• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Are new vinyl pressings better than long ago pressings?

Oyeve

Oyeve

Lifer
I have noticed a surge in vinyl in the last couple of years and with the advent of record/cd stores closing down fast I cant judge if new pressings of older music (60s, 70s, 80s) are better than the original pressings. I have never stopped playing my records and they are still in excellent condition. I have a Denon DP-45F turntable that I have been using for roughly 30 years and various Ortofon cartridges and stylus.

So, if I have, say, the Police Zenyatta Mendatta album that I bought in 1980 (which I do) and a press made today, which would sound better? I have this album on vinyl and first press cd and also the "remaster" cd that came out a few years back and the remastered CD sounds like crap. My original 34 year old record sounds better. I assume the remaster sounds lousy as the original source tapes deteriorated and thats what they had to work with. But with all the technology today, cant they remaster the remaster? I would like to replace some old records with more recent remasters but its hard to find new vinyl record stores that have open copies to listen to.
 
they are made the same way and they are mastered the same way.

the only difference is the master recording of the song.

today's songs are MOSTLY recorded digitally.

i have about 20 new records pearl jam, limp bizkit, korn, creed, green day, rage against the machine.

they all sound like cds to me.
 
Depends on what master they used to press the record. A lot of music today is mixed to boost loudness, sacrificing dynamic range. Which is why older pressings tend to sound better.
 
mmntech said:
Depends on what master they used to press the record. A lot of music today is mixed to boost loudness, sacrificing dynamic range. Which is why older pressings tend to sound better.
Click to expand...

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

It's a long story... see here:

"We get saturated by this business of remastering! And many remasters sound worse than the originals. " - http://thequietus.com/articles/13821-loudness-wars-apple-itunes-bob-katz

and http://brianstagg.co.uk/p_t_a_clipressed/

and the discussion on Hydrogen audio forums:
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=88019

Which brings me to the final suggestion: before buying any remastered album, check out this growing database, and see if there's any information on it, and what's the score for the previous version - http://dr.loudness-war.info/
 
AnitaPeterson said:
Which brings me to the final suggestion: before buying any remastered album, check out this growing database, and see if there's any information on it, and what's the score for the previous version - http://dr.loudness-war.info/
Click to expand...

Handy.

I think a lot of people think remastered is the same as restoration. Like with film, when they go back and clean up the original negatives for a Bluray release. Yet that's not the case.

I've tested this myself a while back. I took Abbey Road, since it's one album I have multiple copies of. I had loaded the tracks into Audacity to compare the waveforms. Loudness doubles between the original 1969 vinyl pressing and the CD version released in the late 80s. It doubles again from the CD to Beatles 1 released in 2000. By then, clipping starts to become an issue. I can't imagine how bad the later remastered versions are.


I'm not quite sure what the reasoning behind this is.
 
mmntech said:
Handy.

I think a lot of people think remastered is the same as restoration. Like with film, when they go back and clean up the original negatives for a Bluray release. Yet that's not the case.

I've tested this myself a while back. I took Abbey Road, since it's one album I have multiple copies of. I had loaded the tracks into Audacity to compare the waveforms. Loudness doubles between the original 1969 vinyl pressing and the CD version released in the late 80s. It doubles again from the CD to Beatles 1 released in 2000. By then, clipping starts to become an issue. I can't imagine how bad the later remastered versions are.


I'm not quite sure what the reasoning behind this is.
Click to expand...
Yeah, thats what i've experienced as well. One example: My first album that I bought back in 1969, CCR Willy and the Poorboys, which I still have and play today (vinly was made really well back then) sounds phenomenal. I have bought more recent copies on vinyl and CD and played on a mix of highend and mid end equipment throughout the years and, IMO, the original 1969 pressing is superior. I know original tapes deteriorate and remastering from those you have to add post-processing, but, being that I havent researched any improvements in the last 7-8 years I was hoping technology has improved a bit. But vinyl is pretty damn costly now what with the 240grams of vinly and such. Hell, my mid seventies through mid eighties paper thin vinyl sounds great as long as the tonearm and needle are calibrated properly.
 
it's important to note that the quality and weight of the vinyl matters; we'll assume that the quality hasn't gone down drastically, but the weight has.

however .. it's physically impossible to actually hear the difference. maybe, on a superb system, at very high volumes, in a listening room, you could tell that the vinyl is too light.

if you go hunting used records, look for a deutsche gramophone album and pull it out of the cover - you'll see how much heavier these are.
 
I'll offer a dissenting opinion to what DigDog states. The most important parts of vinyl production are -- the qualify of the source (tapes), the mastering quality (transferring of the tapes and application of EQ), and the pressing quality (at the pressing plant). If the quality of those steps is good then the resulting LP will sound great if it's 100 grams or 200 grams or anything in between. The thicker/heavier LP may feel better (more substantial) in your hands and will cost more, but that's all. It's done for marketing/bling reasons, not for quality reasons.

Thicker pressings also complicate the pressing process, increasing the probability of defects. More cooling time needed, potentially more problems with non-fill, etc. This can be handled if the pressing plant knows what they're doing -- but there are plants out there that don't know. Or don't care.
 
Last edited:
mmntech said:
Handy.

I think a lot of people think remastered is the same as restoration. Like with film, when they go back and clean up the original negatives for a Bluray release. Yet that's not the case.

I've tested this myself a while back. I took Abbey Road, since it's one album I have multiple copies of. I had loaded the tracks into Audacity to compare the waveforms. Loudness doubles between the original 1969 vinyl pressing and the CD version released in the late 80s. It doubles again from the CD to Beatles 1 released in 2000. By then, clipping starts to become an issue. I can't imagine how bad the later remastered versions are.


I'm not quite sure what the reasoning behind this is.
Click to expand...
Actually, the new remasters are much better than 1. What a joke that was, sonically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top