Vinyl Reissues - From Analog Planet

mep said:
Whatever dude. Your views can't change history.
Click to expand...

I haven't ordered my mono beatles box yet (I know, shame on me) but some are reporting scratched or scuffed records and having to send them back for replacements. i wouldn't wait till christmas day to find out if you needed to, better to be safe than sorry.
 
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...

Few more caveats:

Original releases:

1) Often done on inferior, sometimes even reground vinyl.
2) Limited by the cutting amplifiers of the day and few mastering engineers could achieve a dynamic cut. (See George Piros.)
3) Do you have the right stamper (or pressing) since the sound can vary dramatically from stamper to stamper (pressing)? In other words often-but not always-the earlier the stamper, the better the sound.

Or where was the record pressed eg. Philips pressed Deccas are inferior to UK pressed Deccas? It's kinda like tubes. The label on the tube means nothing: you need to know where and when is was manufactured by the internal code. When it comes to Deccas, you need to know the Buckingham code. And each label had its own code to identify when and where the record was pressed.

Current reissues:

1) What shape is the original master tape in? Even the best have lost something over the years.
2) The sound of the reissue vs. original is really meaningless. If it were't for the reissue business, turntables would be dead. Moreso, most people don't want to be bothered like us nut jobs with hunting down records!
3) Better than, all things being equal, than the commensurate CD.
 
Myles B. Astor said:
Few more caveats:

Original releases:

1) Often done on inferior, sometimes even reground vinyl.
2) Limited by the cutting amplifiers of the day and few mastering engineers could achieve a dynamic cut. (See George Piros.)
3) Do you have the right stamper (or pressing) since the sound can vary dramatically from stamper to stamper (pressing)? In other words often-but not always-the earlier the stamper, the better the sound.

Or where was the record pressed eg. Philips pressed Deccas are inferior to UK pressed Deccas? It's kinda like tubes. The label on the tube means nothing: you need to know where and when is was manufactured by the internal code. When it comes to Deccas, you need to know the Buckingham code. And each label had its own code to identify when and where the record was pressed.

Current reissues:

1) What shape is the original master tape in? Even the best have lost something over the years.
2) The sound of the reissue vs. original is really meaningless. If it were't for the reissue business, turntables would be dead. Moreso, most people don't want to be bothered like us nut jobs with hunting down records!
3) Better than, all things being equal, than the commensurate CD.
Click to expand...

Good additional points Myles, but are you sure you don't have #1 under "Original Releases" reversed? I thought that was a problem with non-audiophile re-issues and original pressings of today, not yesteryear. (I'm sticking with my belief on that one whether to my detriment or not. So far, so good though). Anyway, I'm only just asking.

Yes, the shape of the original masters are paramount. A good example I'm told are the Neil Young re-issues. I don't have any myself as I was able to find mostly originals, but I hear from those who do have them that while they think they are pretty good, you can hear the degradation of some of the master tapes on some songs and such. Personally, I don't know that I would mind that so much if I knew that the pressings were straight from the tapes and no digital enhancements were attempted.
 
Myles B. Astor said:
Few more caveats:

Original releases:

1) Often done on inferior, sometimes even reground vinyl.
2) Limited by the cutting amplifiers of the day and few mastering engineers could achieve a dynamic cut. (See George Piros.)
3) Do you have the right stamper (or pressing) since the sound can vary dramatically from stamper to stamper (pressing)? In other words often-but not always-the earlier the stamper, the better the sound.

Or where was the record pressed eg. Philips pressed Deccas are inferior to UK pressed Deccas? It's kinda like tubes. The label on the tube means nothing: you need to know where and when is was manufactured by the internal code. When it comes to Deccas, you need to know the Buckingham code. And each label had its own code to identify when and where the record was pressed.

Current reissues:

1) What shape is the original master tape in? Even the best have lost something over the years.
2) The sound of the reissue vs. original is really meaningless. If it were't for the reissue business, turntables would be dead. Moreso, most people don't want to be bothered like us nut jobs with hunting down records!
3) Better than, all things being equal, than the commensurate CD.
Click to expand...

So with all of this in mid, how do you keep track of all of this when you're record hunting? Do you only buy based on known good pressings or educated guesses? I would imagine you could keep some notes on a smart phone or something but where would you find this information to get started?
 
Matt715 said:
So with all of this in mid, how do you keep track of all of this when you're record hunting? Do you only buy based on known good pressings or educated guesses? I would imagine you could keep some notes on a smart phone or something but where would you find this information to get started?
Click to expand...

With a little research (or a lot, depending) you can find out what are normally considered good pressings and decipher the codes etched into the lead out tracks if any, but I could not begin to know how to find exactly what cutting amps and stampers were used and all that. (I'm not sure I want to).
Some folks do only buy known good pressings with notes kept on their smart phones and such and I think that's pretty neat.

Personally though, I have no such device (not that it would not be handy, but I can't afford one and more importantly couldn't see the screen or even work it anyway). I also get lost and mixed up with the different pressings and such and I just want to purchase a copy I can clean up real good resulting in very tiny to no noise at all to listen to it. I'm not into any other aspect.
 
Matt715 said:
So with all of this in mid, how do you keep track of all of this when you're record hunting? Do you only buy based on known good pressings or educated guesses? I would imagine you could keep some notes on a smart phone or something but where would you find this information to get started?
Click to expand...

Photographic memory. Seriously. :)

Buying. Well that's complicated but suffice it to say buy recordings that I want-depending on the price- and look for better pressings, better condition down the road.

See some earlier posts. I'm lucky to have been collecting since 1980 and over the years have run into other collectors who share their knowledge. Plus one of my best friends, Sid Marks, is an encyclopedia of music.
 
Myles B. Astor said:
Photographic memory. Seriously. :)

Buying. Well that's complicated but suffice it to say buy recordings that I want-depending on the price- and look for better pressings, better condition down the road.

See some earlier posts. I'm lucky to have been collecting since 1980 and over the years have run into other collectors who share their knowledge. Plus one of my best friends, Sid Marks, is an encyclopedia of music.
Click to expand...

Photographic memory! Now that there is genepool cheatin that is! I'm just kidding you. That is quite rare and very fortunate. Oh what I could do with a photographic memory!
Me: Really bad short term memory, seriously. (Had a TIA a few years ago and it effected my memory a little bit and made me mildly dyslexic. I am actually quite fortunate that is all that happened).
Good to have resources like your friend too. Not mention of course being at it for a while as with anything helps too.
 
puroagave said:
I haven't ordered my mono beatles box yet (I know, shame on me) but some are reporting scratched or scuffed records and having to send them back for replacements. i wouldn't wait till christmas day to find out if you needed to, better to be safe than sorry.
Click to expand...

Tell my wife that. She has them tucked away surrounded by 4 hungry pit bulls. I think my Karma is good.
 
MusicDirector said:
I didn't want to pour fuel on what is turning into a Beatles war thread, but it is starting to get absurd. Sure, maybe "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and "She Loves You" were/are considered Pop or filler or "trite" for their time, but "I Am The Walrus" bubble gum? Oh please! Even that song is far more sophisticated than the Britney, Gaga, whatever crap making everyone's ears bleed these days.
Not nit-picking here or anything, but I've also noticed that your spelling "Beetles" incorrectly and you have mis-titled "I Am A Walrus", it's "I Am The Walrus" Just letting you know.
Click to expand...

They were both #1 hits both here and in Britain so that is what you would call them. You damn sure wouldn't call those songs "trite." Of course, people are free to say whatever they want even if it makes no sense. Lots of bands past and present would love to have "filler" songs that reached #1 in the charts both here and in Britain. My guess is that outside of newly discovered indigenous tribes living in a jungle somewhere, you could go pretty much anywhere in the world and start singing either of those two songs and people would join in because they would know the words.
 
Myles B. Astor said:
How about some Debbie Gibson?!?!
Click to expand...

Or Ohio Express singing "Yummy Yummy Yummy." Or Mannhiem Steamblower doing Christmas songs at their concert while spinning around their guitars in imitation of ZZ Top?
 
mep said:
They were both #1 hits both here and in Britain so that is what you would call them. You damn sure wouldn't call those songs "trite." Of course, people are free to say whatever they want even if it makes no sense. Lots of bands past and present would love to have "filler" songs that reached #1 in the charts both here and in Britain. My guess is that outside of newly discovered indigenous tribes living in a jungle somewhere, you could go pretty much anywhere in the world and start singing either of those two songs and people would join in because they would know the words.
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't call them "trite" myself personally. I was just trying to make a point in defense of The Beatles and indeed any other band that happen to have even a top ten entry with a "filler" song. However, who says those were fillers, officially? Looking at the time they were written and everything, I think they were done with purpose and not just slapped together per se' to fill an album. Even if they were for the sake of devil's advocate, that is one hell of an accomplishment to have a filler song go #1 on ya.
Hell, they even did "She Loves You" in German for crying out loud.
 
mep said:
Or Ohio Express singing "Yummy Yummy Yummy." Or Mannhiem Steamblower doing Christmas songs at their concert while spinning around their guitars in imitation of ZZ Top?
Click to expand...

LOL! Have you heard Julie London singing "Yummy Yummy Yummy"? I have, it's pretty weird, but interesting.
 
Mike said:
Julie London has a great voice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I agree, indeed she does. I've heard her to lots of other songs. Her voice is perfect for the style she does. Of course before I ever heard her sing I knew her as Dixie McCall on TV. Quite a talent to be able to sing and act as well as she did. She really did do a good job playing that role. Then I learned Bobby Troupe is the other half of the duo in every way and he did a good job too being in both roles as TV Dr. and musician. Not bad, not bad at all both of them.
It's just kind of weird hearing her do a song like that, but the way she does it is interesting enough to make you listen to the whole thing.
 
MusicDirector said:
No, I wouldn't call them "trite" myself personally. I was just trying to make a point in defense of The Beatles and indeed any other band that happen to have even a top ten entry with a "filler" song. However, who says those were fillers, officially? Looking at the time they were written and everything, I think they were done with purpose and not just slapped together per se' to fill an album. Even if they were for the sake of devil's advocate, that is one hell of an accomplishment to have a filler song go #1 on ya.
Hell, they even did "She Loves You" in German for crying out loud.
Click to expand...

I don't know about officially, but you called them filler. Read your previous post.
 
mep said:
I don't know about officially, but you called them filler. Read your previous post.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. I did not call them "filler" myself. I was only repeating what Jim called them in my point and repeating what you called them in the same fashion and reason. In fact, neither you or I called them "filler". You need to re-read my post in proper context and not take snippets out of context. Read what I said after the part you took out of context please, thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top