Buying new vinyl?

Scvan- I have no dogma in the fight over digital v analog, but I don't think that Beatles' stereo release was well received for a variety of reasons (the more recent mono set was). I bought one record from the stereo release- Revolver- and it was flat sounding (i.e. sterile and lifeless) and uninvolving. That said, there are plenty of good records on vinyl that came from digital masters (Alison Krauss' 'Live' on MoFi is a nice record) or were remixed and used digital processing to good effect (Tull's Benefit always sounded murky to me, but the re-do a couple years ago really improved the sound- different mix, and digital processing).
The problem that I have encountered is that alot of new releases are of unknown provenance- there is no disclosure requirement on remasters as to source, and even the marketing hype about 'taken from original analog tapes' isn't necessarily a guarantee. Whether it is all analog or not should not matter if the record sounds good, but the reality is, alot of the reissues on vinyl are pretty mediocre sounding. I assume this is because they were mastered from a digital file or the source used wasn't that great to begin with- the problem is, we just don't know until we hear it.
(Not speaking to what Chad does in Kansas, but there are labels that are known for being very hit or miss as to SQ). This means that the uninformed buyer gets jammed or is disappointed- what's the big deal about vinyl, they wonder? I can't tell you how many times I've replaced a record of unknown provenance with an early pressing- often nothing fancy, with dramatic improvements in sound quality.
It is something anybody can assess on a case by case and record by record basis- you can hear and decide pretty quickly if the record sounds more 'real' or more 'reproduced.' (No 'golden ears' required). The downside is, one can spend a fair amount of money having to buy multiple pressings of the same record just to find the one that sounds more like real music, and less like a "canned" reproduction. Whether that is purely an artifact of digital processing, or bad mastering, I don't know.

Whart,

I notice thesame thing with original older vinyl vs the reissue. The original press, even in standard vinyl sounds better than the reissue 180grams.

I think many cd's have been poorly recorded and or compressed to drain all dynamics out of them. Well recorded cd's uncompressed, sound quite good though. LP's in the past weren't compressed to the point the dynamics were lost. Some of the older cd's are way better dynamically than newer re-mastered ones, though they lack some of the new clarity. Wish we could have both the new clarity and old lack of compression more often.

I agree. It all comes down the the mastering. I don't think the analog vs digital debate is honestly that important. You like vinyl, listen to vinyl, you like CDs, enjoy. But a poorly mastered recording is not going to be good.

As you stated there are some good ones now and some bad ones. I think it has always been that way. There was no "golden" age of mastering.

The buyer has always been uninformed of this, and the present is no different than the past.
The machines used to master an album (A or D) seems irrelevant to me. It is like asking what cutter head was on the cutting machine, or where is the vinyl sourced and what % is virgin. Largely irrelevant. It only matters if you like it or not.

Whart,

I notice thesame thing with original older vinyl vs the reissue. The original press, even in standard vinyl sounds better than the reissue 180grams.