Audiophile Records (PART 1): original pressings
![ANA[DIA]LOG](http://yt3.ggpht.com/50CpmGNilS8aoMlarZVhI_GxRDoZdbj4ZgwCMZXg-Rq2PrEvCytlE6RVyLUrNY-rwE_sAlZ1Zw=s48-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 вер 2024
- In the first part of the video dedicated to audiophile records we are going to explore original pressings, why it is worth searching for them, why they must be considered High Fidelity and where to find them.
______________________________
Music: "Acid Trumpet" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
______________________________
![If you can't hear this then you're not an audiophile [See description for link to followup video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/48PxwspDvrE/mqdefault.jpg)
They made a stereo version already in the sixties sometimes maybe even in the same year Like the mono version according to a UA-cam channel that only seems to talk about the Beatles And Beatles releases
Many original pressings were on inferior vinyl or poor quality control. In the case of many popular music original pressings, the masters and cutter were optimized for play on AM radio, juke boxes, or popular record player equipment. The original master tapes were later reissued with superior quality and more faithful equalization.
Very true! That is why I did part number 2 dedicated to the reissues :-) ua-cam.com/video/Ybmw-qGOtAc/v-deo.html
@@anadialog Even nowadays (but you definitely know it) those remastered (master tape sourced), 180-200 gram audiophile vinyls in my opinion sounds just superio compared to the old 1st press. Technology today is better, much more precise and accurate. If there is no digital step in the chain on any way....I go for the new vinyls.
Interesting, I agree but not always automatically. If technology is better, AAA record making is basically the same and actually, the handcraft part is fundamental and a lot of new productions are not as good as a 'normal' pressing of the 80's...that said, high quality reissues if audiophile labels are in most cases good as or better than the original pressings, even though freshly recorded tape has a higher dynamic range than a 40-year-old one!
@@anadialog Where would you place DIRECT TO DISC records from the 1980s? Thanks!
Hi there, any particular reason why you ask about that specific period? I love the process, when its done properly, regardless the decade...but maby I am missing something...
the moment that an apparatus reaches its ulltima technique and design the product goes oblivion.
DMM, launched in 1982/3 was soon to be followed by compact discs. records of that era are just as
good as ‘modern’ recordings. compare them with photography: both will always miss reality of the concert hall.
From the late 1950's and early 1960's I have a few of RCA's Living Stereo and Mercury (mono as well as stereo) records. And I have to say they are the best I've ever heard, hands down.
True! If you haven't already, check this video on Mercury, it's a fascinating story!
ua-cam.com/video/ZDzLQmUeky8/v-deo.html
@@anadialog Yes, I have. Unfortunately, none of them is 35 mm. (Mercury Living Presence). Looking, but haven't found one yet.
Very good information!
Thanks!
Ciao Guido! Complimenti per il canale e per la passione e la competenza che ci metti! Io sono un collezionista di prime stampe e mi piacerebbe fartele vedere ed avere una tua opinione. Non sono daccordo sulla valutazione che dai a Ebay, io personalmente ci compro da 20 anni e mi sono sempre trovato bene. Te lo dico tranquillamente, non per polemica... quando si lascia un commento non si sa mai se si viene travisati!🤣 Ancora complimenti!!!🤟🏻
Grazie Massimo! Figurati, non hai idea si cosa mi dicono, soprattutto sui video sui cavi. Io su ebay ci ho preso un paio di imburrate e ho stesso, cmq sono contento per te se funziona!
@@anadialog m'immagino cosa ti dicono!😂 Comunque se un giorno vuoi fare un salto mi fa piacere, si ascolta due dischi, si fa due chiacchiere e ci si beve qualcosa! Sto all' Isolotto.
@9:11
For the Thriller album, the hot stamper is:
-- Side A: PAL 38112-2B
-- Side B: PBL 38112-2AG
(there might be other hot stampers)
Although you want to avoid a pressing that shows visual scratches, note that there is no visual way to know how good any record will sound. You have to drop the stylus and listen.
A shiny and clean looking record can still sound dull. And even if you do not see any contaminants, you should clean the record. It will play more quietly, and will reveal more of its magic (if you happen to land a hot pressing).
But the production of the vinyl itself can have an effect, it is said, and the quality of the vinyl itself
Mant years ago, I paid $60 for the limited edition of For Duke, Bill Berry and the Duke Ellinton Allstars. It was a direct to disk production. Every time i play this recording it is luscious. As i upgraded my turntable and cartridge over the years i come back to this disc for reference. Since i know the music so well, i also bought the digital high res version. It is also very good but i still prefer my vinyl version.
Cool!
Truth is the terminology of Mint means untouched by hand and sealed usually. So Mint I would expect to be new. So very very few records will be mint. The term is taken from minting coins IE freshly minted and untouched.So if the record has been played then it is no longer Mint. Generally the word mint in many other things other than coin collecting is just a Lye.
Near mint is the most used, giving you a little extra space for some defects but I agree, they are rarely in such condition
Of all the LPs you could search for, it had to be Michael Jackson's 'double diamond' Thriller. Decided to look through my stacks and found the one I purchased in 1982. For the life of me, I don't remember why I purchased the Half-Speed Audiophile Pressing (HE 48112) at the time, but I'm glad I did. Put it on the turntable and not a click, pop or even surface noise. Something is to be said for how careful you are with your vinyl. Agreed that Discogs is a great place to find media the way you want it. Now, on to part 2.
Love your comments!
As a LP records collector for nearly 40 years, instead of listening to the talks like this guy is doing here now, I listen to the recorded music before I parted with my money.
Though you are here listening to this guy
@3:06
The best Magical Mystery Tour pressings are from Germany.
molto interessante! grazie very very interesting. Thanks a lot!
Grazie Maurizio!
I think "hi resolution 192/24" is a great second option to tape! It sounds closer to the original fidelity of the tape than 44.1k/16bit! Of course the tape is always the best, but not always available! You have to remember also with a reissue, the tapes are degraded since the early issues! So in that case the "hi res" file is a must!
Hi analog guy! Considering your name I am surprised by your comment ;-)
I agree with you. I am a big fan of DVD-Audio 192Khz-24bit and also HDCD. Nevertheless, do not forget that those hi-res you are talking about come from the same source of those bad reissues...tapes! Plus, if you are hearing considerable differences between a digital and an analog recent version of the same album, those are probably mastering effects. See for example the (great) Steve Wilson remasters of Yes albums. But again, the original vinyl pressing sounds better!
Totally disagree, and it's NOT all about frequency. It largely has to do with moving aspects like jitter well above the audible range so the music comes off sounding cleaner, but also it reduces the harshness that redbook CD audio can often produce so there is something to it, though you get that with 24/96 just the same.
I disagree. Jitter is NOT a part of analog, it's strictly a digital thing. You may be thinking of W&F, which typically is inaudible at below a certain threshold. I have captured at both 16/48 and 24/96 and find 24/96 to produce a cleaner capture of vinyl and when dropped back to CD res, it is overall a better sounding file than if I'd captured at 16/44.1 or 16/48.
Although higher sampling rates can improve sound quality, your best bet is to find a better sounding release.
Many songs are available on an original release, a remastered release, a greatest hits release, and any number of compilations. And often, the same song, on each of the aforementioned releases, have different sound quality, even if they are all the same sampling rate. This points to the studios or record labels or engineers, etc, either not knowing what they are doing or not caring.
Countless 192/24 songs are nothing special, sound quality wise. No fault of the technology. The record labels simply do a mediocre job. So you get an amazing copy of poor input (like taking a hi-res photo, but not holding the camera still, or not setting the shutter speed correctly, etc). When the record labels over process, use 3rd generation tapes, etc, to make 192/24 recordings, then those high sampling rate files reveal the poor job that went into making them.
If a song sounds great at 44.1/16, and it is also available at a higher sampling rate, on the same label, on the same album, then you could eek out slightly better sound -- but you will notice it only if you have an amazing stereo.
If a label releases an album/song, and they do a great job, then the album/song will sound great at 44.1/16, and will sound better than any hi-res albums/songs where they did less than a great job.
Here are two examples of songs, at 44.1/16 (CD quality, also known as Redbook), that have very, very good sound. They will probably sound better than almost every high-res recording that you own.
Jazz Variants
Track 10:
us.7digital.com/artist/o-zone-percussion-group/release/o-zone-percussion-group-bamba-la-1682469
Never My Love
Track 7:
us.7digital.com/artist/the-association/release/the-assocation-the-essentials-673441
Agreed. If they used the original master tape and not the copy of the copy.
Hello,
Great video, as usual, thanks for sharing. A question, so what does it mean when a MOFI record claims to have been sourced from the "original master recording"?
Thank you!
When a MOFI record has the 'original master recording' label you are sure that the lp was analogly sourced by the original master tapes.
Mobile Fidelity purchases the rights to use the master (in most cases) and then after mastering at half speed, stamp the record on high-quality vinyl (hold the vinyl up to the light and you can see through it - a sign of high quality, virgin vinyl). That is why there is a limited amount of re-mastered reissues from MoFi because many owners of masters will not allow using or shipping them (especially when the master source is overseas).
ana[dia]log Thank you
Ole Rocker Thank you
Although MOFI allegedly uses the master tapes for their pressings, I take issue with their process.
In my opinion, most of their releases are sub-par. They introduce their own equalization, or whatever it is that they do, their pressings are (to my ear) usually a disappointment.
Sometimes they nail it. But I have stopped rolling the dice with them.
If you really want to get quality pressings, that sound right, you have to hunt for the stampers that are known to sound best. But figuring out which stampers to look for is time consuming and costly. And even with the right stamper, you can still wind up with a nothing special pressing (the right stamper just gives you a good shot at obtaining a great sounding pressing). The wrong stamper will give you zero chance, as it is usually the entire run of that stamper that will all sound bad.
I also purchased three
reissued albums from
2009 -17.
Toney Tillery Isaiah.
It's simply not true that because a label is in one country that master tapes will reside there. Many UK albums pressed overseas , MPO in France as an example.
I bough a korean 1st press of Arabesque and it's unlike everything I heard before. maybe they are gods of mastering and pressing there, since the source cannot possibly be the original german master tape, right?
Why not? It could be sourced from a master tape copy. It happened also in the Soviet Union in the past...
Follow collectors please learn of to read the inner l lead out(inner groove of the record. Most labels had different marks words or numbers that can identify the record as an original pressing. This is different from label to label. For. The Micheal Jackson example of Triller which was on Epic (Columbia records). You should look for A 1A. Marked on the inner groove. Mostly it original. The label it self is important to know. Which version was use for desired album. Being a record collector is not easy
Indeed!
I've always thought that original pressings were worth it if in Mint condition because the master tapes were new when those records were pressed and In many cases do sound fresh or lively compared to a reissue
I agree! At least NEAR MINT!
Discogs is not completely exhaustive in any listing of any recording. I say this because Discogs is kind of like Wikipedia - it depends on the listings of its members. Now I think Discogs is a good source for searching. I have found when listing my collection that you can find your issue listed about 95% of the time. In my collection of about 3200 33 1/3, 12" lps I have about 200 or so that has not been listed by someone else. A good listing takes a good bit of time to process. And even after that, it has to go through several years of checks and verification before it gets classified as an approved release. And sometimes there is a lot of discussion about little nit-picky things. Then you have newbies who come on board and edit or change your listing thinking their particular piece is the correct version and sometimes even trying to merge yours with theirs without approval (fortunately there is reversion).
With that being stated, Discogs is not perfect but it is one of the best sites for a record search.
I would like to suggest to ana[dia]log that an easier search within Discogs is to go to the Marketplace menu, List Items for Sale (no worries - you can do a comprehensive search here w/o listing a sale), and then one can search by specific fields. I usually pick my format first, put in the catalog number if you know it and you will get more specific results. And the master issue is usually at the top of the search. If you don't know the catalog #, then search by artist, label, album name or go to the top of the fields and you can insert mastering engineer, album series, barcode #, or other specific information.
Thanks for your contribution!
In some music genres, mostly electronic music, the original pressings are pressed for DJ's.
Those are often not as good as high quality reissues. Often there is not much time to press those for DJ's, since DJ's always want to mix the newest music out there.
In that case, specially....LP releasing really makes no sense. Most of those music were made on computer system, digital from beginning till the end. Biggest fail in vinyl industrie if someone use digital source to press vinyl record. Naturally makes no sense at all.
@@EllasPOSEiDON How can that not make any sense? Producers only produce digital music. They don't master it for digital or analogue media. That is done by the mastering engineer. Masterings for digital media like CD's or files can be (and in most cases is) brickwalled.
Due to the physical limitations of vinyl, these same tracks can't be brickwalled during mastering for vinyl; otherwise the stylus won't be able to track the record and skips, brickwalled tracks also take up more space since those are wider.
The absence of brickwalling means the full dynamic range of the original digital producing stays preserved.
It's also the main reason why vinyl often sounds better in reality, while digital sources often have better specs (better channel separation, lower noisefloor and better S/N ratios); if mastered properly, digital sources -could- perform better.
However, most DJ's just use vinyl because they like the feel of mixing and scratching with a real physical thing instead of doing that virtual.
In some subcultures, virtual mixing is considered inferior, since it requires less skill when using beatsync and other automated functions.
@@QoraxAudio I am not talking about the way how they like to mix, they like the physical aspect of the mixing process. I am talking about audio quality. In audiophile world digital sourced analog makes no sense. But, in audiophile world DJ audio is far not about quality audio. So, understand your case, but in other way, still makes no sense.
@@EllasPOSEiDON Like I already said:
"Producers only produce digital music. They don't master it for digital or analogue media. That is done by the mastering engineer. Masterings for digital media like CD's or files can be (and in most cases is) brickwalled. Due to the physical limitations of vinyl, these same tracks can't be brickwalled during mastering for vinyl; otherwise the stylus won't be able to track the record and skips, brickwalled tracks also take up more space since those are wider. The absence of brickwalling means the full dynamic range of the original digital producing stays preserved. It's also the main reason why vinyl often sounds better in reality, while digital sources often have better specs (better channel separation, lower noisefloor and better S/N ratios); if mastered properly, digital sources could perform better."
...So yes, it is beneficial for audio quality, most of the times.
Maybe the second last sentence of my quote wasn't clear, but with "digital sources", I meant digital media in that context.
If you like to know about the basic principles of brickwalling, check this video: ua-cam.com/video/WRj9fI74xjg/v-deo.html
@@QoraxAudio understand that clearly, but the most important thing you miss. To release analog media from digital source makes no sense. Yes, you can keep all the resolution from the source, but, as its uses digital source, never will be analog. Like make audio CD from mp3, still makes no sense. If you have high-res digital master source, release as it is, in digital high-res. On the other side, if you have good analog source ok, make digital release from it, high-res. That is absolutely fine for me.
I can only get my records from the shops & inspect them there , but its all under threat of street collapse
My opinion is any Band that play real instruments could be classed as an audiophile recording if good sound is achieved.
Of course!
mint record are SEALED unplayed records
Ist not audiophile, but a piece of Italien Punk
www.discogs.com/de/Panico-Sete/release/1076513
Cool...don't like his voice though...
@@anadialog its Punk, it dont need lovely voices :-))
🤣
Great video and largely agree here. That said, I do want to point out another aspect of going with the original, or early reissue if that's all you can afford is some labels, specifically, Blue Note, any and all original Blue Note recordings made between 1956-1966 from Plastilite will cost you dearly in price, but pick up a Liberty or a UA etc reissue, and they will be much more affordable, $40 instead of $600 for the same condition. That said, many reissues are not as well done, though there will be exceptions, and in the case of Whistle Stop by Kenny Dorham (1961, Blue Note), the originals made between 1961-1966 will cost you dearly, but a nice near mint/mint early UA/Blue Note pressing can be had for around $40 locally to me (US) and there is a current reissue from Music Matters that is slightly more expensive ($56US/33.3) that is well noted for sounding good.
Another aspect of going with an original are largely the music of the 70's and 80's as so much of it was recorded using AMPEX 456-457/Grand Master and 20/20 tapes and all of it up through the very early Quantegy tapes had sticky shed syndrome, and now must be transferred to digital sources and if well done, should not sound any different to the master tape as digital at a minimum of 24/48, preferably 24/96 will capture it all, tape characteristics and all of the original master tape and as long as they don't try to remaster and muck it up, it should be just as good as an original pressing, but there again, need to read reviews and such as many engineers today try to change what is "wrong" even if it was very good sounding to begin with, like Fleetwood Mac's Rumours for instance.
The only thing I Care is if it’s a good pressing!
You certainly have more chances of that in old releases...today, only audiophile releases have good pressings...
Can you do a vid like this,but on cd's.
🤤digital! I guess I could...stay tuned!
I love the 180 gram pressings from mofi. And i was wondering if you would divulge to us what your first name is ?
I prefer not to. But I do so when people contact me personally by email.
@@anadialog just wondered, thats ok
With respect, that wasn't the most logical way to seek out a specific (i.e. US) release. The best way would be to find the specific pressing in the list on the "Master Release" page then see if there's any for sale. The way you did it brought way too many search results (admittedly it was Thriller) and was effectively every vinyl release of that album.
Hi TheNorliss, but in that way it takes you to all Master Releases (tape, cd, cassette) and even when you select the LP it continues to give all the rest of the versions...but maybe I am wrong...can you tell us how, step by step? Thanks!
reverb lp is much better then discogs
Did not know this source...thanks for sharing!
ana[dia]log the website has guarantees with the products the vendors sell. The transaction is secure through the company's service. It's easy to find specific pressings too.
Great!! Can't wait to try. Please state if you are affiliated to them. Just to be completely transparent. Thanks.
ana[dia]log no I'm not haha I wish I was lol. I think it would be an excellent job. I worked at toys r us and now I work at home depot. I'm a university at Buffalo graduate. I studied communications.
Am not sure why MJ's Thriller is going for big money nowadays, why there are millions of copies. I went into a shop a few months back, they wanted £26 for it. I paid 50 UK pence for it some 10 + years ago. WTF??
Demand increase?
Demand since his death, and if you have an original pressing as I do it is still one of the best if not best sounding LP I've ever heard.
In the time, were analogue records were the usual thing, they could never get the maximum quality, they had to be compatible to cheap equipment.
In the shellac age they tried to make records with extended frequency range, these worked fine on broadcasting players and expensive electric record players, the cheap players, that worked without any electricity, damaged these records pretty fast.
The same later in vinyl age, records has to be compatible for the inexpensive players with piezo pickup, so record companies could never do the best possible quality.
Today it's different, we can expect, that people buy HiFi record players.
Hi Rob, I understand your point. I think that your observations are mainly valid for the 1950's and 1960's where a lot of people had low quality mono set-ups and low frequency response machines. In fact the lower frequencies were in most cases reduced because otherwise the stylus could have jumped out the groove. From another point of view, the huge mass of digital vinyl reissues of our times are in most cases worse than those cheap original issues. That is why i called 'audiophile' the original pressings event though that is a modern concept. The only aspect that was top quality in the past, in particular for Jazz and Classical music, were the recordings starting from the 1950's...wow! Rock, pop (unfortunately) not so good.
Well, in the 1970's there were also many cheap record players and in the 1980's the 12" records were between flexidisc and record, the singles were not pressed and easy breakable.
Some club editions had a special mastering, that sounds bad.
Well, they reduced the bass, to store more music on the record. I noticed this at the 20 hits samplers, the other way was the Maxi Single with much more bass.
I guess, when we can live with 15 minutes per side, vinyl could show it's quality.
I remember a record with center start, not compatible to tagential tone arm, but compatible to Maurice Ravel's "Bolero".
...true!
Correct! Interesting the Ravel record!
The master tapes can degrade over time, the best LP's are the original first pressings, if you can find a good copy in mint condition.
Hi there,
Yes, I agree, although if we are talking of high quality tape (BASF, Agfa etc.) and correctly stored they will last longer than any media or the same as a well preserved vinyl record (it's all plastic!). In other cases they MAY lose some dbs and in that case you are fully right! Moreover, a reel to reel copy of master tape or production copy will almost ALWAYS sound better than any first pressing.
The best would be the stampers. Records are long lasting, because most of them are massive, no layers. I say "most of them" because they made all the time records with layers, with a paper core or a core with cheaper shellac plastic.
very simplistic. My original "Lamb " was unplayable, as were my next 7 copies !
I enjoy your videos. Do you have any recordings of Shirley Bassey, any format? And also any in a high res format?
Hi Paul, thanks! Not much I am afraid...I think a pair of cassettes and something on vinyl...
I disagree. The most important aspect of great sound is a great production, not the source. This includes mixing, mastering and cutting.
A better source always helps, but I argue a lot of reissues sound better than originals because they are engineered and produced better.
Hi Leon, yes if course. That is obviously a paramount factor! In this perspective I would also add that the recording process is even more important. If the recording is terrible, the production can't do miracles...but can surely help as you claim. For example most Rolling Stones records unfortunately were poorly recorded with a very low dynamic range...
But, unfortunately, there are exceptions to this rule. As an example, 1958 - 1962 RCA Living Stereo "shaded dog" LPs. The shaded dog stereo records are considered audiophile by many collectors. When RCA introduced Dynagroove it reissued many of those shaded dogs. The quality was worse if you agree with some of the prominent audio engineers and critics of that era. Listening carefully, I tend to agree. Unfortunately, RCA did not go back to the Living Stereo format and so artists such as Elvis, Chet Atkins and many classical albums were released on reduced quality. and if you follow RCA's history you find the sound quality getting worse until, in my opinion, RED SEAL digital. Now, don't get me wrong, the RCA sound quality is still good even with these transitions, but not excellent as it was in the early days of "shaded dog" Living Stereo reproduction. As with many other labels and certain issues, what is considered audiophile is a subjective matter. Let the ear be the judge?
That's true, recording process is the most important thing, there are many audiophile recordings out there as telarc, reference recordings, sheffield, crystal clear, jeton, they are at the top of the mountain if we talk about sound. Now some comercial recordings had a good recording but a bad laquer master, so many of them were recover by good remasters as mofi, nautilus, they are great, I particulary enjoy Stan Ricker's, they sound amazing.
Vinyl is genius, but crap in the modern era.
Ticks, pop, dust, pre and post groove echo, physical degradation. Pure genius, truly. But otherwise crap in this day and age.
Like driving a super cool old Mustang, or even a piece of crap old Pinto which is nevertheless capable or wracking up a quarter million miles. But vinyl is final. Long live the pressing machine.