I think a huge problem with this is how vinyl is a giant cash grab for record labels, so they just slap the CD master onto an LP and call it a day. I own a few records like that, and yeah, its cool to own the LP version of it, but it feels pointless when I could have spent half the money on the CD version.
To judge a reissue you have to know what label produced it. There are certain labels that are careful to only cut from the original analog tapes and master using analog boards. Often times these releases can sound way better than the original pressings. Some labels I trust for reissues are Analogue Productions, Classic Records, Speakers Corner, Mobile Fidelity, Music Matters (they only do Blue Note jazz), ORG Music/Original Recordings Group (two separate labels, both are fantastic), Pure Pleasure Records, and Impex. These labels are going to be more pricey (think 30-55 dollars a record), but the end result is often the definitive pressing of that particular album. Keep in mind that adjusted for inflation, this is similar to the price of records in the heyday of vinyl. I agree much of the cheap reissues out there right now are terrible, mostly because they are pressed from digital CD-quality masters at bad pressing plants like United in Nashville. But I think if you stick with the above labels for your reissues you will be much happier.
i dont think you can make a rule for this. i have an astrud gilberto tune ("maria quiet) on orig verve canadian pressing and same track on reissue comp by contour. this track sounds way better on reissue. - i agree a copy of a copy isnt ideal but you have to use your ears. there are soooo many factors that are well presented in this video. im a mix n master engineer (not a pro, but have had stuff played on radio and commercial releases). i believe the reason some albums dont remaster well is due to headroom. sometimes a tune needs to exceed usual levels like metal, garage rock, punk, hip hop, blues, can all benefit from a touch of clipping the mixbuss at orig mastering stage. so if a new master is made from that master and its pumped up again the bottom end looses detail and will shred causing distortion to become unmanagable and un musical. rms levels used to be around -14, above that problems start kreeping in so recording is still better around -14. today we are around -11 or -10 (final mastered level) which can easily and safely be achieved if done with care as long as the orig is clean n mean. unfortunatly clients tend to be paranoid about volume matching against commercial levels even when its destroying the end product. good to see people are recognising diff pressing plants and engineers make alot of difference to end result.
only prob with just sticking to reliable labels is your stuck with a fraction of recorded music they deam as being worthy of our attension. half the fun about records is we have nearly a hundred years of wax waiting to be re heard by new generations. i appreciate great sounding songs (which is as much about the mix as the master) but also love some poor sounding stuff which has incredable musicianship. just find the sweet spots for filters and remove the resonances with eq and re balance the tone. its not rocket science people. theres alot of info out there for those willing to experiment. plus the bulk of the frequencies are in the middle so any speaker can reproduce it well enough to enjoy for most of us on a basic budget esp if you eq and re calibrate for your system its possible to get you library to play well and get max enjoyment out your fav tunes. admit if you try with free eq then youl be very disapointed. all u need is a high end digital eq with mid side processing (optional) my advice. fabfilter pro q2 or ozone both can be transparent, i prefer fabfilter to any analoge eq for adjusting tone.
Well said, and also if their gonna cut from digital, at least make it double DSD or hi res 192/24! The higher the resolution the digital source is, the more it's gonna sound like analogue, period!
A good informed post with good labels listed....but......I am no longer so convinced that just because it is reissued on these fancy labels that it sounds better than the original first pressing in the right country per say. There is no hard fast rule. It might sound better in some cases.
The Sheffield Track Record (if you can get it) original direct to disc will rip the stylus & cartridge off your tonearm! You could use it for a grinding disc in your metal work shop!
Most pressings of Aja by steely Dan, any nine inch nails stuff, the 200g issue of doors LA woman sounds phenomenal. Mezzanine by massive attack sounds great.
This is all about dynamic range. DR was always the holy grail for sound engineers. If you find albums from the 50's, 60's 70's & 80's DR was usually excellent. Albums were mixed by the ear, not by digital display. This also applies to early cd's which are usually better than recent remastered reissues. Mixing for loudness simply kills the DR and the track ends up flat.
So happy to know that people begin to understand this too. I mean it's just ridiculous that a 45 single or even a 78 that is over 60 years old with all it's surface noise and everything has more dynamics than today's all clean and "perfect" digital recording or modern vinyl re-master. Personally i love records and "music recorded back then" for it's punchy and crisp sound. Hell, even thrash and death metal were breathing not that long ago so it's definitely not about music genre but mastering and recording culture overall.
this is the big irony of digital technology - with all that dynamic range that's technically available - engineers are using only the top 40dB or so so of it after compression (okay - extreme example - but that's how it works) in an effort to get people to respond to it on first hearing.... all very silly though. I'll tell you though - a really good piece of vinyl can sound every bit as dynamic as CD etc... and (nearly) every bit as quiet as long as you have decent playback equipment
true. the loudness wars started because: a) the mass public weren't listening to music on even the most rudimentary replay system, but were listening on ipods, laptops and phones through ear buds or cheap USB speakers. 2) people think 'louder is better'. 3) most people are fucking idiots who either don't know or don't care.
Mmm. I'm a little late to the party on this one, but dodgy remastering is only one of the pitfalls with reissued vinyl. The current fad for 180/200 gram vinyl not only inflates the cost and is largely a marketing gimmick for the labels, but can introduce quality issues of its own. First there is the quality of the raw material itself which, although reissues supposedly use "virgin" vinyl, often contains imperfections which will introduce unwanted pops and ticks. These heavier grades also increase the possibility of "non-fill" of the groove during pressing (particularly prone in areas of high percussion or vocal tonal change) which results in distortion. Modern new pressings also seem to have a greater surface noise floor than new original releases, most probably related to the use of mold release compound during manufacture. This often necessitates going through a similar cleaning process as a used original to make it playable. Finally, there is the question of the quality of manufacture itself. There are only about 50 plants worldwide pressing vinyl and not all of them have great quality control. After all, with the closing of so many plants in the 90s, much of the expertise in the industry has disappeared. Much has had to be relearned and many staff are inexperienced. I have worked in manufacturing all my life, including a stint at Sony's Sydney CD pressing plant, and can attest to this first hand from industry veterans. I've bought reissues that played and sounded great like the Beach Boys "Pet Sounds" or Jimmy Hendrix's catalogue. But I've also bought some which I had to return including a couple of Stevie Wonder reissues. One was so warped (200 gram vinyl mind you) that I could have surfed on it. The other had 5mm wide hole/pit in the middle of the vinyl (which unfortunately I didn't notice before I played it) which destroyed a $200+ Oroton stylus. So yeah, I am very very wary when purchasing new vinyl. Buyer Beware!
Dead on. Every second record I get when pressed by this Czech pressing plant, is either warped+dirty, or dirty+warped. Horrible quality. All the records in the Rush Moving Pictures Super Deluxe Box set that cost $349, were all bowlwarped. Not even an exchange of product solved the problem, same or even worse condition. When a record is bowled like that, the tracking angle of an expensive MC stylus is not very accurate. I think they dig very deep into our pockets when they deliver something like this again and again.
Same here, I listened to it with my father on a new good setup and at the end we heard the ending phrase that there isn't a dark side of the moon after all... it's a quiet voice that we could not hear during listening to tape, cd, not to mention modest digital formats. But on that vinyl on that setup we heard it very clear, and we were amazed. It was a nice experience!
Remasters/reissues are great for a couple reasons. 1) OG releases for many of my favorite albums are WAY outta my price range - even for million-sellers - especially in a condition that will be free of surface noise and pops & clicks. 2) Albums that have not seen a reissue for some time are often rare, and supply/demand creates inflated prices. Even a mediocre re-release/reissue will bring the prices down. Given only two options, I would rather have a new, mediocre pressing in my price range than an OG release that will break the bank.
Hey there Craig, first of all keep up the good work, love your channel and as a newcomer to the vinyl world your videos help a lot on lots of issues that come up on this hobby and help me stay away from wasting money. Just wanted your opinion about companies that massively repress old ''golden'' vinyls. 'Back to Black' and 'Vinyl is Back' are two examples. Recently i purchased Eric Clapton's Slowhand, Nirvana's Nevermind and Pink Floyd's Division Bell on repressings. Heard that these companies use CD tapes to record on vinyl cause they lack analog tapes on some records, any thoughts? Cheers!
Yes this is true. Getting a vinyl pressing from an original analog tape is the way to go, but not all of those tapes are in good condition, as the tape itself starts to break down and won't even run through the machines anymore. I'm sure that a lot of old master tapes are now being digitized to back them up. There are several ways to do this, and some ways really do sound just like the original. High sample rates and bit depths will render digital copies of analog tapes that are absolutely indistinguishable from the originals. It's also important to note that a lot of 80s and early 90s albums were recorded in digital studios using the same settings that CDs use. Take Rush - Moving Pictures for example. That album was recorded on a 16 bit system at 44.1 khz. If they took the CD and pressed it to vinyl, it would sound the same as the original pressing, providing the master engineer gave it the same TLC before cutting the grooves. Vinyl has far less dynamic range than CDs do, so when someone claims they can hear when a record is pressed from a CD, I have to wonder. If you take an old Bob Marley album and compare it to a re-issue that was cut from a digital source, of course they are going to sound different. One was mastered by some guy with a bandanna and beads, and the other was mastered by a guy with three smart phones and a Ford F-Series. I know with all the technology we have and plugins we have, digital masters can be made to sound like tape. Waves has plugins that emulate old Studer tape machines. I've heard that they sound pretty darn close, if not exact. Finally, re-issues are often just money makers. With vinyl coming back, companies want you to buy your music -- AGAIN! Sometimes care is not taken and they just pump out a pressing from a CD and call it a day. Some of the great bands, like Rush and Zep have taken care to master from original tapes. When this type of detail is paid attention to, it's going to sound good, digital or not. Cheers!
peiragmenos skiouros Yes. Go over to Steve Hoffmann forums, become a member for free, and go over to Music Corner, where there are millions of already-existing threads discussing everything you ever wanted to know about every record ever pressed to vinyl. And obey the rules! Be nice. Always.
Your take on reissue/remasters is total truth . Being a master class Guitarist I'm constantly listening for subtle nuances to blow your brains out signal . Even with my own band I've done reissues and went to painstaking lengths to make it better not take away. In close it's the artist collaborating when possible or making sure the engineer is a very good one. . Thanks for covering such a critical step in sound reproduction !
Totally agree.We heard the reissue of “Back In Black” and it was flat and thin, not to mention it didn’t have the volume the original has. To get closer we to the “punch,” we found ourselves turning up the volume, shouldn’t have to do that.🎧
I have this record on original pressing, and the 2009 vinyl remaster. The version that hits the most and sounds really good in my opinion is the 2003 CD remaster. It is just WOW!
hi Craig.. really enjoy all of your video's & as i have been buying Vinyl for the last 60yrs i am very pleased that it is now well & truly back.. but what i learn from you is great because i now know that things i had in my head are now being explained to me through you & other guys..why i enjoy your part in all of this is that you are a person who is talking to the world on the real end of the money scale if you don't mind me saying.. so please make sure you keep this going & if i can give my opinion at any time i will try .. but it will not be bad.. because i feel as though i'm on the same wave length as you sir.. Paul
It also matters a lot whether your "original vinyl pressing" is a first pressing, second pressing, etc. The first pressing almost always sounds the best in my opinion. You can often tell this by the label. Discogs website is a great resource for learning about different pressings (including ones from a variety of countries). And yeah, I agree....a thousand bucks for an audio cable is ridiculous.
Great video. Thanks a lot for your insight. I'm also not too trusting of the integrity of some of the vinyl re-releases going to out these days. I know for a fact that many are cds pressed on to vinyl. Which when you think is an analogue reproduction of a digital recording, which is entirely pointless. I'm collecting originals wherever possible and they are all sounding great (unless I get one in shabby condition). Thanks again...
Craig. I live in the Cleveland area and, after vacationing for about 15 summers in Canada, I've become enamored with the Canadian hits of the 60's, 70's and 80's, and now I've got a pretty good Canadian collection on vinyl, 45's and lp's. . Strange Brew Hoser! Keep up the good work. Loved the video.
Just stumbled upon this great video. I have the first 4 dio lp’s on vinyl, all original presses. All sound fantastic. I recently purchased the rocktober rhino reissues of the same albums plus strange highways and lock up the wolves. I cannot give an opinion on whether the latter sound better than the originals, but the first 4 original pressings blow these away. I know ppl swear by the rhino reissues but for me the Dio are very loud, with pops throughout. And are clearly taken from a cd master. Has anyone experienced this with the Dio rocktober releases as well? Thanks guys.
Side A of 2112 brings me to tears every time- thanks to the amazing pressing of that record. I’m not an emotional person. The sheer beauty captured on that record just gets to me. The 200g DMM pressing brings it to life and my mediocre audio setup sounds like an audiophile rig.
You have hit the nail on the head with this one and it's the reason why, I prefer the originals. The mastering is extremely important and guys like Bernie Grundman make it happen, his re-masters always sound outstanding. He worked closely with Lynn Stanley and although her albums are expensive, they sound spectacular and yes Rush is an amazing band. There are great Mastering Engineers outside of Grundman, Emily Lazar, Bob Ludwig, Bob Katz and John Davis. If I buy a good record, I find out who mastered it as far as the re-issues go and I'm looking for other things by that engineer or others.
I love your channel and your presentations and your no BS approach! I have been recently getting back into the hole vinyl thing. Have an older turntable from the late 90s an Akai. And KR 7600 Kenwood receiver. It's from 1977. The speakers I have are Jennings research also from 1977. I picked up a copy of Miles Davis Kind of Blue brand new release on 180g vinyl. I have a CD version of this that someone gave to me about 15 years ago also. Being a jazz drummer for 40 years now, I am very familiar with this album and love it very much. I did a b comparison to my brand new vinyl and the CD that was ripped from someone's computer I didn't do this somebody gave this to me. I couldn't hear the difference. There was no significant difference that I could hear. Now this tells me a couple of things which makes me happy. First off the idea that I had of bypassing my Kenwood phono preamp and getting a stand-alone preamp is probably not going to put me any further ahead. It shows that the Kenwood preamp for phono was pretty darn good. It also tells me that the new needle and the cartridge which are Audio Technica in the Akai turntable are also pretty darn good. The CD player is a Denon and I've been very happy with this for 28 years. I'm thinking in order to see a real significant difference or shall I say hear a real significant difference one would have to spend a tremendous amount of money before that would really happen. I'd like vinyl and the experience of handling an LP and putting the needle down and sitting down and listening to it. I do not like inner Groove distortion. I never knew what that was even called, but I always heard it. On my current turntable there is no real way to resolve this. Just have to live with it. But all that being said I need a CD is a fantastic medium. I don't have to worry about dust. I think vinyl is an excellent medium and I enjoy it very much, but if there's a real audible difference I can't hear it, but I can hear inner Groove distortion. I can hear a difference with MP3 vs. CD vs. Vinyl. MP3 to me has something very similar to Inner Groove Distortion that I can hear. I hear high-end than symbols that sound kind of somewhat distorted and not The clarity that I like. keep up the great work on the channel! I love it.
The biggest problem with most recent remasters on record is they are soucred from a digital file that has been mixed or mastered wrong. Mastering a record to be too loud, compressing the sound which squashes the dymanic range and makes the sound tinny or brittle sounding. Packaging can also be a problem the album jackets are typically thinner than originals or as thin as can be causing premature ring wear. Record companies are usually short with the information on these re-issues or flat out lie about the source in order to fool audiophiles into buying the re-issue when they really don't have to "upgrade" and this ticks me off cause ive been had a few times with this. I end up keeping the record if its playable. Great video!
I've recently re-entered vinyl collection in the US. I have a 2003 copy of Back in Black that I have never listened to. The back cover states "Remastered from the original master tapes by George Marino at Sterling Sound." The inner sleeve has "1980/2003 Leidesplein Presse B.V." I guess I should take it for a spin. Love the channel! I am working my way through years of video. Keep up the good work.
First of all, you had me at Rush. :D I just purchased the Moving Pictures 2015 remaster LP. What an amazing job they did, not just in the mastering, but in the pressing. You can tell that they took great care in manufacturing these records. I only have the one Rush album now but hope to collect the rest of them in the near future.
Like your Rush re-issues I have all the KISS 2014 re-issues on vinyl they also sound amazing , comparing with teh original pressings. Love your videos !
I have very few re-issues. The ones I have are mainly records that are too rare and too expensive to find and purchase. I would never pay $600 for a 13th Floor Elevators LP but I will shell out $20 for a decent re-issue.
Sir, you totally nailed it with some of the re-mastered Vinyls. A few companies have, regrettably, tried to 'improve' the loudness of the original rather than go for the widest dynamic range which modern systems can cope with better.
Craig, I'm a professional musician (nearly 30 years) AND an audiophile..but i don't spend $1000 on speaker cable either..sadly 'audiophile' has become a derogatory term...it simply means the pursuit of the best replay you can...just avoid the snake oil.
I made a set of Belden interconnect cables myself. If you can splice wire and solder, not rocket science by any means, it's easy to produce. I actually compared those cables to a friends interconnects that cost him about $350. My $20.00 Belden cables with nickle plated RCA jacks sounded better. I'm talking about interconnect cables- pre-amp to power amp, not speaker cables. The interconnects are electrically closer to the input source be it the turntable or CD player output. YOu can hear diff with speaker cables as well but to my ears, the varying interconnects would be more noticeably different. For speaker cables for example, listening to how low the bass rolls off, sound stage size,depth. The decay of the high frequencies like a drum cymbal. If you know the recording well you will listen for certain things you expect.
@@RixVSpinner62 My B speakers were run into the next room, my office, with about 15' (R) and 25' (L) Channel. The 120 watt receiver couldn't get the signal through the standard speaker wire. Upgraded to a heavy gauge and they sound okay (Chinese-made KLH). The A audiophile reference speakers (Quart S) run on heavy premium, 5' each channel, with gold banana plugs and the clarity and bass is impressive.
Yes, Simon! The term audiophile's misused. It's simply "some one who listens to music without doing anything else and loves experimenting with sound by buying and trying out gear..Sorry, Craig, you're an audiophile!
Totally agree with you. I see a lot of videos and articles saying that vinyl "sounds" better because of the "personal experience", but it's not, it's about how it is mastered and produced. You hit the nail on the head with the Loudness War and compression issues: music these days is so compressed it's unlistenable. I got back to vinyl not because of nostalgia, but because it actually sounds better, and it's totally demonstrable. I'm glad you used the Rush vinyl reissues as a good example, and I'll add on to it: the original CD of their Feedback album sounds like crap (DR is about 6), so much that I just avoided it, and I'm a huge Rush fan. I got the vinyl reissue, and the difference is absolutely astounding, crisp and clear, great sounding record (DR of about 12). And the digital downloads offered by them are actually the same as the vinyl, with all the dynamics left intact.
Great video! I own four of the new Rush vinyl. By now the rest are no longer available. I just hope they will do another run of those Rush titles! I was unable to get my favorite one, which is A Farewell To Kings. I do own an original copy of that one.
One thing worth mentioning, is the digital aspect. Many buy vinyl records to to get a real analog sound, but when it is remastered and put into a pc with ones and zeroes, some would say the record looses its value.
There are ways of digitizing music that don't change the sound at all. High sample rates and bit depths are practically flawless. People hear the word digital and they don't consider the resolution with which the file was created. Records made from CDs are meaningless. But records made from high resolution streams, like 24 bit at 192khz sample rate are really close to pure analog. Heck even time is digital if you slow it down enough. It has slices just like sampled audio.
Very true. At 24 bit, 192kHz the resolution is very close to analog tape. I would always record tracks at 24/192 when I record demos, then mix down, and master. It sounds very good. Eventually it has to go to 16/44.1 for a CD.
If fairly returned to vinyl after living in compact disc land most of my life ,mostly because of the brilliant Bernie Grundman Pink Floyd remasters and I have to tell you I have such respect for what you say. You speak clearly don,t talk down to people but most of all you tell it like it is.
I wanted to expand my small vinyl record collection but I am a bit cautious amp the reiusse/remaster thing ( I also collect CDs). Could you recommend me a good web forum where I can check that a particular reiusse or remaster is good? I bought recently a remastered version of a 90s album and it was horrible!
8-track to cassette....I would say maybe going from a 13 inch black and white tv set to a 42 inch LCD screen. Actually I think that would be more apt when going from CD to vinyl record.
Very interesting video. I'm just getting started and actually just set my turntable up today. Haven't actually turned it on as I found out I need either a receiver or powered speakers. I've only got three albums. 180 new release Destroyer and a couple of old originals.
You are so spot on. I have the original pressing for Back In Black and it's mastered by Robert Ludwig at MasterDisk. I have numerous albums in my collection mastered by him and they sound so great! I've only bought one new 180gram pressing and it was mastered for us audiophiles. It sounded great and very clean.
If I were to generalize I’d say any classic rock from the 60-70s sounds best as an original first year release when you A/B with a reissue. For jazz from the 50-60s many of the reissues win out because the surface noise, pops and clicks are too much on the originals. That being said I still like the originals just for the cool factor of holding a 60+ year old album.
Hello, I purchased a KiSS Destroyer "reissue" Remastered "album. I immediately regretted it. It was not what I expected at all, disappointed. Like you said about the reissue ad/dc, it was Flat, no kick, and, the remastering engineer added other anomalies to titles that were not in the original recording. also,..just; there, I'm not going to buy anymore of the reissues of albums. On aside note: I heard the some of the reissues are originally MP3's that are decompressed and then are cut as an albums. Have you head that?? Great vid!
You had me at RUSH! That's what I've been thinking about though. I got Moving Pictures, Hemispheres, Exit... Stage Left, And Roll the Bones as a Reissue'd album. And I feel Rush did a VERY good job making them sound amazing! The first time I played Moving Pictures, it just sounded so perfect, Better than I ever heard it before. Same with Hemispheres
I think record companies that are backing bands like Rush will probably have good re-issues. Record companies have to be excited about the releasing vinyl again, they get to sell stuff again.
Rush made a great work in those reissues. I would buy them with no doubt. The only problem is with bands like the Beatles, where they just threw the CD remaster (and it doesn't sound good, it is certainly compressed) onto the vinyl and say "See? This is a high quality audiophile vinyl!" So we're basically paid more for just having a CD. Reissues are GREAT, but I prefer them coming from the original masters.
i bought a King Crimson reissue from the internet and the surface noise was intrusive on the quiet passages. I then saw a more expensive reissue but it had an extra disc,which were alternative mixes.I i didn't really want this extra disc. I took a chance that this edition would play better.The difference was audible no surface noise. Why?
Great video. Everything you mention here about reissues vs originals is completely in line with my experience. It's a shame that so many people get fooled by the gimmicks.
I agree man, you have to research the reissues first. Unless I would never find a used one, like super rare, I try and hold out. Its worth it for some cd era bands. I heard the Aerosmith Pump reissue was trash so I held out for a good deal and got an original for like $20. Also grams mean nothing.
FirstLight Yes and you still saved.But the record companies think ...We are lazy asses...and there are aot out there.Who will just buy the reissue for what ever the amount....and then these people will say ,No way a reissue is the only way to listen to an older rock classic album it's had to be i paided 40 dollars for it ...lol.
You definitely have to do some research in the forums, blogs, non label site reviews that will be honest and not just to hype a product some corporation is selling. There are so many great sites for this like www.stevehoffman.tv/ . Some great examples of great reissues would be the 2016 Pink Floyd, the new Kate Bush vinyl, Lindsay Buckingham's Solo Anthology box set, the Audio Fidelity vinyl reissues like Rumours. Most of the David Bowie reissues, Elton John, Rolling Stones Mono box set, Lou Reed reissues have also been really good.
I have a Classic Rock 1966-1988 Atlantic box set, two AC/DC songs on it, Highway To Hell and Back In Black, they sound phenomenal. I will record them into my DAW so I won't have to play the record too often, I wonder how it compares to your two copies.
I have ran into a big problem with these new re releases being played on my older now antique table that I've played for years. I've noticed that especially one many of these newer recordings that they bump up the base tracks so much that my antique table will not play them because they may the needle skip so much. I've spoken to a locale shop in my area and he had told me that many people like my self that have the chance to relive this are also having the same issues with the newer records and the only remedy to this if you want to still use your original equipment that you've had for years is to upgrade the tone are and stylus which then kills the value and its no longer original or you end up buying a new table all together. Now I did notice that its not in my experience all of these new releases but its been a big majority of them so now I have to have to tables and have to have two different staging areas as to what will play on my antique and my new. It can be a major bummer at least to me when you collect.
It really comes down to the care of cutting and mastering. I've started to read reviews for every release I buy now and I find that larger, mass produced albums don't get the care that they should.
Your right again Craig it starts and ends with the technicians and there talents. This is the reason I don’t buy reissue if records I already own. I mean think about it. When these records were originally made (before cd’s) all we had were records and tapes. So what was released had to be good. And most of the time it was. I do buy records issued on Record Store Day because I don’t have the ones I buy. And I do enjoy them. I’m glad your Rush albums turned out good. Peace.
You have totally nailed it! Today I have received Nazareth SALVO 2019 re-issue of their classic 1975 "Hair of the Dog" - a total miss! The original press was very punchy and out - the new one sounds like a CD compressed , and re-printed to vinyl.
Well it's not always the case since I came across albums where an original pressing had an factory error and they fixed it in the reissued edition, so sometimes a reissue might be more desirable than the original pressing...
I have only just found this chanel. I am going to start reusing my hi Fi. This comment will probably not be read, as you uploaded this some time back. But if you do see it, I totally agree with your opinion relating to remastering. I am a pink flowers fan. I recently listend to a remastered umagumma album. I heard a loop which went on and on and on. I was annoyed that whoever remastered this album took it upon themselves to alter the original recording. The extended loop distracted the ear hearing the subitiles that original recording intended to be heard. I listened to the remaster through my subscription service. Needless to say I will not purchase the remastered vinyl. I am grateful to have been able to listen to the remaster before I purchased it. I am also extremely happy I have most of my favourite original pressings to play on my hifi in its second lease of life. Thanks for highlighting this problem. I do wonder if the bands have any issues with this. I don't know about you but I like to close my eyes a revisit all the gigs I have been to see whilst listening to my vinyl . Not here sounds that were not in the original recordings. I would expect that from a tribute band. Your a cool guy. Working my way through your uploads. peace man✌
I plan to get a new copy of 'Moving Pictures' eventually. My copy is not only worn, but I bought it second hand and I am amazed it still plays cuz it is thrashed...both vinyl AND sleeve.
Subjectivity is the word of the day. I just watched (and commented on) your Shoot To Thrill comparison, and I came away with the impression that the re-issue sounded slightly better. It sounded cleaner, less muddy. I too am a musician, having played bass and guitar for a long time. I used to like my music very bassy, and I still do when out driving or listening to my mp3 player on a dog walk, but at home I tend to keep the tone settings in a more normal, or flat setting. Any extra bass sounds artificial, somehow, in a more quiet setting. That's what I liked about the re-issue of Back In Black. I liked that cleaner, less compressed sound of that band!
I was hopeful that these great albums from the past would become available again to replace the worn, damaged and hard to find copies. Hearing this is a let down after getting excited about starting a new collection. What about albums that are just coming out for the first time? There are no previous releases to copy and compare to. Does that mean that they can slack on the process, or does an original copy always get better treatment from the start with the best sound quality?
Does pressing a vinyl record too hard have an effect on both sides? I have a copy of The Hooters album called Nervous Night. On side two there is a song called She Comes in Colors. At the very end of that song you can hear another song on side one bleed through. Is this because of using thinner vinyl? My opinion is this is where 180gram or 200gram vinyl would be better. Of course, the record label is Columbia/CBS which I didn't care much for their vinyl records and cassette tapes. Their cassette tapes were out quickly. I had some that wore new and they give me trouble.
if the OG press is still availabale and not a holy grail priced one, i always want the OG press... all these re-releases that really dont need to exist, are just made from the big companies to make a quick dollar on the "new" vinyl trend... and all this record store day hype...thats not my cup of tea, really... i also like vinyl because of the fact, that i have something in my hand, and yeah.. something authentic from the time it has been made, and like it should be, imo.
indyvinylz I have been listening to vinyl for 40 years & a bit and I don't mind the re issues as long as they are done with care and can allow new devotees to the medium access to many titles that were only available, as you say, by purchasing at vast expense a Holy Grail version. I've been re stocking albums that I once had on vinyl, but stupidly got rid of when I purchased the CD version ( cue much head banging & wailing). I try and get original release versions, but they are either very expensive or not worth buying as they have been so poorly looked after. Yes you still get people who only visually grade vinyl! You can't do that. It's impossible to say a piece of vinyl is near mint just by looking at it!! So I don't mind them plus I've got some good ones that have pleasantly surprised me. I do however get tired of yet another Steve Wilson remix. There are other sound engineers & mixing wizards out there I'm sure!
@@andrewhaines8603 You may get original pressings from this "guy" (won't mention his names) who buys a lot of $5 to $10 records and sells them for $200 to $500 or more. He describe "his" records as "hot stampers". 😂 Or what you should do: hunt for the records, take your time, that is the whole fun with this hobby. And I agree with you. I also want the record from THAT TIME and period it was made, and I also don't want it for what ever the cost. The fun part is to find those at a ridiculous low price and the quality is still top notch. I have talked with many sellers who actually hate flippers, and they want to sell to someone that respects and wants to listen to the records they sell. Have a face to face conversation with these sellers. Tell them about yourself and what you do, and what you love about music. Don't go to store that know too much about vinyl records. They just want to the most $ out of the records - even the thrift stores has become like this, and they use Discogs. Prices are driven out of proportions. Buy collections just like these stores do. Even $10 records (good condition) only need to cost $1 doing it this way. Also, many of these private sellers do not want to spend ages and hours to get rid of their records.
I just subscribed. Great video and very informative. Yes I agree it's hit and miss with the reissues. Wish you were here by Pink Floyd is an awesome reissue and the albums by The Doors from rhino. Have a good day. Peter.
Isis released Mosquito Control on CD in 1999 I think. Vinyl shortly after. Aaron Turner definitely sees the value in a "remastered for Vinyl" process, because the difference is there. I've made my table "more honest" with the 2M Blue cartridge. It's bringing out the amazing brand new presses, and letting the brand new mediocre ones reveal themselves. The difference between Sumac's What One Becomes and Pelican's City of Echoes is clear. Your 8-track to Cassette comparison is pretty apt.
Hey Craig! That sux! The only way to know if a remaster is superior to its original is to purchase a (Musicdirect) $40-$80! 200g pressing, cross your fingers and hope?? I'm at a ratio of say, maybe 50/50 of Lp to CD? At this point, investing into a high resolution, upscaling CD/SACD ect deck might just be more cost efficient than trail and error new pressings currently being released? At $40-$80 a record just might need to come with a "satisfaction guarantee"? Good video, thx!
IMO the best way to detect a good remastering is to check for a couple different indicators. These indicators can usually be found printed on a hype sticker pasted to the front cover of a record. If there's any mention of involvement of either the producer or band member(s) on that record, that's usually a good indicator of a decent remastering. If there's mention on the hype sticker that the record was cut or remastered from original analog tapes or masters, that's usually a good indicator as well. I must say that RHINO is an excellent label when it comes to reissues in general. I have the first 4 RAMONES albums reissued from Rhino and they not only sound amazing, but they also replicate the sleeve and innersleeves to match the original issues as close as possible. I'd also recommend EARMARK and DRASTIC PLASTIC for quality reissues.
So, do you have any tips on finding out which reissue is good and which isn't? For popular albums a simple Google search might do, but the more obscure albums or even for some relatively well-known albums I cannot find any information on the difference between the original pressing and the reissue.
I've noticed that a lot of these repressings are squeezed onto a single side of the record, with side two blank, where the original was a normal two-sided LP. So the tracks MUST be closer together, right? Is that just to save manufacturing costs? Well, I don't like it.
Hello Craig, I agree with you in a certain way. Some re-issues are terrible, the most terrible are the ones with bonus tracks. In that case you will get that the grooves are touching eachother. The best way of a re-issue is, to split the album in 4 and make them palyable at 45RPM, I'm sure Rush blow you more away.
Great video bro-zinski. Good to know the Rush re-issue vinyl is worth it. Its nice to share, the good the bad and the ugly with each other. Jimmy Page really did a brilliant job on all the Led Zeppelin re-issue albums. Page claims to have been intimately involved in the mastering , and the final release of the re-issue LPs and the CDs. I would highly recommend a Led Zeppelin re-issue vinyl to anyone who wants to hear Zep on vinyl again. Sure original vinyl that has never been processed in the digital domain will probably sound the best, but bear in mind ...many of the later pressings ( due to the limitations of the technology) lacked the same quality as the UK and early pressings, so the sound may not be as good.
Get the Discogs app for your phone. Put the UPC code of the album you are looking at into the search field. I do this in stores as well. It will give you the breakdown on the release as to the mastering, pressing plant etc. You also get its current average value based on sales, and going to the reviews section will give you insight on sound quality, surface noise, packaging etc. Imperative resource....and its free.
I've had mixed results with 180gram LP's. I've often found 180g to be a tad noisier than standard weight older vinyl. In some cases I've made do with records, and when they become too worn I've sought out 1st pressings to replace them, and boy in some cases the difference is amazing. The bulk of my LP's bought in the 80's and 90's which I still have, many are original or early pressings, so still sound great, but some labels I have had mixed results. An example I have a couple of ELO Albums on the JET Label. "Discovery" (1979) which had skips, and "Time" (1981) had cross talk and a lot of surface noise, and yet "Out of the Blue" is breathtakingly mastered. Madeleine Peyroux issued on 180g vinyl was a static disaster, I've tried everything from antistatic cleaning, anti static sleeves, but that record attracts dust so much that its ruined the listening experience. It's great to see many UA-camr, particularly younger ones getting into vinyl and enjoying the experience, and the artwork of vinyl, but this has made record companies greedy, and I'm sure when they see them playing on Crosley players then they must be cutting corners on the source material. My Exposure amplifiers from the mid 80's teamed with a Project Xtension10 turntable are merciless with poorly produced records, and apart from the odd label, I've had more issues and gripes with newer re-releases than original pressings.
Hi Craig, I'm new to your channel but I have to say I'm really enjoying watching you, your content is great. In this Video you refer to the Mac Rumours ressiue that you recommend, can I ask which version it is? There is so many out there and I've heard some are poor. Keep up the good work 👍
If you think their turntable RECORDS are good, you should listen to them on a good CD player! records suck big-time, DIGITAL CD, FLAC, streaming in HIGH=RES can be much better sounding!
Discovered your channel yesterday. Very educational. I have a question: Given that the recording is the same (good recording) and the "engraved"sculpted mold for the vinyl is the same (pressing was good), would the amount of vinyl used matter in sound quality? 100 grams vs 180 grams for example..
If I would mastering an album, probably will do the contemporary clean, controlled, less midrange way. When I trying to get better sound, always found myself there. But then usually can't even focus on that music. When I listen it, is sounds great, but means nothing. When I put an old mastered and printed record, it's making a lot of unwanted noise, got lot of distortion, what I just enjoy the music. I don't checking my phone or whatever. Only enjoying the music and my drink. It feels like a real contact between the music and me. So I like both way, I need both. When I just want to listen a good detailed music then put a new print, if I want some more emotional experience then I put the old print. I can't say any of them sounds better than the other, they just sounds different.
I've had a bad experience with a particular reissue of an album I bought back last year. The album in question is Legend by Bob Marley and The Wailers. I do also have a CD of it as well but I bought it on vinyl because I actually wanted it on vinyl as well and it's such a classic compilation album. But I was very disappointed when I got it home and put it on the turntable to find that the volume level of the album is low. It is so low I have to turn my amp volume up quite a lot to be able to hear it. That is unacceptable in this day and age with all the modern technology they have now. Perhaps I'll be better off trying to find an original pressing of it.
It's crummy that the loudness wars, normally associated with CDs and digital formats, is happening with vinyl. It's likely that they took the overloud AC/DC CD remaster tapes, and used those as the source tapes for the re-issued vinyl.
hi vinyl tv , i believe that the difference between the reissue and the original is not because of the recording engineer , but its because the master tape may have deteriorate over the period of 20, 30 40 or more years
Forgot one more thing. If you are ever in California and want to tour a great pressing plant, RTI, let me know and I can get you a tour. It's really cool to actually be there and see the whole process.
hey, what do you think of 180g vinyl records? i hate them. they have no atvantage in sound and they just feel wrong, i don't get the cool feeling as when i am holding an older record. i hope you know what i mean. but i also hate too thin records (like from they are mostly from the late 80s).
If it comes to pressings it takes less than a minute which is the better one. It isn't about one frequency but overall EQ, mastering engineer decisions, source material and pressing plant/vinyl (resin) used. Many collect first pressings, but they are often not the best sounding since most of them were commercial pressings that had to play on cheap tables without skipping.
You're totally right about the original Back In Black master sounding way better then the recent remaster. I guess if it ain't broke don't fix it, right?
I could listen to this guy all day. Erudite, modest and engaging. None of that giddy nonsense that overpopulates youtube. Great content!!
yes - I agree!
I think a huge problem with this is how vinyl is a giant cash grab for record labels, so they just slap the CD master onto an LP and call it a day. I own a few records like that, and yeah, its cool to own the LP version of it, but it feels pointless when I could have spent half the money on the CD version.
That is a good point. I have mostly older original vinyl, because I suspect that may be what is happening.
That depends if you want to DJ with vinyl...
And...Buying originals is tough - there are too many scratched copies around.
CountBlagorath especially if it’s cheaper for an older version that may arguably sound better
That would explain the grove issues.
many of the people 'reissuing' do not seem to get the point ...
To judge a reissue you have to know what label produced it. There are certain labels that are careful to only cut from the original analog tapes and master using analog boards. Often times these releases can sound way better than the original pressings. Some labels I trust for reissues are Analogue Productions, Classic Records, Speakers Corner, Mobile Fidelity, Music Matters (they only do Blue Note jazz), ORG Music/Original Recordings Group (two separate labels, both are fantastic), Pure Pleasure Records, and Impex. These labels are going to be more pricey (think 30-55 dollars a record), but the end result is often the definitive pressing of that particular album. Keep in mind that adjusted for inflation, this is similar to the price of records in the heyday of vinyl.
I agree much of the cheap reissues out there right now are terrible, mostly because they are pressed from digital CD-quality masters at bad pressing plants like United in Nashville. But I think if you stick with the above labels for your reissues you will be much happier.
Now that's a nice sticker!
i dont think you can make a rule for this. i have an astrud gilberto tune ("maria quiet) on orig verve canadian pressing and same track on reissue comp by contour. this track sounds way better on reissue. - i agree a copy of a copy isnt ideal but you have to use your ears. there are soooo many factors that are well presented in this video. im a mix n master engineer (not a pro, but have had stuff played on radio and commercial releases). i believe the reason some albums dont remaster well is due to headroom. sometimes a tune needs to exceed usual levels like metal, garage rock, punk, hip hop, blues, can all benefit from a touch of clipping the mixbuss at orig mastering stage. so if a new master is made from that master and its pumped up again the bottom end looses detail and will shred causing distortion to become unmanagable and un musical. rms levels used to be around -14, above that problems start kreeping in so recording is still better around -14. today we are around -11 or -10 (final mastered level) which can easily and safely be achieved if done with care as long as the orig is clean n mean. unfortunatly clients tend to be paranoid about volume matching against commercial levels even when its destroying the end product. good to see people are recognising diff pressing plants and engineers make alot of difference to end result.
only prob with just sticking to reliable labels is your stuck with a fraction of recorded music they deam as being worthy of our attension. half the fun about records is we have nearly a hundred years of wax waiting to be re heard by new generations.
i appreciate great sounding songs (which is as much about the mix as the master) but also love some poor sounding stuff which has incredable musicianship. just find the sweet spots for filters and remove the resonances with eq and re balance the tone. its not rocket science people. theres alot of info out there for those willing to experiment. plus the bulk of the frequencies are in the middle so any speaker can reproduce it well enough to enjoy for most of us on a basic budget esp if you eq and re calibrate for your system its possible to get you library to play well and get max enjoyment out your fav tunes.
admit if you try with free eq then youl be very disapointed. all u need is a high end digital eq with mid side processing (optional) my advice. fabfilter pro q2 or ozone both can be transparent, i prefer fabfilter to any analoge eq for adjusting tone.
Well said, and also if their gonna cut from digital, at least make it double DSD or hi res 192/24! The higher the resolution the digital source is, the more it's gonna sound like analogue, period!
A good informed post with good labels listed....but......I am no longer so convinced that just because it is reissued on these fancy labels that it sounds better than the original first pressing in the right country per say. There is no hard fast rule. It might sound better in some cases.
You should do a recommendation video of records you like and sound great on vinyl.
The Sheffield Track Record (if you can get it) original direct to disc will rip the stylus & cartridge off your tonearm! You could use it for a grinding disc in your metal work shop!
Most pressings of Aja by steely Dan, any nine inch nails stuff, the 200g issue of doors LA woman sounds phenomenal. Mezzanine by massive attack sounds great.
This is all about dynamic range. DR was always the holy grail for sound engineers. If you find albums from the 50's, 60's 70's & 80's DR was usually excellent. Albums were mixed by the ear, not by digital display. This also applies to early cd's which are usually better than recent remastered reissues. Mixing for loudness simply kills the DR and the track ends up flat.
So happy to know that people begin to understand this too. I mean it's just ridiculous that a 45 single or even a 78 that is over 60 years old with all it's surface noise and everything has more dynamics than today's all clean and "perfect" digital recording or modern vinyl re-master. Personally i love records and "music recorded back then" for it's punchy and crisp sound. Hell, even thrash and death metal were breathing not that long ago so it's definitely not about music genre but mastering and recording culture overall.
this is the big irony of digital technology - with all that dynamic range that's technically available - engineers are using only the top 40dB or so so of it after compression (okay - extreme example - but that's how it works) in an effort to get people to respond to it on first hearing.... all very silly though. I'll tell you though - a really good piece of vinyl can sound every bit as dynamic as CD etc... and (nearly) every bit as quiet as long as you have decent playback equipment
JW Dewdney I own albums in vynil that literally sound better than the CD version. Loud just doesn't do it.
I've always noticed that my parents old records sounded better than my modern pressings.
true. the loudness wars started because:
a) the mass public weren't listening to music on even the most rudimentary replay system, but were listening on ipods, laptops and phones through ear buds or cheap USB speakers.
2) people think 'louder is better'.
3) most people are fucking idiots who either don't know or don't care.
Mmm. I'm a little late to the party on this one, but dodgy remastering is only one of the pitfalls with reissued vinyl.
The current fad for 180/200 gram vinyl not only inflates the cost and is largely a marketing gimmick for the labels, but can introduce quality issues of its own.
First there is the quality of the raw material itself which, although reissues supposedly use "virgin" vinyl, often contains imperfections which will introduce unwanted pops and ticks.
These heavier grades also increase the possibility of "non-fill" of the groove during pressing (particularly prone in areas of high percussion or vocal tonal change) which results in distortion.
Modern new pressings also seem to have a greater surface noise floor than new original releases, most probably related to the use of mold release compound during manufacture. This often necessitates going through a similar cleaning process as a used original to make it playable.
Finally, there is the question of the quality of manufacture itself. There are only about 50 plants worldwide pressing vinyl and not all of them have great quality control.
After all, with the closing of so many plants in the 90s, much of the expertise in the industry has disappeared. Much has had to be relearned and many staff are inexperienced. I have worked in manufacturing all my life, including a stint at Sony's Sydney CD pressing plant, and can attest to this first hand from industry veterans.
I've bought reissues that played and sounded great like the Beach Boys "Pet Sounds" or Jimmy Hendrix's catalogue.
But I've also bought some which I had to return including a couple of Stevie Wonder reissues.
One was so warped (200 gram vinyl mind you) that I could have surfed on it. The other had 5mm wide hole/pit in the middle of the vinyl (which unfortunately I didn't notice before I played it) which destroyed a $200+ Oroton stylus.
So yeah, I am very very wary when purchasing new vinyl. Buyer Beware!
Much of what you have said I have experienced, see my comments above.
Im so sick of everything being 180 double LP
Dead on. Every second record I get when pressed by this Czech pressing plant, is either warped+dirty, or dirty+warped. Horrible quality. All the records in the Rush Moving Pictures Super Deluxe Box set that cost $349, were all bowlwarped. Not even an exchange of product solved the problem, same or even worse condition. When a record is bowled like that, the tracking angle of an expensive MC stylus is not very accurate. I think they dig very deep into our pockets when they deliver something like this again and again.
I recently got a first pressing of DSOTM. It was like hearing it for the first time. amazing
Same here, I listened to it with my father on a new good setup and at the end we heard the ending phrase that there isn't a dark side of the moon after all... it's a quiet voice that we could not hear during listening to tape, cd, not to mention modest digital formats. But on that vinyl on that setup we heard it very clear, and we were amazed. It was a nice experience!
Remasters/reissues are great for a couple reasons. 1) OG releases for many of my favorite albums are WAY outta my price range - even for million-sellers - especially in a condition that will be free of surface noise and pops & clicks. 2) Albums that have not seen a reissue for some time are often rare, and supply/demand creates inflated prices. Even a mediocre re-release/reissue will bring the prices down.
Given only two options, I would rather have a new, mediocre pressing in my price range than an OG release that will break the bank.
Hey there Craig, first of all keep up the good work, love your channel and as a newcomer to the vinyl world your videos help a lot on lots of issues that come up on this hobby and help me stay away from wasting money. Just wanted your opinion about companies that massively repress old ''golden'' vinyls. 'Back to Black' and 'Vinyl is Back' are two examples. Recently i purchased Eric Clapton's Slowhand, Nirvana's Nevermind and Pink Floyd's Division Bell on repressings. Heard that these companies use CD tapes to record on vinyl cause they lack analog tapes on some records, any thoughts?
Cheers!
Yes this is true. Getting a vinyl pressing from an original analog tape is the way to go, but not all of those tapes are in good condition, as the tape itself starts to break down and won't even run through the machines anymore. I'm sure that a lot of old master tapes are now being digitized to back them up. There are several ways to do this, and some ways really do sound just like the original. High sample rates and bit depths will render digital copies of analog tapes that are absolutely indistinguishable from the originals.
It's also important to note that a lot of 80s and early 90s albums were recorded in digital studios using the same settings that CDs use. Take Rush - Moving Pictures for example. That album was recorded on a 16 bit system at 44.1 khz. If they took the CD and pressed it to vinyl, it would sound the same as the original pressing, providing the master engineer gave it the same TLC before cutting the grooves. Vinyl has far less dynamic range than CDs do, so when someone claims they can hear when a record is pressed from a CD, I have to wonder.
If you take an old Bob Marley album and compare it to a re-issue that was cut from a digital source, of course they are going to sound different. One was mastered by some guy with a bandanna and beads, and the other was mastered by a guy with three smart phones and a Ford F-Series. I know with all the technology we have and plugins we have, digital masters can be made to sound like tape. Waves has plugins that emulate old Studer tape machines. I've heard that they sound pretty darn close, if not exact.
Finally, re-issues are often just money makers. With vinyl coming back, companies want you to buy your music -- AGAIN! Sometimes care is not taken and they just pump out a pressing from a CD and call it a day. Some of the great bands, like Rush and Zep have taken care to master from original tapes. When this type of detail is paid attention to, it's going to sound good, digital or not. Cheers!
Thanks for the detailed answer, understood everything that you said. Keep up the good work friend!
peiragmenos skiouros Yes. Go over to Steve Hoffmann forums, become a member for free, and go over to Music Corner, where there are millions of already-existing threads discussing everything you ever wanted to know about every record ever pressed to vinyl. And obey the rules! Be nice. Always.
Thanks Craig....i was curious as to what Led Zeppelin was doing with their reissue vinyl and you answered my question
Your take on reissue/remasters is total truth . Being a master class Guitarist I'm constantly listening for subtle nuances to blow your brains out signal . Even with my own band I've done reissues and went to painstaking lengths to make it better not take away. In close it's the artist collaborating when possible or making sure the engineer is a very good one. . Thanks for covering such a critical step in sound reproduction !
Totally agree.We heard the reissue of “Back In Black” and it was flat and thin, not to mention it didn’t have the volume the original has. To get closer we to the “punch,” we found ourselves turning up the volume, shouldn’t have to do that.🎧
I have this record on original pressing, and the 2009 vinyl remaster. The version that hits the most and sounds really good in my opinion is the 2003 CD remaster. It is just WOW!
hi Craig.. really enjoy all of your video's & as i have been buying Vinyl for the last 60yrs i am very pleased that it is now well & truly back.. but what i learn from you is great because i now know that things i had in my head are now being explained to me through you & other guys..why i enjoy your part in all of this is that you are a person who is talking to the world on the real end of the money scale if you don't mind me saying.. so please make sure you keep this going & if i can give my opinion at any time i will try .. but it will not be bad.. because i feel as though i'm on the same wave length as you sir.. Paul
It also matters a lot whether your "original vinyl pressing" is a first pressing, second pressing, etc. The first pressing almost always sounds the best in my opinion. You can often tell this by the label. Discogs website is a great resource for learning about different pressings (including ones from a variety of countries). And yeah, I agree....a thousand bucks for an audio cable is ridiculous.
Sometimes the second pressing sounds the best. They also did mistakes back then.
Great video. Thanks a lot for your insight. I'm also not too trusting of the integrity of some of the vinyl re-releases going to out these days. I know for a fact that many are cds pressed on to vinyl. Which when you think is an analogue reproduction of a digital recording, which is entirely pointless. I'm collecting originals wherever possible and they are all sounding great (unless I get one in shabby condition).
Thanks again...
Craig. I live in the Cleveland area and, after vacationing for about 15 summers in Canada, I've become enamored with the Canadian hits of the 60's, 70's and 80's, and now I've got a pretty good Canadian collection on vinyl, 45's and lp's. . Strange Brew Hoser! Keep up the good work. Loved the video.
Just stumbled upon this great video. I have the first 4 dio lp’s on vinyl, all original presses. All sound fantastic. I recently purchased the rocktober rhino reissues of the same albums plus strange highways and lock up the wolves. I cannot give an opinion on whether the latter sound better than the originals, but the first 4 original pressings blow these away. I know ppl swear by the rhino reissues but for me the Dio are very loud, with pops throughout. And are clearly taken from a cd master. Has anyone experienced this with the Dio rocktober releases as well? Thanks guys.
Just found you channel. Glad I did because you had so many important points. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Cheers from Finland, Petri
Side A of 2112 brings me to tears every time- thanks to the amazing pressing of that record. I’m not an emotional person. The sheer beauty captured on that record just gets to me. The 200g DMM pressing brings it to life and my mediocre audio setup sounds like an audiophile rig.
Takes a special skill to master for vinyl when it comes to dealing with bass frequencies
You have hit the nail on the head with this one and it's the reason why, I prefer the originals. The mastering is extremely important and guys like Bernie Grundman make it happen, his re-masters always sound outstanding. He worked closely with Lynn Stanley and although her albums are expensive, they sound spectacular and yes Rush is an amazing band. There are great Mastering Engineers outside of Grundman, Emily Lazar, Bob Ludwig, Bob Katz and John Davis. If I buy a good record, I find out who mastered it as far as the re-issues go and I'm looking for other things by that engineer or others.
I love your channel and your presentations and your no BS approach! I have been recently getting back into the hole vinyl thing. Have an older turntable from the late 90s an Akai. And KR 7600 Kenwood receiver. It's from 1977. The speakers I have are Jennings research also from 1977. I picked up a copy of Miles Davis Kind of Blue brand new release on 180g vinyl. I have a CD version of this that someone gave to me about 15 years ago also. Being a jazz drummer for 40 years now, I am very familiar with this album and love it very much. I did a b comparison to my brand new vinyl and the CD that was ripped from someone's computer I didn't do this somebody gave this to me. I couldn't hear the difference. There was no significant difference that I could hear. Now this tells me a couple of things which makes me happy. First off the idea that I had of bypassing my Kenwood phono preamp and getting a stand-alone preamp is probably not going to put me any further ahead. It shows that the Kenwood preamp for phono was pretty darn good. It also tells me that the new needle and the cartridge which are Audio Technica in the Akai turntable are also pretty darn good. The CD player is a Denon and I've been very happy with this for 28 years. I'm thinking in order to see a real significant difference or shall I say hear a real significant difference one would have to spend a tremendous amount of money before that would really happen. I'd like vinyl and the experience of handling an LP and putting the needle down and sitting down and listening to it. I do not like inner Groove distortion. I never knew what that was even called, but I always heard it. On my current turntable there is no real way to resolve this. Just have to live with it. But all that being said I need a CD is a fantastic medium. I don't have to worry about dust. I think vinyl is an excellent medium and I enjoy it very much, but if there's a real audible difference I can't hear it, but I can hear inner Groove distortion. I can hear a difference with MP3 vs. CD vs. Vinyl. MP3 to me has something very similar to Inner Groove Distortion that I can hear. I hear high-end than symbols that sound kind of somewhat distorted and not The clarity that I like. keep up the great work on the channel! I love it.
I was afraid this is what I would learn. But some of the remastered my significant other has bought me, I'm very happy with. Thanks Craig.
The biggest problem with most recent remasters on record is they are soucred from a digital file that has been mixed or mastered wrong. Mastering a record to be too loud, compressing the sound which squashes the dymanic range and makes the sound tinny or brittle sounding. Packaging can also be a problem the album jackets are typically thinner than originals or as thin as can be causing premature ring wear. Record companies are usually short with the information on these re-issues or flat out lie about the source in order to fool audiophiles into buying the re-issue when they really don't have to "upgrade" and this ticks me off cause ive been had a few times with this. I end up keeping the record if its playable. Great video!
Loving your opinions dude really helping to my knowledge and research in how to collect and enjoy vinyl. cheers and great work
I've recently re-entered vinyl collection in the US. I have a 2003 copy of Back in Black that I have never listened to. The back cover states "Remastered from the original master tapes by George Marino at Sterling Sound." The inner sleeve has "1980/2003 Leidesplein Presse B.V." I guess I should take it for a spin.
Love the channel! I am working my way through years of video. Keep up the good work.
First of all, you had me at Rush. :D I just purchased the Moving Pictures 2015 remaster LP. What an amazing job they did, not just in the mastering, but in the pressing. You can tell that they took great care in manufacturing these records. I only have the one Rush album now but hope to collect the rest of them in the near future.
It's their best!
Like your Rush re-issues I have all the KISS 2014 re-issues on vinyl they also sound amazing , comparing with teh original pressings.
Love your videos !
I have very few re-issues. The ones I have are mainly records that are too rare and too expensive to find and purchase. I would never pay $600 for a 13th Floor Elevators LP but I will shell out $20 for a decent re-issue.
Best vinyl channel I have found..
I think you scored with those 200g re-issues! They're still available but they switched them down to 180g
Sir, you totally nailed it with some of the re-mastered Vinyls. A few companies have, regrettably, tried to 'improve' the loudness of the original rather than go for the widest dynamic range which modern systems can cope with better.
Craig, I'm a professional musician (nearly 30 years) AND an audiophile..but i don't spend $1000 on speaker cable either..sadly 'audiophile' has become a derogatory term...it simply means the pursuit of the best replay you can...just avoid the snake oil.
I made a set of Belden interconnect cables myself. If you can splice wire and solder, not rocket science by any means, it's easy to produce. I actually compared those cables to a friends interconnects that cost him about $350. My $20.00 Belden cables with nickle plated RCA jacks sounded better. I'm talking about interconnect cables- pre-amp to power amp, not speaker cables. The interconnects are electrically closer to the input source be it the turntable or CD player output. YOu can hear diff with speaker cables as well but to my ears, the varying interconnects would be more noticeably different. For speaker cables for example, listening to how low the bass rolls off, sound stage size,depth. The decay of the high frequencies like a drum cymbal. If you know the recording well you will listen for certain things you expect.
@@RixVSpinner62 My B speakers were run into the next room, my office, with about 15' (R) and 25' (L) Channel. The 120 watt receiver couldn't get the signal through the standard speaker wire. Upgraded to a heavy gauge and they sound okay (Chinese-made KLH). The A audiophile reference speakers (Quart S) run on heavy premium, 5' each channel, with gold banana plugs and the clarity and bass is impressive.
@@RixVSpinner62 LOL!🤣
Yes, Simon! The term audiophile's misused. It's simply "some one who listens to music without doing anything else and loves experimenting with sound by buying and trying out gear..Sorry, Craig, you're an audiophile!
Some pay $600 for a 0,5 meter power cable, believe it or not.
Totally agree with you. I see a lot of videos and articles saying that vinyl "sounds" better because of the "personal experience", but it's not, it's about how it is mastered and produced. You hit the nail on the head with the Loudness War and compression issues: music these days is so compressed it's unlistenable. I got back to vinyl not because of nostalgia, but because it actually sounds better, and it's totally demonstrable. I'm glad you used the Rush vinyl reissues as a good example, and I'll add on to it: the original CD of their Feedback album sounds like crap (DR is about 6), so much that I just avoided it, and I'm a huge Rush fan. I got the vinyl reissue, and the difference is absolutely astounding, crisp and clear, great sounding record (DR of about 12). And the digital downloads offered by them are actually the same as the vinyl, with all the dynamics left intact.
Great video! I own four of the new Rush vinyl. By now the rest are no longer available. I just hope they will do another run of those Rush titles! I was unable to get my favorite one, which is A Farewell To Kings. I do own an original copy of that one.
One thing worth mentioning, is the digital aspect. Many buy vinyl records to to get a real analog sound, but when it is remastered and put into a pc with ones and zeroes, some would say the record looses its value.
There are ways of digitizing music that don't change the sound at all. High sample rates and bit depths are practically flawless. People hear the word digital and they don't consider the resolution with which the file was created. Records made from CDs are meaningless. But records made from high resolution streams, like 24 bit at 192khz sample rate are really close to pure analog. Heck even time is digital if you slow it down enough. It has slices just like sampled audio.
Very true. At 24 bit, 192kHz the resolution is very close to analog tape. I would always record tracks at 24/192 when I record demos, then mix down, and master. It sounds very good. Eventually it has to go to 16/44.1 for a CD.
If fairly returned to vinyl after living in compact disc land most of my life ,mostly because of the brilliant Bernie Grundman Pink Floyd remasters and I have to tell you I have such respect for what you say.
You speak clearly don,t talk down to people but most of all you tell it like it is.
I wanted to expand my small vinyl record collection but I am a bit cautious amp the reiusse/remaster thing ( I also collect CDs). Could you recommend me a good web forum where I can check that a particular reiusse or remaster is good? I bought recently a remastered version of a 90s album and it was horrible!
Very good topic and very good points! Thanks for the video...
Brian in Fort Worth 🎶
8-track to cassette....I would say maybe going from a 13 inch black and white tv set to a 42 inch LCD screen. Actually I think that would be more apt when going from CD to vinyl record.
Very interesting video. I'm just getting started and actually just set my turntable up today. Haven't actually turned it on as I found out I need either a receiver or powered speakers. I've only got three albums. 180 new release Destroyer and a couple of old originals.
If your turntable doesn't have a pre-amp, make sure your powered speakers or receiver does.
You are so spot on. I have the original pressing for Back In Black and it's mastered by Robert Ludwig at MasterDisk. I have numerous albums in my collection mastered by him and they sound so great! I've only bought one new 180gram pressing and it was mastered for us audiophiles. It sounded great and very clean.
If I were to generalize I’d say any classic rock from the 60-70s sounds best as an original first year release when you A/B with a reissue.
For jazz from the 50-60s many of the reissues win out because the surface noise, pops and clicks are too much on the originals. That being said I still like the originals just for the cool factor of holding a 60+ year old album.
Hello, I purchased a KiSS Destroyer "reissue" Remastered "album. I immediately regretted it. It was not what I expected at all, disappointed. Like you said about the reissue ad/dc, it was Flat, no kick, and, the remastering engineer added other anomalies to titles that were not in the original recording. also,..just; there, I'm not going to buy anymore of the reissues of albums. On aside note: I heard the some of the reissues are originally MP3's that are decompressed and then are cut as an albums. Have you head that?? Great vid!
You had me at RUSH! That's what I've been thinking about though. I got Moving Pictures, Hemispheres, Exit... Stage Left, And Roll the Bones as a Reissue'd album. And I feel Rush did a VERY good job making them sound amazing! The first time I played Moving Pictures, it just sounded so perfect, Better than I ever heard it before. Same with Hemispheres
I think record companies that are backing bands like Rush will probably have good re-issues. Record companies have to be excited about the releasing vinyl again, they get to sell stuff again.
Rush made a great work in those reissues. I would buy them with no doubt. The only problem is with bands like the Beatles, where they just threw the CD remaster (and it doesn't sound good, it is certainly compressed) onto the vinyl and say "See? This is a high quality audiophile vinyl!" So we're basically paid more for just having a CD.
Reissues are GREAT, but I prefer them coming from the original masters.
i bought a King Crimson reissue from the internet and the surface noise was intrusive on the quiet passages. I then saw a more expensive reissue but it had an extra disc,which were alternative mixes.I i didn't really want this extra disc. I took a chance that this edition would play better.The difference was audible no surface noise. Why?
Great video. Everything you mention here about reissues vs originals is completely in line with my experience. It's a shame that so many people get fooled by the gimmicks.
I agree man, you have to research the reissues first. Unless I would never find a used one, like super rare, I try and hold out. Its worth it for some cd era bands. I heard the Aerosmith Pump reissue was trash so I held out for a good deal and got an original for like $20. Also grams mean nothing.
FirstLight Yes and you still saved.But the record companies think ...We are lazy asses...and there are aot out there.Who will just buy the reissue for what ever the amount....and then these people will say ,No way a reissue is the only way to listen to an older rock classic album it's had to be i paided 40 dollars for it ...lol.
You definitely have to do some research in the forums, blogs, non label site reviews that will be honest and not just to hype a product some corporation is selling. There are so many great sites for this like www.stevehoffman.tv/ . Some great examples of great reissues would be the 2016 Pink Floyd, the new Kate Bush vinyl, Lindsay Buckingham's Solo Anthology box set, the Audio Fidelity vinyl reissues like Rumours. Most of the David Bowie reissues, Elton John, Rolling Stones Mono box set, Lou Reed reissues have also been really good.
I have a Classic Rock 1966-1988 Atlantic box set, two AC/DC songs on it, Highway To Hell and Back In Black, they sound phenomenal. I will record them into my DAW so I won't have to play the record too often, I wonder how it compares to your two copies.
I have ran into a big problem with these new re releases being played on my older now antique table that I've played for years. I've noticed that especially one many of these newer recordings that they bump up the base tracks so much that my antique table will not play them because they may the needle skip so much. I've spoken to a locale shop in my area and he had told me that many people like my self that have the chance to relive this are also having the same issues with the newer records and the only remedy to this if you want to still use your original equipment that you've had for years is to upgrade the tone are and stylus which then kills the value and its no longer original or you end up buying a new table all together. Now I did notice that its not in my experience all of these new releases but its been a big majority of them so now I have to have to tables and have to have two different staging areas as to what will play on my antique and my new. It can be a major bummer at least to me when you collect.
It really comes down to the care of cutting and mastering. I've started to read reviews for every release I buy now and I find that larger, mass produced albums don't get the care that they should.
Your right again Craig it starts and ends with the technicians and there talents. This is the reason I don’t buy reissue if records I already own. I mean think about it. When these records were originally made (before cd’s) all we had were records and tapes. So what was released had to be good. And most of the time it was. I do buy records issued on Record Store Day because I don’t have the ones I buy. And I do enjoy them. I’m glad your Rush albums turned out good. Peace.
Great video Craig what kind of plastic record sleeves do you have on those rush records they look great !
You have totally nailed it! Today I have received Nazareth SALVO 2019 re-issue of their classic 1975 "Hair of the Dog" - a total miss! The original press was very punchy and out - the new one sounds like a CD compressed , and re-printed to vinyl.
The original press is always the most desirable. It kindles the original emotions in a way a repress cannot. Great channel Craig , I'm a fan.
Well it's not always the case since I came across albums where an original pressing had an factory error and they fixed it in the reissued edition, so sometimes a reissue might be more desirable than the original pressing...
the sign.. save the Ales.. what is that about? the little brewer trying to compete against the big processed brewers?
I have only just found this chanel. I am going to start reusing my hi Fi. This comment will probably not be read, as you uploaded this some time back.
But if you do see it, I totally agree with your opinion relating to remastering.
I am a pink flowers fan. I recently listend to a remastered umagumma album. I heard a loop which went on and on and on. I was annoyed that whoever remastered this album took it upon themselves to alter the original recording. The extended loop distracted the ear hearing the subitiles that original recording intended to be heard. I listened to the remaster through my subscription service. Needless to say I will not purchase the remastered vinyl. I am grateful to have been able to listen to the remaster before I purchased it.
I am also extremely happy I have most of my favourite original pressings to play on my hifi in its second lease of life.
Thanks for highlighting this problem. I do wonder if the bands have any issues with this. I don't know about you but I like to close my eyes a revisit all the gigs I have been to see whilst listening to my vinyl . Not here sounds that were not in the original recordings. I would expect that from a tribute band.
Your a cool guy. Working my way through your uploads.
peace man✌
Should have read Pink Floyd fan bloody spell checkers
Pink Flowers sounds like a nice band name, too, actually. :)
Keep the vinyl info coming ...glad I will found you
I plan to get a new copy of 'Moving Pictures' eventually. My copy is not only worn, but I bought it second hand and I am amazed it still plays cuz it is thrashed...both vinyl AND sleeve.
Awesome video! I wish you have a chance to upload more stuff like that!
Love how he picks up Hemispheres from the floor and calls it Permanent Waves.
i bet that hurt hemispheres feelings
Time for some more Craig. Please really enjoy your content.
Subjectivity is the word of the day. I just watched (and commented on) your Shoot To Thrill comparison, and I came away with the impression that the re-issue sounded slightly better. It sounded cleaner, less muddy. I too am a musician, having played bass and guitar for a long time. I used to like my music very bassy, and I still do when out driving or listening to my mp3 player on a dog walk, but at home I tend to keep the tone settings in a more normal, or flat setting. Any extra bass sounds artificial, somehow, in a more quiet setting. That's what I liked about the re-issue of Back In Black. I liked that cleaner, less compressed sound of that band!
Is there an online forum / community-run database reporting on the quality of new vinyl releases?
I was hopeful that these great albums from the past would become available again to replace the worn, damaged and hard to find copies. Hearing this is a let down after getting excited about starting a new collection. What about albums that are just coming out for the first time? There are no previous releases to copy and compare to. Does that mean that they can slack on the process, or does an original copy always get better treatment from the start with the best sound quality?
Does pressing a vinyl record too hard have an effect on both sides? I have a copy of The Hooters album called Nervous Night. On side two there is a song called She Comes in Colors. At the very end of that song you can hear another song on side one bleed through. Is this because of using thinner vinyl? My opinion is this is where 180gram or 200gram vinyl would be better. Of course, the record label is Columbia/CBS which I didn't care much for their vinyl records and cassette tapes. Their cassette tapes were out quickly. I had some that wore new and they give me trouble.
That is not the grooves on the other side you're hearing. It has to have been on the master tape .
if the OG press is still availabale and not a holy grail priced one, i always want the OG press... all these re-releases that really dont need to exist, are just made from the big companies to make a quick dollar on the "new" vinyl trend... and all this record store day hype...thats not my cup of tea, really... i also like vinyl because of the fact, that i have something in my hand, and yeah.. something authentic from the time it has been made, and like it should be, imo.
indyvinylz I have been listening to vinyl for 40 years & a bit and I don't mind the re issues as long as they are done with care and can allow new devotees to the medium access to many titles that were only available, as you say, by purchasing at vast expense a Holy Grail version. I've been re stocking albums that I once had on vinyl, but stupidly got rid of when I purchased the CD version ( cue much head banging & wailing). I try and get original release versions, but they are either very expensive or not worth buying as they have been so poorly looked after. Yes you still get people who only visually grade vinyl! You can't do that. It's impossible to say a piece of vinyl is near mint just by looking at it!! So I don't mind them plus I've got some good ones that have pleasantly surprised me. I do however get tired of yet another Steve Wilson remix. There are other sound engineers & mixing wizards out there I'm sure!
@@andrewhaines8603 You may get original pressings from this "guy" (won't mention his names) who buys a lot of $5 to $10 records and sells them for $200 to $500 or more. He describe "his" records as "hot stampers". 😂
Or what you should do: hunt for the records, take your time, that is the whole fun with this hobby. And I agree with you. I also want the record from THAT TIME and period it was made, and I also don't want it for what ever the cost. The fun part is to find those at a ridiculous low price and the quality is still top notch.
I have talked with many sellers who actually hate flippers, and they want to sell to someone that respects and wants to listen to the records they sell. Have a face to face conversation with these sellers. Tell them about yourself and what you do, and what you love about music. Don't go to store that know too much about vinyl records. They just want to the most $ out of the records - even the thrift stores has become like this, and they use Discogs. Prices are driven out of proportions.
Buy collections just like these stores do. Even $10 records (good condition) only need to cost $1 doing it this way. Also, many of these private sellers do not want to spend ages and hours to get rid of their records.
I just subscribed. Great video and very informative. Yes I agree it's hit and miss with the reissues. Wish you were here by Pink Floyd is an awesome reissue and the albums by The Doors from rhino. Have a good day. Peter.
Lizard King Central
Agree! Wish You Were Here is AWESOME.
Awesome! Wish you were here is on my list. Thanks!
Yes. I bought some Doors reissues and they sound fantastic 👌.
I started the RUSH vinyl as well. Great taste buddy.
HI MAN, are you still going? love your vid's! ..I have lean't a LOT from you CHEERS FELLA.... ian from england....
I'm very happy to hear these words from a record collector.
Isis released Mosquito Control on CD in 1999 I think. Vinyl shortly after. Aaron Turner definitely sees the value in a "remastered for Vinyl" process, because the difference is there. I've made my table "more honest" with the 2M Blue cartridge. It's bringing out the amazing brand new presses, and letting the brand new mediocre ones reveal themselves. The difference between Sumac's What One Becomes and Pelican's City of Echoes is clear. Your 8-track to Cassette comparison is pretty apt.
As a collector of buying the re-issue vinyl. Do you worry about the ring around of the album cover from the vinyl record?
I don't know a thing about vinyl. Can you still get new lp's from the original pressing?
Hey Craig! That sux! The only way to know if a remaster is superior to its original is to purchase a (Musicdirect) $40-$80! 200g pressing, cross your fingers and hope??
I'm at a ratio of say, maybe 50/50 of Lp to CD? At this point, investing into a high resolution, upscaling CD/SACD ect deck might just be more cost efficient than trail and error new pressings currently being released? At $40-$80 a record just might need to come with a "satisfaction guarantee"?
Good video, thx!
IMO the best way to detect a good remastering is to check for a couple different indicators. These indicators can usually be found printed on a hype sticker pasted to the front cover of a record. If there's any mention of involvement of either the producer or band member(s) on that record, that's usually a good indicator of a decent remastering. If there's mention on the hype sticker that the record was cut or remastered from original analog tapes or masters, that's usually a good indicator as well. I must say that RHINO is an excellent label when it comes to reissues in general. I have the first 4 RAMONES albums reissued from Rhino and they not only sound amazing, but they also replicate the sleeve and innersleeves to match the original issues as close as possible. I'd also recommend EARMARK and DRASTIC PLASTIC for quality reissues.
the one dropped is "hemisphere" not "permanent waves"
ya... I thought permanent waves had the hot chick in black and white. You could probably leave hemisphere on the floor ( joke)
So, do you have any tips on finding out which reissue is good and which isn't? For popular albums a simple Google search might do, but the more obscure albums or even for some relatively well-known albums I cannot find any information on the difference between the original pressing and the reissue.
I've noticed that a lot of these repressings are squeezed onto a single side of the record, with side two blank, where the original was a normal two-sided LP. So the tracks MUST be closer together, right? Is that just to save manufacturing costs? Well, I don't like it.
Hello Craig, I agree with you in a certain way. Some re-issues are terrible, the most terrible are the ones with bonus tracks. In that case you will get that the grooves are touching eachother. The best way of a re-issue is, to split the album in 4 and make them palyable at 45RPM, I'm sure Rush blow you more away.
Great video bro-zinski. Good to know the Rush re-issue vinyl is worth it. Its nice to share, the good the bad and the ugly with each other.
Jimmy Page really did a brilliant job on all the Led Zeppelin re-issue albums. Page claims to have been intimately involved in the mastering , and the final release of the re-issue LPs and the CDs. I would highly recommend a Led Zeppelin re-issue vinyl to anyone who wants to hear Zep on vinyl again. Sure original vinyl that has never been processed in the digital domain will probably sound the best, but bear in mind ...many of the later pressings ( due to the limitations of the technology) lacked the same quality as the UK and early pressings, so the sound may not be as good.
Get the Discogs app for your phone. Put the UPC code of the album you are looking at into the search field. I do this in stores as well. It will give you the breakdown on the release as to the mastering, pressing plant etc. You also get its current average value based on sales, and going to the reviews section will give you insight on sound quality, surface noise, packaging etc. Imperative resource....and its free.
I'd like a rerelease of that jacket you're wearing..I wore mine out wearing it to work everyday drivin haul truck in the pit
I've had mixed results with 180gram LP's. I've often found 180g to be a tad noisier than standard weight older vinyl. In some cases I've made do with records, and when they become too worn I've sought out 1st pressings to replace them, and boy in some cases the difference is amazing. The bulk of my LP's bought in the 80's and 90's which I still have, many are original or early pressings, so still sound great, but some labels I have had mixed results. An example I have a couple of ELO Albums on the JET Label. "Discovery" (1979) which had skips, and "Time" (1981) had cross talk and a lot of surface noise, and yet "Out of the Blue" is breathtakingly mastered.
Madeleine Peyroux issued on 180g vinyl was a static disaster, I've tried everything from antistatic cleaning, anti static sleeves, but that record attracts dust so much that its ruined the listening experience. It's great to see many UA-camr, particularly younger ones getting into vinyl and enjoying the experience, and the artwork of vinyl, but this has made record companies greedy, and I'm sure when they see them playing on Crosley players then they must be cutting corners on the source material.
My Exposure amplifiers from the mid 80's teamed with a Project Xtension10 turntable are merciless with poorly produced records, and apart from the odd label, I've had more issues and gripes with newer re-releases than original pressings.
I'd love to hear his opinions on the latest Beatles and Zep remasters
If you don't have a point of reference how do you know if the new pressings are good or not? Is there a site that does reviews comparing?
you are the best! you so right! I see every video you make. very very good job. thank you
Hi Craig, I'm new to your channel but I have to say I'm really enjoying watching you, your content is great. In this Video you refer to the Mac Rumours ressiue that you recommend, can I ask which version it is? There is so many out there and I've heard some are poor. Keep up the good work 👍
Bar Code - 0 9362-49793-5 7
@@VinylTV33 cheers pal 👍
For whatever reason, Steely Dan Vinyls are always excellent.
If you think their turntable RECORDS are good, you should listen to them on a good CD player!
records suck big-time, DIGITAL CD, FLAC, streaming in HIGH=RES can be much better sounding!
Discovered your channel yesterday. Very educational. I have a question: Given that the recording is the same (good recording) and the "engraved"sculpted mold for the vinyl is the same (pressing was good), would the amount of vinyl used matter in sound quality? 100 grams vs 180 grams for example..
If I would mastering an album, probably will do the contemporary clean, controlled, less midrange way. When I trying to get better sound, always found myself there. But then usually can't even focus on that music. When I listen it, is sounds great, but means nothing. When I put an old mastered and printed record, it's making a lot of unwanted noise, got lot of distortion, what I just enjoy the music. I don't checking my phone or whatever. Only enjoying the music and my drink. It feels like a real contact between the music and me. So I like both way, I need both. When I just want to listen a good detailed music then put a new print, if I want some more emotional experience then I put the old print. I can't say any of them sounds better than the other, they just sounds different.
I totally agree with you🤘 There's some winners and losers on records it's not perfect but the winners are keepers for Life🤘🤘
I've had a bad experience with a particular reissue of an album I bought back last year. The album in question is Legend by Bob Marley and The Wailers. I do also have a CD of it as well but I bought it on vinyl because I actually wanted it on vinyl as well and it's such a classic compilation album. But I was very disappointed when I got it home and put it on the turntable to find that the volume level of the album is low. It is so low I have to turn my amp volume up quite a lot to be able to hear it. That is unacceptable in this day and age with all the modern technology they have now. Perhaps I'll be better off trying to find an original pressing of it.
It's crummy that the loudness wars, normally associated with CDs and digital formats, is happening with vinyl. It's likely that they took the overloud AC/DC CD remaster tapes, and used those as the source tapes for the re-issued vinyl.
hi vinyl tv , i believe that the difference between the reissue and the original is not because of the recording engineer , but its because the master tape may have deteriorate over the period of 20, 30 40 or more years
Forgot one more thing. If you are ever in California and want to tour a great pressing plant, RTI, let me know and I can get you a tour. It's really cool to actually be there and see the whole process.
hey, what do you think of 180g vinyl records? i hate them. they have no atvantage in sound and they just feel wrong, i don't get the cool feeling as when i am holding an older record. i hope you know what i mean. but i also hate too thin records (like from they are mostly from the late 80s).
If it comes to pressings it takes less than a minute which is the better one. It isn't about one frequency but overall EQ, mastering engineer decisions, source material and pressing plant/vinyl (resin) used.
Many collect first pressings, but they are often not the best sounding since most of them were commercial pressings that had to play on cheap tables without skipping.
Craig where did u get the shelves for your record?
You're totally right about the original Back In Black master sounding way better then the recent remaster. I guess if it ain't broke don't fix it, right?
Robert Ludwig was one of the best