Original Blue Notes vs Reissues


I am trying to understand the hype with original Blue Notes sounding better than say Music Matters, Classic Records Reissues, or Tone Poets reissues.  I have many originals and I am trying to figure out other than the collectibility of the record, the Original Blue Notes really just different sounding, certainly not better than the newer reissues mentioned above.  Unless you can get the original for about 20 bucks, I see no reason to spend thousands of dollars on originals.  Most of the time, they are not as good  anyways, noisy, and not in the best shape yet many really push those older pressings, why?  Other than collectibility, why?
tzh21y

Showing 1 response by alexberger

I have only one original Blue Note and number of 70x reissues + modern reissues.
I also have ~80 jazz and classical records from 1955 to 1964 period by other labels: Columbia, RCA, Verve, Atlantic.
IMHO, most this original records sound better than any reissue from any period in term of tone, texture of instruments, micro-dynamics, airy, alive.
90% of modern reissues are junk. For example I don’t understand any reason to do reissue using digital technologies in any stage of process.
There are some good modern reissues and very good reissues from 90x and 2000x. Some of them sound more "audiophile" then originals - more bass, cleaner and clearer high frequencies. But in 80% cases I will prefer VG++ original press to modern good reissue.
There are some rare exception like, Classical Records - Satchmo Plays King Oliver that sound for me even better than original.
Regards,
Alex.