2. analog
  3. 1163209193

New Vinyl Defects

I'd like a little input from you vinylphiles out there.

My buying recently shifted back to almost exclusively vinyl rather than CD. I'm buying mostly "pre-owned", but recently purchased an armload of new and 180 gram pressings. A recent order of 4 LPs, 2 of them were defective. One is unplayable - it had label glue on the last track, and (this is the really odd part) the grooves were off-center, so much I could see the tonearm oscillating back and forth, and the sound was also oscillating. The other one wasn't so bad, or unusual, the first track had near-constant "scratching" sound for nearly the whole song. I recall this as being pretty common in "my before cd" days, but assumed with 180 gram LP's that the QC may be better.

Here's the questions:
1) is the above unusual? That is, is 50% defective - common, or anomaly?
2) What's the likelyhood that if I send back the second LP (Johnny Cash "American V: A Hundred Highways") for a replacement, that I'll get a good copy? I like it and will tolerate the first track if they're all bad.
bdgregory
bdgregory OP
1,720 posts
 
Update: Well, the seller replaced my defective LP, and the new one is better, in that it doesn't have the label adhesive on the vinyl. The problem is side 1 is off-center exactly like the first one. I'm going to keep this one as it costs me too much to send it back and I expect they're all that way. This is a Lambchop LP - "Damaged", and you get a free download of the CD from the record company, so I'll get/burn a CD and see how much different side 1 sounds. As for the Johnny Cash LP, the seller reminded me that I bought a second, that was advertided as such, and he didn't have any more of them. I had forgotten about that and agreed that it's unfair to expect replacement. In addition, the defect in the LP is minor, on one track only, and I'll tolerate it.

all and all, At least I feel I got a fair deal.
groovey's avatar
groovey
125 posts
 
Dear B

You have evidence of the quality of the importance of customer satisfaction for one supplier vs the other's . How did the second vendor represent their product, was it mint ,mint - or vg or less. Used does not allow one to represent a record that has a manufacturer defect as unblemished out of the cover

groovey
bdgregory OP
1,720 posts
 
Groovey - actually this is all the same vendor (ie seller). I bought a batch of LP's all brand new, sealed. They were just that. One of the LP's (Lambchop) is the one that has given me the biggest problem. The problem is with the manufacturer, not the seller. Side one is pressed out of round on both copies I received - causing an oscilation noticable on sustained notes. The first copy I received also had smears of what I believe was adhesive from the label. Another LP I bought was advertised as a 2nd, having a damaged cover. The cover was actually not bad. One track has some noise inherent to the pressing. The seller didn't have another copy so I kept this one.
jaybo
4,478 posts
 
this kind of manufacturing bs is why the majors wanted out of vinyl in the first place.
jaybo
4,478 posts
 
there is also a 'no returns' policy for the retailers who support vinyl.....they most eat the bad stuff. unfair but oh well....with sales now averaging under 1000 units per title (globally), its become nearly impossible to truly make a first class master,then disk and sleeve...and then take the risk of defectives coming back. a thankless labor of love, that only occasionally makes a few bucks. there is almost no competition in the manufacturing end now too, so its not like you can take the business elsewhere.
More to discover