180 gram vinyl vs First Pressing used

I'm listening to Van Halen's first album on 180 gram vinyl right now and it's sounding better than ever. I've heard good and bad 180 gram pressings and the same goes for 120 gram pressings. I will agree that many new pressings in general seem to have a lot of defects. 

The weight of a vinyl does not refer to SQ, it is just marketing hype and actually nonsense. The mastering and manufacturing process alone matters. So a 180 gram reissue can sound good or bad, usually they have been OK, IME. But I always prefer the early pressing and try to avoid these modern heavy editions.
Of course there are exceptions, like this "Smokin´ " by Humble Pie: Analogue Productions APP 4342. So, in this case the early editions are the real life humble pies : )
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&...

They can be great and they can be awful. There are many small companies that are reliably great like Friday Music and Analog Productions. Then there are companies that are reliably awful like Rycodisc. Back in the old days BCD it broke down in genres. Classical routinely great, popular music routinely bad and Jazz label dependent. 
I would certainly rather have a good 130 gm record than a bad 180 gm record. I think record weight is more of a marketing tool than anything. 
The best of today's quality is just as good if not better than the old days. I do not think there is anything special about old pressings and most of the remasters I have are distinctly better than the originals. Frank Zappa's early discs are a great example. My original copy of  We Are Only In It For The Money is very bass shy but the remaster is perfectly balanced and much punchier. It has to do with the systems the mastering engineers were listening too. I would bet Frank's system was over boosted in the bass consequently the original master is bass shy. Same for David Bowie's early recordings The remaster of The Man that Sold the World you wouldn't believe is the same record. The original master was awful. Anything on Rycodisc you are better off going digital. I have an idea for a thread.

I’d recommend as a first choice going to Music Direct or Acoustic Sounds. They listen to everything they get, the latter is getting involved in production. A lot of times, modern bands put out vinyl just to make fans happy, but the label puts no effort into it. Often, it’s sub-par from mastering to pressing quality. There’s just not a lot you can do there, I’d recommend going digital.

The best of today’s quality is just as good if not better than the old days. I do not think there is anything special about old pressings and most of the remasters I have are distinctly better than the originals.

It’s interesting you bring up Zappa, because I remember an interview with him where he was complaining that the bass was literally flaking off of his master tapes. I think a lot can be done digitally these days to retrieve information that simply wasn’t available back in the day.


David Bowie was on Mercury in the US and RCA in Europe, both awful, terrible companies. I remember so many horrific RCA pressings, borderline comical. I think only Atco (we called them Ratco) was worse. Back when Genesis’ Lamb Lies Down was released, I took that disc back 3-4 times, and each one was not only warped, but slightly egg shaped with horrible crackling during some quiet passages. I swear the master had cigarette ashes dropped on it!


So I’d often grab the import versions if available, and usually found a huge difference to the US pressings. Or, at the very least the cover was made from nicer material. Still, some of my original vinyl from the 70’s is downright amazing. Joe Walsh on CBS is one example, it sounds like it could have been pressed yesterday. Puts the red book (original) to shame.


Totally agree that weight is secondary, the only difference I’ve personally noticed is a slightly darker background when I’ve been able to compare.


Article on this: http://vinyljunkies.co/180-gram-vinyl-records/