. My vinyl is also translucent. If you lay the tone arm down manually there is no issue but if I leave my turntable to automatically cue the arm it sits down 2 seconds late and your right into the song.
  17. Bobberman

    Bobberman Well-Known Member

    I loved that translucent vinyl throughout the 80s to me it was a sign that it was a very high quality recording more than usual
  18. Great news!

    At long last, my replacements arrived (except the back-ordered “The Singles”) and they’re universally free of the defects that plagued the original batch.
    Even without pre-cleaning, all had low to NO noise. (And cleaning brought success up to about 98 percent.)
    That nearly subtle segue between “Love is Surrender” and “Maybe It’s You” practically had me in tears: nothing but silence from the vinyl, but a really sweet, organic high end — so rare from a remaster.
    It’s what Richard had hoped from these.
    All center holes were punched sufficiently to freely drop on my changer (no stacking, ever, except 45s), though, like many 180g pressings, a few had tiny flecks of hole-punch remnants, and a couple holes are just a tad too large, though not affecting play as far as I can tell.
    And there’s a tiny tick here. A pop there. Mainly on opening cuts.
    But they’re records. A little noise is part of the blast-from-the-past fun.

    “Vinyl Collection” was a dream deferred. But, for this fan, the nightmare is over, and it’s yesterday once more — in the best sense.

    I wish the same for you.
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2018
    byline, Jeff, David A and 2 others like this.
  19. Lover Of Great Music

    Lover Of Great Music Member Thread Starter

    Where are you based?
  20. Rick-An Ordinary Fool

    Rick-An Ordinary Fool Well-Known Member

    I'd actually like to buy the entire set again just to have it for my collection but I can't go through what I did before...I wish there was some kind of guarantee. I know for certain that I want to pick up the Lovelines album just because it was the hardest to obtain the original.

    It sounds like the Singles 69-73 possibly went through a whole new pressing otherwise why is that one the only not yet available?
  21. Los Angeles
  22. Anyone in the UK have any information as to whether these are anywhere near being sent out please
  23. Lover Of Great Music

    Lover Of Great Music Member Thread Starter

    No Wayne. I chased up my contact in the US yesterday, but she has not come back to me yet. I’m getting a little annoyed about this now as I spoke to UMG in the U.K. yesterday and the guy I spoke to was not aware of the problem and suggested I email my contact again. If something doesn’t happen soon, they’ll be receiving a County Court Claim from me.
  24. I’m happy to wait as long as it takes. As long as I get the same result as @Mike Cidoni Lennox above, Universal can have all the time they need from me.
  25. Lover Of Great Music

    Lover Of Great Music Member Thread Starter

    This is all down to poor quality control so I’m happy to give them some free publicity too. Someone has got my hard earned money whilst I have nothing at the moment. It’ll be a wake up call to get their systems in order ensuring that future buyers will get faulty free products.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)