Vintage vinyl or new reissues?


Can someone comment on this subject. Preferably someone who has compared the old with new reissues. For example would a new sealed bob dylan highway 61 revisted, released by columbia always sound better than good reissues? How does one approach this question?
In the context that both the records are clean, mold, warp and scratch free and in like new condition. This thread is not about price but about which, if executed properly, will deliver the best SONIC results. Thanks.
vertigo
I agree with Vinylrowe here. It's a really mixed bag. I don't like paying more for a reissue than an original, unless the reissue is outstanding. Some original pressings can be vastly overrated by collectors who insist that only originals will do (perhaps because they have many valuable records). In my collection I have cheap reissues, expensive reissues, standard later era pressings and stuff everyone talks about like mono parlophone beatles and w. 67 blue notes. Evereything sounds different, and often often not "better" just "different". Reissues(which used to be just called "records") are clean and easily available. Lables like fania or strata east are good bets as the proignal pressings were pretty cheaply done anyway. There are some real bargain 8.99 repressings.

Do some listening and I'm sure you'll find your way.
the only time i buy reissues is when the original is impossible to find or insanely expensive. i remember searching for an original mono pressing of Pet Sounds for almost 2 years before i found one. in that time i had purchased a reissue just so i could enjoy the music while on the hunt for the more "collectable" version.
*This thread is not about price but about which, if executed properly, will deliver the best SONIC results.*

Welcome back Verigo. Sure hope you have received an answer to your question. You have quoted my statement regarding sound quality as opposed to performance quality and that sound quality is *sometimes our primary concern*. My comment should not be taken out of context since it may be misconstrued that I am only concerned with sound quality. My comment reflect the general consensus that most of us prefer the best sounding pressing of a particular artists performance and that repressings can if chosen wisely, give us that choice. Of course I would choose to listen to Bob Dylan on a lesser system rather than Britney Spears on a higher end stereo system. In fact if given the choice I would see Bob Dylan live (which I did last week).

My point is that lets compare Bob to Bob. Not Britney to Bob. Or transistor radios to turntables. Music lover first, audiophile equipment hound second.

The quote above is from your original post that started this thread.
my last comment may have been too focused on availability, so let me clarify why i always choose the original pressing.

when a band goes into the studio with a producer and an engineer they all work together to create the final recording that we listen to. they give it a specific sound, a specific mastering, and it's all very intentional. i find a lot of reissues are also re-mastered, and that it takes away from what the artists intended in the first place.

now, there are a few exceptions where the original artist or producer does the re-master and it's just as good or better, but i don't think this applies to most reissues today.

i'd rather listen to the music as it was intended to be heard, rather than a version that might sound clearer, or crisper, but in the end doesn't live up to the artistic vision of the original producer.

just IMHO ..