As an audio engineer who has worked in studios for many years with some really well known acts, and came up in that small window of engineers trained in both analog and digital production (yes I can set the bias on your Studer tape machine, as well as calibrate your Pro Tools I/O), I absolutely love that you are discussing production methods and how we change the sound in mixing stages, mastering stages, how the system is set up, etc. Man I would love to sit down and have a drink with you someday and just pick each other's brain. Great videos man. Keep it up.
I had a 10,000 album collection, started in 1969. I’m 64 now and regret selling it off through the years. I had all originals first pressings, imports etc Unfortunately, I got caught up in the cd hype, need I say more. To conclude I’m now rebuilding my collection, well at least some of the gems. It’s not a small task. Of course I’m more selective and would be happy with a third of what I had. A new genre has definitely piqued my interest, one that I purposely avoided in my teens, that was jazz. I guess we all eventually grow up and appreciate jazz.
The problem is finding an original in as good a condition as a reissue is going to cost you an arm and a leg. I'm happy for a reissue to get me 90% there, I'm a value seeker
It's interesting how things have flipped. The older original pressings were mostly played on cheap common turntables and equipment but they have the best sound. Now we have so much better equipment and turntables but the current pressings have so many issues and problems as well as inferior sound.
Such an excellent and thought provoking video Michael. I specifically appreciated the fact that you discussed your HiFi system. It should go without saying (but is lost on many) that the quality and more accurately the resolution of a system is a major factor when making determinations and comparisons of different vinyl pressings. With an Uber system like yours, that is ultra-transparent, the most subtle differences in versions will be detected by the listener. Whereas in a more modest setup, there may be very little to any discernable difference at all. Which really leads me to something I have being thinking about your comparison videos, it really should be understood that unless the differences are night and day, most regular listeners are safe with the modern remasters. That's not to say your videos aren't of value, we need someone to tell us what is really on those records, and I trust your opinion. Thanks.
Brilliant topic Michael. You really have given us so much to consider with your personal insight. Some of the factors you’ve suggested, I hadn’t considered before so I have certainly learned something this evening. Great work.
Early pressings do sound better but they usually have been played more often than newer pressing. I bought some used original pressings and some are worn out while others have dirt and probably beer or wine stuck deep down in the grooves . I also read somewhere that the microphone choice can make a difference in audio quality. Some claim that Neumann microphones are more sensitive and make for a superior recording.
I think you nailed it. Coherence, and not fussing about with mastering too much, are what originals are typically about it seems. That and fresh tape. Both of these things make great sense. Great video!
While I agree with some of your points, I'm pretty sure that in the vast majority of cases, the idea that the band remained intimately involved in the post production process is a myth. Some artists would be involved in the mixing process, but far less in the past than perhaps today. It would be extremely rare for any artist to be present at a mastering session and any time past or present. Some artists would get sent test pressings to approve or reject, but even that is pretty rare. One thing to remember is that when most of this music was being recorded 50 years ago, nobody involved really thought that people would still be listening to it decades later. It was very much in the moment and transitory, without considering that it would be preserved for eternity. One thing that works in the favor of reissues, is that the mastering engineer is no longer having to make compromises for the poor quality record players of the day, rolling off the bass and reducing dynamics. We all know the story about how Led Zeppelin II was emasculated almost immediately after release, because it skipped on Atlantic Records' head Ahmet Ertegun's daughter's kiddie record player.
I am so happy you are acquiring original pressings and comparing them to reissues. I love vintage vinyl. I love audiophile reissues too. I am so happy you are listening to and comparing both. Well done, sir.
That’s a good point about the vocals on a remix/remaster: setting the vocals on top of the track, as opposed to it being used as another instrument, changes the sound in a significant way, and can become something of a distraction.
I lived in Southern California in the 70's and had several friends high up in the music business. One of the things I learned was that a stamper was typically used for at least 10,000 copies. Sometimes more. You can have 3 NM- copies of the same pressing and sonic-ally they will all sound different. If the pressing was early in the stampers use it will sound significantly better. I have experienced this numerous times.
Beyond the sound, original country of origin pressings usually have the best packaging as well. Most reissues can't recreate the quality of vintage sleeves. Those nice laminated sleeves common on UK albums from the '60s and '70s have never been replicated. Then there are those textured paper jackets, diecuts, embossing, gatefolds, posters and other inserts which don't survive past the initial pressing.
I will give credit to you on the laminated sleeves. That should still be used to this day, especially on high end reissues. However, I disagree about covers usually being better the first time around. A nice, new stoughton jacket will kill every other option off, even if the original was mint
A few years back I bought a reissue of Tom Waits' Rain Dogs album. The last time I listened to it i thought it sounded terrible. I went for my original a bit beaten up canadian press, only to realized I had sold it because the reissue HAD to be better, yanno. I recently bough it back. At six times the price. The copy is not perfect, but still, what a difference! Sometimes you learn the hard way.
I have been collecting records for 20 years and this before the birth of the internet, and I'm talking about Psychedelia Progressive British Blues Punk New Wave Southern Rock PsyckFolk etc etc ... I can tell you with certainty that among the original prints and reprints there is none no comparison .... the first will always win. This is for a particular reason ... the originals are an act of love ... the reprints are children of profit.
I've bought several reissue/remasters over the past couple years, of favorite records, because I wanted the best possible version available. Immediate impressions are almost always "wow, this sounds so clear and noise floor is so low!", but upon repeated listens, you start hearing things like distorted vocals, boosted or artificial/unnatural highs, etc. I usually end up reappreciating original pressings, background noise be damned. The 2019 Traffic 6 LP box set is a prime example.
Michael, I would love to see you do a comparison between the Pink Floyd 'The Wall' UK Harvest 1st pressing, and the U.S. Columbia 1st pressing. Another very informative and detailed video. Thank you.
You are so right here I think - the craftmanship was partly lost for 15+ years! (& artists/producers/engineers/management involvment was of course very important)
I built up a collection of more than 10,000 records from 1962 (age 16) to 1992 (age 46) and was then very enthusiastic and fascinated with the front end. I experimented with many turntables, cartridges, arms, pre-preamps and cartridge transformers (not phono amps). As years went by, I realised that the record support/surface determined the character of the signal fed to the preamp, power-amp and finally the speakers. To obtain the sound that suited the type of music and to my hearing, I played with the "Minimum Contact (Mincon) Principle", i.e. just placed the record on a platter with a thin raised rim (5mm) of cork or rubber glued round the platter's outer-most edge. As for the hole in the middle of record, the record rested on a fitting ring placed around the spindle to support the record above. Then I used a clamp with variable points of contacts made of multiple choices varying from hard to soft contact points to tailor the type of sound that I wanted to hear and in varying tonality. In other words, the "Mincon Factor" affected the reproduction of music through the speakers, i.e. a choice of multiple types of contact points producing multiple range of tonality from lean/clean, medium to thick/warm sound. This "Mincon" clamp could also control most record warps. I gave up my collection of records after 2005 and concentrated on CDs which are more convenient and cheaper too. It is now time for me to just enjoy music and no more tiresome, painstaking and endless hours of DIY experiments and purchases too.
One of the things that I love about your channel, Michael, is you are providing a real time evolution of a vinyl hobbyist. From your first to most recent upload, it’s inspiring and informative to see how one’s approach to this hobby and perspectives can change. Having been a collector for many years, I can appreciate the twists and turns you have been on in your own vinyl journey. All this to say that your channel continues to be a source of enlightenment and entertainment for us in the VC. Thanks for all you do. Merry Christmas!
I know plenty of artists who have been unable to be a part of the mastering of their work. In other words, the label (most on larger labels) decided on the mastering and pressing. Also, I was once told by a manager of some famous bands, that they viewed vinyl as a trinket and did not care about the perfect pressing. That is, the labels just wanted to sell product. As far as I know, of all the bands he managed, only one was able to re-release what we would consider audiophile pressings. This was when the band got control of their masters.
Hi Michael! I been buying the older pressing of late but a month ago I bought the Otis Redding mono box set was great. Plus I bought steely dan first 7 albums from the 70’s on ABC records label. They sound great with a lot of punch. But if a new vinyl sounds good I will buy it. But now if I want analog the older pressing are the way to go! Enjoyed your video
Really good video MIchael. I was going to share an experience of my own. Originally, I thought the 2014 Beatles Mono Box was overall pretty good. But, I had to let that go due to financial hardship when my father died. Over the past few years, I've been picking up the 1982 Japanese Red Wax Mono Cut albums, and for me, THOSE are the ones where suddenly I was like "WoW! This is what they sounded like when I first them" and they really brought me back. They're cut loud and hot, and I feel they are the closest to the Harry Moss UK Cuts of the sixties. I'm not an expert, but that's my experience. However, in the end, 60s pressed UK Mono Beatles are unbeatable, but those 1982 red wax cuts, are pretty close if one wants the original UK sound. They don't sound like modern pressed reissues, which I don't hate, but I love these.
+1 for @vinyl Revenge comments. Michael if you have not heard the JPN Red monos where the lacquers were cut by Harry Moss, you have not heard the Beatles yet.
Several open questions. The loss of craft professions. The passion to create a new artistic creation.... The opinion of a qualified voice, such as one of the artists involved in the recordings, would be very interesting. What an exiting discussion! ❤
You are so on track about the reason for the OG pressings usually being superior. From my Audio Engineer Maestro, the Produder is vital in the sound of an album. Believe it or not, most musicians are not audiophiles, and have no ear really for what sounds best. Yes, they want to be involved in every process, but usually another person, the produce,r has the best vision for the proper direction of the album sound. Some musicians are also great producers, Prince and Knopfler come to mind. You have it pretty much nailed though. Changing the EQ significantly, completely changes the sound, usually for the worse, at least to those of us who are used to hearing the album in its original form.
im definitely in agreeance with most when i say the magic is usually in the OGs. Why that's the case? I'm afraid we'll never truly know all the reasons. But I do think reissues serve a valuable service in the whole collecting market to bring music to people. We've all seen scarcity and thus costs skyrocket in OGs. Sometimes a reissue is the most viable means of enjoying the music on vinyl, but how we navigate this share of the marketplace is strongly reliant on content creators like you Michael to discuss them and compare.
Another great, informative video! Something I would add to your list is the artistic choices made by the remastering engineer(s). Some add as little EQ and compression as possible (striving for none of each), whereas others like to add some touches here and there (their effectiveness is something we can debate!). For example, most modern (non-audiophile) reissues compress the hell out of the signal, and MoFi were (in)famous at least in the past for applying a “happy face” EQ to their re-issues.
Agree about the passing along of institutional memory. Much of that not written down but recalled from actually having faced the problem and its painstaking solutions. It's why Guilds were highly successful over hundreds of years.
Back to the roots. Relate to himself and his innermost needs. Back to the origin. Original. That prompts an affimative answer. A not uncomplicated matter. A work unchanged by the artist. To be multiplied in the original version. Including artists is probably even more difficult if not impossibel. Working out this process in the form of crystals is an Herculean task. And exciting at the same time. A new edition will sometimes, if not significantly, deviate from the original title. ❤️Heike I can learn a lot from you Michael and the comments.
I’ve found that many reissues sound too nice, too audiophile and avoid the sometimes crazy mastering eq choices on the original release, which the artist intended. Here are a couple of examples from albums mentioned elsewhere on the channel. I’m a big fan of the original UK ‘red and plum’ label releases of the first four Led Zep albums. On LZ III the treble level on the Immigrant Song is pushed to extreme turning the iconic vocal into a piercing banshee scream, an effect I’ve only heard on the original. I think this is how the band intended the song to sound and is worth the price of the record alone! For me, The Classic Records version is a nice audiophile record but lacks the emotional edge of the original. Similar story on The Cars debut album.The Mofi version sounds nice but lacks the edge of the original, from the first bars of ‘Just What I Needed’ . Again the treble was pushed so the Sex Pistols like guitar intro would cut through on AM radio. The Mofi version smooths this effect out, to the extent that the edgy new wave vibe of the track is much diminished. So there you go, as mostly older listeners, are we being lulled by nice comforting audiophile releases, which lack the youthful edge and energy of the original releases!
One explanation I have for the fact that the original versions, mainly of the records from the 50's to the 70's, are better than the represses is that the equipment used at the time for mixing and mastering was analog and some of it tube. Nowadays, with some exceptions such as AP, MMJ, Blue Note, these same equipments are digital workstations with analog/digital conversions.
US made Ampex tapes primarily affected by sticky shed syndrome some Scotch tapes were affected, it was not known to affect Sony, BASF or Maxell Tapes. Caused by binder deterioration in a magnetic tape, which hold the ferric oxide magnetizable coating to its plastic carrier, or which hold the thinner back-coating on the outside of the tape. There was a temporary tape baking fix that sometimes worked but was really only to try and take a rescue copy, often they were unrecoverable sadly.
The freshness, vibrancy, and just plain magic of original vinyl pressings is undeniable. Looking at it scientifically is interesting, but we may never be able to really explain or re-create that lightning in a bottle. The other thing that is revealed over time and listening to hundreds of vintage copies of a particular album is that every single one is different. They are like block prints - sometimes the paint goes a little bit this way, or a little bit that way. Some are sharper, some are more balanced. They are all beautiful in unique ways.
I have a friend who is in his early 60s. He's an audiophile and a well knows FM disc jockey in the New York area and he only seeks out original pressings of vinyl albums. His reasoning for this is no matter how well the master tapes are kept through the years, they degenerate because of age and use and if you buy a first pressing of an album, it was made when that master was as new as it could be and in the best condition it every will be in. He makes a very good point and for that reason, I buy as many first pressings of great albums as I can find.
About the subjective factor. Most of the records that are rereleased on vinyl today are records we already knew. The way they sounded when we discovered them is the way they are stuck in our heads. Every new remaster or audiophile release is in a way a "new" version of the album that is very close to the original. When you listen to a remaster or a new audiophile release you will immediately recognise it without necessarily hearing the subtle differences because your brain remembers the record. But when you compare it with the original and you listen to both versions your brain will go for the original version as the closest to the one you always remembered. And therefore you are tend to believe that the original is the better version. I think this is an important factor too. And I like to believe that it becomes an even more important factor when we're talking about the records (and versions of those records) we grew up with.
This is an excellent point, and not to disagree but it’s actually not always applicable.. There are twentysomethings who would have never heard any of the classic rock albums on an original pressing, save for the unlikely/uncommon event where they had access to one as the first medium they’ve ever heard it on. And many would probably still side with the original pressing simply because the acoustics just have a more layered, fuller richness to them. Which gets tricky because any era vinyl will be better than the mp3 they likely heard it on first, so it does come down to the reissue vs the original vintage pressing, once again. I will say I fall into the camp where I’m somewhat older but still wasn’t around to hear the original pressing on most classic rock albums.. I grew up in the tape era. Tracking down a vintage copy of Exile on Main Street definitely convinced me that the “OG’s are the best” mantra is not always the case. It sounds incredibly flat and one dimensional and I completely attribute this to the likelihood that it came from the opposite end of the spectrum from a “hot stamper”- it was probably pulled out of the press way beyond when it was time to discard that stamper, which is one of the definite main differences between pressings from the era vs reissues.. those things were being produced on a mass production level with a capital M. It wasn’t a niche thing, it was basically the only medium that existed. It wasn’t a preference or choice that you paid comparatively more to get the way it is now.
You are so right especially with anything recorded at Trident Studios in London where i used to work. Bowie, Elton John, Queen. They had the best drum sound and I really don’t think that Ziggy Stardust (and others) could sound better. Listen to to the drum on 5 years when the acoustic guitar chord strums in - beautiful and so clear. It simply doesn’t need a reissue. Now some records do need remastering. For example, Tormato by Yes. But anything in the 70’s sound fabulous: Free, Bad Company, Led Zeppelin, Roxy Music, Cream and so on. They weren’t always present either in mind nor body during the mastering I have to tell you often they were simply not there when their albums were being mixed nor when they were mastered. Sometimes because they were on tour other times they were out of it. I would always look for a 70’s original rather than remix.
Often sonically, I agree with this assessment. The biggest negative on OG, for me, is the noise floor of the vinyl being worse in OG that audiophile reissues. So for LPs with more quiet passages, the OG may sound a bit better but if it is distractingly noisy, I will play the reissue. Of course, if the material is louder music with less quiet sections (except between songs), then the OG often is hands down better.
Totally agree time and the ear of artist is a missing ingredient, along with the ambition to try and make the re-issue better, meaning it’s going to sound different to the original.
Hay Michael you've brought up some significant reasons for the difference between OG and the newer reissues and they are all valid reasons. One not mentioned is the listeners expectations of the listening . IMHO the current record buyers are looking for more than just putting a record on and getting lost in it, absorbing the transport of the artist, now we listen a lot like critics of the pressings and how is the jacket or vinyl formulation. I don't buy and listen to music to try to be the first to post my comment on the web and some of that hast has changed our perception of the music. I also found that playing OG releases with gear from the Era also effects its playback. A simple change of the cartridge has made more of a difference for me than making the lp a one step
I think is a combination of factors: tape deterioration, a lot of analog machinery from the 60's and 70's has been lost, many record pressing plants from that era dissapeared... It is almost impossible to recreate that sound with current technology which is mainly digital. Anyway there have been some labels that have made great sound reissues lately : Classic Records, Analogue Productions, Blue Note...
pretty much every vintage tape deck and cutting lathe has either been salvaged and brought to modern standards and in other cases salvaged and restored to it's original state. There is no missing technology for reissuing vinyl. Mastering choices are the real variable
Doug Sax, Burnie Grundman, Steve Hoffman, Kevin Gray have all said it all starts with the masters. Their skill base and approach make reissues a viable force. Miles Davis Kind of Blue" by Analogue Production is a great example.
You make a valid and compelling point. For example, I have OGs of all the Steely Dan albums, and they are very well recorded, mastered and sound great. I am reluctant to get the Analogue Productions reissues because I'm not convinced that they will sound that much better to justify the cost of $150 plus per title. The AP releases will definitely sound great and different, but I'm just not certain that I'll be getting value for money.
Sometimes the "original" pressing is hard to define. For instance, a band like Cream. Their first album "Fresh Cream" was recorded in England, and those first English pressings sound much better than the American pressings. However, their second album, "Disreili Gears" was recorded and finished in the USA. When you compare a 1st US pressing to the 1st UK pressing of the SECOND album, the US pressing is incredibly better than the UK pressing. So.. that is a case where an English band has different 1st pressings from 2 different countries that you could call "the original".. I believe that the master tapes always stayed in the country they were recorded in, and therefore in many cases those will be the best sounding "originals".
Watching now but my thought has always been this. While I buy og and reissues I feel I know what I'm going to get with an og pressing. Reissues on the other hand can be a mixed bag of results. Price plays a factor and recent years reissues especially ones such a MOFI have gotten pretty crazy. So back to og which often is cheaper and the stable choice. Great thoughts. Love your discussions.
As a casual listener. I have 50 plus years of knowledge of what a vinyl record should sound like. That said, my taste in music is so much different than most of the people that watch your channel. But, I so appreciate your prospective on vinyl.
Since the MoFi reveal I have been picking up OG to compare to all those “audiophile” remasters I blindly purchased assuming they were the best. In most cases the Originals sound better on my system to my ears. Not always. Sometimes it’s a toss. But when you get a killer original- it’s very obviously better.
A fine synopsis of your findings and your system I'm sure is very transparent. speaking of Elvis Costello I just purchase the look now 45 RPM press RTI from 2018 can't wait to get it in I have the high-res files and they sound awesome thanks again.
Being just an ordinary record collector I love your in-depth analysis of record mastering from the past to the present…..long may your channel continue….👍👏
Another reason why reissues sound different from the original pressings is the electronics used in the reissue chain are different, such as the tape playback machine & the mixing board are different from the OG. All electronics have their own sound character. The great sounding vintage Jazz records were produced w/ vacuum tube gear.
You should also add the different hardware that played the Mastertapes back on the OGs and the cutting lathes that cut the lacquers on the OGs Michael - both of these key items were pretty much junked in the CD era so to find the right chain in the last 15 years has become quite a challenge, along with having the necessary skills to set-up Studers and Neumann Lathes correctly before the current batch of mastering Engineers get anywhere near the lacquer being cut......
I so wish I could asked my mom about this. Because she worked for Motown Records. She would make cassettes back in the 1970’s. From original master tapes. Which I still have many that she made for me. I wish I could ask her the process. Because, this was way better digital sources. 😊😊
Based on your opinion, I ordered a UK first-pressing of Imperial Bedroom, an all-time favorite of mine. II’d only known that album on cassette originally, then CD, before buying the MoFi pressing and the original is a revelation. Thank you for the recommendation.
It’s a mixture of all what you said and one thing that you didn’t mention “Care “ Some labels just don’t care enough. It sounds good and that’s it. They don’t do A-B test with original like audiophile labels. Main thing is to put it out and sell. They all know about the little things like good innersleeves and thick covers with good quality of pictures or photos. They just don’t care enough. Cheers Michael!
the points you make are all very valid to me. your stereo components are also the most valid reproduction of the truth of the recordings. (I an 68, started buying vinyl when i was 14, whenever i had spare change! At 14, was the year 1968, the highlight was front row seat to see jimi hendrix live!) my record collection is very large, 1400, 99% original releases. the few remastered reissues i have bought have always been a disappointment. Also the points you make about tape degradation, craftsmanship, and presence of the musician i think are all valid arguments. thank you for your insight!
About the vocals being enhanced, it could be the works of the recording agents. They wanted so much to attract the listening audience,to win fans for the artists so as to collect better revenue for each project. The artists too would love to increase their fan base with their vocals.
Elton John’s “Madman” and “Yellow Brick Road” albums are examples where I prefer the original records. The remastered versions take the youthful tone and energy out of his voice. Yes, the remasters sound fuller but they loose the vitality of the originals. Great topic - thinks for posting.
They may sound 'fuller' because most remasters done after the early 90s have been highly compressed and even brickwalled (total compression to clipping).
I would think the artist would be more involved in the mix than in pressing details, at least in most cases. My dilemma is simpler and more complex - As I've grown older (69) I've become more and more a classical music listener. So, one example to keep it as simple as possible, early RCA Living Stereo. Reissues can be really good. But the originals varied a lot. A Shaded Dog vs a White Dog (tube vs SS mastering), later RCA pressings, etc. Then, even with a Shaded Dog, how early was the stamper (it's on the leadout out groove, S1 to S...whatever, representing generation of stamper. Some of what you have discussed is, again, remastering vs. repressing. My first horrible experience with that was Mobile Fidelity's Aja by Steely Dan. Obviously re-EQ's and it was horrible, bloated bass, nasty. They claimed they didn't. I had an early original pressing and no comparison. I enjoyed your discussion. Now going to read the comments. Best
I have all the mono Beatles reissues, and nearly all of them in original Parlophones. I like the reissues and they are closer to the earlier pressings than the stereo reissues were to the stereo Parlophones. You are correct, however, when you say the originals still get the edge. They seem more immediate and vibrant. Clean Parlophone monos are hard to find, but at this point the reissues are going for about the same price and you might as well track down the UK Parlophones.
Hi Micheal - Just saw you on Racheals live stream again this morning- just want you to know my wife and I always enjoy your videos and I've learned a lot. ✋from Alberta Canada
There are so many pertinent points in the comments. May I suggest that you do a follow up that summarises these. Excellent discussion, I enjoyed it tremendously.
As vinyl was the dominant format in the Sixties and Seventies the record companies did put out great sounding records in those days especially in the country in which the artist resided. Of course, first pressings like say for artists like the Beatles can be expensive. Sometimes one has to get later pressings, so you don't have to break the bank. lol
Even back in the 80’s, when I was Young and not (yet) into audiophile stuff, there was already a lot of discussion about the country of origin of the pressings. Some of it has been revised but most has Held true. Then like you say the closest you are temporally to the recording the better the shape of the tape Will be. Sometimes too much involvement of the artist can Lead to unnecesary remixes for re releases or other things. But anyway this is a great topic. I got an original Neu the other day. I had the old box from 10 years ago plus some less good pressings and i Will Tell you How all this compares. I also got the new box, and i have some old cd’s. Anyway it is a fabulous hobby.
Two months ago I decided I wanted all the 1st issues of Steely Dan's first seven album's. I didn't want to spend a fortune, so I carefully looked for VG+ condition LP's from sellers on Ebay and Discogs that had excellent feedback. I had a good experience, except for one Ebay seller who's lousy shipping packaging warped Can't Buy A Thrill (I was able to flatten it). They all sound great, and I have the Mofi Aja and Katy Lied to compare to. Total cash outlay was $220 here in the states. I think that was pretty reasonable considering the price of the AP UHQR's coming out.
Another great video Michael. Thanks again for this discussion. But let me cast doubt on the artist involvement making the records sound better. Most of the artists have let the engineers and the producers take care of how their record sounds and is mastered. Neil Young is the exception, not the standard.
As for the comments on the tape, its possible there was some degradation, but the whole sticky shed issues were caused by Ampex and 3M at the time switching from a long chain polymer binder to a short chain polymer binder to hold the oxide layer to the polyester backing. This was done for cost reasons. The shorter chain polymer binder absorbs moisture over time turning the binder into a sticky goo, almost like an adhesive. This was quite common on Ampex 456, 457, 406, 407 and 3M (Scotch 226 and 227). All of which were backcoated tapes. Ampex 456 was one of the most commonly used tapes in the studios in the 1970s and 1980s. The non-backcoated tapes from the that same era from both Ampex and Scotch never experienced this problem. But very few of these nobackcoated tapes were used for session masters or mix down masters. if you want to learn more, visit tapeheads.net and do a search on sticky shed. I am not familiar with most of the album titles you mentioned but am quite familiar with the Beatles titles. Your conclusions about the originals sounding much better than the stereo or mono box re-issues are quite in alignment with what I have heard (have originals. monobox set and the stereo box set). Actually it not much of a comparison, the originals blow away the box sets. If you really want to hear the beatles though you need to buy a few of the Japan Red MONOs. They are the best sounding Beatles albums I have heard. Harry Moss cut all the lacquers for both the UK pressings and the Japan Red monos. He was a master at what he did. Today very few can figure out how he got so much sound into those lacquers.
I totally agree, OG pressings if you have them or can find them in good condition, are almost always going to be the best. Even some that are not from the original country can be incredible if they were mastered in a really good studio, one example is Masterdisk. I have some U.S. pressings on Masterdisk from U.K. artists like Ultravox and the Police, and it's hard to imagine better sounding pressings than those. One reissue exception you may want to check, the Siouxsie Abby Road 1/2 speed remastered LPs. I've compared and some of these do sound fuller with more depth and punch than the originals, probably due to the original pressings not being the ultimate in mastering quality.
I don't have a very large collection; I had to cut it by 75% to move to another continent, but there are a number of originals I bought when I collected records, even when it wasn't cool. one example that stands out is Roxy Music Avalon, where I have the OG UK and I much prefer it to the new releases. same thing with Sade box set, and Pet Shop Boys. I think it'll be interesting to follow your journey to see if the 70s/80s 'theory' sticks, but my guess is it will. My exception here is I like the MoFi Eye in the Sky better than my OG. The 90s and 00s will be super interesting too if you get into it, where so many recordings were digital to begin with.
Michael does that mean you would be hunting for original titles more now? would be interesting if you can compare an original 6 eye pressing of Miles Davis KOB with the UQHR 45rpm....
I enjoyed this 'thought piece', Michael. And nice to see my YHF OG make a second appearance in a video! You are doing a great job of documenting the ups and downs of your LP collecting experience. I get the country of origin point of view, but when you scratch below the surface does it really hold up? Are there not just too many variables for this to be a hard fast rule? Original recording quality, mastering engineer (and their chain), plants that handle the plating/ pressing/packaging, storing & shipping of LPs, storing in distributors and record shops, etc. Once a test pressing is approved what real influence do the musicians, producers, etc. have over the mass produced end product?
I agree with all the factors and ask you to consider the OGs selected were from premier individuals or groups, They were (or you would expect) given or had access to the best of all the factors you mentioned - engineers, production house, equipment the band used to record the music - from the microphone through the final mix. The current remasters master may be optimizing for the contemporary listener's taste or expectations. You are correct as always, the original band, based on their skills and knowledge, could work directly with the production cycle personnel. The remaster has to make an educated guess - and it would be hard to spot on.
Adding to this discussion, there are different pressings from the same era that sound quite different. Case in point is the whole AA-1006 vs AB-1006 Steely Dan Aja situation. Made literally months apart, but sounding so different. You have to look at the dead wax too though, since packaging was interchangeable on some of these releases where the different pressings took place so close in time to each other. For me, it just goes to show, that while we have some legendary vinyl mastering engineers living today, each project is a piece of art, combining the artistry of the musical group, the original engineer, the mix engineer and the mastering engineer.
You also forgot Michael that those technicians back then also had an ear for music. That is, they often came up through the labels having a wealth of knowledge about 'sound'. It is an art form.
Also one very important point Michael: a record really can’t have the price of a very good concert ticket. The costs for the artist to put into motion a concert are way more expensive than a record to be produced. This is total insanity what is happening with the prices in this such small neiche vinyl area.
Michael, I bought my first vinyl record in 1964. It was the Beatles, A Hard Days Night. Of course, it was a Capitol release, so it had been altered by Capitol from the original UK Parlophone version. But I went on to buy vinyl records by the hundreds throughout the next few decades and I'm here to tell you that some of the original pressings were just poorly pressed junk: I don't know about the "know how" part of this topic, but many of the high-quality releases by Analogue Productions, just for example, and comparable reissue labels, are so much better than some of the poor-quality stuff we use to get back in the day. Especially the 1970's when they started using recycled vinyl. Records were massed-produced by the millions and they were cheap. I still have some of these warped, noisy sounding records. Also, I started collecting classical music in the 1960s, and some of the best sounding records I have, in any genre, are the Analogue Productions RCA Living Stereo reissues, even compared to RCA LSC originals that I still have in my music collection. And classical records should be a part of the discussion because there are thousands of original classical titles out there and there are always a few interesting new reissues. That said, there were a lot of great original pressings also, especially from the "big guns" that you mention in your discussion. I still have the original Led Zeppelin II mastered by Robert Ludwig that I bought in 1969 and it is light-years better sounding than the 2014 reissue. And the pressing is very nice. Just a few examples and my humble two cents.
To add to this, a ton of 60s, early 70s stuff was specifically made to play on shitty portable Crosleys. As a result the high and low ends were often cut off. Case in point the RL. That could have been the main pressing but it was skipping on shitty players the teens had, so they made it sound worse. Same goes for Marvin Gaye what's going on. The original is atrocious and has no high or low end. Same with music from big pink, they completely lopped off dankos stellar bass. See there's alot of bias with OGs because people ignore all the horrible pressings and only focus on the good ones. Like a lz ii non RL is terrible compared to reissues. But people only point to the RL to say OGs are better. Then there's a ton of horrible quality vinyl pressings or late stamper copies that have the surface noise of a fireplace. I have a ton of OGs. My favorite pressing is my the ban s/t RL. However I don't agree that the OGs are always better. My CBS mastersound wish you were here crushes the original. Aqualung uhqr and even the remix crushes the original. Speaking of aqualung, there were like 5 first pressings with the brown label reprise being the only good one. But that's if you get a 1a stamper. Which shows the variation. 4/5 OGs are horrible but 1 is great. Yet people use that as support for saying OGs are the best. Then you get records like hearts dream boat Annie kendun pressing with like 5 different variations, plus all the non kenduns. They all sound great but a devils delight stamper sounds different to a go for it stamper. And what qualifies as an OG? There's a porky prime cut of aqualung that came out a couple years after the OG UK and its 1000x better. That's technically a reissue though many today would call it an OG. The steely Dan uhqrs will be the real test because the OGs already sound fantastic. I have an a/b 1006 aja that's amazing, same with the RL gaucho. So if uhqrs sound noticeably better that'll add more fuel to the fire. And speaking of beatles a ton of beatles fans prefer the late 70s mid 80s reissues of the albums over OGs for sonics. Like that German magical mystery tour that's considered the best it's ever sounded being from the 70s. The beatles pressings often suffered from the same thing as all the popular records. Cheap vinyl and cut off high and low ends. Then there's the fact they ran stampers so long you can have a horrible and great sounding NM og of the same pressing due to the stamper. One of my favorite bands oasis has terrible remasters due to the mastertape being compressed limiting what they could do with the remaster, where the OGs are significantly better. But that's due to limitations of the tape. The best thing to do is to research every record you buy and see what the best pressing is before buying an OG or reissue. Also it's just funny how much of a hive mind vinyl youtube is. At first everyone here loved remasters and audiophile stuff and totally hated originals. Now most of the comments are praise for originals. Just like how overnight people ended up hating the sound of mofis when they would kill each other to get one just a few months ago. It really shows how subjective sound really is. How much of it is a placebo effect? My mofi big pink and before the flood crush the originals, same with Jeff becks truth. All the AP Beach boys are better than OGs. Same with their doors titles. Maybe an OG monarch is better for st but that highlights how only one specific plant pressing is better, when most of the OG pressings are worse. The issue is there's a ton of unnecessary remasters out there which drag down all the ones which were needed. There's a ton of remasters that are just money grabs. So putting them all in the same bucket doesn't really make sense. It all varies by record. Like Tha bands big pink mofi is leagues better than the OG, however the OG RL s/t is leagues better than the mofi. So you can't really generalize.
You confused me during the part about Oasis. I’m surprised they recorded to tape at all given the era that they came along in, but if you’re saying the tape was somehow compressed then how would original pressings sound better? What would those have been cut off of?
@@You_Do_Have_The_Power_33 yup they recorded to tape. Even the 2014 remasters are analog. They were indie at first which may have added to them using cheap tape as opposed to high tech digital equipment or a British music culture thing since even 99/2000 popstar dido had analog recordings which released on classic records and honestly some of the best sounding vinyl between the effects and her vocals. If you look up the producer Owen Morris email about the 2014 remaster he goes into detail. To give them their punchy, guitar driven, wall of sound sound they baked compression into the tapes to the point where the mastertape is already almost completely brickwalled. Theres no way a remaster can make it any less compressed, only more. Morris stated that the new masterer ian cooper had no choice but to add more compression due to how the tape was made. Also the rythym section was horrible on definitely maybe and not so great on morning glory so they had to obscure it with compression which lead to their sound. So when the remasters came around they had no choice but to compress them more to give them a different sound and to highlight the vocals and guitar more. They had to continue to hide the poor rythym section, but wanted to highlight the driving guitar sound. So they went from brickwalled to super brickwalled. There's comparisons of the waveforms on hoffman which details this. It goes from like almost completely brickwalled to a literal mass of brick. It caused a huge uproar in the oasis community which is what lead to someone emailing Owen Morris cuz people were pissed that the remaster was more compressed. My point was since the tape is so compressed and with poor playing they can't get anything better. Any remaster ends up more compressed or sounding worse due to undoing essential equalizing decisions the original masterer did to cover up the poor playing. This is the issue with many terrible recordings and already compressed maatertapes. The OG is always going to be the best since there's nothing more you can get out of it. The oasis OGs are far superior yet still compressed(the 12in singles are the best though). The remasters are so utterly compressed where it's fatiguing and gets really hard to listen to. The originals are alot better and cleaner, its night and day when they are played side by side, but they're still loudness wars creations filled with compression. The only way there will be an audiophile version of the first few records is a full remix from the individual tracks. However that'd reveal the horrible playing. Tony mccarrol the original drummer went out of times multiple times on DM, Owen Morris had to add different sounds to cover it up like at the begining of cigarettes and alcohol, and guigsy the bassist played poor on all 3 albums. So a remix would reveal this terrible playing, ruining much of the songs. The quality of musicianship is so poor they have to be compressed to sound good. The OGs are the best they can sound without a full remix and potentially hiring new musicians to play the parts. This is why they had such a guitar driven wall of sound lacking clear bass and drums with 0 seperation. It became their signature sound. So it was positive in the end. I just wish he didn't bake the compression into the original tapes as opposed to just creating a new compressed tape. However they do have the original instrument tracks since they gave them to guitar hero who used an outtake solo for morning glory. So a remix is possible but highly doubtful. Noel was going to remix be here now, but got lazy and only did dyou know what I mean. Which is a shame because dyou came out fantastic. So in general if a tape is poorly recorded or already compressed the OGs are often going to be the best outside of remixes or digital intervention like plantagnet process eliminating wow and flutter. Like people hate mofi now but what they did with Jeff becks truth is remarkable since such poor recordings are usually highly limited. Often the best they could sound is on the OGs because the substandard nature of the tapes. Like that saying you can't polish a turd lol. Often they're the best they can sound because the mixer and masterer had to do so much to make them sound good where there's really no other route for the remaster to take but worse or straying from the distinct sound. So many of their decisions are irreversible or else you end up revealing the poor playing they covered up. You can only equalize and add even more shit like compression to make it sound different. Which is why they had to add compression. Now compression isn't always bad. A great example of this is aqualung which I mentioned earlier. The best OG is the brown US reprise. But the reason is actually due to being given a more compressed tape which gave the music more punch and power. People actually like a healthy amount of compression in rock. But the problem with oasis lies where they're max compressed already. Sure the remasters compression may add a bit more excitement and punch in a guitar solo but it makes it all grating and painful to listen to as a whole. But they had no choice but to add compression due to the nature of the original tapes and the poor playing. They could only add more to highlight different sounds, not take away. Finally the 2009 remasters were decent and almost as good as the OGs but had the same level of compression. They just equalized it a bit different. Which left them no option but to brickwall the shit outta them for 2014 to create a newer louder sound. Well there's my ramble. I love oasis and can go on all day!
Thanks for explaining some of reasons. When I started collecting vinyl I wanted just new reissues but since some albums I wanted were only available in vintage or even worst mono I started to collect these vintage records. I was Amazed I had no Idea they could sound so good (especially the mono's). I have late 50s records that sound as good as tone poets, and I have 2020's records that sound very unimpressive.
@@asiandetective4998 I got a Stereo to Mono converter transformer box that I place between my Phono preamp and my amp because I heard that just Y cables leak stereo signals, Mono sound awesome on my system but I am hoping to have a dedicated Cartridge in the future. Thanks for the suggestion.
@@12stringblues You are still using a stereo cartridge. Mono records were cut with a mono cutting head that only have left to right movement horizontally. Stereo on the other hand have both horizontal and vertical movement. The effect of this is you are getting surface noise from the vertical movement of the cartridge. Not all mono carts are true mono, a lot have strapped stereo coil that prevents vertical movement , even really expensive ones. The Zero is a true MC mono cart. My phono stage is Tron MC Mono custom by Graham Tricker, the combination is outstanding.
Of my limited purchases of new pressings of old albums I've been both pleased with the sound quality of some, and really shocked by the basic flaws in their basic production for others. Just one example is how often I still hear pre-echo! Holy crap. 21st century and engineers still can't figure out how to space grooves? I have one disc where each side is only 15 minutes, the dead wax is at least 5 cm, and EVERY song has pre-echo! WTF? I've changed nearly every album in my want list on Discogs to original releases instead of modern rereleases.
I will boldly confirm tape degradation. Working as an engineer in studios there's a limit regarding how many times you can play and re-record on tape. The high end starts rolling off. I say this because labels are always reissuing/remastering but storage/time I've found can but not always degrade tape. Depends how it's stored and handled.
So far this pans out for me as well. I recently acquired the ZZ Top Eliminator reissue. The original pressing I also own is superior sonically in my opinion.
It depends on the effort given to the remaster. I have a few Jazz originals and the Analogue Productions counterparts. In every case the AP's are better. Same for classical records, I like the Classic Records Living Stereos more than the first pressings
What’s interesting to me with this, is we have many exemples of people in the same position you find yourself in, but who have a complete opposite opinion on the quality.
Original pressings are often (if not always) more noisy than the actual pressings. In most cases I prefer by far the reissues. I don't think Tom Port philosophy is right. The mastering and cutting chains of today are extremely sophisticated: better wires, better resistors, fantastic caps, all in all is better or far better than in the heydays. Of course the tapes could have been deteriorated but the results in making the reissues are often outstanding
Great Video ! Your Channel provided the information that the Kraftwerk Reissues from 2014 Black Vinyl and the new Colour Vinyl Reissues only the vocals are close to the 70s recordings ! Very good observation ! It would be a good You Tube Video if a Led Zeppelin II UK Atlantic Plum Label could be compared to The Led Zeppelin American Green and Orange Atlantic Label RL pressing ! However mass produced Records and small runs of records have been bootlegged for years so you are never sure if you hsve what you think you have. Great Video !
Big props to Michael here, but be careful too (for those who are new to this). It's SUBJECTIVE! Not all original pressings are going to be this way. A lot of new (even digital!) cut and mastered LPs will sound better too. Have to either wait for the reviews or do your own research. For people in the EU buying US pressings, I feel your pain, but even MFSL isn't perfect either, and they do yield some nice (and sub-par) records and SACDs too. Your system can also reveal the worse case/best case.
True, but subjectivity doesn't apply to clicks, pops, no-fill, etc. Obviously different listeners will tolerate different amounts of "noise," but I think it's pretty safe to say that less noise is objectively better. Granted, pressing is a different issue than remixing/remastering, so in that regard YMMV.
Michael, are you able to get feedback from Kevin Gray or Ryan Smith or Bernie, maybe through Chad, to get their take on it? I know AP went to great lengths to get the best in the business in all parts of the chain and, one could argue, some of the technology has improved over time like Kevin's studio using audiophile cable and so forth. Kevin has been on a few channels recently; I'm sure he'd be up for a Q and A. I mean, rather than us just guessing, maybe someone "in the know" could explain it.
One point,the advancement of present technology ,it becomes very unforgiving. The present technology shows the flaws of the old tapes?. I believe the vinyl shows the flaws so easily.
Great discussion Michael. As your first point reference an original is the way to go. Just take an original Uk Communique Dire Straits I picked up for £7 VG++ Played it & wow the music explodes out the speakers. More transparent ,holographic more punch & more exciting.Put’s a smile on your face 😊. Then I look at all my Mofi Dire Straits and think what the hell was I doing 😂.I Paid on average £70 for each Mofi version. I’ve learned my lesson.I will not go any where near the forthcoming Steely Dan $150 records. I own all the best sounding original pressings. It’s not about saving money,Steely Dan are one of my favourite bands. I will remain humble & respectful of the originals. For instance there is no way in the world Gaucho can be bested, Reissue companies will use smoke & mirrors,cut them at 45rpm place them in fancy boxes,clarity vinyl 😂. I’m more pleased that Bernie is doing a digital cut of Steely Dan to make them available to the masses. As always Michael a pleasure 😎👍
I think certain factors to consider should be the quality of the vinyl, originals from the 60s and 70s especially was way better then the 80s and most definitely the 90s, the fact that not as much vinyl was pressed shows the quality, not very much quality control going on. I think another factor is that the later recordings of the 89s, 90s and 00s were mainly digital, and I think the made things easier and cheaper which also affects quality. There are more things that I can’t think of right now.
Great video once again. I have noticed that the reissues are getting better and better. Case in point, is the new Pink Floyd "Animals 2018 Mix" - it is 1000x better than the original. Now we all know that the original was flawed from the start, however, the care and attention that has been paid to the original recordings and the way that they have been treated, mixed and mastered... amazing work. If reissues are done for the right reasons, like Animals, and treated with that level of respect, then maybe we can expect amazing things to come.
@@leonhardtart7163 thats a worldwide issue evidently which wont be fixed until a second pressing run. Mike and the ingroove said as much as 60% are defective. Really annoying.
@@FleagleSangria well, imho (and it is only my opinion after all), after listening to the original one since I was a kid, the new mix is better. Way better. But, we're all entitled to a different opinion. I don't hate the OG mix, but they are night and day.
@@gregles76 Been watching Mikes videos on this as well, it is really weird, especially the scratches that he's describing. Mine doesn't seem to have any of those issues, for a change I've been lucky!
The original tape machine can play a huge role in the sound of a record , Once you play a master tape to cut an original vinyl then many years later use a different machine it will sound different . Analog tape machines suffer from tape drift, irregular motor speeds, head wear, circuitry degradation, and even crosstalk between the channels. Plus, these differences are exclusive to each machine.
yes but part of the selling point of audiophile reissues is that they are knowledgable and take the time and effort to do a better job of setting azimuth and bias and using the correct Dolby coding. Modern modified tape decks are simply technically better than the vintage ones used to record and to play back tapes. And if we can collectively get over the fear/hatred for all things digital we have things like the Plangent process that can literally fix a lot of time based flaws in the playback of an analog tape and the same flaws built into the recording itself.
I've noticed a lot more midrange punch from older pressings. Modern mastering seems to emphasize bass and treble, which to me makes it feel a bit neutered, especially for rock.
We are ingrained to think that "New is Better", and sometime it's true. I have the Beatles Mono box set and do not have any OG Beatles pressings, but That Box set meets my needs for those records and these possess the same warm qualities that I love in OG pressings. The same holds true with the majority of Analogue Productions and Blue Note reissues. But, for all these other reissues (esp the 80s reissues) I will bypass these remastered non AAA pressings. We all know that "WOW" factor when we hear vinyl that knocks our socks off - and I will admit this can happen with music that was initially recorded digital. I love Lisa Gerrard and Dead Can Dance, I doubt all their music was released AAA and I am happy with them all. I also love The great American Songbook with Ella, Peggy Lee, Helen Merrill, Blossom Dearie, Nina Simone, Julie London, Jo Stafford - and unless these are AAA reissues I am quite happy getting OG VG+ or better copies and a lot of these can still be gotten very reasonably. As an aside the Helen Merrill self titled that Analogue Productions reissued is something that should be in everyones collection; just superb (and I have an OG Helen Merrill self-titled in VG+ condt)
Thanks for your interesting video and thoughts. I can add to them, clearly there is no single reason why the originals sound better (in many cases)… let’s add: 1. The cutting machines are old, no new ones have been made for something like 30 years, the heads are replaceable but the mech is old. 2. Changes in music taste, dictates how an engineer will perceive a record should sound - everything we hear is interpreted first via the ears of the cutting engineer. 3. The cutting engineer is often tasked with ‘improving’ on the original (or will attempt to ‘improve’ it anyway) rather than replicating it… this will make it sound different, for better or worse. 4. Or to use improvement in the surrounding technology to do things that aren’t necessary: an example is the pile of extra bass that comes through on the 2014 Mono master of Revolver, not because it’s necessary, but because they can. Finally I think that artist review of the test pressings is less important. Test pressings can turn up many months after the record has been put to bed, I think only the most obsessive of artists will be interested in listening really closely to the test pressings (Kevin Shields of MBV for example) and switching back and forth like you suggest… I think those people are in the minority. Most likely they are out on tour when the test pressings are made. I think the craftsmanship and reliability of the cutting engineers is probably a bigger factor than artist involvement. I have found artist involvement to be more of a hindrance than a help when you are trying to deliver a really good quality product.
