Vintage vinyl or new reissues?

*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 ..

You simply cannot generalize and say that original pressings sound better than later pressings or vice-versa.

Most collectors weould prefer and original, but sometimes it is a non-issue anyway because the original is too hard too find or the reissue does not exist. "pet sounds" is an interesting one as the recording is pretty bounced into oblivion as it is. Also, that UA console had (i think) 3 and 10K shlef buttons which didn't leave a lot of room for subtle eq. I have many versions of pet sounds, but all the new mono ones are digitally sourced and the stereo ones actually lack a few tracks Wilson did direct to the mono machine during three track mixdown.

Beyond that, record companies had street dates to meet fro popular music. This meant that , for instance, RCA could get a lot of records out quickly, quicker than say, motown, so Motown pressed a lot of records out of house.

In spite of the fine quality of engineers back in the 50's and 60's and the general better understanding of vinyl as "the" medium then, many companies had the policy of boosting 5K for rock and sending it through the fairchild limiter and boosting 10K for classical and jazz and sending it through the fairchild limiter. This fact does not make bad sounding pressings, but it is kind of amusing to think of when many people think of people salving away to get every detail just right. It was a job, records were the medium and, there were lots of them.

Now, it seems like you either get someone really taking their time, or just someone trying to get out a vinyl version at as little cost and trouble as possible to fill a market need. not much in between.

Emenel

You make a very good point. The remastering of an original masterpiece can often lead to creative interpretation regarding the mastering and can change the "sonic character" of a great performance. I don't want to open up another can of worms but George Martin's remastering of the new Beatles album "Love" is an example of creative interpration taken to the limit. I am not talking about the overdubbing and fade ins and outs but the actual mastering of the actual songs which sound different from the originals (which of couse he mastered in the first place.)

This is a risk that must be weighed when making a purchasing decision. I try to stick with known commodities such as Steve Hoffman who has been responsible for a large number of recent (great) repressings or solid labels such as Pure Pleasure and Speakers Corner. Some folks may argue that any deviation from the original is blasphemy. I can't argue against that logic. I am however, grateful to at least have the choice between purchasing a repressing or waiting for a pristine original to come my way.

1. There was a thread on this question last December called 'Re-issue vinyl vs. the original pressings' which is well worth checking. My comment on that thread was

I fully agree with the consensus that most original vinyl pressings are better than the reissues and also that there are some exceptions. I have had not had a chance to check myself, but I did hear recently from a source who should know that the Classic reissues from the Everest catalog are as good as or better than the originals.

2. I would add that the above applies as a general rule only to originals pressed in the country where the recording was made and before about 1970 in the US and about 1973 in the UK and Europe. Otherwise, I think you have to compare originals and reissues on an individual basis, although some generalizations also can be made about specific labels, both original and reissue.