advertisement


Vinyl - old and original or new and remastered?

RobFTM

RobFTM

pfm Member
What is the considered opinion of the experts with regard to vinyl – old and original or new and remastered? I’m thinking of say Led Zeppelin and David Bowie as exemplars but old or new in general.

Am I to be concerned buying a 40 year old copy of say Diamond Dogs for about £40 or £50 via Discogs or would I be better spending £20 on a pristine remastered version from the Rough Trade shop?

Perhaps this is a daft question, but which would sound better, generally speaking? The originals were mastered for turntables as there was nothing else but are the newer versions now optimised (whatever that may mean!) with better technology?

This is a difficult question to answer but I’d appreciate the collective's views.

Thanks.

Rob.
 
There is no general rule.
It is purely case by case, issue by issue, some remastering is horrendous, some the opposite extreme, some original pressings are horrendous, some at the opposite extreme. Most of both are in-between.
 
Thanks Vinny, but how does one tell which reissue falls into which category? Steve Hoffman Forums or here perhaps?
 
Unfortunately the only option is to search and/or ask for specifics.
Anything that has been remastered will have been done because of expected large sales, so you do stand a good chance of getting comments from somewhere.
 
With Bowie original UK RCA vinyl is the high-watermark. No question. Led Zep the same, though some expensive reissues (specifically Classic Records) are very good too.

None cheap!
 
As said there are no rules and no easy answers. A ressiues quality depends on the state of the master tapes, whether the master, a copy or digital version is used, the skill of the mastering engineer and finally, the pressing plant. I buy a mix of new and original and research as much as I can on the Steve Hoffman forum and comments on Discogs. True first pressings of popular albums made in the bands country of origin are always in demand as these are seen as the most likely version to be made from the original master tape in its freshest state (and a bit of nostagia/fandom)

I can think of many reissues that are more sought after than first pressings, a good example beiing the EMI100 1997 relase of Bowies Hunky Dory(which is superb BTW), the Speakers Corner reissue of Supertramps Crime of the Century is another.
 
Minefield this thread. I do research a fair bit when buying a record, but still end up with some horrors but generally I am pleased with a lot of modern vinyl I buy.

No help, I am afraid, but if after specific items give them a mention on here, it may help. or confuse you further.

Bloss
 
Also factor in how revealing your system is. One of the drawbacks of having improved my vinyl playback considerably over the last ten years is how clear the difference is between good and bad mastering/pressings.
Is it enough to justify spending 200 rather than 20 is the question I'd be asking myself.
 
Case by case scenario, as has been said already. You'd have to do your homework, reading forum threads, reviews, etc. There are remastering luminaries which you can safely bet will do a really good job, but there could be pressing issues, etc. I can pretty much buy blindly whatever is remastered by Kevin Gray, Bernie Grundman, Chris Bellman... I've had luck until now with those guys. In any case, you'd have to do the homework of finding out who remastered what and where it was pressed.
 
My preference has always been to seek out first pressings from country of origin (e.g. LZ UK pressings, Blue Note original RVG US pressings, etc.). However, some of the recent Blue Note 'Tone Poet' and BN80 series have been excellent (all remastered by Kevin Gray). Comparing one of the BN80 pressings against an original though, and the latter has more 'life' and presence, but are inevitably noisier.

I try and do enough forum research to ascertain provenance of new pressings, e.g. digital source or AAA. Some of the digitals ones aren't necessarily 'bad', just different. Some (where remixed by Steve Wilson) can sound awesome.

I have five different vinyl pressings of 'TLLDoB' by Genesis (from original 'Pecko' pressing to newly mixed version), and they all sound different.
 
Very rarely have I heard a remaster that improves on a first press from country of origin. My experience is mainly around rock, punk, post punk etc from early 70s onwards. My mono 2nd press of With The Beatles is stunning.
 
Theo and Tony's posts above make important points; on the one hand, there are some great modern reissues (frequently involving Kevin Gray). On the other hand, 70s Orange RCA Bowie are hugely better than any reissues, and a key reason for owning a record player. With some artists it's more mixed. With Joni Mitchell, for instance, the 70s originals are nearly always the best, but the Hoffman/Gray remaster of Blue is quite stunning, and generally thought to be better than the original.
 
Agreed. For clarity I was answering the very specific question (Bowie, Led Zep), not discussing reissues in general. That is a far more nuanced subject.

PS The green label RCA International Bowie reissues from the late ‘70s and early ‘80s are fairly well regarded and don’t carry the collector premium of the original orange RCA Victor pressings. Possibly a good alternative if funds don’t stretch too far.
 
Sometimes original pressings are unsurpassed, and sometimes recent pressings are of tremendous quality.
All down to the availability of the original master tapes and their condition.
The all-analogue recent Beatles pressings are superb because they use the original tapes and were entirely kept away from anything digital.

That said, a recent digital recording will always sound best on CD. The LP will sound much the same anyway, but with some noise and distorsion added!
 
Labels that use orginal tapes , quality mastering , plating & pressing will have a sticker

.
sunlp4003r-2.jpg
.
1247660_9_1485537719.jpg
 
Yes but sometimes the original tapes have lost their original quality, and you can hear it by listening to the period records.
So it’s not a guarantee of good records.
 
Thanks for all of your views and opinions.

I rather suspected it would be case by case. My personal view or perhaps prejudice, based on absolutly nothing, was that old and original would be better on the proviso that one could get a decent undamaged copy of something that's pushing 40 years old in the case of the Bowie and Zep stuff.

You are correct about the prices Tony (which of course you would be as its your "job"!) as I was amazed as to how expensive early original Bowie costs. So it looks like I'll have to increase the budget or limit the scope of the operation.

Thanks all again.

Rob.
 
Thankfully I bought stuff like Bowie, Can, Kraftwerk etc etc decades ago before the price went crazy. It irritates me that with Bowie at least there are so few viable alternates (I have a near mint full set of UK orange RCA Victor). It’s the same with Bowie CDs, the original issue Japanese and West German RCAs, even though imperfect, are still much better than any later remastered issues, and they go for about £50 a pop now, more for some titles. I’d love a set, but I’m not paying that for them!

PS I think I still have some of the Led Zep Classic Records in the shop, though not cheap, obviously.
 
You used to get lucky with Bowie in charity shops sometimes. Fortunately my Mrs is a huge Mr. B fan so I have, ahem, incorporated her Orange RCAs into my collection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top