Vintage vinyl or new reissues?

I agree with Vinylrowe here. It's a really mixed bag. I don't like paying more for a reissue than an original, unless the reissue is outstanding. Some original pressings can be vastly overrated by collectors who insist that only originals will do (perhaps because they have many valuable records). In my collection I have cheap reissues, expensive reissues, standard later era pressings and stuff everyone talks about like mono parlophone beatles and w. 67 blue notes. Evereything sounds different, and often often not "better" just "different". Reissues(which used to be just called "records") are clean and easily available. Lables like fania or strata east are good bets as the proignal pressings were pretty cheaply done anyway. There are some real bargain 8.99 repressings.

Do some listening and I'm sure you'll find your way.

the only time i buy reissues is when the original is impossible to find or insanely expensive. i remember searching for an original mono pressing of Pet Sounds for almost 2 years before i found one. in that time i had purchased a reissue just so i could enjoy the music while on the hunt for the more "collectable" version.

*This thread is not about price but about which, if executed properly, will deliver the best SONIC results.*

Welcome back Verigo. Sure hope you have received an answer to your question. You have quoted my statement regarding sound quality as opposed to performance quality and that sound quality is *sometimes our primary concern*. My comment should not be taken out of context since it may be misconstrued that I am only concerned with sound quality. My comment reflect the general consensus that most of us prefer the best sounding pressing of a particular artists performance and that repressings can if chosen wisely, give us that choice. Of course I would choose to listen to Bob Dylan on a lesser system rather than Britney Spears on a higher end stereo system. In fact if given the choice I would see Bob Dylan live (which I did last week).

My point is that lets compare Bob to Bob. Not Britney to Bob. Or transistor radios to turntables. Music lover first, audiophile equipment hound second.

The quote above is from your original post that started this thread.

my last comment may have been too focused on availability, so let me clarify why i always choose the original pressing.

when a band goes into the studio with a producer and an engineer they all work together to create the final recording that we listen to. they give it a specific sound, a specific mastering, and it's all very intentional. i find a lot of reissues are also re-mastered, and that it takes away from what the artists intended in the first place.

now, there are a few exceptions where the original artist or producer does the re-master and it's just as good or better, but i don't think this applies to most reissues today.

i'd rather listen to the music as it was intended to be heard, rather than a version that might sound clearer, or crisper, but in the end doesn't live up to the artistic vision of the original producer.

just IMHO ..

You simply cannot generalize and say that original pressings sound better than later pressings or vice-versa.

Most collectors weould prefer and original, but sometimes it is a non-issue anyway because the original is too hard too find or the reissue does not exist. "pet sounds" is an interesting one as the recording is pretty bounced into oblivion as it is. Also, that UA console had (i think) 3 and 10K shlef buttons which didn't leave a lot of room for subtle eq. I have many versions of pet sounds, but all the new mono ones are digitally sourced and the stereo ones actually lack a few tracks Wilson did direct to the mono machine during three track mixdown.

Beyond that, record companies had street dates to meet fro popular music. This meant that , for instance, RCA could get a lot of records out quickly, quicker than say, motown, so Motown pressed a lot of records out of house.

In spite of the fine quality of engineers back in the 50's and 60's and the general better understanding of vinyl as "the" medium then, many companies had the policy of boosting 5K for rock and sending it through the fairchild limiter and boosting 10K for classical and jazz and sending it through the fairchild limiter. This fact does not make bad sounding pressings, but it is kind of amusing to think of when many people think of people salving away to get every detail just right. It was a job, records were the medium and, there were lots of them.

Now, it seems like you either get someone really taking their time, or just someone trying to get out a vinyl version at as little cost and trouble as possible to fill a market need. not much in between.