Disco-Press

Disco-Press image

More images

Profile:

Belgian pressing plant, established in 1977 as a manufacturer of vinyl records.
Originally located in Donk (Herk-de-Stad), the business premises soon became too small and in 1979 moved its entire machinery to the current location.

The company was also equipped with cassette, CD-ROM, CD-Audio and DVD replication units and its own sleeve printing and packaging department. Proprietor: André Willems.
Bankrupt as of 10-08-2011 and restarted under the name of Discomat. The info can be used to the new company.
Cassette duplication was done at the sister company Galvomat.

Vinyl pressings are identifiable by an etched "D.P." or "DP" in the run-outs. The company also appears printed as "Disco Press".

LCCN instructions CD's:
For releases with "DISCO PRESS" or "DISCO-PRESS" in the matrix, please add Pressed By Disco-Press.
Disco-Press didn't make their own glass masters, but these were outsourced for example at the French plant MPO.
CD's glass mastered at MPO can be identified by a mastering SID code IFPI L03*, please add Glass Mastered at MPO.
Some MPO glass masters may have an additional tiny timestamp in the matrix, e.g. YYYYMMDD HHMM [n*@] #, please do not use the exact date as release date but the year can be used to date or anti-date a release year. Please add the full timestamp in the matrixfield.
Mould SID codes IFPI N5** can also be found on some CDs (possibly Disco-Press, but not yet proven exactly whom belongs these codes).

Parent Label:

 Disco-Press B.V.B.A.

Info:

Disco-Press BVBA
Houwijkerstraat 2
3540 Herk-de-Stad
Belgium

Tel.: 003213553111
Fax.: 003213551493

Links:

 web.archive.org

Label

Edit Label
Data quality rating: Data Correct
1912 submissions pending

For sale on Discogs

Sell a copy

22,345 copies
Shop now

Year
Add Release

Reviews

  • m44-7's avatar
    m44-7
    Edited 3 years ago
    off centre B sides were quite common, BUT you can always correct that on your own.

    As far as clean galvanics and the noise floor they were very, very good.
    no clicks, no pops. i've never heard a disc they've pressed that would have any sonic defects. The black compound they have used was also very durable. Some of their discs have been played a LLOT and they look and sound as new.

    shame they're gone.
    • THUNDERMODE's avatar
      THUNDERMODE
      Edited 5 years ago
      So what was the reason for going bankrupt? They had some legal battles going

      Some court info: BE – PHILIPS V. DISCO-PRESS
      Posted: May 12th, 2011

      Koninklijke Philips Electronics v. Disco-Press et al, Antwerp Commercial Court, Belgium, 27 April 2011, Case No. A/07/05905, with thanks to Carl de Meyer and Carina Gommers, Hoyng Monegier, for sending in de case

      DVD replicators amount to indirect infringement. Punitive damages (more than EUR 6.5 million).

      Philips is the proprietor of a number of patents relating to CD and DVD technology. These patents are said to be the industry standard for CD and DVD technology. The first defendant manufactured his own discs by means of a replicator, which it rented from the second defendant, and a “glassmaster” which served as a mold inside the replicator to be able to manufacture the desired carriers. Philips accused the first defendant of both direct and indirect infringement. The second defendant was accused only of indirect infringement.

      The court imposed injunctions against the defendants and ordered the destruction of the infringing DVDs that were found at the defendants’ premises. Most notably, the court, upon assessing the indirect infringement of the second defendant, emphasised that the fact that the replicators could also be used for the manufacture of other products, was irrelevant, since they related to an essential element of the patented invention and were clearly suitable and intended for putting the invention into effect. The fact that the machines themselves did not contain the subject-matter of the invention(s) was equally held irrelevant.

      ==========
      The court also found the infringers to have acted in bad faith, because they were well aware of the existence of the patents and had been asked several times before to sign a licence agreement, which they had refused. In addition, documents had been found in the manufacturing room stating that the name of the first defendant should never be mentioned on the inside ring of the discs, which the court found suspicious. Because of the bad faith, the court held that the damages should not only have the usual compensatory effect, but also a punative effect.

      Lists

      View More Lists →