Re-issue, CD, SACD, Tape....LP....and what studio tapes are being used....

Good luck with that. With the exception of a handful of audiophile labels on LP, a lot of labels are not transparent about source, let alone a so-called first generation master tape. I know the tape heads here will say they have a connection and get some stuff that’s not at a large remove, but most multitrack once mixed down to stereo is already a generation removed, no? Direct to disc is fab but it’s largely banal fare (yes, there are exceptions).
I’m not doing streaming (nothing against it, just have more music than I can already handle) and often wonder- what "master" does a given streaming service use?
At least with older LPs, there is lore, anecdotal info, you can sit with a pile of copies if you are industrious and decide for yourself. In some cases, the records I’m buying were only released in limited quantity, private label, and tapes are MIA.
I did check with one of the 800lb gorilla labels and they indeed had the "masters" for a label they bought as part of a big acquisition years ago. I was shocked. The records have been reissued in some cases, but the original pressings are the most desirable, sonically and marketwise.
What’s a mother to do? :)
We just consumers unless you producing....

the original pressings are the most desirable, sonically and marketwise.

And the Hot Stampers (the best of the original pressings) are the most desirable of all.

Yes you lose something with each generation of tape. The quality of what is committed to the tape also varies widely from album to album.  How many times the tape was played and what equipment it was played on and many other factors affect the sound quality of what you eventually hear.

Most recordings since the early 80s have been digital.  Digital recording has many advantages over tape and has the potential to last far longer than tape without degradation.  Digital technology is in its infancy and digital recording technology will improve over time until almost everyone agrees that it is superior to tape, IMHO.  YMMV.

Original LP pressings from the 1950's, 60's, 70's, and 80's were almost never made using the "master" tape (I'm not speaking of the 1" or 2" multi-track master, but rather the 1/4" or 1/2' 2-track mixdown tape) as the source for mastering, but using instead a "production" tape. A production tape is a copy once or more removed from the original mixdown tape, the copying done so as not to endanger the precious 2-track master, which was immediately put into storage for safe keeping (along with the multi-track master). It is the production master that was played back when the mastering was done

When a modern reissue is done, it can be in a number of ways. How much research and digging through tape boxes the person/company wants to put into the project varies---a lot. Time is money, and major labels like to minimize the amount of money they spend to create product. In contrast, the best reissue record company's are known for going to extreme measures to find as early (close to the original 2-track mix tape, or even the multi-track master) a tape as possible.

An example: When Columbia Records reissued Miles Davis' Kind Of Blue on LP in the first decade of the 2000's (I believe it was), they used a digital copy of the 2-track mix tape as their source for mastering, creating a new "father" for the plating process from that digital tape. Compare that with what audiophile reissue company Classic Records did back in 1997:

Classic owner Mike Hobson paid for the rights to issue Kind Of Blue on LP, and was granted access to all the KOB tapes Sony (who owns Columbia records) had. He and his team---including the well-known master of mastering, Bernie Grundman---obtained them ALL. Not just the production master, not just the original 2-track mixdown tape, but the original 3-track master---THE tape that was made as Miles and his band played.

In listening to all the tapes, Michael and Bernie finally discovered why two of the songs had always been heard slightly off key and playing at the wrong speed: on the first day of the KOB sessions, the recorder was running at the wrong speed! A different machine was used on subsequent sessions, and that one was running at correct speed. All versions of Kind Of Blue ever issued---the original 1959 6-eye Columbia, the 8-track and cassette, and finally the CD---had two of the songs out of tune and playing at the wrong speed!

In his new mastering of KOB for it's Classic Records reissue in 1997, Bernie corrected the speed error. But he went much, much further: he didn't use the production master as his source, or even the original 2-track mixdown master. He used the original multi-track tape (only 3 tracks; this was 1959, after all) as the source for his mastering job. Classic Records had also received the original "father" made at the time of the original mastering of KOB, back in 1959, the "metal work" as it is called.

So Hobson and Grundman compared Michael's 1959 6-eye Columbia pressing of the album, the original 2-track mixdown, the 3-track master, and a new 2-track Bernie made off the father. All were compared in deciding how to proceed, and what to use as the source for the new reissue.

When doing a reissue using a multi-track master as the source, it is common practice to make a new 2-track production master and use it as the source for mastering. Hobson and Grundman---having heard the incredible sound quality of the 3-track master (unplayed since 1959!)---decided to use it as the source. But they didn't stop there in their efforts to make the Classic Records reissue the very best sounding one that was possible: rather than make a new production master from the 3-track master---the production master tape then fed into the mastering lathe to cut a new father---Grundman fed the output from the 3-track machine directly into the lathe, cutting the father directly from the 3-track master! That of course meant Bernie had to mix the 3-tracks to two, to make a stereo father. He and Hobson did the mix so as to be indistinguishable from that heard on the original 1959 LP.

But that's only half the story: we still don't have an LP, do we? Hobson---having in his hands the new father from Grundman---went about manufacturing the new Classic Records LP version Of Kind Of Blue. I COULD recount that part of the story for you (and it's sequel in the even better version by Analogue Productions---made in co-operation with and participation of both Michael Hobson and Bernie Grundman), but I don't want to put you to sleep. Or has that ship already sailed? ;-)

+1 bdp24!

Please publish the sequel. The suspense is killing me, ....or +1 as they say :-).

Now that I’m older, if I can afford it, I always buy the Japanese pressing of LPs and cds. 
    The Japanese don’t muck around with music. They do it correctly!

  Have been duped by a couple cds, %99 of every Japanese release I get is amazing.

Yes, I have several CD's and LP's of Astral Weeks. The Japanese CD is excellent. 

@bdp24 - fair point on the use of "safety" copies. These days, trying to get access to the old tapes is very difficult unless you are Chad, Kevin Gray or someone within the fold. 
KOB has a huge amount written about it-- I think Sony (formerly CBS) retimed it in 1992, but the Classic LP was probably the first on vinyl after that correction was made. I gather from a friend who has done the comparisons that his best sounding copy, among many others, is a WLP mono- very early. I don't have one since I'm not really set up for mono.
As to Classic, Hobson did a lot to keep the format going in the dark days-I do find the Classics to sound a little tipped up but that's the nature of modern mastering. I bought most of the Classics I have (including a copy of KOB) at normal retail prices (read: cheap) at the time they were released. His 200 gram, flat profile effort resulted in some known QC problems, and the need for such thick vinyl is, in my estimation, questionable. (Yes, I have some old copies of records that are "heavy" but that's far from important in my listening experience- I also have records that are thinner than Dynaflex that also sound great).
My interests lead me to a lot of records that were never reissued or if they were, only by questionable sources. Thus, the need to bin dive (or Internet search, which is largely the way I buy relatively rare records, except for the occasional record show or trading among friends who are collectors/dealers). 
There are so many records out there from the pre-digital era that I could live a rich musical life without the need to buy any "new" LPs. Thankfully, some of the material that is being released today is decent--Roy Brooks' "Understanding" was recently released from old tapes-- not crazy money (though limited quantities). I've been captivated by Alice Coltrane's Ptah, which as far as I know, has not seen a reissue on vinyl since 1974. I don't know what the status of the tapes is since she is listed among those artists whose material was lost in the Uni-fire. 
I guess my main point is not to get totally locked into the audiophile approved stuff from the usual suspects only because it is siloed to what sells-- and there is a ton of music out there to be explored beyond the standard warhorses. (Yes, KOB is important, but there's a lot of very cool jazz from the early '70s that is well worth exploring, with killer players). My biggest gripe is the inflation in pricing as well as grading. 

but if you follow Tom Port, often his Hot Stampers are not originals, eg Kind of Blue, he prefers a red label re-issue over a Six-eyes

millercarbon10,173 posts07-13-2021 12:11pm

the original pressings are the most desirable, sonically and marketwise.

And the Hot Stampers (the best of the original pressings) are the most desirable of all.