I've decided to start buying vinyl (pre-empt my inevitable turntable purchase), but beyond the analog vs. digital argument, i'm not too learned in the area. One concern I have is over older albums.

For instance: I walk into my local and they're selling Funhouse but there are two versions - one is some weirdly packaged reissue and another looks older. Isn't there a chance that in selling old records, the newer versions could have been pressed from bad masters or lower quality vinyl (I gained this impression from people buying originals for reasons other than the collector's value)? If so, how do you spot the better quality ones when buying?

andyman wrote:I've decided to start buying vinyl (pre-empt my inevitable turntable purchase), but beyond the analog vs. digital argument, i'm not too learned in the area. One concern I have is over older albums.

For instance: I walk into my local and they're selling Funhouse but there are two versions - one is some weirdly packaged reissue and another looks older. Isn't there a chance that in selling old records, the newer versions could have been pressed from bad masters or lower quality vinyl (I gained this impression from people buying originals for reasons other than the collector's value)? If so, how do you spot the better quality ones when buying?

In short. Yes. It can be a minefield. In my experience, with 70s/early 80s stuff, early pressings are generally preferable - particularly if it's a big seller. However, they are often expensive, appealing to collector scum. Quality can also vary, depending on where the record was pressed: Original UK Led Zep I and II LPs were mastered from 2nd generation tapes for example whereas the US versions used the originals but both are more expensive than the 200g Quiex SVP versions which can be bought new. OTOH much late 80s stuff was probably pressed on shite quality vinyl, so a recent reissue may sound superior (my Plain copy of Loveless certainly sounds a pile better tha the Creation original) . In the case of Funhouse, I bought the Sundazed remaster and it sounds dandy. I wouldn't get too hung up on it tbh, there's plenty of s/h bargains to be had - just avod shelling out collector prices, it only encourages them.

Minefield for sure, for Led Zep: look for the original pressings, they will have the Broadway address on the paper label in the center of the record. The Rockefeller Plaza address denote the later inferior sounding pressings.

Country of orgin is one rule of thumb that doesn't always work, but is helpful information. With Beatles for instance, the Parlophone yellow and blacks sound better than the Capitol pressings, although not all the Parlophones are considered the best versions for all the records.

For some interesting reading I refer you to this site:

http://www.better-records.com/

Read his 'hot stamper' section, pretty interesting stuff, he doesn't like a lot of the newer reissued pressings that people pay top dollar for.

I can tell you that the resissue's that Steve Hoffman masters along with Kevin Gray sound very good most of the time.

Five hundred dollars for a copy of Abbey Road? I don't care how good it sounds, that's just a tax on stupidity.

Thanks a bunch for the help. I'd assume this kind of stuff is only an issue for 70s/80s stuff (i.e. stuff like T&G, Dischord, etc. are generally good)?

andyman wrote:Thanks a bunch for the help. I'd assume this kind of stuff is only an issue for 70s/80s stuff (i.e. stuff like T&G, Dischord, etc. are generally good)?

All my T&G and Dischord stuff has been fine and the most recent Dischord stuff I've bough (Evens, Black Eyes) have been the heaviest and best of the lot.

I'm not sure about Touch and Go or Dischord. I buy Fugazi albums directly from the Dischord site and they sound like they should, some better than others for a multitude of reasons I'm sure. I have never compared them to 'originals' though which some of them could be, I have no idea.

I don't know which plant does their pressing. Don't know about T&G either, but all of the T&G albums I've purchased have been of excellent quality.

Yes, the records that are on the site I sent a link too are ridiculously priced, but there is a lot of good information on the site that can assist you when purchasing albums at your local record store. Sometimes the originals aren't the best and he has that kind of info. Read the sold hot stamper section.

Lastly, take all of it with a grain of salt, this stuff is fairly subjective.

Vinyl is a ton of fun to collect and I'm love to think about someone getting excited about it for the first time or reinvigorated to get back to collecting and listening.

Despite having a pretty good record collection, I recommend not buying LPs.

why?

unless you are a rich person with lots of free time on your hands, LPs are just not very user friendly.

1. equipment playback costs are high. to compete with digital, you will need a decent turntable, which will at least cost $300. next you need a decent cartridge. add $100 for that. you will also need a decent phono preamp, which to my ears, is just as important as the previous two. add $150 at least for that.

2. vinyl is robust, but it can also be very fragile. a CD can be rendered useless by a small scratch on the label side of the disc. a scratch on a LP is annoying, but not catastrophic. nonetheless, it will wear out. vinyl is also very susceptible to dirt and dust which requires other costs such as decent storage, cleaning equipment and materials. to my ears, dirt and dust is far more of a concern than wear.


3. in the 80s and 90s, people were dumping their vinyl collections. this made for a buyers market in vinyl. I found lots of my very expensive records during this time for very cheap. those days are gone. also, I began collecting vinyl because most of the recordings I was interested in, would never be reissued on cd. those are now beyond my price range. I haven't bought a record in about 7 years.

4. playback. there is something nice about forcing the listener to not be so passive. cds and to a lesser extent, mp3s can render the listener entirely passive. it becomes background music. with records, the listener is forced to stay close and will therefore, more likely only be listening to the music and not multitasking. of course this can be duplicated with other formats, but records dictate this behavior, forcing you out your seat so that you don't wear out your stylus on the inner rings.

5. physical/commodification. Mp3s are freeing music from the grasp of companies that control distribution. It is a new age, when a person in idaho can upload an mp3 to myspace and anyone can listen to it. In the past this would never be possible. people complain about the lack of record jacket and album art. why didn't they also complain when music was first disembodied from performance?

madlee wrote:Despite having a pretty good record collection, I recommend not buying LPs.

why?

unless you are a rich person with lots of free time on your hands, LPs are just not very user friendly.

1. equipment playback costs are high. to compete with digital, you will need a decent turntable, which will at least cost $300. next you need a decent cartridge. add $100 for that. you will also need a decent phono preamp, which to my ears, is just as important as the previous two. add $150 at least for that.

I disagree. In my experience £ for £, superior audio quality is available from viny playback. You CAN get a CD player really cheap, but it will sound shite. This doesn't bother everybody, but if it does then you'll need to spend at least as much on a CD player to match your vinyl system. A phono-stage (another industry gouge, they used to be part of every integrated amp) can be had for much less than 150 - e.g. NAD / Creek. These are readily available on ebay too.

madlee wrote:2. vinyl is robust, but it can also be very fragile. a CD can be rendered useless by a small scratch on the label side of the disc. a scratch on a LP is annoying, but not catastrophic. nonetheless, it will wear out. vinyl is also very susceptible to dirt and dust which requires other costs such as decent storage, cleaning equipment and materials. to my ears, dirt and dust is far more of a concern than wear.

Vinyl will wear out eventually, but I still own the very first LPs I ever bought (in 1979/80) and they still sound fine. Many of them were played on some pretty shocking record players too with no obvious side effects. Dust is an issue, so look after them. I try and look after things I've payed money for so this isn't really an issue. It'a actually pretty hard to scratch a record by accident

madlee wrote:3. in the 80s and 90s, people were dumping their vinyl collections. this made for a buyers market in vinyl. I found lots of my very expensive records during this time for very cheap. those days are gone. also, I began collecting vinyl because most of the recordings I was interested in, would never be reissued on cd. those are now beyond my price range. I haven't bought a record in about 7 years.

True, the free lunch is over but it never really existed outside of major cities. Plus, people are still dumping their collections - there seems to be a glut of 1980s - 90s indie around at the moment. Most of it's terrible, but I've found soem real gems for peanuts.

madlee wrote:4. playback. there is something nice about forcing the listener to not be so passive. cds and to a lesser extent, mp3s can render the listener entirely passive. it becomes background music. with records, the listener is forced to stay close and will therefore, more likely only be listening to the music and not multitasking. of course this can be duplicated with other formats, but records dictate this behavior, forcing you out your seat so that you don't wear out your stylus on the inner rings.

That's how I prefer to listen to music anyway. Actively. Twenty minutes is pretty much optimum human concentration span. Also, I'm sick of so called 'bonus' tracks screwing up the running order of favoured releases.

madlee wrote:5. physical/commodification. Mp3s are freeing music from the grasp of companies that control distribution. It is a new age, when a person in idaho can upload an mp3 to myspace and anyone can listen to it. In the past this would never be possible. people complain about the lack of record jacket and album art. why didn't they also complain when music was first disembodied from performance?

This is fine if you can tolerate the desperate audio quality of mp3. Personally, I think it's useful for getting a taster but once I know about a recording that I like, I'll try and track down a physical copy.

Unfortunately, although music distribution is now much more democratic, this democracy has unleashed a tidal wave of excrement amongst which, a few gems can be found. I don't think it's any easier or harder to find good music now than in the past - in fact the two major sources of musical education that I had avaiable as a kid no longer exist: Diversity in music broadcasting - and by this I mean getting the unexpected rather than choosing what you already know; and municipal lending libraries.

Madlee,

much like others here, i'm a die-hard music fan. In a few years when I can afford it, i'm more than willing to pay a high price for a good turntable and take care of my collection - it's worth it isn't it? Not to restart the downlaoding debate, but MP3s are great for the internet, for exposing people to music. Once the songs impress or matter to me, i'll go and buy the vinyl because (apart from paying the artist) I want to listen to it at the best quality.

Also, I don't like that there are times i'll throw on a CD and it'll be background noise - I prefer to be forced out of my chair.


Thanks for your input though - I do appreciate it.