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...
vinylspin

Showing 2 responses by millercarbon

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.
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.