Todays new vinyl LP's better than LP's 40 yrs ago?

Generally speaking, no, they are not better. When it comes to reissues of older records, often the reissuer cannot get the master or a low generation copy, or such tapes have simply gone bad over time.

Even with new issues, the gear for mastering records and stamping records are now ancient and there is not enough demand for anyone to manufacturer new production equipment.

The quality of supposedly virgin vinyl is poorer today than in the past. There is an article somewhere about a relatively new vinyl pressing operation in New York where the operators acknowledge that the vinyl is not as high quality, though they manage to improve the quality somewhat by re-grinding the vinyl they receive.

Still, because a lot of the current market for new vinyl does care about quality, a number of the producers of audiophile records do a pretty good job, such as Mobile Fidelity, Speaker's Corner, Music Matters, Analogue Productions and even Warner. Classic Records have been spotty in quality in the past, though some of the "Clarity" records they have issued have been terrific.

Most new vinyl are somehow made with many and I really mean many flaws. Most are warped. What is the use of 180g or 200g virgin vinyl when almost all of them are so badly pressed?? Some so called virgin vinyl sound like sandpaper. Also the originals are somehow better sounding 9/10 times!

Yes, there are some re-issues that do sound spectacular but they are rare like a needle in a hay stack.

All the 45 RPM Blue note, impulse and Fantasy have been almost perfect, yet 50-59 each.

I have a Classic Record pressing of David Bowie's Ziggy Stardust, the original is far better than the reissue, in all ways except for pops.

I take back 40% of new albums due to warps, scratches or dips.
The other day we opened 4 copies of Charlotte Gainsburg's new album and they all looked warped. The record store guy said to check back in a few weeks, new shipment.

it's record roulette

To begin with, my experiences and perceptions apply to classical music lps only. I agree with the salient comments of the majority above. I bought several re-issues, but never found any of them superior to the originals. Many original masters used years ago have aged to some degree. Since re-issues have come from those aging masters, something has been lost. Thus, even though many of them have been done using tube equipment, I invariably detect a comparatively artificial quality to their sound. And the ultimate coup de grace to those re-issues is even with these disadvantages, they quite frequently cost more than very fine copies(if and when you find them)of the originals. Despite these acknowledgements/impressions, I do not typically reject them. I still have found some to sound good, just not in the same class as the originals.

Audiofeil wrote: Disagree.... But take a random sample of 100 albums from the 50's, 60's, and 70's and compare them to 100 new releases and you'll find far more problems sound quality, warpage, etc. than you'll see/hear in the old stuff.

I agree with your disagreement. Your experience has been different than mine. I came across an absolutely pristine looking Savoy Brown album from 1971 the other day. The background noise was constant and quite annoying. I was routinely aggravated by the brand new DG's classical releases I bought in the 1970s.

Interestingly, one of the best pressings I've seen the past few months caught me completely off guard. It was the 1965 release of Lightnin' Hopkins on Tradition Everest (2103) - hardly a big name in record labels.

One can argue about the relative ratio between new and old of good pressings to bad but I think my central point is that LP quality has always been and still is the luck of the draw. When an LP is good, they are a wonderful way to listen to music. However, get a bad one with constant gravel, warps or whatever, and listening just isn't much fun.