they have a manufacturing rights and their pressing quality is worse of the worst. they're only designed to be in pocket or car player.
BMG CD's ARE worse
I have seen this question somewhere before so when I got Rush's "2112" on both BMG and not I compared the two.
Both CD's say "Anthem Records", "Mercury" and "Polygram" but the BMG version says "This compilation @1990 PolyGram" "mfd. for BMG Direct, 6550 East 30th St., Induanapolis, IN 46219" and the non-BMG CD just says 1976 Mercury Records.
The BMG version sounded much less dynamic. The sound was compressed and flat. To prove my ears were not imagining things I looked at the playback level meter on my CDR-500 and the non-BMG version was showing higher peaks. The BMG version was showing a virtually constant playback level on the same part of the opening track.
Note this is not just a recording at a lower playback level but the actual dynamic peaks are showing to be less on the BMG disc. BMG is cheaper, looks like you get what you pay for.
Both CD's say "Anthem Records", "Mercury" and "Polygram" but the BMG version says "This compilation @1990 PolyGram" "mfd. for BMG Direct, 6550 East 30th St., Induanapolis, IN 46219" and the non-BMG CD just says 1976 Mercury Records.
The BMG version sounded much less dynamic. The sound was compressed and flat. To prove my ears were not imagining things I looked at the playback level meter on my CDR-500 and the non-BMG version was showing higher peaks. The BMG version was showing a virtually constant playback level on the same part of the opening track.
Note this is not just a recording at a lower playback level but the actual dynamic peaks are showing to be less on the BMG disc. BMG is cheaper, looks like you get what you pay for.