Strict Quality Control? We Put That Proposition to the Test


Yet Another Important Lesson We Learned from Record Experiments

Part one of this commentary concerns the random nature of record making processes. It can be found here.

A number of years ago we had the opportunity to crack open two brand new sealed copies of a recently remastered Heavy Vinyl pressing. We were told that with this record every effort was made to produce the highest quality product and to maintain the highest quality control throughout the production process, such that every copy produced, from first to last, would be more or less identical. Not just in terms of surfaces, but sound quality too.

To accomplish this feat the producer used the real master tape (we were told), had a well known mastering engineer do the mastering at a highly-regarded studio, then had a well-known audiophile pressing plant in Germany make the record, using the highest quality vinyl compounds available, in presses that meet the highest standards in the industry, operated by highly skilled professionals.

Long before any stamper could possibly be worn out it would be replaced. All the metal mothers and stampers would be made in a way designed to eliminate any possible variation. One and only one complete run would be made; if another was needed at some later date the whole process would have to be started over from scratch using the same strict quality controls.

No corners would be cut, nothing would be left to chance. Each one of the finished records would reflect the exceptional efforts brought to bear at every stage in the process. Every copy would be quiet, the sound would be of the highest audiophile quality, and, more to the point, every copy — from number 001 all the way to number 7,500 — would sound as good as any other.

Our Experience

As you might suspect, our opinion as to the possibility of these results being achievable is that they are not.

Bear in mind that this is an opinion supported by the playing of thousands and thousands of records, including sometimes more than a hundred of the same title, and having them all sound different to some degree.

So we proceeded to test the proposition that by exercising maximal control over all the known variables of record production, using the most exacting standards at each and every step, two copies of the same record, chosen at random, would sound the same.

We picked a song, cued it up and listened to it for a minute or so. Then we put the other copy on our table, cued up the same track and let it rip.

Falsified in Fifteen Seconds

Immediately the sound was different and, importantly, quite a bit better. The first big cymbal splash was brighter and more life-like, with more extended high frequencies. The bass was better too: deeper, as well as more solid and easier to follow. All of this was evident within the first fifteen seconds of playing the second copy. So much for controlling the variables.

The random variability inherent in the record making process cannot be overcome by best practices and high standards. The process is complex, not well understood, and surely stochastic; some parts of it can be controlled but not all the parts of it can be controlled, which means that the finished product will have some unavoidable element of randomness.

Learning to Listen

Critically auditioning literally thousands and thousands of records during our 35+ years in the record business has convinced us that the only way to find good records is to clean them, play them and critique them. Not one at a time, but by the dozens.

That single, simple approach, tedious and time-consuming though it may be, has the potential to teach you more about records and sound than any other.

We might even go so far as to say that no other approach to learning how to listen critically — none that we are aware of anyway — works remotely as well.


New to the Blog? Start Here

Basic Concepts and Realities Explained

Record Collecting for Audiophiles – A Guide to the Fundamentals

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) 


  1. Based on this level of variability, it’s no wonder the music industry gave up on it (for a time anyway). Would you say the variability is any better or worse than the production process of a domestic LP in the 1970s? There’s so much modern music (from the past 20 years) that I would love to enjoy on my turntable, but I wonder how many copies I’d have to acquire, and really how different they might be between one another. For instance, if the mastering is bad, no pressing will sound good, no matter how many copies one goes through.

    1. Jonathan,
      The only way to find out about any of this stuff is to start spending lots of money and lots of time finding and cleaning all the different pressings of all the different albums that interest you. There is no other way, and you will find out soon enough whether your money and time were well spent.

      Don’t believe a word anybody tells you unless they have done the work to actually know what the hell they are talking about. And that means 99.9% of all the audiophiles in the world. (Add more 9’s if you want to.)

      In this area you are on your own. We do what we can for the records our customers want. Everything else is a crap shoot and you will have to take your best shot and hope something good comes of it.

Leave a Reply