CD manufacturer problem. EDC experts help!

Depressed Mode - ..For Death..

So for this release, SID codes and matrix pattern match those given in the profile for EDC. However, the inner ring of the matrix (not the plastic hub, and inner ring of the mirror band) shows a logo for Finnish disc manufacturer Digital Plant.

A photo of the matrix is here: http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-1759298-1359266197-1783.jpeg

Anyone know what's going on here? I'm not familiar how glass mastering/actual disc pressing happens so could it be possible one company did one role and the other another role?

Myriad
one company did one role and the other another role

That's my guess.
I think the glass mastering was done in Germany, and then the actual pressing done here in Finland.

Mould is from EDC Germany too. Digital Plant did nothing physical for this release other than arrange the work:

Digital Plant Oy (Ltd) is an advanced replication supplier in Finland for all CD and DVD formats. We can offer experience and professionalism since 1992 to meet your needs.

We keep up continuously with developments in the market and make use of the latest technological solutions. In this way we can guarantee a product range that is both cost effective and of excellent quality, as well as deliveries within agreed timetables.

Every stage of processing of your order is controlled carefully by us, beginning from checking the replicability of materials you send to us and ending with the finished product. In this way you can be sure of your products quality.

We use the very best professionals for those stages of production that we do not ourselves do, such as graphic design, in order to guarantee a result that will satisfy you.

If you are thinking about the very latest formats such as Blu-ray, we are the right place to contact.

EDIT:

Anssisal is probably correct. Glass mastered at EDC, the but pressed by them, I misread that statement I quoted above in this post. I have undone my my sins from this assumption.

I beg to differ.

from the madonna SID code site:
IFPI Z9** IFPI LT57 Digital Plant OY Finland

from musik sammler:
IFPI Z9** IFPI LT57 Digital Plant Oy (Ltd.) Finnland

I beat you by two clear minutes. 8)

I also did the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs.

Eviltoastman
I beat you by two clear minutes. 8)

Wait a second, I was already right two hours ago ;D

Eviltoastman
I also did the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs.

I didn't know your mountain bike had a hyperdrive.

anssisal
I didn't know your mountain bike had a hyperdrive.

I have a Wookie in my pants.

Well I better call the RSPCA's cruelty line then... ;D

Eviltoastman
Anssisal is probably correct. Glass mastered at EDC, the but pressed by them, I misread that statement I quoted above in this post. I have undone my my sins from this assumption.

How is it you know who did what? Is it because the mastering SID code belongs to EDC that they must have done glass mastering?

Myriad
Is it because the mastering SID code belongs to EDC that they must have done glass mastering?

Pretty much yes.
http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/sid-code-implementation-guide.pdf page 4
"Since not all plants have both mastering and
replication facilities, there are two codes: an LBR
Code, that identifies the plant that manufactured
the master; and a Mould Code that identifies the
plant where the disc was replicated."

LBR being the Mastering SID Code

Wait, it does have mould SID Code.
Other (Mould SID code): IFPI 0130
that seems to also belong to EDC.
Now I don't know what the heck Digital Plant did...

So probably Eviltoastman was right in this case.
Digital Plant most likely just manufactured/"made" this. and the actual glass mastering and pressing was done by EDC.

anssisal
Wait, it does have mould SID Code.
Other (Mould SID code): IFPI 0130
that seems to also belong to EDC.
Now I don't know what the heck Digital Plant did...

Yes, that is what confused me, as both SID codes belong to EDC in this case.

So then:

Mastering SID code - glass mastering
Mould SID code - replication

What is the difference between replication and pressing? Pressing a single master CD that is replicated?

Also, in cases where the CD matrix doesn't give the name of any company, but SID codes can be traced back to one on the musik sammler (or any other) list of SID codes and their associated companies, can the company be added using only the SID codes as proof?

Example:
Various - Century Media 2008 Spring Sampler
musik sammler: IFPI 03** | IFPI L327 | Sony DADC US (DIDX) (EDC) | USA

Can (or should) Sony DADC be added to this release, or even a Sony DADC US entry?

Myriad
What is the difference between replication and pressing?

IMO they're the same thing. (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong)

Myriad
Example:
Various - Century Media 2008 Spring Sampler

Well that's bad example. because "CTDX" means it was pressed by Sony DADC (see the profile info.)

Also you may find this topic rather helpful in these matrix cases:
http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/338398

And let me quote Eviltoastman here:
"An SID code alone should never be used alone in determining the correct company name and should not be used as the sole identifier."

I'd be very careful with Sammler. In a space of a fortnight concentrating on two plants, we found dozens of errors. Their EMI SIDs are confused. Blackpanther and I did some work on those EMI plants last week and managed to get to the botom of it, but the fact remains that Sammler is still wrong on many of its entries.

anssisal
IMO they're the same thing. (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong)

Then what did you mean by Digital Plant manufacturing this CD and EDC pressing it? (sorry for my awful understanding of all this)

Well I meant that the band orders a record from digital plant, and they then
arranged for glass mastering and pressing to be done at EDC.

so the band only deals with Digital Plant. So digital plant makes the record happen (aka made by/manufactured by credit) but actually the mastering and pressing is done by EDC.

Myriad
Also, in cases where the CD matrix doesn't give the name of any company, but SID codes can be traced back to one on the musik sammler (or any other) list of SID codes and their associated companies

It should be noted that those lists are flawed, in some cases they do not properly take into account cases where a glass master was made at one place and the pressing/manufacturing took place at another. When doing some research I have come across those lists, and I've seen a few cases on that 'musik sammler' list of the company association being correct per the SID Mastering code but not correct per the SID Mold code listed along with it (and vice versa)...

anssisal
from the madonna SID code site:
IFPI Z9** IFPI LT57 Digital Plant OY Finland

from musik sammler:
IFPI Z9** IFPI LT57 Digital Plant Oy (Ltd.) Finnland

^info at one site was simply taken from the the other site and assumed to be correct, there is no evidence that they both came to the same conclusion independently.

(edit: typo + fixed quote)

djindio
^info at one site was simply taken from the the other site and assumed to be correct,

That's the problem with all those websites these days: One site uncritically copies from the other, without proper research that the info is correct. I have seen that with many New Order pages. For a couple of years now it's 100% confirmed that there never was an Aussie New Order - Procession / Everything's Gone Green pressing but imported UK copies (or Kiwi pressings) only. And yet, this website still has it wrong. But the guy running it is notorious for copying false information and he doesn't even own a fracture of the releases anyway. Stay away if you're looking for facts.

Yes, there's a lot of inherited information and they never state their source.

Okay, I've updated Depressed Mode - ..For Death.. as per the outcomes of this thread I think, so if anyone wants to check it quickly that'd be great :)

I wouldn't use record company for Digital Plant myself. I'd be more inclined to use a manufactured by role as they handle the whole manufacturing process for their customer. Others might disagree though.

Eviltoastman
I'd be more inclined to use a manufactured by role as they handle the whole manufacturing process for their customer.

+1

Actually yeah, I can see that being better. Thanks!