Everybody on the pro-original side is taking only the best examples. When it comes to jazz for instance, plenty of good music was released on labels like Prestige, Atlantic and EmArcy that didn't have very good sound, but has been improved in reissues. Blue Notes, Columbias and RCAs on the other hand more often sounded just fine. Same deal for rock and pop on labels like Capitol and Imperial -- a lot of that original mastering was just bad. Some stuff was great. It all depends on the particular example and generalizations are of limited usefulness. But if you're only going to discuss the most audiophile-approved old examples, then of course you're going to come to the conclusion that remasters are usually not as good. And throwing budget-line, no-remaster reissues from the 70's into the equation just muddies the waters. The other thing, of course, that's limiting this discussion is the insistence on vinyl for the reissue. Personally I'd much rather own a high quality remastering on CD than a repressing of questionable provenance on vinyl. There's a lot of reissue vinyl out there, especially of classic rock, soul and jazz, that is simply a scam. If someone insists on buying new vinyl not made by a reputable reissue house, just because it's vinyl, they pretty well get what they deserve IMO.
- ...
- 42 posts total
- 42 posts total