I can talk a big game when it comes to buying and selling vinyl. I can tell you which pressing of your favorite record is the best pressing to own. I can tell you why some records sound better in mono. But I am not an audiophile. I can't explain why a certain model of an Ortofon cartridge sounds better than another. I can barely set up the tracking and skating on my turntable. And I don't own a $10,000 stereo system. I only know what my ears tell me, not why they are telling me those things.
That said, in recent years I have written about the engineer Kevin Gray, who has built a reputation on his ability to make records from all genres sound better than anything we have heard before. From jazz sessions at Blue Note to classic rock records like Boston's debut to Meat Loaf's "Bat Out Of Hell," the fidelity on those Kevin Gray cut rock records is nothing short of mind blowing. And while original copies of "Bat Out Of Hell" sell for $10-$15, a Kevin Gray cut usually fetches over $100.
The same could be said for recent remasters that were cut by some other famous engineers like Chris Bellman and Bob Ludwig. If you listen to Elton's original LPs versus those that came out between 2014 and 2017 that were mastered at Ludwig's Gateway Studios, you'd take your originals to the nearest dumpster. That is how much of a difference there is in sound.
But, this is not true for all current releases. And this is why I am here today.
Here's the question:
Why are original pressings so much hotter than new releases and reissues? More often than not, I find myself cranking the volume on a new pressing of a classic to get the chest punch from the same album on a 70's pressing?
The most recent discovery was the Sex Pistols' "Never Mind The Bollocks." This is a record I haven't stopped listening to since 1977. It's a favorite, to say the least. But with business currently two feet away from the crapper, I have been selling off a lot of my original pressings just to make a few bucks, and either just playing files off of my iPod, or in the case of the Pistols, replacing my original with an inexpensive repress. The problem is, the repress sounds like garbage. It's got no fire. It's clean, sure. But who the hell wants "Bodies" to sound clean? This is just one example.
Maybe you have heard about the legendary "hot mix" of Led Zeppelin's second album. The story is, engineer Robert (Bob) Ludwig, cut the intial pressing so hot, it was making tonearms across the country slide off the record due to the heaviness of the bass and drums. Radios couldn't play the record without the needle jumping out of the grooves, especially on a cheap turntable. You can identify this "hot mix" by looking in the deadwax. Both sides should have "RL SS" etched in the runout. This "hot mix" has fetched as much as $1000. I sold a beat up copy for $350. But my point is, people pay good money because it sounded better, hotter.
Mobile Fidelity has been charging a premium for their product for years. And while some of their releases truly are the best pressings out there, like Dylan's "Oh Mercy" and "Blood On The Tracks." Others, at least to my ears, are unlistenable when compared to the originals. Usually, it's because the remasters have been cleaned up so much, it's as if the engineers sucked the life out of the recording, as well. (See MoFi's 2 LP 45 RPM cut of the Rascals' "Groovin'" versus the Rhino MONO "Summer Of Love" remaster from 2017. The Rhino blows the MoFi away.)
I could go on, but I won't. I still want to know though, why so many new pressings, those NOT overseen by engineering gods like Kevin Gray, Chris Bellman and Bob Ludwig, sound inferior to original pressings cut 50-60 years earlier. Is it all down to the pressing plants? The quality of the vinyl itself? Some of you might be ready to hit me with "age related hearing loss," and yes, I know that happens. But this is not that.
New vinyl lacks the pop and the heat and the...uh...oomph of old vinyl. The records are simply not cut as loud and I want to know why.
And if all this has put you in the mood to go record shopping, please shop here. I could use a few sales, otherwise I might have to start selling storm windows.
21 comments:
I have a few theories, but they are just that. First, many reissues return to the master tapes, which even if stored well, could have lost some of their slam. Many old tapes need to baked before they can be used. Does baking diminish the sound? Then there is the person remixing/remastering the record. Obviously some people are better at this than others. Do you want it to sound like the original, or "better"? I have something close to an audiophile system, and I recently borrowed the UHQR (read expensive) reissue of Countdown To Ecstasy, and it sounded good, but I didn't think it sounded better than my 50 year old original. I don't buy many records that I already own, although I have replaced many Beatles records. Some of them sound better than the originals. Many reissues are digitized from the tapes and then mixed back to vinyl. Does that matter? I've heard multiple digital and vinyl reissues of Rubber Soul in Stereo and Mono, and nothing come close to my original US release on vinyl. I did a months-long listen to the Beatles CD boxes in 2010, and it is long and maybe boring to many, but it might capture some of the issues you are concerned about. https://kleaveburg.blogspot.com/2010/01/beatles-box-set-beatles-in-mono-2009.html
Jeff, All that info is definitely something to consider. Though, something else I've noticed is that all Beatles and Beatles-related LPs, solo albums and soundtracks, are treated with much greater care than say, Elvis Costello or Tom Waits reissues. My original US Beatles albums couldn't hold a candle to my original UK pressings, and neither of those, at least to my ears, could hold a candle to the current remasters. As you mentioned, it has a lot to do with who is behind the board and your ears. But if we take the heavy hitters out of the equation--No MoFi, No Kevin Gray, Bellman or Ludwig, no Beatles or Stones--generally speaking, I find original pressings simply pack more of a punch.
And also Jeff,
re: Beatles in Stereo & Mono. I've also always preferred the mono over the stereo, with the exception of "Help," which I think explodes in stereo in ways the mono does not. But, since Giles Martin took over and started issuing these stereo remixes, I find all of these to be vene better. Quite frankly, what he did on the recent Red & Blue sets blew my mind. But again, this is The Beatles. I am trying to focus on basic vinyl reissues.
I agree with everything you're saying. I also agree that most/many reissues don't sound better than the originals. I think it has more to do with tape storage and individual skill and how much time and care was put into the project than the vinyl pressing process, but honestly that's a guess. The better reissues do seem to come from one of a small number of pressing plants, but not always. I'd love to hear the Red and Blue sets on vinyl, but I just can't bring myself to buy the Beatles stuff one more time. I'll give them a listen streaming though.
I have a number of OGs that sound great (Dixie Chicken, Beatles mono, Gord's Gold, Aja, Gaucho, Steely Dan's greatest hits, Boz Scaggs and Band, that come to mind). I have some OGs that sound soft, (Boz Scaggs' Moments, Fleetwood Mac's Future Games). I have some new represses that employed a digital file or step that sound soft, no punch or slam (Whitney Houston's 1st and the Best of the Bee Gees). I have some OGs that sound awful (Youngblood's first and others that I have gotten rid of). The latest repress of Sade's first album, employs a digital file but it sounds great). The OJC series of jazz reissues are all analog and sound wonderful. From what I can surmise is that there is not one critical factor but several. For example, the use of digital in the chain can work but it takes a great deal of care to avoid that harshness that digital sometimes brings to the table. The mastering and cutting of the lacquer is an art and some folks are way better at it. Junk vinyl can spoil a good record. Master tape versus second or third generation tape is also a factor as well as the age of the tape and the number of times it has been used. For those interested in quality sound, vinyl is definitely an adventure, but also highly rewarding too.
I buy plenty records by brand new artists that sound great, and are well pressed onto good vinyl. I'm also amazed how good a clean 70 year old LP can sound. I grew up in CA and never really noticed static electricity. Here in New England, there are days when nothing sounds great, and the turntable mat sticks to the record when I take it off.
I sure don't have any theories not mentioned so far. It's ironic that you have Grand Funk as the SOTD - a few years ago, I bought the 2014 Music On Vinyl cut to replace my noisy OG. Now, I've always been a fan of MOV releases (their Who's Next release sounds fabulous!), and their Grand Funk cut sounds good, but not as good as the OG.
For the last few years, I've begun to shy away from reissues.
Randy
Randy,
The MOV "Who's Next" is a killer because it's the 1995 remix, which has a few noticeable differences like a longer intro to "Baba" and more harmonies on the second verse of "Behind Blue Eyes," for starters. It's my fave pressing.
Here are the answers, you may have already come to the same conclusions.
- The new engineers don’t know to make a hot mix.
- The record companies don’t really care, they just want to push product, so they don’t demand a better quality mix.
- The people at the record companies who approve the mix don’t know that they can get a better mix. Inexperience?
- Many consumers don’t know any better, buying new vinyl is just a hipster statement, so they don’t demand better mixes.
- Record companies have no incentive to get better mixes because the mediocre product sells. This also falls into the “don’t care” category.
It sucks that you have to sell your old vinyl and replace it with mediocrity, because you know and appreciate the difference.
M_Sharp,
Thank you! This is what I was looking for. It's what I feel, but I needed to hear someone else say it.
Thanks, Sal. Once again, great minds think alike! ;-)
This sounds like (see what I did there?) my career in commercial photography. I assisted some first-rate local photographers and learned a lot of great techniques from them. I also worked with some average photographers, so I didn’t learn much from them.
Some clients had a tight budget, and couldn’t hire the first-rate photographer.
Some clients were just cheap, and didn’t want to hire the expensive, first-rate photographer, so they got average photos, and were happy because they saved a few bucks.
Some clients were cheap AND stupid, and convinced themselves that there was no difference between a first-rate photographer with 15 years experience and a kid one year out of school. Those are known as the companies who dumped me, or didn’t hire me.
And just like it’s painful for you to listen to a mediocre album mix, it’s just as painful for me to look at a photo and know how easy it is make it better. Those who care will always take the time to do better work, or learn how to do better.
Great commentary on just about every service or product offered these days! Love this one from M_Sharp: "Many consumers don’t know any better, buying new vinyl is just a hipster statement, so they don’t demand better mixes." Exactly! Glad you got some answers!
Sal:
I'm genuinely surprised by how easily you swallowed M_Sharp's highly specious claims.
Overlooking his obvious conflation of the term "mixes" with mastering (which is the topic at hand), it is both reductive and hugely cynical to proclaim that front-line mastering engineers "don't know how" to master or that the pertinent employees at every record label "don't know" or "don't care" about their jobs or their output. Most A&R execs charged with the preparation of these releases are professionals with high standards and a dedication to issuing quality product. They don't need an extra incentive to reject mediocrity and to do things well. For the most part they are music lovers just like you!
From an arm's length I can't explain the phenomena that you profess to be hearing as there are just too many variables in the production and manufacturing process to generalize a cause, but I can easily reject all of M_Sharp's premises as pure balderdash.
Says the anonymous engineer. If you'd like a more serious reply, posting anonymously won't get you one. Are you an engineer? Identify yourself if you feel so strongly that what I "swallowed" was highly specious. Let's talk about it, for real. Otherwise, don't troll. No one likes it.
There are more than a few anonymous commenters on this page alone but you don't seem to have wanted to take any of them to task! Your effort at outing me seems more like an evasion than a reply - and no one likes that either.
Yes I have been involved with supervising the production and/or mastering of many, many albums and reissues over the years. I've spent inordinate amounts of time in recording studios and mastering labs and countless hours reviewing acetates and test pressings, often times conferring with mastering houses and pressing plants in an effort to insure the highest possible quality. This makes me a friend to the audio consumer, not a troll.
Given the parameters of the discussion, I don't know that I have a heckuva lot to add to my original comments. But I do stand by my assessment above. If "bolderdash" doesn't cover it, we can insert "poppycock" instead!
You are right. Others post anonymously, but those people didn't basically call the moderator a rube, or a long time commentator and supporter, full of crap. The tone of your comment was enough for me to call you out. People are taken to task when I feel it is necessary. You're still not saying much, other than we are wrong and you are right. I stand by what I said.
Sal:
If I embarrassed you, I apologize. That was not my intention. But I was truly startled by your reaction to M_Sharp's post because you are typically much more thoughtful and too well-considered to have been seduced by such outright twaddle. Perhaps it was your loyalty to a long time commentator/supporter that momentarily clouded your judgment.
I also think that your misapprehension of my tone was a byproduct of this same butthurt. Emphatic doesn't always equate to disparagement. Beyond that, your assertion that I was "not saying much" seems a bit niggardly given that I was making a sincere attempt to shed some light on the topic, irrespective of "wrong" and "right."
I recall that not too long ago you were beseeching us to provide more commentary/feedback in the comments section, but now it seems that there are some strict parameters to acceptable discourse and considerable jeopardy in crossing a line that we cannot see. You can take me to task all you want, but the touchiness doesn't suit you.
Let's start again.
First, I welcome all commentary. You can disagree with me. I don't care, as long as it's an adult conversation. I never appreciate anonymous posts, mostly because after 15 years of BW, it's usually the unknown commenters that talk trash. There is a lot readers don't see, but I get threatened often by trolls who don't like my politics. Anonymous cowards, all. Those comments get deleted, but I still have to read them.
Next, I still don't know you. What I mean by "not saying much" is that at least in my post, I discuss specifics, engineers I respect, records that I thought sounded lousy. Even in your profession, I'd bet I still listen to more records a day than you do, this going back 50 years. Also, my years in retail allowed me to meet people in your profession, some I still know. I don't think my accusations are unfounded. I can give dozens upon dozens of examples. Can you? All you did was defend "engineers." Who? Which engineers? Which records?
As for M_Sharp, I quickly thanked him because I didn't need to think on it. It's what I've been feeling all along. Have you ever listened to reissues on the 4 Men With Beards label? Care to defend that crap? Or the endless foisting of colored vinyl, picture discs and other horrible variants on RSD just to please the kids? Have you ever read the reviews on Discogs of RSD pressings? It ain't good.
"Touchiness doesn't suit you." Hey, you defended your guys! I'll defend mine and myself.
There are no parameters in the comment section other than playing like adults. "Balderdash" and "poppycock" are worse than just calling bullshit. It's kinda smug.
There, I've said enough. We can start over, if you'd like. If not, I get that too.
Oh, and yes, I do know the difference between mixing and mastering versus teh actual pressing. I realize a brilliant Chris Bellman master can come out pretty crappy at the wrong pressing plant. But it's not all in the pressing, or the cheap vinyl, or the mass production. There are plenty of reissues that claim to be audophile that simply don't cut it. Whose fault is that?
Sal:
Happy to start over.
I thought your post was cogent and that your questions were posed with your usual passion for whatever is the subject at hand - and with a dollop of wit thrown in for good measure. That's why I come and why I'll always return. I'm what's known as a fan.
Again, I think specifics in this matter are not conclusive of much of anything. There are just too many variables. There's no disputing that the best mastering engineers in the world can be handed the most questionable source material to work with and be told to please do the best they can because that's what's available. The results will inexorably be "the best we could do under the circumstances." And there is also no doubt that there are labels that exist to exploit the product or issue it in the most economical way possible - cheap mastering, cheap vinyl, etc. That has been true since the dawn of recorded music. I agree that somehow RSD pressings tend to be sub-par and I've certainly been befuddled by some of Mobile Fidelity's Dylan stuff. But who knows the actual minutae of these undertakings? Sometimes reissues are conceived (even at "audiophile" companies) in the Business Affairs Department and the rest of the label is saddled with figuring out how best to honor the contract under some very suspect sonic conditions.
My point was that in the vast middle ground of labels issuing product, there are genuinely devoted individuals striving every day for good results. And it does chap my britches a bit when it all gets boiled down to The Big Bad Record Company Doesn't Know or Care. Parenthetically, I get similarly chafed when somebody like Lefsetz incessantly bleats about music fans who were forced to buy CDs "with one good cut and the rest just filler." It's easy to be cynical but the vast majority of artists are not sitting around conspiring to create 9 or 10 tracks of rubbish just so they can rip off their potential audience and stymie their own career.
Ultimately, the remarks I took exception to were not yours. I have plenty of regard for M_Sharp and his enthusiasm for the blog, but I still sometimes have a kneejerk reaction when I read something so egregiously off the mark. I'm glad we've made our way back to equanimity!
And, by the way, "balderdash" and "poppycock" were employed for amusement's sake. It's "twaddle" that I thought was a bit smug!
Oh! And you're certainly correct that it's not all in the pressing/vinyl/mass production. Sometimes it's the bad engineering in the original recording - the crappy drum sound, or lousy separation, or errant distortion, or a hundred other things. Or it could be in the mixing - questionable EQ, cloudy reverb, boomy bass, shrill top end. Some things can't be fixed in mastering and some things will get worse when you try to make other aspects better. It can be a constant struggle ending in a sorry compromise. Modern mastering techniques offer many solutions when placed in the hands of capable engineers - but even they sometimes can't work a miracle.
Post a Comment