One of the great things about the vinyl revival is that lots of great old albums are being re-released. And often the albums are remastered from the original master tapes and pressed on great-quality vinyl, resulting in records that sound as good or better than the original releases. A perfect example is the Beatles mono box set that came out in 2014. All the Beatles LPs that were released in mono were remastered from the original Abbey Road tapes and issued on 180-gram vinyl with beautifully reproduced labels and jackets. Except for the few lucky souls who collected the original UK releases, or have the time and the money to track them down, this is the next best thing.
There have been lots of other great-sounding re-releases in recent years, including the Bob Dylan Mono Box, Neil Young's Archive Series, the Bert Jansch Transatlantic remasters, the Analogue Productions' Beach Boys remasters, Rhino's Joni Mitchell re-pressings, and so on.
In many cases, including most of those listed above, I already owned the original albums, but bought the reissues anyway. Sometimes I buy new releases because my original isn't in great shape, and sometimes I buy them just to hear the new remastering, especially if they get good reviews or are done by a top-notch re-issue label. In some cases, the newer versions are clearly superior, with quieter vinyl, punchier bass, more air, better balance, or textures and details that simply weren't there before. But not always. I have a number of newly remastered disks where the original is still better. Sometimes it's because the original version is the one that I've heard a hundred times and so it just sounds "right" to me. That's a subjective thing. But other times, the re-pressing objectively just isn't very good.
As an example, BMG issued newly-remastered versions of Emerson, Lake and Palmer's albums in 2016. They were cut using 24/96 digital transfers made from the original tapes. They are pressed on heavy vinyl and have beautifully reproduced original jackets. I bought the new version of Pictures at an Exhibition to see how it compared to the original. I have three copies of the original, including first UK and US pressings. The original UK release was mastered by George Peckham (Porky), and the original US release was mastered by George Piros. To my ears, the UK release is the better of the two originals.
But both of them were better than the new BMG release, which I found to be a disappointment. To my ears, the sound is thick and compressed. The original releases have better balance, much greater dynamics, and more air and detail. So in this case, if you don't own a copy of Pictures (and if not, why not?), you are much better off picking up a nm used copy of the original UK (or even US) pressing. Originals are relatively easy to find, and cheaper than the $28 repressing.
The problem, of course, is knowing whether the reissue sounds better and is worth the price. For major reissues, like the Beatles, there will be plenty of reviews and lots of opinions on the various online forums like Steve Hoffman. But for less well-known albums that I don't have, I often wrestle with the question of whether to buy the a reissue, or pick up a good used copy on Discogs or elsewhere.
For popular 60s and 70s titles that were pressed by the hundreds of thousands if not millions, a good used copy is generally cheaper than a repressing. But not always. An original pressing of Neil Young's seminal 1972 album, Harvest, can easily fetch $75 - $100 in top condition. Since I didn't own an original copy, (how the heck did that happen?), I was happy to buy the 2009 reissue when it came out. Chris Bellman did the remastering, and it sounds great. However, a few weeks ago I was rooting through boxes of albums at an antiques mall and found a beautiful 1978 Warner Brothers repressing of Harvest. The jacket is nm, and the vinyl looked unplayed. It was less than $10. Holy moly what a deal. Naturally I was anxious to hear how it sounded in comparison to the 2009 remaster. Turns out there is no comparison. The 2009 remaster is great, but the 1978 repressing is just better -- more dynamic range, better detail, more natural sounding.That's admittedly a small sample, but I have been disappointed with a number of other remastered LPs as well. For now, unless the original is super rare or expensive, I'll be tracking down clean copies of the originals.
However, things are generally different when it comes to classic jazz titles. The problem is that even popular jazz titles didn't sell all that many copies. And since many or the classic Bebop albums came out in the 50s and 60s, the supply of clean originals is dwindling fast. I still have luck finding the occasional gem on Verve or Prestige in the used bins, but even the thrift stores have figured out that original Blue Notes are worth their weight in gold.
So we're left with re-pressings and reissues. I was very happy when back in 2014 Blue Note began releasing new pressings of dozens of LPs from their back catalog in honor of the 75th anniversary of the label. The new albums look great -- 180-gram vinyl with beautiful reproductions of the original labels and jackets. Unfortunately, company president Don Was's goal was to make them available for $20. A notable goal that would put them in reach of almost all budding vinyl collectors. But to keep the price down, they had to make compromises, like cutting the new lacquers from digital masters, and apparently going with the low bidder for pressing the vinyl. I've picked up maybe 10 of the reissues. The sound on all of them is sort of meh, and at least five of them have bad surface noise. I exchanged several of them for different copies, and the replacements sound just as bad. They are simply bad pressings, often by United Record Pressing of Nashville, whose quality control seems a little lacking. So I won't be buying any more of the 75th anniversary re-pressings. The problem is that there are a lot of Blue Note titles that I would like to have, but I don't want to spend what it costs to get a good copy of an early pressing.
For example, I didn't have a copy of the classic 1963 Blue Note release of Kenny Burrell's Midnight Blue.
It's a stone cold classic, and I need a copy. Popsike, which tracks auction prices for LPs, shows that an original Midnight Blue in nm condition sold for $565 in 2015. So that's not happening. There are a couple of 1985 French Blue Note DMM reprints on Discogs for $40-50. But the reputation of these reprints is not great. So, what to do? Luckily, Music Matters, a great audiophile re-issue label, put out a remastered edition of Midnight Blue in 2014. It is still available at a few places online. It retails for $40 (which is sort of the high end of what I'll pay for a new record). But the Music Matters reprints are superb, so I ordered a copy. It's not just good, it is mind-blowingly good. Sitting-right-there-in-the-studio good. The re-mastering was done by Kevin Gray at Cohearent Audio, and it was pressed at Record Technology Inc. in Camarilla, CA. If the $565 original New York Blue Note sounds better, it would be a life-changing experience. I bought a few other Music Matters reprints while I was at it, and they all sound fantastic.
So where does all this leave us? In my experience, the overall sound quality of mass-produced LPs from the 60s and 70s is amazingly good. And even nm copies are usually cheaper than modern re-pressings. On the other hand, if you are looking for a more collectible title, including an original Blue Note, Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, or the like, you're better off with the re-pressing, particularly if it's done by one of the quality labels like Music Matters, Analogue Productions, or MFSL. A lot of "public domain" reissues of classic jazz albums have hit the shelves in Europe in the last few years, pressed on 180-gram vinyl and with good-looking replica jackets. Some commenters on online forums think the sound quality isn't great, but I'm withholding judgment until I get a chance to hear some. I'll try to put together a comparison for a future post.
Enjoy the music!
