Issues with the US vinyl edition of Chinese Democracy?

[hitmanhart408]

listening to my vinyl right now specifically trying to spot these skipping and distortion issues.
SOD had no skips at all but I did notice distortion. Turned it over to ITW and it was clear as day.
My needle and turntable are pretty good as they have been able to fix some bad issues before on other albums so maybe im just lucky and wont hear the skips. Updates later as I get to Catcher, IRS, etc.

edit: No skipping issues with Catcher either. Did notice some distortion though. Has to be my awesome needle that is solving the skipping issue

edit 2: Two skips on maddy  but other than that both records are pretty good. Guess I got lucky.

[jarmo]

My experience is that the last tracks on each side sounded worse than the first two.






/jarmo

[russtcb]

It's great that some of you have bought copies, but it's not really helping if you haven't listened to them.....

So, please, only those that have listened to their LPs, reply from now on.

Thanks.




/jarmo

I don't need to listen to it to see that it won't sound well due to the scratches.

[jarmo]

I don't need to listen to it to see that it won't sound well due to the scratches.

So your pre-ordered copy had scratches? No smudges/finger prints?



/jarmo

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

I have not had my listening experience ruined, but I would like to give you my input on the packaging.

At a few stores in the valley, a lot of the records had crinkled edges, and more than a few of them had the cellophane ripped off.  I had to spend a lot of time sorting through them all and finding records in near mint condition.

This seemed to be a problem at stores that did not have the Chinese Democracy display case.  The stores in Santa Monica and Los Feliz had the display case with the records on top, and that seemed to work fine.  The stores in Sherman Oaks and Woodland Hills did not have their act together.

I'm just astounded that I can go into a regular old record store and buy a 40 year old record with perfect sleeves, and I can't buy a new release from my favorite band in decent condition.

[russtcb]

I don't need to listen to it to see that it won't sound well due to the scratches.

So your pre-ordered copy had scratches? No smudges/finger prints?



/jarmo

I'll be taking it out of the frame for it's first listen later this week and I'll look closely for smudges and fingerprints. All I remember currently is prominent scratches on the second LP.

[StrummerFan]

My experience is that the last tracks on each side sounded worse than the first two.


/jarmo

My copy didn't have any smudges, scratches, or skips on either album.  I also bought it on the first day it came out, so maybe I got lucky and got a good one.  On the other hand, the last tracks on all but Side 2 of the second LP definitely sounded worse than the rest of the tracks.  Axl's voice especially seemed to be distorted.  I remember reading on this board that it was due to the fact that the grooves on these last tracks were closely spaced together and if I had a better (i.e., expensive) needle on my record player, this wouldn't have been a problem.  The fact that "Prostitute" sounded fine is because there aren't as many songs on that album side and it didn't have to be as compressed as the other final tracks were.  (Please forgive me if I am getting some of the terminology wrong here with regards to my description of this explanation - it's been a while since I read it.)

I hope this helps in some small way.  At any rate, I primarily bought the album as a souvenir and listen the CD most of the time, anyway.  In fact, it has been on repeat in my car since I bought it!  I don't think any other album I've ever bought has lasted this long in my vehicle!  I just can't get enough of it, as I'm sure many of you can't either.   

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

This thread had me scratching my head, so on my way to my homeboy-gangster buddy's party I stopped in at Best Buy to buy another copy.

I opened it today to find that there were fingerprints and smudges on both LP's, and on the second one, there were lots and lots of scratches, especially on side 4.  And what really killed it for me was that there was a chip on the second record!  A CHIP!

I really hope that when Chinese is re-released, they think about using another pressing plant's services.  Whoever did the job this time should have their permit revoked.

[russtcb]

Took the vinyl off the wall today and was shocked at the fact that I thought the "finger prints" and "scratches" were only on Side 4. They're all over both LPs, both sides.

But I did listen to it all the way through and found the following issues with sound:

LP 1
Skipping on Chinese Democracy
Heavy distortion on Street Of Dreams
Skipping on If The World
Heavy distortion on Catcher In The Rye

LP 2
Skipping on Riad N' The Bedouins
Distortion on I.R.S.
Something else weird is up with LP 2 though. The actual LP looks like it was cut wrong. There's enough plastic on one side more than the other that it was actually rubbing against the side of the record player every time it comes to that spot.

I just wanna say that even if nothing comes of it, I do appreciate any effort at all put into to it.

[jarmo]

Looks like the general consensus is that the issues are the same.




/jarmo

[nonlinear]

what are you planning to do, jarmo?

[jarmo]

..... and we'll see if we can forward the comments to somebody.

In other words, somebody at the record company.




/jarmo

[JuicySwoos]

Hopefully the record company can "convince" the pressing comany/plant to make amends somehow. Hell it was what the 2nd or 3rd highest selling LP in 08, so its not like it is a tiny issue.

It makes me curious as to who pressed the Chin Dem LP, because the AFD LP "Back to Black" re-issue is solid, both from the pressing standpoint and packaging.  From what I hear the Illusion "Back to Black" European re-issues are also decent.   

[keithos27]

i bought two copies, opened one.  it had smudges/fingerprints and skipped (can't remember on which song right now).  i exchanged it and haven't opened either copy since.  i'm really hoping for a re-issue 4x12" or something.

[AC]

My copy, purchased in Houston, TX, has all the smudges, fingerprints and skips as everyone here has indicated. Unfortunately, I live in Canada so I can't return it to BB in the U.S.

During this whole process I did some research on this, as I also got Illusions up here in Canada with the same issues as Chinese. I spoke to a very helpful company out of Kansas about the state of vinyl, and here's a letter they have written on all this:



Things have changed since most of us got hooked on the needle (read stylus). It?s time you learned about vinyl?s near-death experience. Before you return that record that you think just might have a little bit of surface noise, put on something mellow, sit back and listen up.

The Day The Music (Almost) Died

Ever wonder as someone with proud ears how the hell CD came to replace LP as the world?s preferred music software format? Sure, the CD was more durable, it didn?t need to be flipped, it didn?t suffer surface noise and it was much more cool and ?80s-looking than the LP. People were blinded by science. This was the first optically-read format. How couldn?t it be better? But, come on, we all know that with some exception LPs blow away the sound of CDs. So how then did the music industry pull the wool over so many eyes for so long? Forcefully is the answer. 

Back in the early 1980s when CDs first came to retail stores, the music business was in a funk, and record-pressing quality was headed the way of the toilet. There were more defects than ever. Defects spell returns. Returns equal money lost. Money lost makes for an industry in trouble. CD was tagged as the savoir. And until MP3s, the savoir came through. How? For one, people craved silence. LPs were becoming more and more synonymous with Rice Krispies ? snap, crackle, pop. And most people did not care for their records properly. CDs delivered defect-free silence, never mind the compression and compromised sound. The new format also was lighter and therefore cheaper to ship and stores could stock a lot more CDs in the same space as fewer LPs.

But what?s not as well known about the transition from LP to CD is this: The major record companies tried to kill the LP by rejecting any returns of vinyl for any reason. Once a store bought an LP, they were stuck with it even if it were defective or went unsold. All vinyl sales were on a one-way basis. Meanwhile, CDs could be returned for any reason. At the same time, the majors raised the price of LPs.

So, let?s hypothesize about how a Mom and Pop record store (those used to be commonplace) would react to the new climate. Say a distributor calls with news of a title by the next big thing, Too Fat to Duck, or some other artist the record storeowner has never heard of. Knowing he can return the CDs but not the LPs, which format do you think he?s going to take a chance on? Even if it were an artist the storeowner knew he could sell, he?s still going to push his customers toward CD for the simple reason that he doesn?t have to take the chance of being stuck with any defective or unsold product.

And so gradually stores began to stock more CDs and less LPs until vinyl was reduced to the niche industry that it still is. The customer went along with the trend because of the increasingly better selection of CDs and because of clever marketing by the music industry. The slogan was ?CD ? Perfect Sound Forever.? Should?ve been: ?The Big Lie.?

Here?s something else you may not realize: the major record labels never lifted the no-return policy. It?s still in effect. We?ve never had the nerve to pass that burden onto our customers, and we don?t want to. What we would like to ask is that you have some understanding of this situation. We?ve gone against the grain. We?re working to keep vinyl alive. But only a relatively few record labels allow us to return product for replacement or reimbursement. That means that the majority of the time you send a record back to us, we eat the cost of that record.

We would never expect you to keep a record that was legitimately damaged. So then what constitutes a fair return? The short answer is that if a defect truly degrades your listening experience (notice, we did not say ?visual experience?), you should feel justified in returning it. But to send back a record that has one tiny tick that you can barely hear is not the way to support your hobby. The same goes for a record that has a small warp that you can?t hear or that you can effectively clamp. For example, a record that is not perfectly flat but that tracks fine and doesn?t have an audible ?thump? is not a defective record. Very few records are perfectly flat. A record with some discoloration in the vinyl or with a paper scuff that you can see but can?t hear is not a defective record.

Sure, you could make a technical case for the above-mentioned examples spelling defective records. But vinyl is not perfect. It?s much more delicate than CD. That?s the disadvantage of our preferred format. About half of the records returned to us are defective, meaning there are repetitive ticks or audible warps or nasty scratches etc. In the case of the other half, we?re scared that the replacement copy could be worse. Often times it is because the original copy had only miniscule imperfections. There was an invention for you people bothered by even the slightest surface noise. It?s called the compact disc.

Time was, you could go into your record store and they?d open a whole box of records for you to find that perfectly flat, pristine copy. Why? Because they could return all that they opened but didn?t sell. Those days are over. It?s an unfortunate fact, but let?s not lose sight of the good news: The majors did not succeed in killing vinyl. Thanks to people like you, vinyl will never die. In fact, there are more top-flight reissues coming off the presses than ever before. We?re in the heyday of audiophile vinyl. But when you return records that play almost flawlessly, you?re only hurting the companies that are providing those great records.

Another point to consider is that not all ?defects? are what you think of as a defect. In other words, some of what you may hear on a given record is inherent in that particular title?s recording, mastering or pressing. Also, when a record company hires a pressing plant to manufacture their records, they?re typically furnished with test pressings before that title is pressed en masse. The object of the test pressing is to allow the record company to identify any pressing defects so that the pressing plant may correct them. One problem is that not all record companies actually listen to their test pressings diligently. So when every copy of a title has the same tick in the same place, that is the fault of the record company and not of the pressing plant. In that case, returning your record for a replacement is futile. In fact, you?re taking a chance that your replacement will actually have a real defect and therefore be even less to your liking.

Our most important objective is to keep you as a happy customer. If returning a record ensures your satisfaction, then by all means send it back. But please keep the points detailed in this letter in mind before you return those marginal defects. By practicing a little tolerance, you can do a lot to help this industry.

Vinyl?s got CD licked when it comes to sound and collectability, but it can?t compete with CD?s durability. Which format?s imperfections bother you more? That answer ought to dictate how you spend your listening money.

[erose]

Interesting read.

So now there's no need to bitch and whine in your complaints. Show some respect!

Are these issues exclusively for the us pressings, meaning there's no known issues with the european? I haven't listened to mine yet so I can't share my experience.

If this letter came from the american pressing plant that did Chinese Democracy, it's a little wierd. Don't you think? It's well written sort of, but it's a huge step admitting they too often deliver sub par sounding vinyl records. Is there only ONE us plant that has pressed chin dem vinyl records in the states?

This raises many questions in who's to "blame" for this obvious problem.

Is it the pressing plant that did a half assed job?

Or is it the record company, or who ever has the final listen, who didn't listen to the test pressings thourughly enough/all the way through, letting a poor sounding record being pressed?

Did the final version sound different from the test pressings?

Or is it that most fans simply doesn't understand vinyl as a format?

Not to take any sort of joy in this, but it'll be really interesting to see how this plays out. I mean if MOST us pressings, emphasizing MOST, this is a pretty huge fuck up in my opinion.

It's true whats being said, this record deserves better.

[nonlinear]

^^you're missing the whole point of that article or letter or whatever it is.

basically, it's from a retailer saying that major labels don't exchange LPs anymore, so when they get shit pressings, try to deal with it as best you can instead of returning it so that the retailer has to take the loss.

that's way different than our situation here.  The label chose an obviously cheap and poor-quality pressing, and jarmo is looking for comments to forward to the label that chose the pressing.

so our situation and that article are about a similar situation, from two extremely different viewpoints.

EDIT:  and I have about 700 or 800 LPs.  these are extremely low quality, and it's not the fans' misunderstanding of the format.  portishead third was an extremely poor pressing as well - fans everywhere have unplayably- warped vinyls because the gatefold was shitty.  my local record shop was stuck with 10 of them (all warped) and the label won't do anything about it.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

sounds like the issues are with the record company since many of us have the inner groove distortion and skips here & there....

same record company who got the lyrics wrong in the CD booklet......Guns music did not deserve this....

[erose]

^^you're missing the whole point of that article or letter or whatever it is.

basically, it's from a retailer saying that major labels don't exchange LPs anymore, so when they get shit pressings, try to deal with it as best you can instead of returning it so that the retailer has to take the loss.

that's way different than our situation here.  The label chose an obviously cheap and poor-quality pressing, and jarmo is looking for comments to forward to the label that chose the pressing.

so our situation and that article are about a similar situation, from two extremely different viewpoints.

EDIT:  and I have about 700 or 800 LPs.  these are extremely low quality, and it's not the fans' misunderstanding of the format.  portishead third was an extremely poor pressing as well - fans everywhere have unplayably- warped vinyls because the gatefold was shitty.  my local record shop was stuck with 10 of them (all warped) and the label won't do anything about it.

Please explain: How am I missing the whole point?

Read my post again please.

[russtcb]

I just want to say again that if there's any chance of something being done about these bad LPs, I sincerely appreciate the help.