Knock-off vinyl LP labels you might want to avoid.

brianlux

Last week, I did some research to root out as many records labels as possible that I want to avoid.  With vinyl having become a still on-going fad (not to me- I buy vinyl because like getting as close to analog sound as possible), I came up with a list of labels that, to the best of my knowledge, are ones that produce vinyl off of CDs or other marginal digital sources.  Now, it is true that many digital age vinyl LPs are mastered from a non-CD digital source, but they still sound better to me than records made from CDs that are highly compressed (aka "loudness wars" material). 

The list of knock-off record labels I avoid:

DOL

Wax-Time

4 Men With Beards

Doxy

Vinyl Lovers

Simply Vinyl

Abraxas

1ThoughtKnown

Thanks Brian! Very helpful. 

Nothing worse than a brickwalled CD pressed to vinyl. Awful. 

brianlux

1ThoughtKnown said:

Thanks Brian! Very helpful. 

Nothing worse than a brickwalled CD pressed to vinyl. Awful. 

Total agree, 1Thought! 

And thank you- "brickwalled" was the term I couldn't remember!

1ThoughtKnown

brianlux said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

Thanks Brian! Very helpful. 

Nothing worse than a brickwalled CD pressed to vinyl. Awful. 

Total agree, 1Thought! 

And thank you- "brickwalled" was the term I couldn't remember!

Loudness wars is a good way to put it though 😂

Sadly, I’ve got two official represses that are Brickwalled (worst records in my collection)
 - The Tea Party Splendor Solis
- RHCP Californication 2019 repress 

brianlux

1ThoughtKnown said:

brianlux said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

Thanks Brian! Very helpful. 

Nothing worse than a brickwalled CD pressed to vinyl. Awful. 

Total agree, 1Thought! 

And thank you- "brickwalled" was the term I couldn't remember!

Loudness wars is a good way to put it though 😂

Sadly, I’ve got two official represses that are Brickwalled (worst records in my collection)
 - The Tea Party Splendor Solis
- RHCP Californication 2019 repress 

So frustrating!  I had purchases a few re-issues years back without the knowledge that many records are pressed off brickwalled CD's.  One in particular was a copy of Paul Butterfield Blues Band's East West.  It sounded terrible.   Luckily, a few years later I found an early pressing that is in great shape and the difference is phenomenal.   It's really sad that the buying public is being duped by many unsuspecting vinyl fans- especially folks who are just getting into it. 

The same is true for record players- cheap record players like Crosleys that at best should only be used by kids who want to spin playable beaters that are already trashed.  I wish they would issue warnings with those cheap players that ruin good records by causing inner groove wear and general groove damage. 

deadendp

brianlux said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

brianlux said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

Thanks Brian! Very helpful. 

Nothing worse than a brickwalled CD pressed to vinyl. Awful. 

Total agree, 1Thought! 

And thank you- "brickwalled" was the term I couldn't remember!

Loudness wars is a good way to put it though 😂

Sadly, I’ve got two official represses that are Brickwalled (worst records in my collection)
 - The Tea Party Splendor Solis
- RHCP Californication 2019 repress 

So frustrating!  I had purchases a few re-issues years back without the knowledge that many records are pressed off brickwalled CD's.  One in particular was a copy of Paul Butterfield Blues Band's East West.  It sounded terrible.   Luckily, a few years later I found an early pressing that is in great shape and the difference is phenomenal.   It's really sad that the buying public is being duped by many unsuspecting vinyl fans- especially folks who are just getting into it. 

The same is true for record players- cheap record players like Crosleys that at best should only be used by kids who want to spin playable beaters that are already trashed.  I wish they would issue warnings with those cheap players that ruin good records by causing inner groove wear and general groove damage. 

And they sound positively terrible.  My husband was determined to buy his parents a record player for Christmas.  Knowing that they would hardly ever use it, I told him not to spend a ton.  He found them a Crosley in an open box from Amazon and we paid maybe $35 for it.  My mother-in-law keeps their old records on top of it with a big shell.  (I have no idea why.)  We knew not to invest good money in it because we knew they would spin something a few times and then be done.  

Loujoe

Whats a good cheap record player that wont ruin records?

brianlux

deadendp said:

brianlux said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

brianlux said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

Thanks Brian! Very helpful. 

Nothing worse than a brickwalled CD pressed to vinyl. Awful. 

Total agree, 1Thought! 

And thank you- "brickwalled" was the term I couldn't remember!

Loudness wars is a good way to put it though 😂

Sadly, I’ve got two official represses that are Brickwalled (worst records in my collection)
 - The Tea Party Splendor Solis
- RHCP Californication 2019 repress 

So frustrating!  I had purchases a few re-issues years back without the knowledge that many records are pressed off brickwalled CD's.  One in particular was a copy of Paul Butterfield Blues Band's East West.  It sounded terrible.   Luckily, a few years later I found an early pressing that is in great shape and the difference is phenomenal.   It's really sad that the buying public is being duped by many unsuspecting vinyl fans- especially folks who are just getting into it. 

The same is true for record players- cheap record players like Crosleys that at best should only be used by kids who want to spin playable beaters that are already trashed.  I wish they would issue warnings with those cheap players that ruin good records by causing inner groove wear and general groove damage. 

And they sound positively terrible.  My husband was determined to buy his parents a record player for Christmas.  Knowing that they would hardly ever use it, I told him not to spend a ton.  He found them a Crosley in an open box from Amazon and we paid maybe $35 for it.  My mother-in-law keeps their old records on top of it with a big shell.  (I have no idea why.)  We knew not to invest good money in it because we knew they would spin something a few times and then be done.  

Good move!

Loujoe said:

Whats a good cheap record player that wont ruin records?

Depending on what is cheap, I would say for something new, "none".  The lowest I would go new would maybe be an Audio Technica ATLP120 which runs about $250.   Personally, if I were unable to afford a quality turntable, I would look for something used and replace the cartridge.  I have a Pro-ject Carbon debut with a red Ortofon cartridge that today runs about $400.  It's considered the low end of "good".  The cartridge is an upgrade though, so I think it's safe to use and I've replaced the cartridge once and will probably do that again in another year or so.  The standard recommendation for hours on a cartridge before replacing is said to be 1,000 hours of play time.

My honest take is that unless a person is willing to invest some money and their vinyl interest is more casual or curious and they are good with digital, I would probably save my money and stick with CDs or downloads.

brianlux

It just dawned on me that perhaps I should have posted this under "gearheads".  Doh!

Loujoe

Thanks for the info^^^
Good on the heads up for bad record pressings too!

brianlux

Loujoe said:

Thanks for the info^^^
Good on the heads up for bad record pressings too!

Sure thing, LJ!

deadendp

brianlux said:

deadendp said:

brianlux said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

brianlux said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

Thanks Brian! Very helpful. 

Nothing worse than a brickwalled CD pressed to vinyl. Awful. 

Total agree, 1Thought! 

And thank you- "brickwalled" was the term I couldn't remember!

Loudness wars is a good way to put it though 😂

Sadly, I’ve got two official represses that are Brickwalled (worst records in my collection)
 - The Tea Party Splendor Solis
- RHCP Californication 2019 repress 

So frustrating!  I had purchases a few re-issues years back without the knowledge that many records are pressed off brickwalled CD's.  One in particular was a copy of Paul Butterfield Blues Band's East West.  It sounded terrible.   Luckily, a few years later I found an early pressing that is in great shape and the difference is phenomenal.   It's really sad that the buying public is being duped by many unsuspecting vinyl fans- especially folks who are just getting into it. 

The same is true for record players- cheap record players like Crosleys that at best should only be used by kids who want to spin playable beaters that are already trashed.  I wish they would issue warnings with those cheap players that ruin good records by causing inner groove wear and general groove damage. 

And they sound positively terrible.  My husband was determined to buy his parents a record player for Christmas.  Knowing that they would hardly ever use it, I told him not to spend a ton.  He found them a Crosley in an open box from Amazon and we paid maybe $35 for it.  My mother-in-law keeps their old records on top of it with a big shell.  (I have no idea why.)  We knew not to invest good money in it because we knew they would spin something a few times and then be done.  

Good move!

Loujoe said:

Whats a good cheap record player that wont ruin records?

Depending on what is cheap, I would say for something new, "none".  The lowest I would go new would maybe be an Audio Technica ATLP120 which runs about $250.   Personally, if I were unable to afford a quality turntable, I would look for something used and replace the cartridge.  I have a Pro-ject Carbon debut with a red Ortofon cartridge that today runs about $400.  It's considered the low end of "good".  The cartridge is an upgrade though, so I think it's safe to use and I've replaced the cartridge once and will probably do that again in another year or so.  The standard recommendation for hours on a cartridge before replacing is said to be 1,000 hours of play time.

My honest take is that unless a person is willing to invest some money and their vinyl interest is more casual or curious and they are good with digital, I would probably save my money and stick with CDs or downloads.

You make it sound like my turntable is the equivalent of spinning my vinyl on the driveway gravel.   

mickeyrat

deadendp said:

brianlux said:

deadendp said:

brianlux said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

brianlux said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

Thanks Brian! Very helpful. 

Nothing worse than a brickwalled CD pressed to vinyl. Awful. 

Total agree, 1Thought! 

And thank you- "brickwalled" was the term I couldn't remember!

Loudness wars is a good way to put it though 😂

Sadly, I’ve got two official represses that are Brickwalled (worst records in my collection)
 - The Tea Party Splendor Solis
- RHCP Californication 2019 repress 

So frustrating!  I had purchases a few re-issues years back without the knowledge that many records are pressed off brickwalled CD's.  One in particular was a copy of Paul Butterfield Blues Band's East West.  It sounded terrible.   Luckily, a few years later I found an early pressing that is in great shape and the difference is phenomenal.   It's really sad that the buying public is being duped by many unsuspecting vinyl fans- especially folks who are just getting into it. 

The same is true for record players- cheap record players like Crosleys that at best should only be used by kids who want to spin playable beaters that are already trashed.  I wish they would issue warnings with those cheap players that ruin good records by causing inner groove wear and general groove damage. 

And they sound positively terrible.  My husband was determined to buy his parents a record player for Christmas.  Knowing that they would hardly ever use it, I told him not to spend a ton.  He found them a Crosley in an open box from Amazon and we paid maybe $35 for it.  My mother-in-law keeps their old records on top of it with a big shell.  (I have no idea why.)  We knew not to invest good money in it because we knew they would spin something a few times and then be done.  

Good move!

Loujoe said:

Whats a good cheap record player that wont ruin records?

Depending on what is cheap, I would say for something new, "none".  The lowest I would go new would maybe be an Audio Technica ATLP120 which runs about $250.   Personally, if I were unable to afford a quality turntable, I would look for something used and replace the cartridge.  I have a Pro-ject Carbon debut with a red Ortofon cartridge that today runs about $400.  It's considered the low end of "good".  The cartridge is an upgrade though, so I think it's safe to use and I've replaced the cartridge once and will probably do that again in another year or so.  The standard recommendation for hours on a cartridge before replacing is said to be 1,000 hours of play time.

My honest take is that unless a person is willing to invest some money and their vinyl interest is more casual or curious and they are good with digital, I would probably save my money and stick with CDs or downloads.

You make it sound like my turntable is the equivalent of spinning my vinyl on the driveway gravel.   

AT has well reviewed entry models for 100 or so.

brianlux

deadendp said:

brianlux said:

deadendp said:

brianlux said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

brianlux said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

Thanks Brian! Very helpful. 

Nothing worse than a brickwalled CD pressed to vinyl. Awful. 

Total agree, 1Thought! 

And thank you- "brickwalled" was the term I couldn't remember!

Loudness wars is a good way to put it though 😂

Sadly, I’ve got two official represses that are Brickwalled (worst records in my collection)
 - The Tea Party Splendor Solis
- RHCP Californication 2019 repress 

So frustrating!  I had purchases a few re-issues years back without the knowledge that many records are pressed off brickwalled CD's.  One in particular was a copy of Paul Butterfield Blues Band's East West.  It sounded terrible.   Luckily, a few years later I found an early pressing that is in great shape and the difference is phenomenal.   It's really sad that the buying public is being duped by many unsuspecting vinyl fans- especially folks who are just getting into it. 

The same is true for record players- cheap record players like Crosleys that at best should only be used by kids who want to spin playable beaters that are already trashed.  I wish they would issue warnings with those cheap players that ruin good records by causing inner groove wear and general groove damage. 

And they sound positively terrible.  My husband was determined to buy his parents a record player for Christmas.  Knowing that they would hardly ever use it, I told him not to spend a ton.  He found them a Crosley in an open box from Amazon and we paid maybe $35 for it.  My mother-in-law keeps their old records on top of it with a big shell.  (I have no idea why.)  We knew not to invest good money in it because we knew they would spin something a few times and then be done.  

Good move!

Loujoe said:

Whats a good cheap record player that wont ruin records?

Depending on what is cheap, I would say for something new, "none".  The lowest I would go new would maybe be an Audio Technica ATLP120 which runs about $250.   Personally, if I were unable to afford a quality turntable, I would look for something used and replace the cartridge.  I have a Pro-ject Carbon debut with a red Ortofon cartridge that today runs about $400.  It's considered the low end of "good".  The cartridge is an upgrade though, so I think it's safe to use and I've replaced the cartridge once and will probably do that again in another year or so.  The standard recommendation for hours on a cartridge before replacing is said to be 1,000 hours of play time.

My honest take is that unless a person is willing to invest some money and their vinyl interest is more casual or curious and they are good with digital, I would probably save my money and stick with CDs or downloads.

You make it sound like my turntable is the equivalent of spinning my vinyl on the driveway gravel.   

Oh, hey, sorry, no, really, everybody gets to do their thing.    Just throwing thoughts out there.  Have fun with what you have, seriously.  I'm 69 and it took me from middle school years until around 2005  to get some decent gear together.

My first set up back in around 1968 was really funky.  One day, I was given an old cast-off Gerard turntable.  I already had a guitar amp-  a '65 Fender DeLuxe Reverb. I took the wire ends off from the turntable wires and stripped them back and twisted them together with the stripped back wires of a guitar cable that had one end chopped off.  I had no idea if plugging my turntable into a guitar amp would work.  At the first try, I plugged the spliced cable into the amp (a '65 Fender DeLuxe reverb), hit the power switch, turned up the volume, and put on Are You Experienced. It not only worked, it prompted a rather loud, "Turn that damn thing down!" from the folks in the other room.   Good times!

Oh, and it was fun to add reverb to the records even though it got old fast.  Also, the next year, putting the amp in a window with a recording of a jet airplane taking off, and cranking the amp to 10 drew some interesting looks from outside my dorm room.

Tim Simmons

brianlux said:

Loujoe said:

Whats a good cheap record player that wont ruin records?

My honest take is that unless a person is willing to invest some money and their vinyl interest is more casual or curious and they are good with digital, I would probably save my money and stick with CDs or downloads.

Cosign this. 

I tell people who are ask me similar questions that if its more as a lark and something cool to have, don't bother, its a money pit. But if they want to collect and really play them, I also recommend the 120 or if they want to go a touch bigger, the U Turn.

brianlux

Tim Simmons said:

brianlux said:

Loujoe said:

Whats a good cheap record player that wont ruin records?

My honest take is that unless a person is willing to invest some money and their vinyl interest is more casual or curious and they are good with digital, I would probably save my money and stick with CDs or downloads.

Cosign this. 

I tell people who are ask me similar questions that if its more as a lark and something cool to have, don't bother, its a money pit. But if they want to collect and really play them, I also recommend the 120 or if they want to go a touch bigger, the U Turn.

A money pit it is! 

The more I learn about turntables, the harder it is not to want to upgrade.  I sometimes consider going as far as the Rega Planar 3 with black Elys 2 cart but, ouch, $1,145 is just a BIG stretch I hesitate to go to.  And then there's the Rega Planar 6, or the...LOL

Yep, a money pit!

deadendp

brianlux said:

deadendp said:

brianlux said:

deadendp said:

brianlux said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

brianlux said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

Thanks Brian! Very helpful. 

Nothing worse than a brickwalled CD pressed to vinyl. Awful. 

Total agree, 1Thought! 

And thank you- "brickwalled" was the term I couldn't remember!

Loudness wars is a good way to put it though 😂

Sadly, I’ve got two official represses that are Brickwalled (worst records in my collection)
 - The Tea Party Splendor Solis
- RHCP Californication 2019 repress 

So frustrating!  I had purchases a few re-issues years back without the knowledge that many records are pressed off brickwalled CD's.  One in particular was a copy of Paul Butterfield Blues Band's East West.  It sounded terrible.   Luckily, a few years later I found an early pressing that is in great shape and the difference is phenomenal.   It's really sad that the buying public is being duped by many unsuspecting vinyl fans- especially folks who are just getting into it. 

The same is true for record players- cheap record players like Crosleys that at best should only be used by kids who want to spin playable beaters that are already trashed.  I wish they would issue warnings with those cheap players that ruin good records by causing inner groove wear and general groove damage. 

And they sound positively terrible.  My husband was determined to buy his parents a record player for Christmas.  Knowing that they would hardly ever use it, I told him not to spend a ton.  He found them a Crosley in an open box from Amazon and we paid maybe $35 for it.  My mother-in-law keeps their old records on top of it with a big shell.  (I have no idea why.)  We knew not to invest good money in it because we knew they would spin something a few times and then be done.  

Good move!

Loujoe said:

Whats a good cheap record player that wont ruin records?

Depending on what is cheap, I would say for something new, "none".  The lowest I would go new would maybe be an Audio Technica ATLP120 which runs about $250.   Personally, if I were unable to afford a quality turntable, I would look for something used and replace the cartridge.  I have a Pro-ject Carbon debut with a red Ortofon cartridge that today runs about $400.  It's considered the low end of "good".  The cartridge is an upgrade though, so I think it's safe to use and I've replaced the cartridge once and will probably do that again in another year or so.  The standard recommendation for hours on a cartridge before replacing is said to be 1,000 hours of play time.

My honest take is that unless a person is willing to invest some money and their vinyl interest is more casual or curious and they are good with digital, I would probably save my money and stick with CDs or downloads.

You make it sound like my turntable is the equivalent of spinning my vinyl on the driveway gravel.   

Oh, hey, sorry, no, really, everybody gets to do their thing.    Just throwing thoughts out there.  Have fun with what you have, seriously.  I'm 69 and it took me from middle school years until around 2005  to get some decent gear together.

My first set up back in around 1968 was really funky.  One day, I was given an old cast-off Gerard turntable.  I already had a guitar amp-  a '65 Fender DeLuxe Reverb. I took the wire ends off from the turntable wires and stripped them back and twisted them together with the stripped back wires of a guitar cable that had one end chopped off.  I had no idea if plugging my turntable into a guitar amp would work.  At the first try, I plugged the spliced cable into the amp (a '65 Fender DeLuxe reverb), hit the power switch, turned up the volume, and put on Are You Experienced. It not only worked, it prompted a rather loud, "Turn that damn thing down!" from the folks in the other room.   Good times!

Oh, and it was fun to add reverb to the records even though it got old fast.  Also, the next year, putting the amp in a window with a recording of a jet airplane taking off, and cranking the amp to 10 drew some interesting looks from outside my dorm room.

My husband is a Sony man, so he bought me a Sony turntable.  Not the most expensive, but sounds great.  He got it for something like half off because it was an open box and didn't work.  He brought it home and discovered that it only needed the belt attached.  Voila! 

Yeah, I have a 16 year old with a car and insurance rates that went up substantially.  It'll be a long while before mama can upgrade.    

brianlux

deadendp said:

brianlux said:

deadendp said:

brianlux said:

deadendp said:

brianlux said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

brianlux said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

Thanks Brian! Very helpful. 

Nothing worse than a brickwalled CD pressed to vinyl. Awful. 

Total agree, 1Thought! 

And thank you- "brickwalled" was the term I couldn't remember!

Loudness wars is a good way to put it though 😂

Sadly, I’ve got two official represses that are Brickwalled (worst records in my collection)
 - The Tea Party Splendor Solis
- RHCP Californication 2019 repress 

So frustrating!  I had purchases a few re-issues years back without the knowledge that many records are pressed off brickwalled CD's.  One in particular was a copy of Paul Butterfield Blues Band's East West.  It sounded terrible.   Luckily, a few years later I found an early pressing that is in great shape and the difference is phenomenal.   It's really sad that the buying public is being duped by many unsuspecting vinyl fans- especially folks who are just getting into it. 

The same is true for record players- cheap record players like Crosleys that at best should only be used by kids who want to spin playable beaters that are already trashed.  I wish they would issue warnings with those cheap players that ruin good records by causing inner groove wear and general groove damage. 

And they sound positively terrible.  My husband was determined to buy his parents a record player for Christmas.  Knowing that they would hardly ever use it, I told him not to spend a ton.  He found them a Crosley in an open box from Amazon and we paid maybe $35 for it.  My mother-in-law keeps their old records on top of it with a big shell.  (I have no idea why.)  We knew not to invest good money in it because we knew they would spin something a few times and then be done.  

Good move!

Loujoe said:

Whats a good cheap record player that wont ruin records?

Depending on what is cheap, I would say for something new, "none".  The lowest I would go new would maybe be an Audio Technica ATLP120 which runs about $250.   Personally, if I were unable to afford a quality turntable, I would look for something used and replace the cartridge.  I have a Pro-ject Carbon debut with a red Ortofon cartridge that today runs about $400.  It's considered the low end of "good".  The cartridge is an upgrade though, so I think it's safe to use and I've replaced the cartridge once and will probably do that again in another year or so.  The standard recommendation for hours on a cartridge before replacing is said to be 1,000 hours of play time.

My honest take is that unless a person is willing to invest some money and their vinyl interest is more casual or curious and they are good with digital, I would probably save my money and stick with CDs or downloads.

You make it sound like my turntable is the equivalent of spinning my vinyl on the driveway gravel.   

Oh, hey, sorry, no, really, everybody gets to do their thing.    Just throwing thoughts out there.  Have fun with what you have, seriously.  I'm 69 and it took me from middle school years until around 2005  to get some decent gear together.

My first set up back in around 1968 was really funky.  One day, I was given an old cast-off Gerard turntable.  I already had a guitar amp-  a '65 Fender DeLuxe Reverb. I took the wire ends off from the turntable wires and stripped them back and twisted them together with the stripped back wires of a guitar cable that had one end chopped off.  I had no idea if plugging my turntable into a guitar amp would work.  At the first try, I plugged the spliced cable into the amp (a '65 Fender DeLuxe reverb), hit the power switch, turned up the volume, and put on Are You Experienced. It not only worked, it prompted a rather loud, "Turn that damn thing down!" from the folks in the other room.   Good times!

Oh, and it was fun to add reverb to the records even though it got old fast.  Also, the next year, putting the amp in a window with a recording of a jet airplane taking off, and cranking the amp to 10 drew some interesting looks from outside my dorm room.

My husband is a Sony man, so he bought me a Sony turntable.  Not the most expensive, but sounds great.  He got it for something like half off because it was an open box and didn't work.  He brought it home and discovered that it only needed the belt attached.  Voila! 

Yeah, I have a 16 year old with a car and insurance rates that went up substantially.  It'll be a long while before mama can upgrade.    

Oh ouch- I was that kid once upon a time!   

Good deal on the Sony TT.  Sony makes good stuff for the money.  I have a Sony DVD player that's gotten a lot of use and it's outlived its life expectancy by two or three times!

Tim Simmons

My first TT was a Sony. I got it in 95. Lasted a good 10 years.

LukinFan

 I have a Sony as well. It's my wife's parents old turntable from the late 1970s. Still runs great. Sounds great. 

dankind

Not a knockoff/boot label, but Concord Bicycle is absolute shite. 

brianlux

dankind said:

Not a knockoff/boot label, but Concord Bicycle is absolute shite. 

I hadn't heard of them before.  I checked out a few reviews on discogs for some of their releases and they're very mixed.  Some people said the quality is great, others felt the same way as you- that they are crap. Look like a possible label to avoid so thanks for the heads up!

dankind

brianlux said:

dankind said:

Not a knockoff/boot label, but Concord Bicycle is absolute shite. 

I hadn't heard of them before.  I checked out a few reviews on discogs for some of their releases and they're very mixed.  Some people said the quality is great, others felt the same way as you- that they are crap. Look like a possible label to avoid so thanks for the heads up!

Sucks because they’re handling US pressings of REM reissues. I’ve just been buying EU pressings. 

That RSD NIN Halo set was the worst vinyl I’ve ever purchased. 

Shady as fuck the way they packaged that. 

brianlux

dankind said:

brianlux said:

dankind said:

Not a knockoff/boot label, but Concord Bicycle is absolute shite. 

I hadn't heard of them before.  I checked out a few reviews on discogs for some of their releases and they're very mixed.  Some people said the quality is great, others felt the same way as you- that they are crap. Look like a possible label to avoid so thanks for the heads up!

Sucks because they’re handling US pressings of REM reissues. I’ve just been buying EU pressings. 

That RSD NIN Halo set was the worst vinyl I’ve ever purchased. 

Shady as fuck the way they packaged that. 

I noticed that a lot of their catalog us R.E.M.  Bummer that that band didn't go with someone more reputable.   I'm guessing it was out of their hands though.

And hey, as a side note, if you''re an R.E.M. fan, maybe check out some of the records/CD's by The Baseball Project.  Both Peter Buck and Mike Mills worked with that band.  Some really good stuff there!

AndySlash

uh, concord is one of the largest music enterprises today:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concord_(entertainment_company)

r.e.m. chose craft recordings (under the concord banner) to release their music once their warners deal expired.

so, yes, while some of their physical product may be lacking in quality, concord can’t really be labeled as not reputable or as shady- they are a legit company, and one of the biggest in music.

https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/concord-has-spent-over-1bn-on-acquisitions-in-past-14-years-meet-the-exec-sniffing-out-the-deals/

the mixed reviews on discogs aren’t surprising. the r.e.m. stuff i have from craft isn’t that good. but stuff i have from other sub-labels is good to great. there’s a lot more going on there than just being a part of the concord conglomerate.

brianlux

AndySlash said:

uh, concord is one of the largest music enterprises today:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concord_(entertainment_company)

r.e.m. chose craft recordings (under the concord banner) to release their music once their warners deal expired.

so, yes, while some of their physical product may be lacking in quality, concord can’t really be labeled as not reputable or as shady- they are a legit company, and one of the biggest in music.

https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/concord-has-spent-over-1bn-on-acquisitions-in-past-14-years-meet-the-exec-sniffing-out-the-deals/

the mixed reviews on discogs aren’t surprising. the r.e.m. stuff i have from craft isn’t that good. but stuff i have from other sub-labels is good to great. there’s a lot more going on there than just being a part of the concord conglomerate.

I may be a bit overly wary this way, but "largest" and "biggest" don't always mean "best quality".  In fact, I find it often means a product is pushed faster and corners are cut to make the parent company bigger.  On the other end of the spectrum are labels like Analogue Productions, Blue Note Tone Poet Audiophile, Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab and a few others that may be smaller companies, but their quality is much better.  And there are some decent labels that fall between the two.  Run Out Groove is a small company, for example, that has pressed some affordable but killer vinyl.  

Why is it OK that "some of their physical product may be lacking in quality"?  I cut no slack for companies that way.  I say, do it right or don't do it at all.  As far as "shady" goes, they may be legitimate  but cutting corners on quality to me is at least somewhat shady.

As for R.E.M., I question how much influence the band members themselves had in making that decision to go with Craft/Concord.  And if they did, that doesn't mean it was a good move.  Bands sometimes make bad choices.  In any case, I'm just glad and damn lucky that the dozen or so of their albums that I have on vinyl are ones I bought when they were first released. 

Well, anyway, I'm glad you've had some success with Craft/Concord.  However, reading what dankind said and seeing some negative reviews leaves me wary and I would want to research any of their product before shelling out the cash for it.  I'm not a tightwad, but money's tight these days and I try to get the best I can with what I have.

DewieCox

Not knockoffs, but  Music On Vinyl stuff has a huge discrepancy between the quality of the vinyl and quality of the packaging. For the cost, both should be top shelf. 

LukinFan

DewieCox said:

Not knockoffs, but  Music On Vinyl stuff has a huge discrepancy between the quality of the vinyl and quality of the packaging. For the cost, both should be top shelf. 

I had bought an MTV unplugged Alice in Chains MOV vinyl a couple years back, and it skipped a lot. I sent back that copy, got another one, and it did the same. I'm been afraid to try them again. 

AndySlash

brianlux said:

I may be a bit overly wary this way, but "largest" and "biggest" don't always mean "best quality".

i'm not arguing this point.

brianlux said:

Why is it OK that "some of their physical product may be lacking in quality"?

i'm not arguing this point, either.

i am arguing that concord is not in the same category of your dox and wax-time labels in the initial post. they are a legit music company and have labels with artists specifically signed to them. several of the ones mentioned in the first post do not, often used cd sourced material, and the provenance of their product is suspect. those are the shady knock-off labels that i *thought* were being discussed in this thread. dankind even specifically noted that concord is not a knock off label but some of their product is of suspect quality.

brianlux said:

As far as "shady" goes, they may be legitimate  but cutting corners on quality to me is at least somewhat shady.

well, okay, i guess. stick with analogue productions and the like then, because any normal label will be shady under these terms. price will often be an indicator of quality, and if anyone was expecting an audiophile quality pressing of 'automatic for the people' at the $20-25 price point in 2020 then i don't know what to say. and again, i'm not defending this practice. the best thing you can do, as you have said you already do, is research the pressing details of the album you're interested in. with concord and their labels, their records are pressed at a number of facilities, so of course there are going to be mixed reviews. the issue with the knock off labels starts with their questionable sources, lack of artist involvement, and poor if unknown pressing information. with concord (or universal or sony or warners or...), the artist relationship is there, the sources are there, it's what the individual artists/labels decide to do with their manufacturing that results in a quality product or not. so just because it says concord on it doesn't mean it should be automatically dismissed, like you would dox or wax-time because you already know they are knock off labels, which is what this thread was started about.

brianlux said:

As for R.E.M., I question how much influence the band members themselves had in making that decision to go with Craft/Concord.  And if they did, that doesn't mean it was a good move.  Bands sometimes make bad choices.

do you follow r.e.m. at all? because they had all the chips in their hands when deciding what to do with their future post-warners. and they chose craft. call it a bad decision, i won't argue that, but they had all the power there.

brianlux

DewieCox said:

Not knockoffs, but  Music On Vinyl stuff has a huge discrepancy between the quality of the vinyl and quality of the packaging. For the cost, both should be top shelf. 

LukinFan said:

DewieCox said:

Not knockoffs, but  Music On Vinyl stuff has a huge discrepancy between the quality of the vinyl and quality of the packaging. For the cost, both should be top shelf. 

I had bought an MTX unplugged Alice in Chains vinyl MOV a couple years back, and it skipped a lot. I sent back that copy, got another one, and it did the same. I'm been afraid to try them again. 

I have a couple of LP's on MOV- Dennis Wilson's Pacific Ocean Blue and J Mascis's Live at CBGB.  The Wilson sounds fine and the Mascis was poorly recorded so it doesn't matter much (it's more a curiosity for fans than anything anyway).  But I've heard others mention bad experiences with MOV.  If I really wanted a reissue because an original was out of my price range, I might chance another MOV, but from what I've heard, I'm more likely to try to track down an affordable original pressing. 

brianlux

AndySlash said:

brianlux said:

I may be a bit overly wary this way, but "largest" and "biggest" don't always mean "best quality".

i'm not arguing this point.

brianlux said:

Why is it OK that "some of their physical product may be lacking in quality"?

i'm not arguing this point, either.

i am arguing that concord is not in the same category of your dox and wax-time labels in the initial post. they are a legit music company and have labels with artists specifically signed to them. several of the ones mentioned in the first post do not, often used cd sourced material, and the provenance of their product is suspect. those are the shady knock-off labels that i *thought* were being discussed in this thread. dankind even specifically noted that concord is not a knock off label but some of their product is of suspect quality.

brianlux said:

As far as "shady" goes, they may be legitimate  but cutting corners on quality to me is at least somewhat shady.

well, okay, i guess. stick with analogue productions and the like then, because any normal label will be shady under these terms. price will often be an indicator of quality, and if anyone was expecting an audiophile quality pressing of 'automatic for the people' at the $20-25 price point in 2020 then i don't know what to say. and again, i'm not defending this practice. the best thing you can do, as you have said you already do, is research the pressing details of the album you're interested in. with concord and their labels, their records are pressed at a number of facilities, so of course there are going to be mixed reviews. the issue with the knock off labels starts with their questionable sources, lack of artist involvement, and poor if unknown pressing information. with concord (or universal or sony or warners or...), the artist relationship is there, the sources are there, it's what the individual artists/labels decide to do with their manufacturing that results in a quality product or not. so just because it says concord on it doesn't mean it should be automatically dismissed, like you would dox or wax-time because you already know they are knock off labels, which is what this thread was started about.

brianlux said:

As for R.E.M., I question how much influence the band members themselves had in making that decision to go with Craft/Concord.  And if they did, that doesn't mean it was a good move.  Bands sometimes make bad choices.

do you follow r.e.m. at all? because they had all the chips in their hands when deciding what to do with their future post-warners. and they chose craft. call it a bad decision, i won't argue that, but they had all the power there.

"i am arguing that concord is not in the same category of your dox and wax-time labels in the initial post". 

Yeah, no doubt true.  But I'm still put off by what I've heard re. the quality of Craft/Concord pressings.  Sorry you were offended by my comments about them.

"do you follow r.e.m. at all?"

The last R.E.M. record I really liked was New Adventures in Hi-Fi.    I always have long felt with R.E.M., the earlier the stuff, the better.

Are you a The Baseball Project fan?  If not, you might enjoy some of their records-  they made 4 records on one live on FLAC/MP3.  Unfortunately,   most of them are hard to find/ very pricey on vinyl.  Peter Buck and Mike Mills are in that side-project band.  Nothing earth chattering, but some fine music there.