just an observation for comment


I was giving my 20.00 one year old black crows war paint album a spin , it sounds good but a little muddy, then my 35.00 new copy of the rolling stones exile on main street, better. then my thirty year old 2.99 zz top dequello album, sound quality way better on every level. so much for new tech. im wondering if i should even bother with these 30.00 reissues, and just buy clean used.
jrw40
The LP collector rule of thumb is to seek the original LP from the first stampers from the country of the recording's origin. Its rare that any reissue will sound better.

This is because there is a feedback loop between the record label and the artist. That is what test pressings are all about- audition. This feedback cycle is broken when LPs are issued in other countries and of course it rarely exists when LPs are reissued (Roger Waters is allegedly working with Acoustic Sounds on an Amused to Death reissue, so in rare cases that feedback look can still be there in the better reissues).

The original LP is not always easy to find! That is when you look to the higher quality reissues, IMO. It makes a difference how important it is to you have that recording sound as good as it can.
It depends, for instance I bought a few of the Hollies and Youngbloods mono vinyls on the Sundazed label and they are AMAZING for sonic quality. My guess is these masters were not run over as often as their stereo counterparts.
I collect first pressings in several genres, and in general I prefer them to audiophile reissues, but there are exceptions. An example would be the Cisco reissue of Steely Dan Aja, which cannot be beat. Another example would be the Music Matters Blue Note reissues, which invariably blow away clean first pressings (I know because I have both).
The LP collector rule of thumb is to seek the original LP from the first stampers from the country of the recording's origin. Its rare that any reissue will sound better.

Totally agree with those reissue findings. But in the 70s and 80s very often there were British bands who's LP was pressed and released in both the UK and US. I would always look to see where the album was recorded. I think in this case the UK pressing sounded better due to the smaller production run and higher quality control. Case in point; Kate Bush, pressed in UK, US and Canada and then released.
My 2 cents:

Purchased King Crimson album at T.H.E. show last Jan.

It sounds like someone sneezed on it and let it dry.

Just the worst record ever.

I can't remember the table where purchased (NOT Music Direct or Acoustic Sounds).

If I can find the receipt, will try to get satisfaction this Jan.

Beware of strangers with candy...