The archives are full of reissue vs original press dialog.
You're ears aren't lying to you.
You're ears aren't lying to you.
New vs vintage/original vinyl
Hello all...
I hope I am in the right area subject-wise...
I wanted to share a basic observation about vinyl and get some feedback.
In the late 90’s, like a dope, I gave away my vinyl collection.
A couple years back I was tired of the sterile, empty (albeit clean and clear) sound of CDs...so I went back to vinyl. I bought what i used to have...a Dual 1219 and proceeded to rebuild my vinyl collection with what i used to have.
I thought today’s new, fresh. intelligent, informed technology would serve me...that is, I thought the "new" vinyl with the heavy materials would sound better and do service to the older analog format. I was very disappointed. The "new" heavy 180 gram versions sound awful. Sounding like what they are...processed, muffled, softer...limp...sounding "rounded off". No punch. I’ll admit...they are clear and clean...but sounding sterile...ironically, like the CD’s. Am I nuts?
Sadly, I then realized what I originally had with my old collection. Original first and second pressings on the original type of vinyl. That is why...(duh) today...there is such an industry for the original vinyl I bought when I was a kid...right when the vinyl was released and somewhat after. iIam even thinking that some of the origianl pressings i has were mixed through analog equipment...whereas today’s "new" vinyl is "processed" and...the marketing tool word "remastered"...all done through computers digitally.
There are so many of us Boomers out there that gave away or sold our vinyl...thinking we were making way for the future. A life’s regret.
The biggest irony of all...I went into the CD world kicking and screaming...I didn’t buy a CD player and start buying the little silver discs until years into the 90’s. I hated the sound then...and I hate it now. But, cost prohibits the all analog tube system I want...
Ok, I am done...
Thanks for reading...
Vinylspin...
I hope I am in the right area subject-wise...
I wanted to share a basic observation about vinyl and get some feedback.
In the late 90’s, like a dope, I gave away my vinyl collection.
A couple years back I was tired of the sterile, empty (albeit clean and clear) sound of CDs...so I went back to vinyl. I bought what i used to have...a Dual 1219 and proceeded to rebuild my vinyl collection with what i used to have.
I thought today’s new, fresh. intelligent, informed technology would serve me...that is, I thought the "new" vinyl with the heavy materials would sound better and do service to the older analog format. I was very disappointed. The "new" heavy 180 gram versions sound awful. Sounding like what they are...processed, muffled, softer...limp...sounding "rounded off". No punch. I’ll admit...they are clear and clean...but sounding sterile...ironically, like the CD’s. Am I nuts?
Sadly, I then realized what I originally had with my old collection. Original first and second pressings on the original type of vinyl. That is why...(duh) today...there is such an industry for the original vinyl I bought when I was a kid...right when the vinyl was released and somewhat after. iIam even thinking that some of the origianl pressings i has were mixed through analog equipment...whereas today’s "new" vinyl is "processed" and...the marketing tool word "remastered"...all done through computers digitally.
There are so many of us Boomers out there that gave away or sold our vinyl...thinking we were making way for the future. A life’s regret.
The biggest irony of all...I went into the CD world kicking and screaming...I didn’t buy a CD player and start buying the little silver discs until years into the 90’s. I hated the sound then...and I hate it now. But, cost prohibits the all analog tube system I want...
Ok, I am done...
Thanks for reading...
Vinylspin...
11 responses Add your response
I went through a very similar experience, except there was a selection of ones I kept. But I did at least realize my CD mistake early enough into the 90's to be able to scavenge up and replace pretty much everything, and even add a lot at little cost. In terms of sound quality its true the originals are virtually always superior to reissues. They are not however all created equal. Quality from copy to copy was never the same back then either. Its just it was a lot harder to tell back then. Now with a good table and phono stage its pretty easy to compare copies and hear one is better than another. Strange but true. This may be why some people think reissues are pretty good. A good reissue compared to a bad copy of an original might indeed sound better. But the really good sounding originals? I have yet to find one doesn't trounce a reissue. |
Thank you all for the audiophile insight and hobbist's sympathy. Interesting details about the idiosyncratic nature of the "old" vinyl industry; I had no idea how wobbly and unstable the quality could be. Now, I do not feel quite as bad and remorseful about my stupid decision all those years ago....while breathing a tolerant life into the "new" reissues. Again...much appreciated. Sincerely, vinylspin |
I have heard others say what you are saying, but in my experience I find the high end reissues beat the originals most of the time. I'm referring to companies like Mofi and Analogue Productions as examples of companies who do it right. As far as other generic reissues I agree that many of them are not well done. It's really hit or miss on those, so in recent years I have generally avoided them. I've purchased quite a few original pressings from the 70's and 80's especially that I find sound thin and lifeless. The Dire Straits records are good examples of this. It's probably because they were so over pressed that the stampers wore out long before they stopped pressing copies. You might find a hot stamper but most of the copies are not very good. By comparison, the Mofi reissues of the Dire Straits releases are fantastic. My point is that there is no simple answer to this. I look carefully to find original pressing of the recordings I love the most, and sometimes they are better than even the best reissues, but not often. That's just my experience. I know our ears are not all the same. |
Thanks to all who decided to wrangle their way through a tricky, winding path of opinions and many multi-faceted factors. Yeah...there is not easy way to navigate through the different ways to "replace" a stupidly given-away album collection. I see some great points here. The many vinyl stores know of all of the factors that make up a good copy without even placing it on a turntable. The etchings on the inner groove, the label...etc, etc. I guess just like everything else in this hobby...to use a worn-out adage..."knowledge is power". And...the good news is that the good stuff has been separated from the rest. It is just up to me to see if I want to search it out and pay the well-deserved price. Thank you all for the detailed and kind insight. It isn't all black and white. vinylspin |
The many vinyl stores know of all of the factors that make up a good copy without even placing it on a turntable. The etchings on the inner groove, the label...etc, etc. Its nowhere near that simple. I have for example two identical copies of Rumours, Taproot Manuscript, Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy, and GYBR. For each of these I have one vintage original and one Better Records Hot Stamper. In terms of everything that can be seen with the naked eye they are absolutely identical in every detail, right down to the markings in the dead wax. The originals were bought by me back in the day. The other is a White Hot Stamper bought from Better Records last year. There is no contest, the White Hot Stamper is like putting on the original master tape. Not even the MoFi GYBR can touch its Hot Stamper. I've compared others like this with the same result. The record stores don't have a clue, any more than most audiophiles do. Anyone who thinks they know the sound quality of a record just by looking at it is telling you they don't know squat about records. There's two and only two ways of finding an exceptionally good sounding copy- listen (to a whole bunch) and pick the best, or buy from Better Records. |
Thank you for the detailed entry. I stand corrected. I was running on a pure, assumptive theory that clues lined up to be sought and seen for the affiliated. I guess its like many parts of this hobby...it is all basically easy...but not that simple; listening is the key. Yet, bad sound is bad sound and there is no usable argument or opinion about that. The "expert' requires 10,000 hours of experience...and i am nowhere near that exalted number :) Anecdote: a friend of mine...who eagerly and happily pooh pooh'd vinyl...turning his nose up at it all thought I was wasting my money and time with an old beat-up and worn-out technology. He had cd's since day one...loved them. In response I offered up to concede that there are give and take / good and bad to both technologies; each having their own special place. But he would not have it... So, I wanted to offer him a good look/listen into a well presented piece of vinyl. I set up a time for a "spin"...picked up a "new" heavy vinyl copy of "Abbey Road". I thought I could...if not win him over...at least show him a way to relent a bit on his opinion. Well, as fate would have it...the brand-new and sealed copy I had found was chock full of skips. There he sat...not saying a word...while I winced and squirmed...but I knew he was feeling vindicated...experiencing a friendly version of "Schadenfreude" and his waving-off of my vinyl hobby was upheld. I took it off of the turntable...and looked at the disc in the light...3 fingerprints staring back at me. My point: yeah...basically...we don't know what is actually out there. I took it back...got another one...it was skip-free. Thanks again for the knowledge realignment and tutorial above. What a hobby. vinylspin |
The digital vs. analogue argument is a pointless one. People who have already made up their minds and remain close-minded to honest evaluation are a waste of good energy. I believe both formats can produce excellent results, given the right combination of gear and setup. I've found the digital realm is much easier to navigate in finding excellent sound quality. A good CD player/transport paired with a very good DAC in a revealing system can produce magic in a simple plug and play manner. By comparison, to get excellent results in analogue you need a turntable that is typically 2-3 times more expensive than a good CD player once you include tonearm, cartridge and phono stage. Don't forget that setting it up properly can takes hours of trial and error until you find the magic. My analog front end cost me around $30K, and my digital front end was only around $10K. Both produce amazing sound quality. I'm dedicated enough to be very happy spending that kind of money on analogue and digital both, because of my love of music, combined with a desire to find the absolute sound. There is no point in arguing about what's best. It's up to you to find musical enjoyment, not anyone else. It's your journey. Take your time and enjoy the ride! |
"I set up a time for a "spin"...picked up a "new" heavy vinyl copy of "Abbey Road". I thought I could...if not win him over...at least show him a way to relent a bit on his opinion. Well, as fate would have it...the brand-new and sealed copy I had found was chock full of skips " Not all reissues are the same. If your record stores are open, check the bins for this 1976 copy. It's quite good, and cheap. https://www.discogs.com/The-Beatles-Abbey-Road/release/4699614 If you find one, compare it to your "new" RI. Report back with your impressions. Keep in mind the 1976 pressing SQ varies also. |
