On a slightly humorous note, no disrespect to anyone if this applys, as well as non fill driving me absolutely bonkers, people referring to records as “vinyls”, the plural of vinyl is vinyl 
Absolutely, it’s no guarantee of anything. For some less sincere record companies it’s become a meaningless marketing gimmick.
Some cynical or ignorant companies seem to think that mastering a record from any old dodgy source, using crap quality vinyl then putting a hype sticker on saying “pressed on 180g Audiophile vinyl” or similar makes for a good record. Never mind the fact that they’ve used the cheapest quality or recycled vinyl and the mastering source has come from a CD or even MP3 file (Beware public domain re issue labels from Europe, Wax Time, Doxy, DOL, Get Back for example)
Thank you for the insight into Non-fill. Another of the pressing plants little know way of potentialy making a less desirable product.
To me vinyl is a piece of shrink wrap plastic you put over your half-finished sandwich to be eaten later.
1 Like
I’ve bought a couple of vinyl reissues (Stone the Crows, first ELP), and they were poor. Haven’t bothered since.
As you say , one has no idea how far removed from the original master a given transcription is, and I am not necessarily a fan of “remastering”: ie Steven Wilson’s mangling of Caravan’s “In the Land of Grey and Pink”. Remastering is an entirely different can of worms…
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.