Sam here again.Is new remastered vinyl fake vinyl?

HI,
Vinyl is vinyl, remastering is under question. From where and who.
Sometimes somebody clever at remastering switches channels too like on Cannonball Adderly's Sextet - Jazz Workdhop Revisited.  (2013)

This is not the first I've heard about recording quality. Re-pressing and reissue is supposedly done from the original plate.  Remastering is somebodys idea of how the original can be improved upon.  I've heard both and it really depends on who does the remastering and what their goals are.  I recently purchased Bob Marley and the Wailers Burnin' that was remastered and sounds lackluster compared to the original. 

Well now, surely that Thorens (supended, and beld drive) with SME 3 arm and SHURE V15 III, will have a differnt sound than a direct drive Technics tt with standard arm, of what ever description, including a different cartridge to boot.
First setup is vintage analogue lover (audiophile), the second?
Pretty utilitarian set up, in my take, without wanting to hurt anyones feeling.

Would that funky coloured vinyl sound better on that Thorens rig? Surely it would.
Would it change your finding?
Maybe - and maybe not, but from this example its hard to say.

I have some great sounding new issued vinyl, and some not exactly great, some wiith even noisy, pressing plant issues?

And yes, some reissues I let go in favour of retaining, older less quite, pressings. 
Can one generalise from that?

Some revived pressing plants seem not all that diligent as one wishes and hoped.

Riding the wave of vinly 'revival' and being more into sales, than quality control.
That is unfortunately nothing new to most vinyl music lovers. 😕
Though still wondering about your comparison, showing those differnt rigs, and how about different recording equipment that was used? 🤔
Michélle 🇿🇦 

The only reason to buy new vinyl is for the nice packaging.  That’s the main reason records survive.    
The source material that goes onto records these days is generally not the same as in the heyday of vinyl.   It’s digitally remastered like all the rest then just put to vinyl to sell rather than streamed.  

I find that remastered records usually have a much cleaner sound and the individual instruments stand out more.

Apparently the industry figured out a long time ago what consumers want is low noise and no tape hiss, no pops and clicks. The buying public doesn’t care about analog sound or anything like that.

I'm sorry  but when you have an orginal pressing of a record, that's the best.Look you can have a 1969 Led Zeppelin 2 , look how many pressing were made and how,many remastered were made .Jimmy Page swears by his new pressing and others say it sucks because it was digital remastering. It's all about the money.Plus they have critics paid off to telling you this copy is the Best.In the end it's your choice how many copies of the album you want.

guitarsam:

I grew up on vintage vinyl and I loved that sound, however I haven’t owned a turntable in 20 years

Sorry, Sam, but I’m just not buying it. Because if you really "loved that sound" then you would simply go out and buy it. From your local record store. From discogs. Or if you REALLY love that sound then from BetterRecords.com but any way you slice it, if you really do love that sound, then you would buy it. Not simulate it. Not carp about it. For sure the last thing you would do is refuse to buy a turntable over some made up nonsense about new reissues. Which we know is nonsense, and not because reissues are so great- they aren’t- but because you have no idea whether they are or not because you haven’t owned a turntable in 20 years!  

So how dumb do we have to be to believe a word you have to say about it???

Sorry sam, you're comparing the mastering, not the vinyl.  Makes a big difference. Want the original sound, get the original record, and play it on a rig similar to the one you had back when you fell in love with the sound.

sam here i believe there doing something on purpose and it has nothing to do with the remastering? i don’t care if the eq is the same for both copies. the 1st press creates the hypersonic effect the new copy does not.i checked this using a muse headband to check my brainwaves as i listened to both versions and the 1st press version made my alpha waves light up like a christmas tree and the remaster i got no response?

Hey Sam, I kind of agree to an extent.  Some LP's were so good originally having that 16 track tape sitting around for 40 years crystallizing can't be good for it.  On the other hand some of the 40 year old music was so poorly mastered by some bonehead engineer anything would be an improvement.  
-John

check my brainwaves as i listened to both versions and the 1st press version made my alpha waves light up like a christmas tree and the remaster i got no response?

Really Sam?

REALLY..

Mastering, remastering, digital vs tape, these are all variables, but there are so many more. Same release sounding different from pressing to pressing could be the result of so many things, there is not a general answer.

Remastering has its good and bad properties. Vinyl pressing is the same. Some old vinyl (Phil Manzanera K Scope sounds better on CD than the original vinyl. This was -partly due to a less than satisfactory mix IMHO and at the time the pressing unit was using thinner vinyl. It's always a matter Horses for courses with no precise measure to ensure what you are buying has the best sound. This also reflects your opinion and equipment. Its a rocky road to Nirvana(audio)

There are 2 choices

1-spend some free time bin diving, and referencing pressing deadwax.
Then be prepared to purchase either a winner or loser. If you get a loser, try again.

2- https://www.better-records.com/

Pretty simple. 

I hear you. Every original I have beats the remastered version for one reason only: digital manipulation.
Late 50s-60s analog pressings on Columbia, Verve, London, Decca, Mercury, Red RCA etc. can be absolutely magic. 

Sam here and I realize some of you think I'm crazy which is OK, I know it's hard to accept change, however you must accept the truth when the facts support it. When I put the piece of notebook paper inside the lamp were the bulb goes knowing that the natural wood frequencies from the paper will travel through the house wiring and get encoded onto the digital audio making it sound superior to both digital and vinyl everyone thinks I'm joking? However, if you bothered to try it you would realize that maybe I'm not as crazy as my ideas sound? Have any of you even heard of the hypersonic effect  https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00093/full

That’s no crazier than finding the perfect place in the room for small 1 1/2” Mpingo ebony disc, or placing a square of white paper under a table leg or amp stand leg, or sticking a 1/8” Silver Rainbow Foil on top of the COMPACT DISC logo on a CD label. Or writing,
‘x = PRESENT TIME with a narrow point RED pen on a CD label.

Not to mention ye olde Schumann Frequency generators audiophiles adore that put a 7.83 Hz signal out into the room, 7.83 Hz being suspiciously close to the Alpha Frequencies mentioned in the article.

Not to mention 432hz which i believe does change the sound however is it for the better? my goal is to (1) recreate the hypersonic effect in the digital realm (2) recreate that very distinct stereoness found only on vintage vinyl. now if i can achieve #1 and post my technic everyone else can do there own digital audio and heal the mind and body? why do you think record companies spent $$$ to discredit the original findings.

Many, many variables in making a quality sounding LP.
My reissue of Tommy sounds very good, but I will agree that the original has a better sound quality.  However, my original copy is way too noisy and has just seen it's better day.  I will settle for a littles less analogue SQ but with the absence of noise.  I can't find a clean original copy that will satisfy me (NM,M-). 
I tried the remastered version of Led Zeppelin, Houses of the Holy, and sent it back.  My original copy (I have had since it was first released) does have some surface noise, and maybe the quality of the vinyl was not the best, but certainly has more of an analogue sound.  I'll play that one.
However, the recent reissue of Dire Straits on "audiophile" quality vinyl and at 45 RPM is light-years beyond my original copy (and yes, I have had that too, since it was first released).  It was remastered to perfection using the original master tapes, by the best in the business, and was plated/pressed to perfection on superior grade vinyl.  It's one of the best sounding LPs I own.
Examples abound and I could go on.  But, you should be able to get the idea from those cited above.  Again, there are many variables in making a quality sounding LP.  Given the same album, I still prefer playing from my LP collection verses any digital source material.

I agree with millercarbon, as if you like the sound of analog or LP'S, why would you not just buy from say discogs, ebay, or a host of other sites as well as local used record stores? I've been able to find almost anything I wanted by all the above options and most of the time the record Is of decent or better quality. There are just way to many options out there for you to say that this is what is holding you back from getting a turntable. 

+1 to au_lait and mammothguy.  Too many plausible explanations for the differences than a conspiracy theory, IMHO.

If you like records, it's work, albeit the best kind of work! Every record you want IS possible to attain, at the price YOU want, if you are patient. I’ve spent half my life in the bins at record shops, the music IS there you just have to be diligent. Better yet, go to the record fairs, but beware of sharks. Reissues rarely guarantee better quality unless the original was dogshit to begin with, or you initially bought a crap Greek, Czech, Mexican, etc pressing.