Your thoughts on reissues, is it worth it to track down old/original pressings?

[Fopp]

Yes, it really is. Which store are we talking about exactly?



This is not always true, especially right now. Some reissue labels currently make new lps from the original master tapes.

I understand why reissues have gotten such a bad name, I've had more than few that sucked. However, some of the best sounding lps I own are reissues, many of those jazz titles. It's a hit and miss thing, but to say that original pressings are always better than reissues is flat out wrong.

Okay, the store is called Second Hand Rose Music, on 48 East 12th Street. It was started by this girl's mother about 50 years ago, and now the mother and daughter run it together. The daughter gave me the attitude. An excellent selection, but the prices are insane. She claims that crazy collectors fly over from London to buy records there. Who knows...

"This is not always true, especially right now. Some reissue labels currently make new lps from the original master tapes."

Yeah, but are you sure that there's no remastering done? And if not, wouldn't the original sound better anyway, because it was made from a fresh tape?

The way I see it, the only way a reissue could sound better than an original is if the original is damaged and noisy, or if there was some kind of sonic "mistake" in the original tape that was fixed during the remastering process. Am I missing something?

 

[dtainer]

Okay, the store is called Second Hand Rose Music, on 48 East 12th Street.

I suspected that was the place:

I didn't mention Second Hand Rose, although I do go there occasionally, but only to look through their cheapies--they're a little off-putting and I would not be surprised to discover that was the owner who made the "...not an audiophile" comment...

Is there a prize?

Since I don't have a car, I don't get too far from the Manhattan-Williamsburg-Prospect Park "triangle" (seems that's where all my friends live). I come across the occasional record store in my travels, either for work or vacation and I always stop at one. Most of them aren't too good, but you never know, you might find something. The store in Rockaway might not have been called Rockaway records--I might have conflated the Rockaway in LA (a great record store, along with Amoeba that I ALWAYS go to when I'm out there) with having been to a store in Rockaway...

 

[Fopp]

I suspected that was the place:


Is there a prize?

Since I don't have a car, I don't get too far from the Manhattan-Williamsburg-Prospect Park "triangle" (seems that's where all my friends live). I come across the occasional record store in my travels, either for work or vacation and I always stop at one. Most of them aren't too good, but you never know, you might find something. The store in Rockaway might not have been called Rockaway records--I might have conflated the Rockaway in LA (a great record store, along with Amoeba that I ALWAYS go to when I'm out there) with having been to a store in Rockaway...

Haha! Well look at that. I wish I had a prize for you. I could give you a $20 gift certificate to Second Hand Rose, so you could pick a record out of the cheap bins!

 

[dtainer]

for cheapies, or to apply to one of those $80 original pressings

I have to say, they have never been a**holes to me, but I hear them talk to other people when I'm in there and they can be pretty awful. They treat people who come in to sell them records like s**t; plus they yell at each other with customers in the store--just not a good environment.

 

[yeti_herd]

One thing that I like about records that aren't sealed, brand-spanking-new reissues is that most stores I hunt at have a 'table where you can preview them. This is a good deal for when you're looking at a label thinking, "I don't remember anything about this label's reputation for this year" and whatnot. Just drop it on the 'table and let your ears decide.

You can't do that with shrink-wrapped! You have to know before you go to the store what others are saying about it.

 

[voltcontrol]

Be it reissue or original (in a mint state) or bootleg, whatever pressing is best is the audiophile choice, no?

 

[agypsy]

"This is not always true, especially right now. Some reissue labels currently make new lps from the original master tapes."

Yeah, but are you sure that there's no remastering done? And if not, wouldn't the original sound better anyway, because it was made from a fresh tape?

The way I see it, the only way a reissue could sound better than an original is if the original is damaged and noisy, or if there was some kind of sonic "mistake" in the original tape that was fixed during the remastering process. Am I missing something?

i would agree that the original tape would sound better.
i guess it's completely subjective to say a reissue sounds better or not. it depends on what you think is good. personally i look for OP because that is what the artist and producer intended it to sound like. once it is re-eq'd and compressed then the integrity of the original piece is tarnished. IMHO, it's like saying a refurbished work from van gogh looks better than the original. but if you're not familiar with how the original looks like then....

i have A/B'd 10 reissue's to the OP's and half of the sounded less than great. the other half didn't sound bad and had i not had anything to reference them to, they would sound great. but they didn't retain the depth and character of the originals. abbey road reissue from 2009 sounded really good but the OP sounded more authentic in the highs and lows. the cymbals and hi hats sounded too harsh or hyped compared to the OP. bass is more round somehow and the width is different.

 

[beatcomber]

The way I see it, the only way a reissue could sound better than an original is if the original is damaged and noisy, or if there was some kind of sonic "mistake" in the original tape that was fixed during the remastering process. Am I missing something?

So you think that a 20-50 year old used LP will inherently sound better than a master tape that has been carefully stored and possibly left unused for decades? Have you compared, for example, a 1966 Capitol mono pressing of "Pet Sounds" to Steve Hoffman's remastered version? Lemme tell ya, by comparison, the '66 is a dog.

Spend some time on the Steve Hoffman Forum and read about the care and dedication that the top mastering engineers like Steve use to locate the earliest possible generation tapes, the pure signal chain used for mastering, and the skills and good taste that goes into producing the best possible reissue.

Not all reissues are good, but not all original masterings are good either.

You might find this interesting:
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/dhinterviews/Tape Op Magazine.htm

Q. I know that when cutting audiophile-quality vinyl, you're going for something specific. What's your philosophy on mastering for vinyl?

A. Actually it's the same philosophy I have in general... get that breath of life in the vocals, and don't worry too much about the "top top" and the "bottom bottom." And just try to keep everything as linear sounding as possible. My cutting partner is Kevin Gray, who works out of RTI AcousTech Mastering. I've been working with him for 20 years. His philosophy is my philosophy: the less you have to do, the better it's going to sound in the long run. (We try to) cut it on the record without compromising this or that, or without the stylus not being able to track it properly. The one nice thing about LPs is that there's a certain set of rules and regulations that you have to follow. You can't add a ton of high end and you can't add a bunch of low thumping bass because you just can't! Unless Einstein was all wrong, there's just a certain type of groove that you can cut. And that groove can only have so much of this and so much of that. In one way, that's a good thing, because that keeps engineers honest. They can't screw around. On the other hand, it's a pain in the butt. You want to get as much level as you can on the record, so the music is louder than the surface noise of the record. So you want to get it as loud as possible. But in order to preserve dynamics, you need to make sure that you're not overmodulating anything. In the old days, in the 50s and 60s, the engineers just reduced the dynamic range by using analog compression, which is what is on most EQ "cutting master" dubs of master tapes. The ones marked "master" are the ones that they used to actually cut the LPs, the ones that have been dynamically compromised. So that's how they got away with it. They kept the levels above the surface noise of the record just by reducing the dynamics. In order for me to sleep at night, I want to use the original master tape, which HAS dynamics. So then what do I do? It's just compromise. You get as hot as you can, and as low as you can without losing it to surface noise and just hope that the stylus will stay in the groove and that everyone will be happy. Most people are happy with our purest approach. Nobody's complained that the dynamics are too wide. Audiophiles love that stuff.

 

[agypsy]

So you think that a 20-50 year old used LP will inherently sound better than a master tape that has been carefully stored and possibly left unused for decades? Have you compared, for example, a 1966 Capitol mono pressing of "Pet Sounds" to Steve Hoffman's remastered version? Lemme tell ya, by comparison, the '66 is a dog.

Spend some time on the Steve Hoffman Forum and read about the care and dedication that the top mastering engineers like Steve use to locate the earliest possible generation tapes, the pure signal chain used for mastering, and the skills and good taste that goes into producing the best possible reissue.

Not all reissues are good, but not all original masterings are good either.

You might find this interesting:
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/dhinterviews/Tape Op Magazine.htm

beatcomber,

i think you misread Fopp's statement, maybe you should read it again...
he doesn't mention that the vinyl sounds better than the original tape.

i agree that not all original pressings or shall we say original recordings sound great, but that's not to say that i would want to change it. there are times when i think something was off in either the pressing, recording/mixes or mastering but i wouldn't necessarily want to hear a modern "better" sounding version. but that's a matter of personal choice.

regarding your comments and steve hoffman reference, it's exactly what i'm talking about. not taking away from steve hoffman and his skills and experience but he eq's it again from the original "unmastered" tapes. that's all fine except that most of the time the artist is not there with him approving the new eq and compression. his reissue's are "remastered". that's all good if you don't mind hearing a different sounding version than the original.

better sounding or not is a matter of taste and wanting to hear an OP is preference. i'm actually fascinated by what i hear from older recordings. i don't want to hear what it sounds like after it's been processed with modern equipment. i prefer to hear what it sounded like when they released it.

but as i said it's all a matter of taste and preference...

ciao,

russ

 

[beatcomber]

beatcomber,

i think you misread Fopp's statement, maybe you should read it again...
he doesn't mention that the vinyl sounds better than the original tape.

Right, but he asserted that original pressings must be better because the tape was fresher - which hardly seems likely. Magnetic tape lasts a LONG time when cared for properly.

regarding your comments and steve hoffman reference, it's exactly what i'm talking about. not taking away from steve hoffman and his skills and experience but he eq's it again from the original "unmastered" tapes. that's all fine except that most of the time the artist is not there with him approving the new eq and compression. his reissue's are "remastered". that's all good if you don't mind hearing a different sounding version than the original.

better sounding or not is a matter of taste and wanting to hear an OP is preference. i'm actually fascinated by what i hear from older recordings. i don't want to hear what it sounds like after it's been processed with modern equipment. i prefer to hear what it sounded like when they released it.

but as i said it's all a matter of taste and preference...

I think that you and I agree more than we disagree...

I am also paramountly concerned with the integrity of the original recording, and given the choice, usually prefer the sound of an original pressing, particularly when it comes to '50s and '60s recordings. Hoffman in particular never adds compression or limiting to his remasters, and only EQ's when absolutely necessary (ie: the vintage mix was done using monitors that unnaturally colored the sound).

However, it's worth considering that a.) the artists usually had little say or involvement or even interest in the mastering of their records in the old days; b.) truly good reissue mastering engineers - like Steve Hoffman, Kevin Gray, Doug Sax, etc. - have enough skill, sensitivity and good taste to make the right judgement calls on how to properly interpret the artists' intentions. It's also worth noting that the really smart mastering engineers will use the proper vintage gear to do their transfers. Hoffman has said that he goes so far as to swap different tubes in his gear to get what he considers to be the proper tonality for a particular project.

Like you said, it's ultimately a matter of taste and preference - either you like what they've done, or you don't.

 

[jn229]

What is an original pressing, some big sellers like DSOTM have been issued how many times on how many labels? Which ones sound better? I bought a new DSOTM simply to have a quite back ground, my original (?) hasn't survived all the old parties that well.

P.S. I own 4 of these, my original, a garage sale, a record bin and Acoustic Sounds.

 

[beatcomber]

abbey road reissue from 2009 sounded really good but the OP sounded more authentic in the highs and lows. the cymbals and hi hats sounded too harsh or hyped compared to the OP. bass is more round somehow and the width is different.

Apples and oranges. The 2009 LP was mastered from a digital source, while all pressings prior to 1987 were mastered from analog tape - and if you want to be really picky, only the UK lacquers were actually cut from the 1st gen master mix tape, the rest of the world used dubs supplied by EMI in London.

 

[davidro]

The best reissue experience I had was with 180g Mercury Living Presence ones pressed by speaker's corner. The record was a Janos Starker cello album and I don't think I'll be willing to spend $$$ on the OP. But when the reissue sounds that good, the OP must be amazing.

 

[beatcomber]

be it reissue or original (in a mint state) or bootleg, whatever pressing is best is the audiophile choice, no?

yes!

 

[agypsy]

I think that you and I agree more than we disagree...

I am also paramountly concerned with the integrity of the original recording, and given the choice, usually prefer the sound of an original pressing, particularly when it comes to '50s and '60s recordings. Hoffman in particular never adds compression or limiting to his remasters, and only EQ's when absolutely necessary (ie: the vintage mix was done using monitors that unnaturally colored the sound).

It's also worth noting that the really smart mastering engineers will use the proper vintage gear to do their transfers. Hoffman has said that he goes so far as to swap different tubes in his gear to get what he considers to be the proper tonality for a particular project.

Like you said, it's ultimately a matter of taste and preference - either you like what they've done, or you don't.

i don't mean to say that what steve does is not a positive thing. and i wasn't aware of his tube swapping which is really cool. if it sounds good it sounds good. it depends on what you're looking for.

didn't know about those beatles facts on your later post...interesting!

 

[Mr. Lin]

Yeah, but are you sure that there's no remastering done? And if not, wouldn't the original sound better anyway, because it was made from a fresh tape?

Most of them are re-mastered to some extent, and this pretty much explains what I was talking about:

Spend some time on the Steve Hoffman Forum and read about the care and dedication that the top mastering engineers like Steve use to locate the earliest possible generation tapes, the pure signal chain used for mastering, and the skills and good taste that goes into producing the best possible reissue.

Not all reissues are good, but not all original masterings are good either.

You might find this interesting:
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/dhinterviews/Tape Op Magazine.htm

Honestly I don't agree that original lp version is always going to sound better, or that it's necessarily a subjective thing. The people who are doing these "hardcore" process remasters, like the ones Steve Hoffman has done, have many, many years of experience and professionally trained ears. There are a number of objective parameters you can judge recorded sound by, like resolution, micro and macro-dynamics, imaging, etc. If the re-mastered version does all those types of things better it's hard to imagine how the original could still be considered superior.

The downside with the remasters-in-question are the very high prices...

 

[beatcomber]

The downside with the remasters-in-question are the very high prices...

Considering the rising prices of certain vintage records, sometimes an audiophile reissue isn't that expensive, but I certainly have to be very picky about which ones I buy. I wish I could afford, for example, the Acoustic Sounds 45 RPM Blue Note reissues, but $50/ea is just too rich for my blood, although I don't doubt that they're worth every penny. The few audiophile reissues I own are very special treats indeed.

I just ordered one of the new Classic Records "Quiex" vinyl pressings of Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue," mastered by Bernie Grundman (http://www.elusivedisc.com/prodinfo.asp?number=CS8163QP). It's the most expensive new record I've ever purchased, but I really love that album. (Who doesn't? ) I already own a 6-eye original pressing which, unlike most '50s Columbia LPs, doesn't sound all that great to me, but it will be interesting to compare the two. From what I've read, this is THEE version to have for the best fidelity, with the added bonus of having side one mastered at the correct speed.

I can also very highly recommend the new Rhino 180 gram 100% analog Coltrane reissues, mastered by Doug Sax, Kevin Gray or Bernie Grundman. They sound amazing, and the vinyl is quiet (after an initial cleaning to remove dust from the factory).

 

[Fopp]

I just ordered one of the new Classic Records "Quiex" vinyl pressings of Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue," mastered by Bernie Grundman (http://www.elusivedisc.com/prodinfo.asp?number=CS8163QP). It's the most expensive new record I've ever purchased, but I really love that album. (Who doesn't? ) I already own a 6-eye original pressing which, unlike most '50s Columbia LPs, doesn't sound all that great to me, but it will be interesting to compare the two. From what I've read, this is THEE version to have for the best fidelity, with the added bonus of having side one mastered at the correct speed.

It is a beautiful-sounding record, one of my favorite reissues. Thanks for the info on remastering. I didn't consider the fact that tape could last a lot longer if stored properly.

Listening to a Sundazed reissue of Donovon's Sunshine Superman right now. No complaints here.

 

[beatcomber]

Sundazed and Bob Irwin always produce excellent reissues, lovingly prepared!

 

[steely]

...and compared to some of the other labels, Sundazed reissue prices are fair and reasonable.