Classic Records vs. Analogue Productions

Without looking at samples of each, it's not possible to say for sure. But there is no reason they'd need to be different. My guess is that they are the same. Analogue Productions bought all of the assets of Classic Records and so has the stampers and other metal work. They can certainly make new stampers from the mothers, but each iteration entails a slightly less fresh mold from which the stampers are made.

Not to diss BG, Hobson, or Chad, but I have found that in virtually every
case where I have an original early pressing and the Classic, the Classic
remasters sound brighter. More 'detail,' and more 'audiophile' but less of a
piece. I appreciate that the OP doesn't want to search out or pay the tariff
for the originals, but if we are talking 'definitive' versions, I wonder what
others' experience is?

Whart, if you're referring to RCA Shaded Dog originals versus the 45rpm reissues from Classic Records and Analogue Production, my experience is that there is no comparison - the 45rpm reissues are just so much better.

I've listened to a few of the newly released 33rpm reissues from Analogue Productions, and they are also significantly better than the originals and more comparable to the 45s.

When I think of what the master tape must sound like, I think I'm getting much closer to that sound with these than with any of the originals Shaded Dogs.

If you're comparing to the Classic Records 33rpm reissues from a decade ago, then it's very much a mixed bag.
.

Rushton: thanks for responding- I wasn't limiting myself to the RCAs, in
fact, I don't know that I have originals and Classics of the same record- I
have the Royal Ballet 45 set on Classic, but don't have the original to
compare against. In other cases, I have the old shaded or white dog, but
not the Classic. My comment may be limited to the pop releases that were
done on Classic. For example, Neil Young- Greatest Hits- was done by
Chris Bellman at BG and has some cuts from Harvest, among others. If you
compare it to the old Lee Hulko mastered version, it sounds bright, almost
strident by comparison. Interestingly, the Bellman re-master of Harvest from
a few years ago is closer to the original, just a tad 'clearer,' a little less
organic.
Other records where the Classic is very bright sounding, to my ears,
compared to better original cuts: Aqualung, an admittedly horrible sounding
recording; the Classic 45 on Clarity, one sided is good, until you compare it
to an old WLP. Same on the Zep Classic 45s I have, of I and IV. Brighter,
more detail, but not as balanced sounding. I know all of these are not
'audiophile' records to begin with. But, at least in the case of pop/rock that I
have on Classic, including Classic 45, they sound a little fiddled with. As I
said, I'm not dissing BG, or the re-do labels, but wonder if it is an artifact of
mastering on more modern equipment, or simply a sonic choice by the
mastering engineer.

Classsic Records were a big ripoff none sound as good as the originals.How many times can you reissue the same records i have most originals i still like them the best.