It strikes me that people are buying the same records over and over in search of some elusive fantasy of audio perfection. Life is about expanding, not contracting.
The CD revival is just around the corner. You watch. There was never anything wrong with CDs in the first place. I hate the way big corporates decide what we want. For example, has any car manufacturer actually asked the public whether they want them to take CD players out of their newer models? No. They’ve just decided on our behalf that we don’t want them. Just like they decided we no longer wanted vinyl back in the early nineties.
Agree 100%... Worst cases are the reissues and/or remasterings of albums that now are copyright free (specially jazz albums). There are lot of what you called "dark european labels" with new covers and awfull sound.
I collect CDs rather than vinyl nowadays. Many post 1998 CDs, particularly pop and rock, are seriously buggered by compression - but sadly vinyl isn't the answer. The truth is that it's the mastering to disc which really matters - for ALL formats. Vinyl also has the disadvantage of its common manufacturing faults - to the point that the chances of buying an LP which is defect free is about 50 / 50 at best. These issues affected vinyl 40 years ago, they still affect vinyl in 2024 - except you now pay 8 times the price! I never disposed of any of my vinyl when CDs appeared, and I'm not disposing of any of my CDs now that we have the vinyl "revival" in full flow! Somebody is getting rich and it isn't the buyer. PS - the Bechet album, I bought this for £2 in Basildon WH Smith in the late 80s - they were selling off their LP stock. I think it was a US Blue Note import. I'm pretty sure it was fake stereo too, it's a shame I don't know where it is to check.
Most people buying albums these days or discovering vinyl don't have a stereo system like some of us had back in the 80s or before. So these $200 record players won't pick up how good or bad a reissue sounds. Most also don't care. I myself have been buying records, tapes and Cds since the mid 80s and I have purchased some reissues and have had good and bad luck. The percentage of bad is only around 10 to 12%. I started rebuking albums in 2012 and one thing I do find better about reissues is the weight or thickness. Most albums pressed especially in the late 80s are paper thin . The wobble, they warp easily or Crack. They were terrible. So I'd rather have a reissue of let's say Michael Jacksons BAD than an original. My original plays fine but still skips in the same place. I had to bring that album back 3 times in 1987 because the pressing was terrible and skipped in the exact same spot on all 4 copies. I ended up just giving up and keeping the 4th copy which I still have to this day. Yet I have the bad 25 reissue and it sounds great and doesn't skip. Anything and everything you buy may or may not be perfect. There really is no need to say all are terrible, because they are not.
I’m with you on this. The majority of time, the original pressing from the country of origin usually sounds better than reissues, but there’s of course exceptions to that. The idea that one needs expensive gear to hear these differences is just silly. FWIW, I went through a good amount of copies of Disraeli Gears, and the newer Abbey Road mono version easily sounded the best to me. As far as DSOTM, I prefer the original German pressing even over the original UK. Thanks for the video. We tend to agree on things.
It's not just the mastering. The quality of the vinyl and the stampers make a difference too. I used to work in a pressing plant in the early 90's (at the point where vinyl was collapsing!). The process of making the stampers is organic - the stampers are 'grown' in a solution, which was a 24 hour process. Then the grooves would have to be checked on a special microscope for tracking accuracy, before finally being sent to the presses for production. And then there's the quality of the physical vinyl material.............don't get me started on that!
@@museonfilm8919 So to revive the art and secrets of making good sounding vinyl would be very very expensive and not cost effective these days. So they just come up with something that’s good enough and just a shadow of the original process I’m guessing.
I just recently got back to vinyl and was confused - why do these horrifically expensive records sound worse than a 50p charity CD? Must be me getting old... now I know! Thanks for saving my sanity! Oh - and yeah - vocal compression!!! - 3 months ago I didn't know what that meant - now I do - what an eff&&g disaster.
@@edwardalexander9486 Not everything sounds better on wax. People have been struggling to get the best sound out of records since the day they were introduced. That's why people didn't need a lot of convincing to switch to CD.
Agree with you 100% nearly every time i've bought a reissue on vinyl they have been incredibly poor,its that bad that unfortunately i no longer bother trying except in the extremely rare case of something i must just own,i bought the Pink Floyd Pulse box set which i think is very good,but i've lost count of how many reissues i've sent back,i now hunt out original or vintage copies at record fairs and stick to those
I agree 100% with you about the new reissues, not all but many are horrible. 75% of my records that I am selling on Discogs are all reissues from the last ten years. Many are from RSD which I will not be buying from anymore. Im selling all those Pink Floyd reissues, my originals are much better. The Jazz reissues are so much better, why can’t they do the same for the rock albums?
Completely agree with you. In fact it's not only the vinyl re-issues but these so called "remasters" as well. One in twenty actually sound better, the others are either too compressed, the high-end too harsh (like it was over EQ'ed) to bring out the "air", or the low end as you say is dull and flat and overall dynamic range is very poor. Very often all of the above, they are very poor quality. I have now given up on these re-releases and do my own, it's actually part of the fun in trying to see what can be achieved without the master isolated tracks. Why is it that most times, I can get the song sounding better, every instrument can now be heard instead of being dull and faded, better stereo imaging, and these companies with access to all the tracks (isolated) cannot? It's just a money making racket. Not all but most are just jumping on the bandwagon and fleecing the public.
I could not agree more with the fact the majority of reissues are a ripoff and quality controls even worse. Even some Audiophile pressings are poorly mastered/remastered.
Completely agree. Have bought several reissues and found them to be woefully inadequate. I had numerous Simply Vinyl Limited Edition reissues of very popular albums / bands i.e. Boston; Kate Bush, The Whole Story; Dire Straits, Love Over Gold; Genesis etc which sounded flat and lifeless compared to other pressings, CDs and my streamer. I’ve sold them. I also have a mint copy of Tears For Fears Songs From The Big Chair on Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab which doesn’t sound anywhere near as good as the original pressing. These reissues are marketed in such a way that the expectation is that they’ll sound tons better than originals but a lot of them don’t. It’s very annoying and smacks of yet another money making exercise exploiting fans of music. As per, I ask ‘where’s the artist’ in all of this and what controls are there over producing and selling sub quality products? The worst I’ve heard is a fairly recent 10CC Greatest Hits album which was truly awful compared to my streamer. The ‘Collected ‘ series is another example of rubbish vinyl reproduction but sold as audiophile, heavy, virgin vinyl. We, the music lovers, are being cheated AGAIN by a greedy and generally wealthy family
I would totally agree with you, especially about Tommy, Amy Winehouse and Dark Side of the Moon. Below is the review I wrote on Discogs for the 30th anniversary edition (2003) of "Dark Side of the Moon". (For someone who has any version before it and makes a comparison, will notice big differences in the sound of this remaster and ... not for the better. I wonder why it was remastered in an award-winning recording (Alan Parsons) and production (Pink Floyd). Everything here sounds more bass, the voices are not so real and the guitar spikes at high frequencies have become sweet, thus losing their rock feel and dynamics. From the first moment I listened to the album, I did not like something, without being able to identify it. The bad thing is that I gave the previous copy to a friend. After a few years - still with the same undefined feeling - I went to my friend's house with the record, to make a comparison of the two records. There everything was clarified! Almost nothing was the same. Perfection can not be made better, only worse. So I bought an older version and can enjoy it again. The overall quality of the edition is fantastic (except the sound), because it contains what a collector dreams of. If they did not play with consoles, this version would be from another planet). I believe that the generation of new sound engineers who grew up with overpowered CDs cannot approach the verisimilitude of vinyl and so the enjoyment is lost - for those in the know who want to replace their over-played records.
Verisimilitude - now there's a $10 word. 😎 Anyway, your review is kind of surprising, considering the 2003 30th anniversary pressing is the last analog cut of that album to be reissued, and is always held in high regard, commanding high prices. I never heard one in the flesh yet, but was thinking about splurging for a copy one of these days.
1st pressings nearly always are the best sounding of any release . The vinyl industry just churn out reissues without any care for the most part apart from a few US labels .
I think some care is needed in selecting reissues. You cannot call them all bad and some of those you have highlighted are essentially grey imports from companies who make their LPs from copying CDs and putting them in a nice jacket. I hate these with a passion. On the other hand there are reissues companies out there doing an excellent job such as Pure Pleasure, Speakers Corner, Analogue Production and others. Their reissue LPs are often better than the OGs (not always of course) and sometimes they can be expensive (not always of course) but you are getting an amazing LP. So what you are saying is only partly true and I think you have to be clearer in your messaging to differentiate the good from the frankly appalling.
I have 2 copies of the Elvis album one with the catalogue number of NL 81 382 and states that it is a new orthophonic high fidelity recording and is Belgium Pressing the second one has a catalogue number of SF 75-75B and all the tracks are electronically re possessed this is a UK pressing I prefer the UK pressing. I also got a Deagento Pressing of The Beatles Beatles For Sale PC 3062 I had no issues with it. I love the UV Print of DSOTM my turn table is a Lenco LS 300 with an Audio Technique cartridge. I have enjoyed your review thank you for sharing.
Your "HTM" DSOTM pressing is unlikely to be from the 1970's as the sleeve is barcoded, so likely mid/late 1980's? However, overall agree, such a fine sounding record in original format it never needed remastering. Funnily enough I was playing a 1979 5th UK pressing today and boy oh boy it sounded wonderful.
The Tommy album was a bit odd. Why would anyone even buy a re-pressing when there are so many first run pressings still available for very cheap prices. I got mine (First Pressing), in VG+/M- condition for something like $10. Sounds perfect!
@@obre9523 That is unusual from Simply Vinyl. I have several of their re-presses and they sound pretty good. There is always a chance at a lemon. I use the Dynamic Range Database on the Internet now to vet pressings. I only go with the ones that have the best ratings these days.
Hi, I only buy reissue LP's for the likes of acoustic sounds, blue note tone poet, music on vinyl & other labels that produce quality pressings, otherwise I buy the album on cd, most average LP's sound worse than a cd, but a quality pressing, whipps of CD a new ass😃
Yes, the run of the mill 'Reissues' usually are almost always from a digital source and just not that great, you are quite right! But, don't forget what Analog Productions is doing with the absolutely lovely 75th all analog (as usual) 2-45 pressings. I only have the Stone Temple Pilots Core and Purple albums, and unless they come up with an unexpected surprise, that will likely be the only ones I want. But, WOW! The sonics, especially of Core are bloody amazing! I had the 1st US translucent Purple pressing of Purple, this lovely 2-45 set blows it out of the stratosphere. Also, FWIW, the recent Rhino Hi Fidelity series is also quite good. The Black Sabbath S/T, especially the Cars S/T, and several others sound really dynamic and fantastic! All Analog, and all done by either Kevin Gray or Ryan K. Smith. Also, the Run Out Groove has done some outstanding work on the multi-LP sets of Type O Negative and Morphine, truly stunning! So, please don't forget the reissues/remasters that are done RIGHT! 😊
I bought that one when it came out, from MFSL, along with Meddle and Crime of the Century from Supertramp. Back then they were about three times dearer than normal pressings.. I just mentioned before on a previous comment that mastering error on TDSOM end of side one, you ever paid attention to it?
I bought a LES BAXTER LP from AMAZON, I went it back when I discoevered it was a GREY MARKET release - they have no right to sell the music - it is not "theirs" to sell - its just dropped out of copyright. It's like selling bootlegs off the back of a van. .. except outside the law's reach.
@@obre9523 Agreed. When AMAZON is selling them it's hard to avoid, those who just see an LP on there they just think it's the real thing, like if they bought it in the 60s etc. These WAXTIME types are 're selling artists and record companies work and making money for nothing essentially. Weirdly, they do spend money on heavy vinyl and quality sleeves - but it's all smoke and mirors - they have no production expenses bar a digital source which can even have come from a downloaded MP3.
I would say that the quality is low fi on the majority of newly released vinyl these days, and if it sounds right sometimes there are quality issues with the pressing manufacturing process. There were always issues with certain pressings from the seventies & eighties as well. It is still hit & miss on decent vinyl sounding recordings,I personally rate an original 1st pressing over anything reissued or remastered on vinyl.
@@obre9523 They are legal in Europe. Copyright laws are different there. They are gray market in the U.S. They do not license the titles and they cut the vinyl from commercial CDs
Forgive the unfortunate pun, but I will sound like a broken record regarding the topic of recent reissues. I gave up on Abbey Road and McCartney albums remastered from files by Miles (kiss of death) Showell. They sound dead and compressed compared to OGs. Even his mastering of Luck and Strange is dull and compressed compared to Gilmour's first solo LP on Columbia. There is no reason for a digital file, properly handled, to sound inferior to AAA. (Unless this is what the artist wanted.) The Nightfly, for example sounds excellent as does Brothers In Arms. I have bought the Steely Dan catalog on Japanese NM OG versions since I did not find the UHQR of Gaucho to give any more enjoyment than my Bob Ludwig 33.3 edition. Yes, the UHQR has more detail but the essentials are still intact on the old record. If I can't get a NM OG of what I seek I will get the SACD. The exceptions are the Atlantic 75 and Rhino High Fidelity series. Both are excellent but pricey and I wish the Atlantic were 33.3 instead of 45. For most rock records, the extra fidelity of the 45 is lost and the flow of the album is gone. I am lucky enough to have a Toshiba EMI Dark Side that is from the '70s and it is my go to version as the new digital file version, although very good, is not as alive. It helps when the tapes are fresh when the lacquers are made. So I will not be ordering any new digital source reissues for SQ reasons and my plate is almost full. Oh, and GZ Media is a deal-breaker!
I'm pretty careful whenever I buy remasters. I will always buy a CD version straight off because of course. But if I'm buying a remastered vinyl I go deeper. I particularly like the 2009 remaster of Dark Side of the Moon and Wish you were here (2009ish). But I had to return a few of them as they were just pressed badly. I've had them scratched, warped or just play badly for whatever reason. I did get the 2016 remaster of DSOT and I didn't like it - it sounded harsh versus the 2009 version. Nothng improved but the treble pushed up more and it makes it sound worse. Buying Beatles remasters I've not had problems because I've bought ones that are manufactured in Germany. The Czech plants I've always had issues with. Their quality control is just not there. I've never been remotely into checking plants before this, but I have to now. I also make extra sure that I know what the remaster is like before I splash out on vinyl too. I wait for reviews. I guess the pro tip here is never feel you have to put up with anything less than perfect when you're buying.
A couple of years ago I bought a reissue of the wall, Pink Floyd. It was to replace a worn original copy. The reissue was awful. All life seemed to have been removed, like a poor copy from a CD.. noisy as well.
Also as many don't know, the 2016 reissues are the same as those from 2011. Only the design of the packaging and discs are different (more true to the original vinyls).
Dont forget that if remastering from original analogue tape those tapes would be really quite old now and tape doesn't age well. This no doubt contributes to poor sounding new remasters/reissued albums.
I'm not sure that's quite correct. Very often, cleaning up those minor faults actually results in really unnatural and false sound - depending who does it. I collect all sorts of vintage music - literally 75% of my collection is pre 1960. It's perfectly possible to remaster music from even the 1930s to sound wonderful. For music from the 50s, 60, 70s - there's no excuse apart from ignorance and incompetence. It's more a matter of younger people doing the remastering having no idea how good vintage music CAN sound and using the age of the music as an excuse for inexperience. EMI promoted their "ART" technology in the late 90s and messed up their entire catalogue of vintage classical music: Callas, Du Pre, Schwarzkopf, Dennis Brain etc etc. Some young whizz kid let loose with that week's new digital software! Warner have since remastered everything all over again. I still treasure my original Callas CD issues from the late 80s and e90s - they're not perfect, but they sound the most natural.
Very interesting. I got DSOTM 2016 reissue as a gift, and it sounds decent. My cd sounds better, one of the early ones, including the one from the Shine On boxset. The vinyl is nice to have, as the og in good condition is way too expensive for my wallet. Thank you again for a very interesting video.
i find all the pink floyd 180 gram reissues base heavy and clicks particularly TheWall . ive sent copies back and replacements all 3 were same. Buy old if possible and you can listen to them to check quality. Great upload youve hit the nail of its head. Well done.
Tbh, all these late remasters on vinyl or just a money grab. It actually doesn't matter if you buy these on vinyl or CD. They sound exactly the same. I bet they used the CD remaster as the source for the vinyl pressings. The source for the vinyl remasters are (probably) not the original mastertapes as you might expect, but a digital file instead. And now compare the prices of the CD remaster and the vinyl remaster. It's absolutely shocking.
***NEW SUBSCRIBER *** DOL is a European company that issues music thats available on the public domain, hence all the older vinyl catalogue. According to ROUGH TRADE, they specialise in quality pressings.
@obre9523 ehhhh not my word, as stated in my initial post, its the word of ROUGH TRADE, whom, we've probably heard of. I would imagine that them being in tje same business, they would know better than us, mere minions.
DOL and Waxtime reissues should be avoided, they're poor quality reissues and it's not clear what the source material is. They make a big deal of the 180g vinyl but that makes zero difference. I only tend to buy from labels who publicise the source that the reissue is mastered from. Labels like Acoustic Sounds, Blue Note, Mobile Fidelity (until recently of course) or I will try and get an original (or second press) in good condition. A good example, I bought an original copy of MJ's Thriller for around €30 and it's in superb condition and will sound WAY better than any reissue
Grey market (unofficial) reissues should be avoided. Record stores should not be selling them. Most of the 2016 Floyd reissues sound good and I found a couple beat early pressings but DSOTM and Animals are failures. Would suggest the 2003 30th Anniv edition other than an early press.
Do they still put the pressing number or letter on re-release albums. It seems so vague the way they are numbered. How do you tell if it’s first or second pressing or more? They all seem to have an A or B on them. Or 1 or 2 Interesting info , i didn’t realize recent copies of originals are as bad as they are.
I have that Lilith issued Cream disraeli gears too and wasn't happy with it at all. The Back on Black is a little better, but I tracked down US, OG Atco's (with hand etched matrices), both the mono & stereo versions and it's no contest. The Atco's annihilate all of em. The UK Reaction's are also very good, so either/or are worth picking up, although if you have the MFSL cd, you're already set. I hear the new Abbey Road half speed of Tommy is very good, but if you already have the 1st UK, then you're set there too. I'd probably sell that Simply Vinyl, it just can't compete with a UK track. 🍻
STOP BUYING GARBAGE, only buy what SOUNDS GOOD / BETTER than digital. That said, SOME digitally sourced vinyl sounds good. There are a handful of mastering engineers that I trust with a digitally sourced pressing.
Hell I bought an AAA janis joplin album from SPEAKERS CORNER, which USUALLY is great ... but this pressing was horrible ..... my guess is that the tape used was a really old dub. So JUST cuz it says AAA doesn't GUARANTEE sonic bliss. I've been bitten several times, but on the whole, the stuff I've bought after 2014 (when I got back into vinyl) has been GREAT. RESEARCH. KNOW what you are buying !!! I kind of HATE that buying vinyl is STILL like this ...... different pressings sounding .... different. (Not enough of a great AAA pressing, but market flooded by a digital cut of the same album). At least with CDs you get consistency. Too bad they GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to RUIN the sound with their brickwall mastering. I swear if record companies SIMPLY ripped their best pressings retaining their original dynamics ..... NO ONE would be complaining about them (CDs) There's a reason why well done vinyl rips sound waaaaay better than whatever is being officially released on CD. You can investigate for yourself on youtube, as there are some very good channels here ....
Hi everyone. I recently picked up 3 Dark Side of the Moon CDs from my favorite thrift store. They were all of different versions. What caught my attention though is that one of them is dated 1973. I know that the first vinyl release was made in 1973. So I’m wondering why the CD is dated 1973 whereas there were no CDs yet during that time. This copy does not have any defect and in fact it sounds excellent. Any thoughts or explanation? I’m thinking it’s just a digital version copy of the first vinyl release but shouldn’t it be stamped with the actual date when it was made?
No, the original release date is used, even on CD's. What I find astonishing is that no-one ever makes a remark about the mastering error at the very end of side one, where the pitch of the the last fading piano chord suddenly raises by a half-note, then descends again to the normal pitch. This error is audible on the very first Japanese (Black triangle Toshiba) CD pressing and also on the MFSL LP edition. Word has it that the original master tape was accidentally erased and quietly replaced...
@@obre9523 Limited though they were, it's not like western records didn't make it to Russia. It seems like a lot of Polydor records were reissued on Lilith.
Swedish pressings always topp,the german pressing is bad,lost a bowie lp on the flor the otter day and it cracede to pices like it was bakkelitt. Nice to be nabo to sweeden and my colecttjon full of
The bootleg ov Barbarella was flat and boring. Got an original US Dynavoice original from 1968?.All the Euphonic/Euphoric sound was locked in the groves. 10GBP
very very few remasters sound better. All of the older recordings have tone.i dont know how they record today but it stripes out all the original tonal colors thst are present in the older recordings. Instruments in these rematers have horriiblr tonal color. They also have no focus. Its like they run every remaster through some type of simulated stereo thing like some recievers have. Every remester is more open sounding than the original. At least in CDs they are. Every single one. Whatever they do to it destroys the tonal color or instruments and focus of soundstage.
I believe those records have a place in collecting because they are dirt cheap! If you have a starter turntable why would you buy and original or an audiophile copy, just makes no sense. DOL and Waxtime are perfectly fine - they are not meant for nice systems
Eff that, and eff streaming especially.. You're essentially renting the music. I want hard, physical, tangible copies in my hands. You listen however you want.. CD's are okay, but vinyl is king for me. YMMV 🤷🏻
