Disctronics - A Consolidated Company History

The aim of this thread is to threefold;
1) Dispel any notion that the CD manufacturing company and/or manufacturing plant by the name of “Distronics” originated in the UK;
2) Document the first US Disctronics entities are subsidiaries of Disctronics Limited;
3) Document The Disctronics Limited timeline of events & activities;

by providing detailed credible information about the Australian companies Disctronics Limited and Disctronics Australia Limited (Disctronics Group), their origins and the Disctronics group expansion into the overseas market.

Much of the ing documentation has been previously presented by Skinnybutdangerous, Bluroo,1skinnylad, Maldoror, Amsreddevil and others in various threads; (http://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/forum/thread/357616#3332380, http://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/help/forums/topic/234879, http://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/help/forums/topic/357616, etc) however this is an effort to assemble & catalogue an operational timeline by combining all the available proof sourced from a newly found Royal Commission Final report, various legal proceedings and ing company listing sites, news articles and industry magazines in one thread.

The purpose is to approve a clean-up edit and link Disctronics subsidiaries back to the original parent company- Disctronics Limited & correct parent companies of d entities (ie: Disctronics Manufacturing Inc. subsidiary = Disctronics Texas Inc.) where appropriate.
These would include:
Disctronics Texas, Inc.
The reason being, none of the above named companies / plants would have existed without the global expansion ambitions of the original company - Disctronics Limited / Disctronics Australia Limited.

Yes this thread is long winded however to if you want to fully understand the entire historical activities of Disctronics Limited it is necessary to present as much collaborative documentation as possible.

Appreciate further discussion and any other relevant information

Regards

References:
*1 Tricontinental Group of Companies Royal Commission Final Report Volume 3
http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/papers/govpub/VPARL1992-94No9Vol.3p.%201-241.pdf

Page 23 para 1: “Between January 1986 and March 1989 Tricontinental provided facilities to three companies in the Quatro Group, namely Quatro Umited ('Quatro'), Disctronics Australia Limited ('Disctronics') and Pro-image Limited ('Proimage'). Quatro and Pro-image were public companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange ('ASX'). Disctronics was not listed on the ASX although in mid-1988 Disctronics Limited (formerly known as BGL International Limited)-('Disctronics Ltd) was listed on the ASX.”

Page 23 para 2:“In June 1986, Quatro held approximately 40% of the shares in Pro-image and Disctronics…”

Page 23 para 4:“Disctronics was essentially a t venture, formed in January 1986, between Quatro and Pro-image to build and operate a compact disc manufacturing plant in Australia. Pro-image was a video and broadcasting company which held the remaining 60% of the shares in Disctronics.”

Page 25 para 11: “In April 1987 Tricontinental provided a $33m facility to Disctronics to assist in the acquisition of plant and equipment. The facility was secured by a debenture mortgage over the assets and undertakings of Disctronics, guarantees from Quatro and Pro-image and a deed of subordination in respectof loans to Disctronics from Quatro and Pro-image.”

Page 26 para 18: “In June 1988 Disctronics was floated by way of a takeover of Disctronics by BGL International Limited, which then changed its name to Disctronics Ltd.”

Page 43 para 86: “Instead of achieving the $200m capital raising which had been expected, at least by Tricontinental's management, in 1987, less than $25m was raised by the float.”

Page 29 May/Jun 88 “Disctronics equipment shipped to US and UK.”

Page 42 para 82: “Substantial plant and equipment, subject to Tricontinental's debenture charge,
was transferred to Disctronics' United States and United Kingdom operation. The value of the plant and equipment transferred to the United Kingdom was approximately $4.5m.”

Page 27 para 21: “In January 1989, Disctronics defaulted on the payment of the second instalment for its US acquisition.”

Page 27 para 25: “In May 1989 Disctronics defaulted on payment of interest to Tricontinental. Tricontinental made formal demands for payment.”

Page 27 para 28: “Disctronics was unable to meet the revised schedule for payment of the US acquisition and, on 30 April 1990, ownership of Laser Video Inc reverted to the vendor. Disctronics forfeited the US$29m paid by it.”

Page 27 para 28: “In November 1990, SBV approved a proposal for Tricontinental to negotiate
with other lenders to Disctronics to assume all of its indebtedness.”

Page 29 para 29: “In February 1991 a receiver and manager was appointed by Tricontinental to
Disctronics. At that time Disctronics shares were suspended from trading on the ASX. Disctronics continues to trade in receivership.”

*2 ASIC Registration Document (obtained from Australian Securities and Investments Commission)

Previous Organisation Details from 13/05/1986 to 30/08/1988
Name: DISCTRONICS LIMITED
Name start: 13/05/1986
Status: ed
Company type: Australian Public Company
Class: Limited By Share

Directors Appointment dates:
Mr Kevin Patrick Donovan (Australian) 15/01/1986 - 26/10/2009
Peter Gerald Massey (Australian) 08/05/1986 - 02/07/1993
John Patrick Kavanagh (Australian) 15/01/1986 - 14/06/1989
William Edward Turner (Australian) 15/01/1986 - 06/07/1988
Robert Ralph Williams (Australian) 15/01/1986 - 07/06/1988

3* Disctronics Limited ASX delisting
http://datanalysis.morningstar.com.au/licensee/dat/html/Delisted_comp98.pdf

Page 149 "DISCTRONICS LIMITED-Transferred to Main Board At request of company - 03/02/93"

http://www.delisted.com.au/company/disctronics-limited
"delisted at entity's request 03/02/1993"

*4Trademark- (Logo & Name) ed on the 28/10/1987 by Australian trademark attorney firm PHILLIPS ORMONDE FITZPATRICK
http://www.ipaustralia.com.au/applicant/disctronics-ip-limited/trademarks/475536/
http://www.pof.com.au/about-us/

*5 US Expansion
LaserVideo Acquisition : Massey v. Disc Mfg., Inc. May 15, 1992.
http://law.justia.com/cases/alabama/supreme-court/1992/601-so-2d-449-1.html

“The appellants, the defendants below, who the plaintiffs say usurped the alleged corporate opportunity and who were ened, are (1) Disctronics, Ltd., an Australian holding company; (2) Disctronics Australia, Ltd., an Australian holding company; (3) Disctronics (U.S.), Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Disctronics Australia, Ltd.; (4) Disctronics, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Disctronics Australia, Ltd.; (5) Moray Investments, a Cook Island shelf corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Disctronics, Ltd.; (6) Memory Tech, Inc. ("MTI"), a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Moray; (7) Peter Massey, director or chairman of the board and/or chief executive officer of each of the aforementioned corporations; (8) Kevin Donovan, director of several of the aforementioned corporations; and (9) Douglas Adams and David Mackie, each of whom played various roles in the aforementioned corporations”
“Prior to 1987, LaserVideo was a wholly owned subsidiary of Quixote. It had two plants, one in Anaheim, California, which manufactured video discs, and one in Huntsville, Alabama, which manufactured audio discs. During this same period, the Disctronics Group was involved in the production of compact audio discs and had operations in Australia, Asia, and Europe. It was looking to expand into the United States. During 1987, it negotiated with Quixote to buy LaserVideo. The negotiations led to an agreement to sell LaserVideo to LaserVideo Acquisition Corporation ("LVAC"), which had been formed by the Disctronics Group for the express purpose of purchasing LaserVideo. The total purchase price was $55.5 million; $29 million was paid at closing, and $26.5 million was due when called anytime after January 15, 1989. Closing took place on January 15, 1988, and LaserVideo became Disctronics Manufacturing, Inc. The sale agreement named LVAC as the purchaser, and Disctronics, Ltd., and Quatro, Ltd. (the parent corporation of Disctronics, Ltd.), as the acquiring companies.”

Memory-Tech Inc. Acquisition
http://law.justia.com/cases/alabama/supreme-court/1992/601-so-2d-449-1.html

“The trial court found that, during 1986, the Disctronics Group had begun to plan a "global strategy." The court also found that the four key components of this "global strategy" were:
(1) consolidation of the Australian/New Zealand market;
(2) expansion into the European and U.S. markets through a network of sales offices and solicitation of a customer base;
(3) acquisition of existing manufacturing facilities in Europe and the U.S.; and
(4) persuasion of major record companies against `vertical integration' (i.e., divesting or de-emphasizing manufacturing operation)all hopefully leading to the establishment of Disctronics Limited as the dominant independent producer in the compact disc industry."

The trial court found that, as part of the Disctronics Group's "global strategy," Donovan had negotiated a "memorandum of understanding" with Mitsubishi in November 1986, which stated, in part, that "Mitsubishi Corporation, Memory Tech Corporation, and Disctronics Limited agree to continue the development of their global relationship for the benefit of all three partners."

“On January 18, 1990, Donovan submitted another proposal to Mitsubishi, and on January 29, Mitsubishi, by a telephone conversation, accepted the Disctronics Group's offer.”

“On February 23, 1990, Mitsubishi and Donovan executed an agreement providing for the purchase of all MTI stock by Disctronics, Ltd. The transaction was to close March 2, 1990, and no cash was due at closing. The purchase price, $13 million…”

Ref:*1 Page 27 para 22
http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/papers/govpub/VPARL1992-94No9Vol.3p.%201-241.pdf

“In early 1990 Disctronics negotiated the purchase of another US company, Memory-Tech Inc, for US$13m, through a Cook Islands subsidiary”

Disctronics Texas Inc. Address:
http://sic.usaypage.com/unclassified-category/disctronics-texas-inc-p773790.html

Subsidiary of Disctronics Manufacturing Inc.
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/9508130583/legal-briefs

Disctronics (U.S.) Incorporated
http://www.bizapedia.com/ca/DISCTRONICS-US-INCORPORATED.html

Disctronics (U.S.) Incorporated is a California Corporation filed on November 2, 1987. The company's filing status is listed as Forfeited and its File Number is C1599349. The ed Agent on file for this company is C T Corporation System and is located at 818 W Seventh St Los Angeles, CA 90017. The company's principal address is 4905 Moores Mill Rd. Huntsville, AL 35811. The company has 1 principal on record. The principal is Peter G. Massey

Disctronics (U.S.) Incorporated- Formed in Delaware
http://california.14thstory.com/disctronics-us-incorporated.html

Disctronics forfeiture of Laservideo
http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Billboard/90s/1990/BB-1990-06-09.pdf

Billboard 20Jun1992 Advert- Los Angeles Sales Office/ Europe & UK/ Australia
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=qRAEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=Disctronics+CALIFORNIA&source=bl&ots=rli2M2oBGL&sig=EC_l6Rz_OTDl8DoFH41oKuikj10&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YINEV8AqXWmgXX44HwAw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=Disctronics%20CALIFORNIA&f=false

US Trademark registration (proceeds Australian registration date)
https://inventively.com/search/trademarks/73706163
https://inventively.com/search/trademarks/73706164

*6 UK Expansion
Disctec Acquisition:
Ref:*1
http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/papers/govpub/VPARL1992-94No9Vol.3p.%201-241.pdf

Page 29: Chronology of events “2July 1987 Agreement to acquire UK subsidiary by Disctronics”
Page 25 para 13: “In July 1987 Disctronics acquired a UK compact disc manufacturing company at a total cost of more than 15m pounds sterling.”

Communication technology impact: CTI., Volume 9 1987
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=64diAAAAMAAJ&q=disctec+distronics&dq=disctec+distronics&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1X0zVf6NFsjW8gWdlYHoDg&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA

Page 64“A spokesman for Disctronics told CTI that it took over the operation of the Disctec plant on 31 July this year, with a view to expanding the capacity of the plant in the near future”

Page 107 “Disctronics total production capacity would now be 65 million CDs/year. Disctronics is a 40/60 t venture between Quatro and associated company Pro-image Studios.

Studio Sound Mar 1988
http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Studio-Sound/80s/Studio-Sound-1988-03.pdf

Page 16 “In a cash and stock deal worth US$55.5 million, US CD manufacturers, LaserVideo Inc, have been acquired by international manufacturers Disctronics Ltd, based in Melbourne, Australia. The LaserVideo plants in Huntsville, Alabama; Anaheim, California; and Southwater in the UK are expected to produce a total of 65 million units a year, making Disctronics the world's third largest producer of CDs, behind Philips Dupont Optical and Sony, by capturing some 20% of worldwide production.
Disctronics' original Australian plant construction began only 18 months before the buy -out was announced. At that time, they had already set up customer offices in LA and London, and in July 1987 acquired Disctec Ltd, providing them with a production base in the UK and European markets.”

Company info: DISCTRONICS (U.K.) LIMITED
Company type: Private Limited Company
Company number: 02058246
Company status: Dissolved
country of origin: United Kingdom
incorporation date: 1986.09.25
dissolution date: 2011.07.05
last member list: 2010.12.09
has UK establishment: No
has appointments: Yes
in liquidation: No
http://www.companieslist.co.uk/prev/02058246-disctronics-u-k-limited

Company info: DISCTRONICS EUROPE LIMITED
Company type: Private Limited Company
Company number: 02182747
Company status: Dissolved
country of origin: United Kingdom
incorporation date: 1987.10.23
dissolution date: 2007.08.28
http://www.companieslist.co.uk/prev/02182747-disctronics-europe-limited

Disctronics Manufacturing UK Ltd
http://uk.bizdirlib.com/m/node/1708648
Disctronics UK homepage
http://web.archive.org/web/20030412235912/http:/www.disctronics.co.uk/disctron/where/where_uk.htm

“Disctronics' UK plant was built in 1986 and acquired by Disctronics in 1987.” Refer back to Sound Studio article- last sentence.

Distronics UK Trademark (proceeds Australian registration date)
http://uk.trademarkdirect.co.uk/disctronics-1342809

Disctec Ltd- Billboard 7Sep1985
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=HiQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT8&dq=Disctec+Ltd,&hl=en&sa=X&ei=evBFVdy7IKPNmwWs-oHoAw&ved=0CB8Q6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=Disctec%20Ltd%2C&f=false

*7 Disctronics plant launch in Australia- (inaccurate information concerning Disctronics ASX listing date)
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=tyQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=disctronics+limited+melbourne&source=bl&ots=X40V_DFwHF&sig=SHhWnxcyYPMAvl-XJgKpPXWm4jE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xJA8VY-0Bca5mwWZ74HIAg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=disctronics%20limited%20melbourne&f=false

*8 The CD-ROM Source (participants of CD-Interact ’86) lists present and planned Mastering and replication facilities worldwide: (Note there is no reference to Disctronics plant in the UK.)
http://chiclassiccomp.org/docs/content/publications/TheCDROMSourcebook/DDRI_TheCD-ROMSourcebook1986.pdf

Australia – DISCTRONICS,

UK - DISC TECHNOLOGY LTD,
MUSITECH LTD,
NIMBUS RECORDS LIMITED I
NIMBUS RECORDS LIMITED II,
NIMBUS RECORDS LIMITED III,
PDO,
THORN,
EMI

This is a lot of data to absorb. Thanks Craig for the effort to research this topic. I have also suspected what you have uncovered after seeing snippets of info on the Internet. Good to see that much of this data comes from legal documents and not all opinions from third parties which can easily be disputed. I am off to continue reading

Aside from linking subsidiaries to the parent company, what else needs to be done?

Hi MJB,
it would be good to have decent historic profiles on each- something like what has been supplied for Disctronics USA- some commonality as well where appropriate.
I have spent a fair amount of time documenting Disctronics was the surviving entity it should have an accurate historical profile as well.

Some notes on usage of given entities needs to be changed/added to ensure that the correct companies are used for the correct releases.

Ah yes very good point- we do not want to go backwards after all this effort. Guidelines would be very helpful for s.

Thx for digging all this up craigandkim..... You've found some really good information to help tackle the Disctronics problem. Now to get some time to go through it all!

Its about time to start editing the subsidiaries - I'll draft up some word relating to each and we can get this moving again.

I have been searching for this statement for a while, ".....plans for its first CD-ROM mastering and pre-mastering facility have been announced by Disctronics, the British subsidiary of the Australian investment group Quatro Ltd. Quatro's new Melbourne plant is already one of the worlds largest manufacturers of CDs & CD-ROMs.
The announcement follows the acquisition by Disctronics of an advanced CD plant built last yeat at Southwater."

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=JX7bAAAAMAAJ&q=Disctronics+DISCTECH&dq=Disctronics+DISCTECH&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXnNjDz7fJAhVGW5QKHdMiCSEQ6AEIIjAC

I don't think this has been submitted previously?

Hey Craig you are correct this has not been highlighted on the forums before by my memory. Good bit of detective work. This s your other discoveries about the origin of Disctronics in Australia.

I believe there is more than enough credible evidence to now prove the "Disctronics" branding originated in Australia and the first UK plant was actually a subsidiary of Disctronics Limited and its parent companies Quatro and Pro-image.

Similarly Disctronics USA, Texas, A & H are subsidiaries of Disctronics Limited in one form or another.

This should now be reflected in all the profile notes of the affected entities. Please provide advice and thoughts.
Cheers

I completely agree, and it's past time this was sorted with all the info available. I wish I could be able to help more but I just haven't had the time for it, there is a lot to go through, but I will be ive of changes.

Cheers Skinny, you guys did most of the hard labour, I am just consolidating all the info for ease of reference.

And also, well done, craigandkim for persisting with all this and for your time, hard work investigating and updating everything so much further !

It appears to me that Massey & Donovan must have started ing Disctronics companies in key areas across the globe not long after forming Disctronics Ltd in 1986 (see Memory-Tech Inc. Acquisition) - specially when you look at the incorporation dates of the rest of the Disctronics companies. I am constructing a timeline which I'll post in the Disctronics Limited images.

One important aspect which I believes proves the Disctronics branding originated in Australia is the incorporation date of Disctronics Limited predates all other Disctronics company incorporation dates.

Considering the amount of ing evidence I have assembled here over the last 7 months surely there is little doubt as to the origins of Disctronics, UK.
As we all know, Disctronics UK was originally based out of Southwater, Sussex and NOT Blackburn, UK. Hence suggest Disctronics, UK be annotated with (2) and its profile edited to reflect proper usage inline with the plants acquisition and operation dates by Disctronics.
Look forward to thoughts and comments.

Could it be worth having Disctronics, Sussex UK and Disctronics, Blackburn UK ?

Also there are some pressings that just have "Disctronics" and we don't know where they were made, like this:

http://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/Young-Rich-The-Factor-Gettin-A-Grip/release/3548512

It looks like they would still need to go under just "Disctronics".

With respect to the CDs just having "Made by Disctronics", "Disctronics" or "Made in Australia/UK/England/USA by Disctronics" and no known manufacturing plant details, would it be better to just have originators record that specific statement in the notes and forget trying to record in the LCCN (?) or create a generic "Disctronics Group" with the profile detailing usage guidelines for unknown specifics?

Regarding Disctronics, Sussex UK and Disctronics, Blackburn UK what if there was a single Disctronics, UK (merge two sites?) - with the Sussex address reflecting DISCTRONICS (U.K.) LIMITED from 1987 to 2002 and the Blackburn address DISCTRONICS BLACKBURN LIMITED from 2002 to 2003?

The reason being I have not seen one CD specifically listing the Blackburn site in any way, shape or form. And the Blackburn plant was only operated by Disctronics for around 15 months- meaning there would be substantially less CDs pressed at this site as opposed to the Southwater, Sussex site.
Thoughts?

Just a quick look on the surface, it seems there are currently just over 500 entries for cds pressed at Blackburn, which are currently being entered under the Disctronics, UK profile for having "MADE IN THE UK BY DISCTRONICS" in the matrix.

http://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/label/385102-Disctronics-UK

I think they probably need to be kept separate from the "Disctronics S" pressings given that their is clear distinction between the two plants and matrices whereby we can tell they have been pressed at different locations.

I guess therein lies the problem with the actual profile names, what they stand for and where you want to go with them.

A similar scenario would be whether Disctronics A and Disctronics H should be merged together. Then there's Disctronics USA/Texas Inc, another plant in a different location but in the same country.

Then slightly different situation would be whether Disctronics Limited, Disctronics B, Distcronics Australia should be merged together?

If the answer to all those is no then I guess the same should apply to the Blackburn and Southwater pressings.

"I think they probably need to be kept separate from the "Disctronics S" pressings given that their is clear distinction between the two plants and matrices whereby we can tell they have been pressed at different locations" .

I agree, given the precedent set with past Disctronics entities- where known, keep the plants as separate entities. Unfortunately the main problem with Disctronics Blackburn - there is no confirmation of being pressed by Blackburn based upon matrix/mould or artwork info. Still have not seen any specific reference to the Blackburn site- it appears to be a hypothesis only.

How does "Made in the UK by Disctronics" translate into the Blackburn profile? At least with all the other idividual Disctronics entities there is a specific reference annotated on the release - Disctronics A, etc.
As you know Disctronics Blackburn did not materialize until 2002 - here are a few credible entries pre-dating this time apparently with "Made in UK by Disctronics" in the mould:
9 Lazy 9 - Electric Lazyland.

So my question is do we need to differentiate between Disctronics with a name change to Disctronics UK, to accurately reflect the abundance of information ing this particular entity. As I mentioned earlier show me a release that actually states "made by disctronics blackburn" anywhere.

Many Disctronics UK entries are actually Disctronics S (same with ABBA - The Hits • 2 etc, so a clean up is warranted here.

Regarding the Aussie entries it could be easy to merge due to the fact there was only one plant operated by Disctronics, but then this would buck the trend of individual plant confirmation by matrix info- or is this the exception to rule (?) based on the fact there was only ever one Disctronics plant in Australia but two different matrix statements?

craigandkim
Unfortunately the main problem with Disctronics Blackburn - there is no confirmation of being pressed by Blackburn based upon matrix/mould or artwork info. Still have not seen any specific reference to the Blackburn site- it appears to be a hypothesis only.

If the info entered into the Disctronics, UK profile, and the Universal M & L, UK profiles is correct, then it would seem fairly certain that Disctronics have bought the plant at Blackburn and then continued to press the discs there... The SID codes are all retained IFPI 04xx and IFPI L13x. Then there's the same moulding that continued to be used, albeit with a name change: MADE IN THE UK BY UNIVERSAL M & L, changed to MADE IN THE UK BY DISCTRONICS.

Entries such as the examples you've fetched from earlier years than 2002 most likely have incorrect release years added, and I would say have been repressed by Disctronics at Blackburn off an earlier issue but still showing the original copyright dates rather than a new date for when they were actually reissued again.

craigandkim
Many Disctronics UK entries are actually Disctronics S (same with Disctronics) pressings- ABBA - The Hits • 2 etc, so a clean up is warranted here.

Yes that has been going on for some time. I hope if all these profiles get revamped it should help, but not everyone realizes what the "S" in the matrix means.

I have no real firm opinion on what should be done about it all except it seems clear to me that the Blackburn pressings are able to be identified, therefor I would probably lean towards keeping them separate from the Southwater profile, but still open to merging them. It would be slightly tricky for what to credit the Blackburn pressings as since they don't actually say Blackburn on them, people will be looking to credit them as Disctronics UK unless we stated on the profile not to use it for that and direct those pressings to something else.

I think the profile branded Disctronics should not be directly relating to the UK, but what to do with it I don't know.

It would be nice if other would like to contribute ideas.

It would be great for others whom have contributed to the various profiles to in here- I know its a re-occurring theme but I think we're pretty close to finishing it. I'm just glad you have still stuck with it after all this time.

skinnybutdangerous
I think the profile branded Disctronics should not be directly relating to the UK, but what to do with it I don't know.

I really think there should be a "Disctronics UK" but not under Blackwater- there is too much documented history @ the Southwater site.

What if we have the following for the UK entries:
Disctronics S stays as is.

Thoughts?

I am against removing information from LCCN and adding it in notes.

Seems you have already made additions to label guidelines without any agreement from other s, such as on the Disctronics Australia profile.

What would be wrong with using that profile for any Australian Disctronics release that does not have Disctronics B on the matrix?

I have been sitting around waiting for others apart from skinny & bluroo to contribute for 7 months - welcome.
I know you have done your fair share with this subject previously, so I value your input.

Regarding making the additions without any agreement- I have just continued the precedents adopted for the other Disctronics entities which were implemented long before I got involved - that is the information contained in the matrix signifies the particular pressing plant ie: Disctronics B, Disctronics A, Disctronics H, etc - therefore the statement "Disctronics Australia" has only ever been located in the matrix so does it not make sense to continue this protocol?

As I have stated to others before, "Made in Australia by Disctronics" does not = Disctronics Australia, specially considering when we encounter statements like Made in Australia by Disctronics Limited" = specifically Disctronics Limited. ing Disctronics Australia Ltd is an actual entity.

The problem is at this point in time in the LCCN we are referring obvious Aussie releases to a UK/European entity that is Disctronics. Does this make any sense?

This is where the generic term/branding "Disctronics" causes so much confusion - how to accurately segregate pressings from the various countries when there is no matrix guideline- what to do with it?

Suggestions?

I would be happy to keep Disctronics Australia.

If my recollection is correct evidence has been previously presented that Disctronics only ever operated at Braeside here so maybe 'Disctronics, Braeside' could be used as the generic Australian Disctronics profile?

Yes I definitely think we need a generic entry covering Australia, but then again probably for the rest of the world as well. Taking into consideration the same problem existing across O/S releases.

What about -
Disctronics, Braeside/Melbourne (?) Profile = to be used for all Australian releases not containing specific references to either Disctronics Australia.

Disctronics Great Britain/Europe (?) Profile = to be used for all British/European releases not containing specific references to Disctronics, Tribiano, Milano, (Disctronics Blackwater & Disctronics will need updating).

I believe the US is pretty much accurate and correct.

Thoughts?

So here, is in part some of my reasoning for renaming Southwater (Disctronics) & Blackburn plants - maybe it could follow this disctronics advert:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=yQ0EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=disctronics+usa+discusa&source=bl&ots=4_XqBow2TM&sig=b-FaXw2mcVxgTty3U51TdvdO3N0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjIyb-66aDKAhWIpJQKHSCIC5cQ6AEIMDAE#v=onepage&q=disctronics%20usa%20discusa&f=false

Now an advert from 1997 (long before purchasing the blackwater site)- what is Southwater plant being represented as (?) - Disctronics UK . Just the same as the Texas plant being represented as Disctronics USA.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=4Q4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA69&dq=disctronics+uk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjW9--vh6HKAhVC6KYKHWZwAeEQ6AEIIDAB#v=onepage&q=disctronics%20uk&f=false

Thoughts & suggestions for the UK profiles?

So my intentions are known- http://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/forum/thread/702873

I think 'Disctronics, Melbourne' would probably work best for the generic Australian profile as it may be more meaningful for non Australians to recognise it. Need some more input before going ahead though so, any thoughts adrian-79?

Ill leave commenting on the UK companies up to some locals from that region.

I'm not sure collectivizing all the Australian variant Disctronics under a "made-up" name would help much of anything. It veers too far away from what's on release I suspect.

The proposal is not to put them all under one label but to create a generic location for Australian releases that only reference 'Disctronics' and not Disctronics Australia.

It would be just like distinguishing studios with the same name by adding a location on to it to differentiate it from the same named entity in another country.

maldoror
The proposal is not to put them all under one label but to create a generic location for Australian releases that only reference 'Disctronics' and not Disctronics Limited, Disctronics B or Disctronics Australia.

Yes that is the only way I see the Disctronics saga reaching an end state. There are just too many plain 'Disctronics' releases without any other manufacturing info to guide us.

craigandkim
Yes that is the only way I see the Disctronics saga reaching an end state. There are just too many plain 'Disctronics' releases without any other manufacturing info to guide us.

I am happy with the present entries, but if we are going to go down the drainpipe I think Disctronics B would be the generic Australian tag.
It would be nice to have an ANV (or in this case LNV) function added. I'm not sure if it's been dismissed as too complicated in other cases.

Unfortunately what happens when there is only "Disctronics" as a reference and no reference to either Disctronics Limited, Disctronics B or Disctronics Australia? Technically incorrect to credit John Farnham - Whispering Jack

I don't like the fact that this release is "apparently" manufactured by a UK/Europe based company purely because this is all that is available to the originator. Surely everyone here would agree this is not right?

adrian-79
I am happy with the present entries, but if we are going to go down the drainpipe I think Disctronics B would be the generic Australian tag.

I think it would be unwise to assign Disctronics B as the generic label now because if LNV does come into play in the future it would be easier to find the releases that need LNVs if they had their own separate generic profile. The current proposal is entirely fitting with current ways of distinguishing entities.

craigandkim
I don't like the fact that this release is "apparently" manufactured by a UK/Europe based company purely because this is all that is available to the originator. Surely everyone here would agree this is not right?

To be fair, the profile for Disctronics was originally an Australian entity created by an Australian release.

I do think it wise to create a generic profile for different countries though.

In light of not too much interest in discussing this I think you should file an SR to get some management , I don't see why they wouldn't separating the generic Disctronics entities into location specific variations. As I have said before it is just the way it is already done with labels.

OK, how do I do this? Cheers

go to 'Help' and scroll to the bottom, 'new request' button

SR has been submitted.

John Farnham - Whispering Jack - Limited Edition

To be honest, I can't see what is wrong with entering this release under Disctronics, Australia.

I can see the logic, however to maintain consistency across the database the same methodology would then need to be implemented across UK & USA entries, which is fine.
For Australian releases this could work, purely because there was only one pressing plant - unfortunately I doubt it would work for UK or USA releases because of the multiple plant locations. Wouldn't this be a problem?

It seems we are trying to annotate releases as accurately as possible by recording pressing plant location based on matrix information - and as you know we have a selection of releases where "Disctronics Australia" is stated in the matrix- what happens to the database consistency if you also decide to list the other releases without this matrix statement?

I'm just trying to maintain the consistency that has evolved from using the matrix stamping as verification of exactly where the disc was pressed. Whatever is decided, it needs to implemented across all Disctronics entries.
Regards

A. Glazunov*, USSR Ministry Of Culture Symphony Orchestra*, Gennadi Rozhdestvensky - Symphony No 1 Op 5 / Symphony No 7 Op 77.

maldoror
The proposal is not to put them all under one label but to create a generic location for Australian releases that only reference 'Disctronics' and not Disctronics Limited, Disctronics B or Disctronics Australia.

It would be just like distinguishing studios with the same name by adding a location on to it to differentiate it from the same named entity in another country.

This sounds good to me. It's best not to pollute the known knowns with the known unknowns.

So in line with previous discussion, how about distinguishing the generic Disctronics locations as below (with a one line usage profile instruction):

Disctronics Group, Australia
Profile = to be used for all Australian releases not containing any references to either Disctronics Limited , Disctronics B or Disctronics Australia on the artwork, the mould or the matrix.

Disctronics Group, Europe
Profile = to be used for all European releases not containing any references to either Disctronics (Europe) Ltd , Disctronics, Tribiano, Milano on the artwork, the mould or the matrix.

Disctronics Group, United Kingdom
Profile = to be used for all United Kingdom releases not containing any references to either Disctronics (UK) Ltd, Disctronics, UK, www.disctronics.com on the artwork, the mould or the matrix.

Disctronics Group, United States
Profile = to be used for all United States releases not containing any references to either Disctronics, Inc , Disctronics USA, Disctronics Texas, Inc., Disctronics A, Disctronics H on the artwork, the mould or the matrix.

Two reasons for adding "Group" in between location- separation for locations of existing Disctronics entities & Disctronics is often referred to as "Disctronics Group" by the company directors in many press releases- see http://www.universalmusic.com/universal-music-international-to-sell-blackburn-cd-manufacturing-business-to-disctronics/ comment by CEO David Mackie.

The other question- what to do with Disctronics - thoughts?

Do we apply a name change to Disctronics, UK changed to Disctronics Blackburn, UK as per the advert below?

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=yQ0EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=disctronics+usa+discusa&source=bl&ots=4_XqBow2TM&sig=b-FaXw2mcVxgTty3U51TdvdO3N0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjIyb-66aDKAhWIpJQKHSCIC5cQ6AEIMDAE#v=onepage&q=disctronics%20usa%20discusa&f=false

What is the best plan of attack for the above two entries?

How does this all this sound (pardon the pun)?

Just a little care might be needed with the way these profiles would be written. There's a handful of Australian releases (e.g. Disctronics USA in the matrix. The way you've written the profiles above, this release would be entered under "Disctronics Group, Australia".

Yes, good pick-up probably need add all the various entries under all the proposed "Group" locations? Such as:

Disctronics Group, Australia
Profile = to be used for all Australian releases not containing any references to either
1) Disctronics Limited , Disctronics B or Disctronics Australia,
2) Disctronics (Europe) Ltd , Disctronics, Tribiano, Milano ,
3) Disctronics (UK) Ltd, Disctronics, UK, www.disctronics.com, Disctronics, Inc ,
4) Disctronics USA, Disctronics Texas, Inc., Disctronics A, Disctronics H,
on the artwork, the mould or the matrix.

Too wordy??

craigandkim
Too wordy??

Well it works, at any rate!

Not fully understanding the Disctronics situation, a briefer way to put it might be something like:

Disctronics Group, Australia
Profile = to be used for all Australian releases displaying "Disctronics" [on disc or artwork] but without any other identifying information [for this company].

I dunno, I've written a gazillion guidelines in my time, and been professionally interpreting them for others for decades, but doofuses is doofuses, so any profile would confuse I guess.

Can Disctronics be made the first generic label (IE; name change to Disctronics Group, UK) or do we need to start from scratch?

Just submitted Benny Goodman - The World Is Waiting For The Sunrise/
It has the open triangle logo and the text Made in the UK by Disctronics.
It's a 1988 release with no SID codes, so crediting Disctronics, UK isn't right as that is for releases from 2002 onwards?
Do I credit Disctronics (UK) Ltd. even though the profile text stipulates "This profile should only be used when "Disctronics (UK) Ltd" is stated on the release."
Or use the catch all Disctronics?

Yes you'd be correct, too early for Disctronics would be the most appropriate entry. Hopefully before too long we'll have the generic Disctronics country labels available. Regards

Did I do the right thing here- created Disctronics, ? But I forgot about the "Group" thing- appreciated.
This is the first CD I have come across which had the statement "Made in by Disctronics".

craigandkim
Disctronics Group, Australia

Lets create it and start using it and the profile can be altered if need be.

I like timhorton69's concise description. This could be at the top of the profile then have more information below that would explain it in more detail for those that needed it.

For example:

Disctronics Group, Australia
Profile = To be used for all Australian releases displaying "Disctronics" [on disc or artwork] but without any other identifying information [for this company].

Other Australian Disctronics entities:
Disctronics Limited , Disctronics B or Disctronics Australia,

Other international Disctronics entities:
Europe: Disctronics (Europe) Ltd , Disctronics, Tribiano, Milano
UK: Disctronics (UK) Ltd, Disctronics, UK, www.disctronics.com, Disctronics, Inc ,
USA: Disctronics USA, Disctronics Texas, Inc., Disctronics A, Disctronics H,

Alright, so do we use this thread as a "statement of works"?
Do we then start moving releases that fit the profile parameters; referencing this thread as the authority to do so?
If this is the best way to proceed, I'll start off using one of my submissions- everyone happy with this?
Regards

Yes that is the way forward. We have agreement from contributors and staff so I don't see any issues with going ahead.

Another aspect to confirm- if a release has "Made in Australia" on artwork and/or CD and "Mastered By/Made By Disctronics" in matrix - use the new label for this as well? I would suggest yes?

One other aspect to consider is the removal of Disctronics B but still has the generic "Disctronics" statement.
I think it should be removed where there is sufficient verification.
Thoughts?

Disctronics Australia, updated

Various - Celebrate '88 would be one for Disctronics Group, United Kingdom even though its an Australian release- thoughts?

craigandkim
Disctronics Group, Australia

I have never seen Disctronics Group mentioned on any release. Inventing names is against the spirit of what we are trying to achieve in my opinion.

maldoror
Yes that is the way forward. We have agreement from contributors and staff so I don't see any issues with going ahead.

As above- staff commented we were on the right track- its the best we could come up with - all the releases which are obvious Aussie need to be collated as such, same goes for the United Kingdom, USA, etc as opposed to listing them under some fragmented generically incorrect label covering all countries.

adrian-79
I have never seen Disctronics Group mentioned on any release. Inventing names is against the spirit of what we are trying to achieve in my opinion.

this conversation has been going on 10 months, you have had p[plenty of time to offer another solution to the issue

maldoror
this conversation has been going on 10 months, you have had p[plenty of time to offer another solution to the issue

My solution is to leave them all as Disctronics and then have a way of filtering by country of release as they do very successfully on 45cat.

Disctronics Group, United Kingdom created.

Disctronics Group, created.
Profile will need updating when more information is found.

I have just received a PM from Disctronics entry as a catch-all for credits than can't be added elsewhere? Yet, it seems he is hoping to get rid of that entry for some reason.

stevefreeman
Maybe the best bet here would be to have the unspecified location Disctronics entry as a catch-all for credits than can't be added elsewhere? Yet, it seems he is hoping to get rid of that entry for some reason.

Yes that was the idea of the Disctronics Group labels- give back the "Disctronics" company correct country of origin as opposed to selecting the very generic Disctronics attribution which is slanted towards European releases purely because of its ill conceived past profile history..

Hopefully phasing out the label which contains, Australian, UK, USA, French, Italian releases as one common entity-how can this work when the database delineates country of origin specifics?.

If this database did not attribute country of origin specifics to releases or labels then the one "Disctronics" label to rule them all would be fine.

I had initially created a Disctronics, for "Made in by Disctronics" but this seemed to contradict the other Disctronics entries. Thoughts?
The main guideline rule for the Disctonics Group, XXXXX labels is that they cannot reference any other validated Disctronics entities. This standardizes the entries and hopefully maintains consistency.

craigandkim
I had initially created a Disctronics, for "Made in by Disctronics" but this seemed to contradict the other Disctronics entries. Thoughts?
The main guideline rule for the Disctonics Group, XXXXX labels is that they cannot reference any other validated Disctronics entities. This standardizes the entries and hopefully maintains consistency.

If thae above is the case for Disctonics Group, XXXXX entries then I will remove that entry I created. Yes, maybe a "Disctronics, " entry would be best.

OK, I think I have all the details still saved so I'll make it for one of the entries.

Okay, I have now marked the "Disctronics Group, " entry invalid.

craigandkim
The problem is at this point in time in the LCCN we are referring obvious Aussie releases to a UK/European entity that is Disctronics.

Just as an amusing aside, this entity was actually long, long, long ago first-created as referring to Australian-pressed CDs and got very quickly subsumed and hijacked into the now generally UK Disctronics thing!
I think this ultimately got vaguely conferred as ok via long ago forum topics galore (which were also confoundingly complex at the time too, like this one). But I congratulate you on your efforts, it makes lots of sense.

Thanks...pretty difficult to to simplify the Disctronics saga considering the various subsidiary companies they established.
As further justification for creating the country specific collective "Disctronics Group" labels- the many court proceedings highlight the many Disctronics entities as;
"....Quixote filed a complaint against the Disctronics Group in the Circuit Court of Madison County".

Well done Craig and others. This has been an prickly topic for quite a while but reading the company profiles it is all making sense now with that end goal of getting all the releases against the correct countries. A minor stretch of the rules makes the situation much clearer for all. I have been busy with a change of abode. So I have not been around to add much but it's in good hands by them look.

Has anyone by chance noticed this latest addition to the Disctronics "family": Disctronics Technologies

I wonder if it's actually connected with this company or not.

Yeah, I have asked for a scan- https://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/release/8079139-Mental-666-Techno-Extreme/history#latest
But to no avail..yet.

We actually have a photo from one mentioned in an old thread (The Dagoes - Supreme thanks to schteve59.
Notice the logo... very similar.

i'm a bit lost now...
when do we use Disctronics, UK as both profiles says we use them when there's "Made In UK by Disctronics" written on the release

julass
i'm a bit lost now...
when do we use Disctronics Group, United Kingdom and when Disctronics, UK as both profiles says we use them when there's "Made In UK by Disctronics" written on the release

I can see where you're coming from but- Disctronics Group, United Kingdom states "...without any reference to the following United Kingdom Disctronics entities: Disctronics, UK, Disctronics S, Disctronics (UK) Ltd., www.disctronics.com or Disctronics (Europe) Ltd.". Does this help?

sorry but it doesn't
all it does it say is when it's written on the mould we use Disctronics, UK but when the same is written somewhere else we use different profile - does this make any sense at all? why complicate things?

another thing
when there's MADE IN THE UK BY DISCTRONICS mould usually on the matrix string we got: DISCTRONICS [cat number]
should we credit Disctronics Group, United Kingdom as well then for a different role than Made By? Glass master maybe?

i just don't understand this concept of splitting profiles into more complicated scheme... why can't it just be simple:
I see just DISCTRONICS without any reference at all I use Disctronics
when there's any reference to the country or other place I use any other relevant profile

OK, there is over 4 years of threads outlining the Disctronics confusion which has been almost rectified throughout the last 12 months via this thread. The problem manifests itself in a lot of cases with the brand name not identifying the particular pressing facility & location for the release. This aspect is the underlying problem for all of the multinational labels in this database - it creates confusion when trying to delineate between them.

If a label only had 1 company name, 1 pressing plant and operated only in 1 country everything would be perfect - but this is not the case.

When labels are first initiated very rarely does the originator provide a detailed outline for the profile and how it fits into the broader spectrum of worldwide releases & this is how the whole problem starts- ie: Disctronics was initially intended as an Australian entry and over time its profile became a description for the UK/Europe subsidiary.

If we wanted a simple solution to the whole Disctronics branding then Disctronics should have been the only entry for all of the worldwide subsidiaries and pressing plants - as you probably realise this would not be acceptable.

I think you are still missing the main intention for Disctronics, UK label has been validated by the hub inscription and was assigned to the Blackwater plant.

I think what is currently in place goes a long way to sorting out this confusion and the Staff agree

Regards

sorry but it just feels like we're going back to legacy labels here...

shouldn't we initiate some kind of mass edit as from the look on pendings at Disctronics page not many s knows about new way of entering those plants... probably not many experienced s that just not checking such old links, i learned about it only because someone edited release in my collection

julass
sorry but it just feels like we're going back to legacy labels here...

definitely not, but what is happening is, just like with studios, we are adding a location designation to an identically named entity in a different location

julass
sorry but it just feels like we're going back to legacy labels here...

We are and nik does not this sort of thing and we should not employ it here. Please see the original LCCN thread and the current guidelines before rolling this out.

julass
I see just DISCTRONICS without any reference at all I use Disctronics

This is correct. nik has said this many times.
Also, profiles advising otherwise as per Nik should have that data removed (if needed staff may refer to SR52 on my ).

As no entities credit "Disctronics Group" (common and suffix are not important for this point), as such it's an invention and cannot be used, something nik has advised multiple times for good reasons discussed many times elsewhere.
As for the suffix, the guidelines advise to only use it where it is stated:

4.3.4. Company branches that need to be differentiated, and consistently state their location, can be entered that way.

Whilst it;s good to have a written history to add to the main Disctronics page, much of the discussion here is useless in determining where something was made. For one, glass mastering and often stampers were made elsewhere (in fact three companies were sometimes involved in Glass mastering, stamper manufacturing and then pressing). Due to this fact, its better to credit what is found.

The research above is impressive but lacks the nuanced explanation and naming plan which could allow manufacturing splits or articulate and definitive crediting. The naming is entirely incorrect and must be aborted and the sorting (defining) is largely arbitrary. If you are able to determine if a currently assigned plant (Discotronic B for example) handled something, you're better off crediting that rather than inventing a new entity.

Eviltoastman
We are and nik does not this sort of thing and we should not employ it here. Please see the original LCCN thread and the current guidelines before rolling this out.

I think nik can speak for himself, and he and everyone else have had 12 months to do so. Diognes_The_Fox has agreed with the proposal. Edit: Additionally this thread has been open to ideas about other ways of doing things for the 12 months and there was not much interest, and certainly no alternate ideas put out there.

Are you referring to the 'Abandoned' and ittedly out of date LCCN thread?

Eviltoastman
.....useless in determining where something was made. For one, glass mastering and often stampers were made elsewhere (in fact three companies were sometimes involved in Glass mastering, stamper manufacturing and then pressing). Due to this fact, its better to credit what is found.

That is great in theory, but when you do not have any definitive location data, you would prefer to enter the release under a generic company profile which slants toward everything being glass mastered, pressed, made or manufactured in England? IE: Disctronics -
Company/ address = Disctronics Manufacturing (UK) Ltd.
Southwater Business Park, Worthing Road,Southwater, West Sussex, RH13 7YT

Hang on doesn't it say "MADE IN AUSTRALIA"... or is this not important? Least with the "made up" groups we are aligning country of release from other ing release data to the known Disctronics locations across UK, USA, Australia & Europe.

Perhaps the option could have been to delete the entire Disctronics profile altogether then you could just have a mash of releases under a mash of a profile.

Eviltoastman
but lacks the nuanced explanation and naming plan which could allow manufacturing splits or articulate and definitive crediting.

craigandkim
Disctronics Group, Australia
Profile = to be used for all Australian releases not containing any references to either
1) Disctronics Limited , Disctronics B or Disctronics Australia,
2) Disctronics (Europe) Ltd , Disctronics, Tribiano, Milano ,
3) Disctronics (UK) Ltd, Disctronics, UK, www.disctronics.com, Disctronics, Inc ,
4) Disctronics USA, Disctronics Texas, Inc., Disctronics A, Disctronics H,
on the artwork, the mould or the matrix

I thought I tried?? Also documented the family tree- see Disctronics Limited images? What more is required?

Eviltoastman
If you are able to determine if a currently assigned plant (Discotronic B for example) handled something, you're better off crediting that rather than inventing a new entity.

I think this demonstrates you are also missing the intention of the Disctronics Groups. Refer back to Cold Chisel - Twentieth Century.

maldoror
Edit: Additionally this thread has been open to ideas about other ways of doing things for the 12 months and there was not much interest, and certainly no alternate ideas put out there.

Exactly - I have tried to recover as much information from the old threads and build on them by correlating the info, researching new information and building towards a viable solution to sort out this long overdue problem.

Eviltoastman
......rather than inventing a new entity.

Regarding the above statement lets visit Disctronics, UK? How does the "MADE IN THE UK BY DISCTRONICS" statement connect the release to the Blackburn plant?
Is Disctronics, UK not a made up entity?
Shouldn't releases containing this statement have been aligned UNDER Disctronics?
Where exactly does it say on these releases "Disctronics, UK" ?

You ed this profile creation why are you not ing what has been proposed here?

I it, I do not understand all of the endless "nuances" regarding the rules and regulations but when the current rules and regulations do not allow for the most accurate recording of data then perhaps the rules need updating to accommodate such circumstances.

Regards

Hi,
most of the research already existed here in numerous threads - I merely collated much of the info into this thread.
You'll have to follow the trail of info - you already have the original directors names, you know all the company info most are on Linkedin, etc start there.
Cheers

Some more info on Disctronics Technologies;

I'm in the process of submitting a CD promo/sampler from 1995 where Disctronics Technologies acts almost like a label.

There's a logo on the CD and in the booklet.

Around the perimeter of the CD it states "Disctronics Technologies proudly showcases new local talent in this compilation in keeping with our policy of promoting Australians".

This is repeated in the booklet with a page advert that repeats the CD text, then has a blurb called "About Disctronics Technologies":

Disctronics Technologies is an Australian owned business and part of the Shomega group of companies. Disctronics has been manufacturing CDs since 1987 and is Australia's leading manufacturer of all CD formats. With a full and comprehensive print and pack facility at Lane Cove, a high quality one stop shop service can be provided.

Our client list includes all the world's major record companies, as well as both large and small independents.

We take pride in delivering the same quality service to all clients, regardless of size.

If you have any queries regarding compact disc manufacturing please Disctronics Technologies Client Service Office:

Sydney:
4A Woodcock Place
lane Cove NSW 2066
Ph: 02 418 3044
Fax: 02 418 3175

Melbourne:
9 De Havilland Rd
Braeside Vic 3195
Ph: 03 587 2633
Fax: 03 587 2901

Maybe update the profile with some of the info during the sub? Any corporate info is scarce.

Done.
This is the release by the way, now with images: Up All Night

Nice work- I think this release proves that Disctronics Limited failed.

Also thinking the date on - Disctronics Limited was still very much active in 1992.

Could I please have opinions on the following Disctronics v Disctronics B scenario from those familiar with Disctronics B matrices?

Release: https://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/Ratcat-Tingles/release/2619404

Previous Matrices:
Matrix / Runout (Variant 1): MADE BY DISCTRONICS B ** 878165-2 ** #02
Matrix / Runout (Variant 2): MADE BY DISCTRONICS ** 878165-2 ** #01

Variant 2 has been removed and a new sub created by adrian-79 on the basis of Variant 2 not having the 'B' in the matrix.

Variant 2 is a pretty obvious case of someone at the Braeside plant having forgotten to enter the 'B' in the matrix of the first (#01) pressing. The syntax and dot-matrix font is the Braeside standard issue that most of us would be very familiar from Disc' B and PMI releases.

So, Variant 1 and 2 are only distinguished by a difference in the matrix, Common sense tells us they're the same release. The Braeside matrix 'fingerprint' tells us they're both Disctronics B. So should they really have been separated into different releases based on a likely typo in the matrix?

(Note that if it was a regular occurrence for Disctronics to drop the B in their 'MADE BY...' matrices I wouldn't be asking the question, as the lack of B in Variant 2 would be likely to have been intentional... but I've seen literally hundreds of these things & it's an obvious plant data entry error).

Wow - what a lot of info ..

I wont answer here - so please dont ask question on this thread.
(its just too complicated to chase multiple threads for a old bloke like me)

I worked at Disctronics "B" in the mid 80 to late 80's, and opened a new thread here
https://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/forum/thread/768170?page=1#7615674

We were always told at the (Australian) plant that Disctronics started in Australia and originally opened offices in the Northern Hemisphere to gain orders - before eventually purchasing other factories. Go to the other thread to ask questions please and I will try to answer what isn't already there..

Damm - I was trying to stay out of this thread , but too many questions to be answered and I can answer some of them.
.
I also do old newspaper research as a hobby , and so I have opened a new research line on Disctronic’s (Australia) - although I keep images of all articles I find and reformat.

Unfortunately they will end up my FaceBook – newspaper research page – as I cannot work out how to place large images here. But as I find out information I will give what extracts are relevant to their Australian operations here.

Facebook Page link.
https://www.facebook.com/pg/lifeinoldAustralia/photos/?tab=album&album_id=2020248878234564

It should be noted that “Tri Continental Banking” was somewhat of a dubious Bank that went down over dubious lending and various practices – so causing a Royal Commission into their whole lending’s and operation. They were the original financers of Disctronic’s Australia, but are not part of Disctronic’s Australia.

1991 - April - 18th
Source : "AGE" newspaper, located in Melbourne Australia
Quote from article :Tricon returns to haunt borrower:
-------------
"The case of Disctronics is complex. A glamor listing in 1988, the group presses around 40 million Compact Discs a year worldwide. The Australian factory employs 100 people at Braeside. while another 400 work at autonomous British and US plants".
-------------
"Over-ambitious in its infancy, however, Disctronics has a chequered history. Having been forced to seek a interest moratorium from banks in mid -1989, the company is under a second generation of management with the chairman Mt Peter Massey, and the Managing Director, Mr Kevin Donovan, who own 50 percent of its parent company Quattro Ltd."
---------
All other info is financial related

1986 - Sept - 23
Source : "AGE" newspaper, located in Melbourne Australia
Extract from article :Disctronics steals march on CD's with new plant"
-------------
Not exact quotes - see article for all info
-------------
Disctronics is described as a subsidiary of "Pro-Image" and actual production is expected to begin in March 1987.

Yep certainly was- as stated in the first reference- owned by Quatro Group, Regards

I have amassed a lot of historical and financial information to this point , its hard to summarize and process everything right now, but I will do it as time permits.

Known highlights are :
--------
Disctronic’s was clearly formed as a company in Melbourne Australia in 1986
--------
After a dispute with customs that saw the imported MEIKI machines held by Australian customs in Jan 1987, the machines were released to Disctronic’s around February 1987 so they could be installed for production, while the legal argument over sales duty continued.
--------
Production started at the then only Disctronic’s plant (Melbourne) around May 1987 and this corresponds with my employment some months later. All molding was done using the MEIKI molding machines as no others were present.
--------
First CD disc produced was “Whispering Jack” around 22 May 1987 – which was actually metal coated on two very different machines.
..
The (actual) gold discs had their own artwork and the gold reflective coating was done on a very different, older, very manual and slow machine that was not actually considered part of the normal production system. I personally worked with this machine a bit later and even have a newspaper image of the machine.
..
Actually - all actual gold coated discs (from all titles) were made from this machine by Disctronic’s “B” – until gold colored aluminum became available for the MEIKI metalizing machines around 1989. The gold colored aluminum has a slight tarnish and discoloring to it – so they are readily identified. My own “Hong Kong” release of Pink Floyds “The Wall” is a great example of this coating (not real gold).
..
The nearly concurrent - immediately next run was also “Whispering Jack”, but they were made on the standard MEIKI metalizing machines – using silver aluminum coating and carrying special artwork (again) that had a printed gold band on the edge of the silver disc (I have one of these).
--------
In July 1987, Disctronic’s moved to purchase the English , Sussex based – “Disctec” company. Control was taken over about 31 May 1987 and this gave Disctronic’s their second manufacturing plant.
--------
In October 1987, Disctronic’s moved to purchase the Huntsville, USA based “Laservideo” manufacturing plant. This purchase was fully completed around Jan 1988 giving Disctronic’s three manufacturing plants.
--------
CD-ROMS did not start production at Disctronic’s “B” until mid 1988 (I have some of them anyway)
--------
Many different financial restructurings, make explanation of the various company movements difficult, but Disctronic’s remained the ultimate name and in some way “Quattro” was always behind it – at times, hidden via different companies.
--------
Research is ongoing.

about "Disctronics Group" situation: https://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/forum/thread/768758

Research is showing me that the sudden and very rapid expansion of Disctronic’s created a range of confusion about plants - so this mess does not surprise me.

Disctronic’s original intention was to become the third biggest CD manufacturer in the world – at a time when demand was high and production plants were rare. Phillips and Sony were the biggest two at that point – and Disctronic’s were trying to take them on at their own game.

Another ex employee of Disctronic’s "B" (Aust), who stayed on a bit longer then me - tells me that they did get the transportation of molding "Stampers" between factories sorted, and so started interchanging them between plants, which only makes it harder.

You must that Disctronic’s particularly targeted plants using the same machines as the original Melbourne plant to make integration easier between plants. Manufacturing plants in the one geographical area were the easiest to transport to. The largest problem was Australia as the trip was the longest and most complicated transport - hence the most likely to damage the stamper (they were very fragile) – so transportation to Aust was only done in emergency production situations.

Previously , we only exchanged digital tapes and ultimately “grew” the Fathers, Mothers, Childs, stampers etc in Australia – but this was a long involved process.

I asked my mate if he knew of any particular global formula or plan that stampers were marked with and he was of the same opinion as me – there just wasn’t one. Australia used the “what ever you think” approach, which firms up a bit into the 90’s - and this is clearly reflected in the early discs. In the late 80’s, early 90’s - each international plant had their own pre-existing system before being purchased by Disctronic’s, and so they just carried on with their own stamper numbering system and that number was just entered into the Disctronic’s system.

The original Disctronic’s (Aust) – computer system allowed you to put anything in (or nothing for that matter) and I have plenty of proof of this.

Great information -certainly sheds some light into an otherwise unknown area.

Ponytrekker
I asked my mate if he knew of any particular global formula or plan that stampers were marked with and he was of the same opinion as me – there just wasn’t one. Australia used the “what ever you think” approach, which firms up a bit into the 90’s - and this is clearly reflected in the early discs. In the late 80’s, early 90’s - each international plant had their own pre-existing system before being purchased by Disctronic’s, and so they just carried on with their own stamper numbering system and that number was just entered into the Disctronic’s system.