Vinyl Reissues - From Analog Planet

mep said:
I understand that, but as Myles pointed out, those artists aren't having their LPs pressed at the premium record plants. They are two different worlds and therefore the argument that premium reissues are somehow holding back current pressings from new artists doesn't hold a lot of water.
Click to expand...

True. I'm not a buyer if that cause/effect argument, just saying more vinyl is not necessarily good. In fact, makes it harder to pick the wheat from the chaff.
 
Hmmm, old vs new records

New records/recordings:
- digital recordings and masterings
- schlock pressing plants
- all are180g, but is that really necessary if the rest of it isn;t up to standard
Result: Not much, if any difference between the CD playback and vinyl playback. Maybe better artwork. Higher cost to the buyer.

Old Recordings - reissued:
- perhaps using analogue tapes, but this is not guaranteed
- perhaps using better pressing plants
- usually remastered, but that is not always better than the original
Result: At least you have a clean copy of an old master-work. Usually better sound than the CD but not guaranteed.

Old Recordings - originals:
- usually not in perfect shape
- need to trust the seller to grade these properly, take our chances
- pricy, hard to find
- covers usually marred/less than perfect shape
Result: You have an original. May be scratched. Could be resold for what you paid for it (probably).
 
BobM said:
Hmmm, old vs new records

New records/recordings:
- digital recordings and masterings
- schlock pressing plants
- all are180g, but is that really necessary if the rest of it isn;t up to standard
Result: Not much, if any difference between the CD playback and vinyl playback. Maybe better artwork. Higher cost to the buyer.

Old Recordings - reissued:
- perhaps using analogue tapes, but this is not guaranteed
- perhaps using better pressing plants
- usually remastered, but that is not always better than the original
Result: At least you have a clean copy of an old master-work. Usually better sound than the CD but not guaranteed.

Old Recordings - originals:
- usually not in perfect shape
- need to trust the seller to grade these properly, take our chances
- pricy, hard to find
- covers usually marred/less than perfect shape
Result: You have an original. May be scratched. Could be resold for what you paid for it (probably).
Click to expand...

Nice breakdown Bob and pretty accurate too in my opinion.
I'd only add that as a strictly "used" record buyer, local only (no sight unseen buying) and hanging out in the $1 to $3 bins, who also knows how to properly clean records and what to look for when purchasing said used records that I've done pretty darn well.

Yes, some used records are very pricey to the point where it would be less expensive to just get a new audiophile pressing if it existed.

I would also add that with used records there is a time factor. It depends on what one thinks their time is worth.
My time is worth almost nil so I have hunted and waited up to 3 years to find a good used copy of a record. However, in my case I buy to play, not collect, resell, invest, stare at and whatever. So my motivation is listening, I want to hear a particular record, but I want to hear it on vinyl.

Anyway, don't want to get too far off topic.

~Eric
 
mep said:
That was a great article Myles! Not only does it get you excited about the Beatles new mono set, it tells you everything that is wrong with current recording practices and why new music sucks.
Click to expand...

New music doesn't suck any more than some of the drivel the Beetles fed us. most of it sucked when I was a kid and it still is inane now.
 
No doubt much new music sucks but that's also true of any decade of older music for me. Just gotta locate the great in a pile of crap. If it 's well recorded, mastered and pressed, even better !
 
SOME of the new music today is rubbish. It's a drum machine (do they still call it that? Maybe I'm dating myself) and some guy or gal with horrible offensive lyrics that rhyme (case in point: Nicki Minaj - Anaconda - YouTube). Then again, I stumble upon someone like Liz Longley and I'm interested (case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qgS3Y7-AOc AND http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y78dy-h5k58). If you don't get a little tear from listening to that last song.....

But the problem there remains the quality of recording. Seriously, it sounds so bad. Must be all that DSP they use in the recording studios these days. :)

Then again, I look at most of the music from the 80's and it sucks. The 90's weren't much better.

I guess the moral of the story here is that we all like different music for different reasons and music, in and of itself, doesn't have era's, it is one continuous line of good and bad.
 
Anyone have an opinion on the KISS 40th anniversary reissues? I was disappointed to learn that they too were re-mastered in the digital domain (DSD), probably for the better. Whilst I have several of these, only discovering the fact from the later 34 album crate set advertising promo, I have no original releases to compare. They are very good compared to say the woeful Gatsby movie soundrack on vinyl but they are not quite vinyl in the truest sense. Yet many KISS fans are saying overall positive things about the re-mastering.

Surely next release will be the DSD downloads & you may be better served waiting for those to become available.
 
Lots of great music - minimally compressed, even in vinyl. Both old and reissued - very little new on vinyl. It's called classical. Try it. You can start with the dollar bins and pick out old Londons (essentially all British pressed) in the US (good place to start for generally fine sonics at a cheap price.) Harder to find pre dynagroove (1963 and earlier) RCA's and Mercuries. Also, in general, I have found that used classical records usually have been handled more carefully and played less.

If you haven't done much classical (and reading AS, my sense is that most of you don't) then start with the big names - Beethoven, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Bach, Brahms, etc. and then move on to more, and more and more.

Larry

Mike said:
SOME of the new music today is rubbish. It's a drum machine (do they still call it that? Maybe I'm dating myself) and some guy or gal with horrible offensive lyrics that rhyme (case in point: Nicki Minaj - Anaconda - YouTube). Then again, I stumble upon someone like Liz Longley and I'm interested (case in point: Liz Longley - Ain't Too Good To Be True - YouTube AND Liz Longley - Unraveling - YouTube). If you don't get a little tear from listening to that last song.....

But the problem there remains the quality of recording. Seriously, it sounds so bad. Must be all that DSP they use in the recording studios these days. :)

Then again, I look at most of the music from the 80's and it sucks. The 90's weren't much better.

I guess the moral of the story here is that we all like different music for different reasons and music, in and of itself, doesn't have era's, it is one continuous line of good and bad.
Click to expand...
 
Mike said:
SOME of the new music today is rubbish. It's a drum machine (do they still call it that? Maybe I'm dating myself) and some guy or gal with horrible offensive lyrics that rhyme (case in point: Nicki Minaj - Anaconda - YouTube). Then again, I stumble upon someone like Liz Longley and I'm interested (case in point: Liz Longley - Ain't Too Good To Be True - YouTube AND Liz Longley - Unraveling - YouTube). If you don't get a little tear from listening to that last song.....

But the problem there remains the quality of recording. Seriously, it sounds so bad. Must be all that DSP they use in the recording studios these days. :)

Then again, I look at most of the music from the 80's and it sucks. The 90's weren't much better.

I guess the moral of the story here is that we all like different music for different reasons and music, in and of itself, doesn't have era's, it is one continuous line of good and bad.
Click to expand...

At first glance, might say that about the '80s but look again.

http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_artists80pop.html

My picks would definitely be U2, john Cougar Mellencamp, The Police and Dire Straits.

90s definitely not with what I consider the birth of grunge and the emergence of Nirvana, arguably one of the best groups of all time.
 
Interesting list. There was some good ones - but so many bad 80's bands and bad 80's music.
 
still-one said:
New music doesn't suck any more than some of the drivel the Beetles fed us. most of it sucked when I was a kid and it still is inane now.
Click to expand...

Jim-You obviously don't like the Beatles so we can just leave it at that. Read the article that Myles provided the link to and maybe you will understand how much processing goes on to make some of the *talent* presentable now days. Tons of *artists* are singing through auto-tune because they couldn't sing on key in the shower with nobody listening. They simply have no real talent other than the talent to look good on stage.

I will further argue that not only did digital kill the music business in that no artist can survive today from selling albums and they all have to hit the road in order to make a living, digital also killed the sound quality that was taken for granted in the late 1950s up through digital's introduction into the recording studio in the 1980s. The suck in sound quality was compounded by all of the digital effects that came later to the recording studios so they could further muck with the sound. Hell, even someone as talented as Adele found her music butchered at the hands of the digital recordings she suffered through.

So now you have the double-whammy, lots of no talent bands recorded hideously in digital. No wonder people are flocking to reissues of seriously talented musicians, singers, and bands recorded in glorious analog by people who had good ears and knew how to let the gear get out of the way.
 
mep said:
Jim-You obviously don't like the Beatles so we can just leave it at that. Read the article that Myles provided the link to and maybe you will understand how much processing goes on to make some of the *talent* presentable now days. Tons of *artists* are singing through auto-tune because they couldn't sing on key in the shower with nobody listening. They simply have no real talent other than the talent to look good on stage.

I will further argue that not only did digital kill the music business in that no artist can survive today from selling albums and they all have to hit the road in order to make a living, digital also killed the sound quality that was taken for granted in the late 1950s up through digital's introduction into the recording studio in the 1980s. The suck in sound quality was compounded by all of the digital effects that came later to the recording studios so they could further muck with the sound. Hell, even someone as talented as Adele found her music butchered at the hands of the digital recordings she suffered through.

So now you have the double-whammy, lots of no talent bands recorded hideously in digital. No wonder people are flocking to reissues of seriously talented musicians, singers, and bands recorded in glorious analog by people who had good ears and knew how to let the gear get out of the way.
Click to expand...

In general the only people flocking to reissues are old farts like us. Sure you can find examples of a young kid here and there buying old stuff but that will not keep that music viable in the long run. The people who made the Big Band and Frank Sinatra era viable are dying off. Already the oldies music/doo wop is dying a slow death. When we are gone Elvis, The Beetles and The Beach Boys will be next.

Actually I really worry very little about the quality of a recording. I care more about the performance. The quality of the performance is what makes me listen not the dynamic range or las of tape noise etc. In general everything sounds good on my system.
 
still-one said:
In general the only people flocking to reissues are old farts like us. Sure you can find examples of a young kid here and there buying old stuff but that will not keep that music viable in the long run. The people who made the Big Band and Frank Sinatra era viable are dying off. Already the oldies music/doo wop is dying a slow death. When we are gone Elvis, The Beetles and The Beach Boys will be next.

Actually I really worry very little about the quality of a recording. I care more about the performance. The quality of the performance is what makes me listen not the dynamic range or las of tape noise etc. In general everything sounds good on my system.
Click to expand...

I know that is the approved audiophile thing to say, but I'm not buying it from you for one minute. If you actually did "worry very little about the quality of a recording," you would have never invested the serious money that you have invested in your system so please lets stop kidding each other about that. What genre of music do you listen to primarily?
 
Hmm, of course I think the 60s and early 70s were the quintessential great time for music, but I like me some 80's as well, a little anyway. For me, the 90s was a dead zone, it all ran together, seems like every artist or band was a carbon copy of the one before. 2000 and beyond are meh, a sparce few little gems, but nothing overwhelming.
Of course, this is all subjective.
 
mep said:
Jim-You obviously don't like the Beatles so we can just leave it at that. Read the article that Myles provided the link to and maybe you will understand how much processing goes on to make some of the *talent* presentable now days. Tons of *artists* are singing through auto-tune because they couldn't sing on key in the shower with nobody listening. They simply have no real talent other than the talent to look good on stage.

I will further argue that not only did digital kill the music business in that no artist can survive today from selling albums and they all have to hit the road in order to make a living, digital also killed the sound quality that was taken for granted in the late 1950s up through digital's introduction into the recording studio in the 1980s. The suck in sound quality was compounded by all of the digital effects that came later to the recording studios so they could further muck with the sound. Hell, even someone as talented as Adele found her music butchered at the hands of the digital recordings she suffered through.

So now you have the double-whammy, lots of no talent bands recorded hideously in digital. No wonder people are flocking to reissues of seriously talented musicians, singers, and bands recorded in glorious analog by people who had good ears and knew how to let the gear get out of the way.
Click to expand...

Really good point and the truth!

Yeah, a downin on The Beatles? I'm not the biggest Beatles fan around and much of their stuff I can take it or leave it, but I still have my favorites from them. You have to admit, there were some good ones. My favorites are Rubber Soul and Revolver, hands down. Rubber Soul is just delightful on vinyl and almost a "must-have" in my opinion. I also like Magical Mystery Tour and a track here or there from the rest of the discography.
 
MusicDirector said:
Really good point and the truth!

Yeah, a downin on The Beatles? I'm not the biggest Beatles fan around and much of their stuff I can take it or leave it, but I still have my favorites from them. You have to admit, there were some good ones. My favorites are Rubber Soul and Revolver, hands down. Rubber Soul is just delightful on vinyl and almost a "must-have" in my opinion. I also like Magical Mystery Tour and a track here or there from the rest of the discography.
Click to expand...


"Some good ones???" Someone please tell me who has a deeper catalog of music that has been covered by more musicians than the Beatles catalog. Someone please tell me that 100 years from now if there is still human life left on this planet, which band will still have people listening to them and rediscovering them? Which band single-handidly put Brian Wilson in a bed in a deep depression and caused him to gain 300 lbs because he knew he could never compete with them? Oh yeah, it was the Beatles with Sgt. Peppers. They turned the world upside down and caused a mania that has never been seen before or since and I predict it will never happen again for a number of reasons.
 
mep said:
I know that is the approved audiophile thing to say, but I'm not buying it from you for one minute. If you actually did "worry very little about the quality of a recording," you would have never invested the serious money that you have invested in your system so please lets stop kidding each other about that. What genre of music do you listen to primarily?
Click to expand...

Don't buy it. That is up to you. I purchase the music of artists I enjoy. I don't sit around wishing for more dynamic range. As far as genre that is hard to define. I go for artists rather than genre. If it sounds good it stays on Sooloos, it not I glean my server of seldom played music every few months.
 
mep said:
"Some good ones???" Someone please tell me who has a deeper catalog of music that has been covered by more musicians than the Beatles catalog. Someone please tell me that 100 years from now if there is still human life left on this planet, which band will still have people listening to them and rediscovering them? Which band single-handidly put Brian Wilson in a bed in a deep depression and caused him to gain 300 lbs because he knew he could never compete with them? Oh yeah, it was the Beatles with Sgt. Peppers. They turned the world upside down and caused a mania that has never been seen before or since and I predict it will never happen again for a number of reasons.
Click to expand...

There are those that consider Sgt Peppers the death of Rock and Roll. Now rock was supposed to take itself too seriously and everyone thought it should be an art form. Sgt. Pepper was ground braking alright. From that point on we had to live with overdubs, loopback, gibberish lyrics, reverb, etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top