I've been buying old Columbia,RCA,Decca records from the 50s and 60s because even though I may mot prefer to be listening to the soundtrack from Camelot, it sure as hell beats listening to some of the flat (digital?) crap coming out now. Wide open sound stage, startling dynamics, female voice to die for, delicacy, air etc. all miles better.
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.
- ...
- 16 posts total
The problem I have with buying used records again and again is damage that can't be seen, only heard. I find albums that look to be in great shape, then get them home, only to find out the previous owner(s) destroyed the album, most likely from playing it with a damaged stylus. This has turned me off from buying loads of used albums like I used to. If I had to guess, I'd say about 15% of the used albums I buy are either warped (hard to see until you have it on a turntable), or have needle damage that makes it unlistenable. |
Here is the problem with many reissues. In this case they mislead you into thinking the quality is better than the original because the LP is released on 180g vinyl. There is no mention of what source was used to produce this album; no remastering, but since it is 180g, it is "audiophile quality." John Cale |
- 16 posts total