Are re-issues worth the money?

When I heard that Friday music was going to reissue Queensryche - Empire on 180g vinyl, I was ecstatic! I couldn't wait to get a copy.

Last month I received my copy and couldn't wait to get it on the turntable and have a listen. I ripped the package open, pulled the record out and lowered the needle. Within the first 10 seconds of the first song, I knew I was going to be disappointed. 

I already had an original 1991 EMI release on vinyl, which sounds good except it was a poorly cut DMM release with lots of sibilance problems. The reissue had the very same sibilance problems - how can that be? According to Friday Music, they used the original master tapes to cut the reissue. I find that VERY hard to believe.

First, it sounds compressed and lacks deep bass. The compression sucks the life right out of it making it sound like a poorly made CD, almost like they used a CD on a very low end CD player to cut the lacquer. The violins in 'Silent Lucidity' are a good example of this. On the 1991 release, there's a nice fullness and body to them, with lots of presence and dynamics. In the Friday music reissue, they are flat and two dimensional sounding. No body and no presence. Another example is right before the chorus, there's a really deep bass note which is MIA on the reissue, but present on the 1991 release.

The midrange is smeared and blurry sounding. There is some depth to the music, but it's missing the life and sparkle that the 1991 release has. The midrange sounds like it's built up from very thin, flat layers, most likely due to the compression used in the cutting process. The result is everything blends together making it hard to pick apart each instrument from one another.

The highs are what upset me the most. The original EMI release is a DMM (Direct Metal Master) pressing, which can be tricky to play back on some systems that are fussy about VTA adjustment. My experience with DMM releases has been mixed. Some sound great and others have sibilance issues no matter what cartridge I use or how precise my table's VTA  is set up. Both the 1991 and the reissue has the same sibilance problems. Why is that? I have the DCC gold CD release of this album and it sounds perfect. I prefer the DCC CD over any other CD release of this album. (I highly recommend getting a copy of the DCC gold CD if you want to hear this album in it's full glory.)

I was hoping the vinyl reissue would meet my expectations and sound at least as good as the DCC gold CD, but it fell way short.

Does anyone here have a copy of this album? What do you think of it?

What is your opinion on reissues in general?

I don't have this album, however since here in Italy the prices of used vinyl are absurd (you won't find anything in good conditions under the 10-20 euros mark, that is at least 14 $) I tend to buy new reissues, which are similarly priced and more widely available.
I have mixed feelings on these reissues; some are stellar, some are OK, some are terrible. Even in the same label, there are differences: e.g. the recent Dire Straits reissues by Warner are incredible, while the ZZ Top reissue, again by Warner, sound good, but there is something that leaves me puzzled: they sound too analytical, without great dynamic, as if they used digital masters and not the original analog tapes (to be honest, I don't have the original LPs to compare).
Other reissues are a total waste of money, like the Universal back-to-black 180 gr series: I've got Cosmos Factory, and it's pure cr*p: thin, flat sounding, no dynamic at all, compressed, clearly a bad digital remastering...even the CD version I own sounds much better! On the other hand, I've heard great reviews of the Analogue Productions reissue of this album.
I guess it all depends on the source tapes, and the ability of the mastering technicians...not everybody is skilled as Bob Ludwig. I think a good way not to get disappointed is to stay with labels that have good reputation, like Mobile Fidelity, Classic Records, Sundazed and similar, but again this is not a guarantee: for instance I heard complaints about quality issue of late Classic Record reissues.

I don't have this album, however since here in Italy the prices of used vinyl are absurd (you won't find anything in good conditions under the 10-20 euros mark, that is at least 14 $) I tend to buy new reissues, which are similarly priced and more widely available.
I have mixed feelings on these reissues; some are stellar, some are OK, some are terrible. Even in the same label, there are differences: e.g. the recent Dire Straits reissues by Warner are incredible, while the ZZ Top reissue, again by Warner, sound good, but there is something that leaves me puzzled: they sound too analytical, without great dynamic, as if they used digital masters and not the original analog tapes (to be honest, I don't have the original LPs to compare).
Other reissues are a total waste of money, like the Universal back-to-black 180 gr series: I've got Cosmos Factory, and it's pure cr*p: thin, flat sounding, no dynamic at all, compressed, clearly a bad digital remastering...even the CD version I own sounds much better! On the other hand, I've heard great reviews of the Analogue Productions reissue of this album.
I guess it all depends on the source tapes, and the ability of the mastering technicians...not everybody is skilled as Bob Ludwig. I think a good way not to get disappointed is to stay with labels that have good reputation, like Mobile Fidelity, Classic Records, Sundazed and similar, but again this is not a guarantee: for instance I heard complaints about quality issue of late Classic Record reissues.

I agree 100%. With some new reissues, they are no more then copies of the digital versions with all of the inherit flaws and problems of compression and limited dynamics. I really don't understand it - especially with major labels like Sony and Warner; since they have access to the master tapes in their vaults. They have the capability at least, to sample and archive the tapes in the highest resolutions possible for use in cutting new lacquer discs. The master tapes have all the dynamics and sound quality already there, they just need to transfer that to new vinyl untouched. Why do they have to apply modern compression and limiting to an already perfect master tape before cutting? Just cut it directly from the tape! No compression, no limiting. Stay as far away as possible to any digital editing or 'remastering'.

Another recent disappointment for me is the Led Zepplin 'Mothership' box set pressed at RTI. Is it me, or does RTI pressings really suck? I know a lot of releases available at Elusivedisc.com mentioned 'pressed at RTI' like it's a pro, although I consider it a con. The Mothership box set is a complete disaster and a waste of money. Typical of RTI pressings, there is very little (or soft and 'polite') bass. The mid-range is a jumbled, flat mess and the highs are crunchy and harsh. Total garbage. Comes in a nice box though. 

Even some Classic records pressings have problems. Take the Holly Cole Trio LP I posted a video on - it sounds decent, but actually it was a pain to get the turntable to play through it without sibilance issues. The lead-in track has a fair amount of noise in the right channel and between tracks there is a high noise floor and groove noise. That's a sign of a bad cutting or lack of quality control IMHO. My copy was still sealed when I got it earlier this year, so the problems were not from wear of a previous owner. One of the reasons I used the Dynavector DV-20X for that video was because my Zyx R100H would not play it cleanly enough and couldn't deal with the sibilance problems no matter what adjustments I made to the turntable.

On a brighter note, I picked up Owl City's new LP - 'All Things Bright and Beautiful', basically on a whim since it was on sale on Amazon.com. Sterling is etched in the deadwax as the mastering and cutting house for the vinyl. For a new LP; and from a band that uses mostly electronic instruments (and most likely digital recording methods) it sounds fantastic! Beautiful layering of the instruments, wide separation and imaging, tons or air and sparkle, and deep clean bass. It really gives me hope that there is still people who care about cutting new vinyl and retaining the life and dynamics of the music.

I agree 100%. With some new reissues, they are no more then copies of the digital versions with all of the inherit flaws and problems of compression and limited dynamics. I really don't understand it - especially with major labels like Sony and Warner; since they have access to the master tapes in their vaults. They have the capability at least, to sample and archive the tapes in the highest resolutions possible for use in cutting new lacquer discs.

I fear that this capability has been lost sometime during the digital age. Cutting a lacquer using the analog tapes require an ability that you don't need when you have computers showing the digital waveform and all this stuff that make things easier. How much of today mastering technician have worked on analog tapes and lacquers? I believe very few.
The best thing the major labels can do is to delegate other vinyl-specialized labels to have full analog reissue for them. E.g. Sony has an agreement with Music On Vinyl: http://www.musiconvinyl.com/index.php. Sony gives the original master tapes to MOV and MOV make great quality LPs out of the tapes, mainly for the European market. I have Santana 1st LP by MOV and its great: dead quiet vinyl, and great ultra-precise sound quality (sometimes too precise...that makes me doubt if it's 100% analog, I'd like to have a Sundazed or MoFi copy to compare). Bob Dylan first mono LPs were even reprinted on vinyl by three labels: MOV, Sundazed and Sony itself, under supervision by George Marino...who knows which one is better?
Also, Warner has some titles reprinted by Rhino, and Universal recently signed an agreement with MOV for new reissues.

I guess it depends on the availability of the records you are after. So what is more important? The mastering or the pressing? if you have a bad mastered Album, no pressing in the world will help. On the Pressing side, its a matter of Vinyl formulas, quality control, stampers or machining.etc... I read an article a few years back that pretty much stated that anyone that knew anything about this vinyl format is long gone. don't know how true it is. My favorite has always been Classic Records. I am lucky enough to have some of their earliest pressing. My favorite being Bill evans at montreux, which they were lucky enough to have the original master tapes because the normal release was awful and Speakers Corner released a reissue but used a copy of the master. Towards the end Classic Records quality control was terrible. Still my all time favorite.. But the torch has been Passed. QRP bought the right from Classic Records. I expect great things from this new (Classic Records) Company....

Quality Record Pressings...The Beginning

I guess it depends on the availability of the records you are after. So what is more important? The mastering or the pressing? if you have a bad mastered Album, no pressing in the world will help. On the Pressing side, its a matter of Vinyl formulas, quality control, stampers or machining.etc... I read an article a few years back that pretty much stated that anyone that knew anything about this vinyl format is long gone. don't know how true it is. My favorite has always been Classic Records. I am lucky enough to have some of their earliest pressing. My favorite being Bill evans at montreux, which they were lucky enough to have the original master tapes because the normal release was awful and Speakers Corner released a reissue but used a copy of the master. Towards the end Classic Records quality control was terrible. Still my all time favorite.. But the torch has been Passed. QRP bought the right from Classic Records. I expect great things from this new (Classic Records) Company....

Mmmhh very interesting! 

For Christmas I was gifted these reissues:
Booker T. and the MGs - Green Onions, Sundazed;
Stevie Ray Vaughan - Texas Flood, Sundazed;
Santana - Abraxas, Simply Vinyl.
My impressions...Sundazed:   
The music is great. Green Onions has plenty of dynamics with the punchy original mono mix, not boomy or thin, it sounds just the way a mono record should sound. I don't have an original pressing, but this reissue sounds good and accurate to me. Texas Flood also has great dynamic, and shows a good and right amount of bass frequencies, for a record made in the 80's. Compared to this, the remastered CD sounds thin. Stevie's guitar is HUGE. The only drawback are the drums which sound a bit metallic and weak (still less than the CD), but that's the way they used to record music back in the 80's...    Both LPs are flat and very quiet, only Texas Flood has a couple of clicks, but nothing serious.
Simply Vinyl: 
Horrible. The record is flat but very noisy, with lots of clicks. The worse, the music is totally messed up with an exaggerated and boomy bottom end, giving a sloppy listening with few dynamics...it feels like they plugged the tapes to an old exhausted tube preamp with the bass knob all the way up before mastering. I googled Simply Vinyl for reviews, and most are negative: bad master tapes...and in my case also bad pressing.
So, in the future I'll stay away from Simply Vinyl, and definitely look for Sundazed reissue, which are good and somewhat cheaper.

I've heard quite a few complaints about Simply Vinyl. Some of the comments I've read say that Simply Vinyl uses CD's as the master for cutting the lacquer, which totally defeats the purpose of vinyl. It seems they cut corners at almost every step in the production process which leads to low quality products.

One of my pet peeves is the reasoning behind using thick, heavy 180 and 200g vinyl on most new releases when the lacquer master is cut so light, that the theoretical improvements of using heavy vinyl are never fully realized. I mean, what's the use in using such heavy vinyl if the signal you press on it is light, lacks bass and is compressed with no dynamics? Anything cut by RTI is an example of this - they are my 'virtual punching bag'. It sounds like the RIAA curve they use must roll off the bass below 50hz. The dynamics seem very compressed and dull sounding. Whatever they use as a signal chain and source (most likely digital) is completely wrong for cutting quality vinyl. From dynamics, to frequency response, to the resolution in the final product, they are doing something wrong. I avoid anything pressed by RTI. I don't know why Music Direct touts RTI as a selling point in some of their advertising. As soon as they mention 'Pressed at RTI!' I pass over it and move on.

I always thought one of the main advantages of using heavy vinyl (besides resisting warping) was that you could cut the signal a little hotter with more dynamics and better frequency response at the extremes. But then how do you explain some older Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab releases with thinner, lighter weight vinyl (130~150g), yet they have explosive dynamics, high resolution and deep, defined bass? There seems to be a disconnect with some of today's pressing companies where they cut the master with such conservative settings, yet press it on heavy vinyl. It's become more of a marketing ploy then providing an actual sonic benefit.

A vinyl pressing company should never, ever use a CD as a source. That's a unforgivable sin in my book. IMHO, I feel they should never use digital at all for the source unless it's 96K/24bit - or higher; converted from an original 2 track master tape and digitized using the best quality AD/DA converters available at the time. I'm one of those people who buys vinyl primarily because of the improved sound quality over CD's. I don't want to hear vinyl cut from a CD; if I did, I would just buy the CD instead.

I'm a purist at heart; the more the signal path is kept in the analog domain from the master tape to my ears, the better. I prefer hearing vinyl that was cut from a 15ips 2-track master tape directly feeding the cutting lathe. No processing (besides RIAA EQ'ing), no analog to digital, then back to analog conversions. Vinyl is an analog medium and it should be preserved that way as much as possible.

Most of the re-issues released today were originally recorded with vintage, analog equipment. Most of it was mastered and mixed down to high resolution, high speed reel to reel decks. Those tapes were originally used to cut the lacquers used for all of the vintage vinyl we prize so much today; and search for in crates at local record stores.

If a record pressing plant wants to be successful today, they should follow the recipe that made vinyl such a beloved and sought after audio format for all these years. There's an audible difference between cutting with a digital master or using the original mix down tapes, played back on a well maintained Studer or Ampex tape deck, feeding an original Neumann or Scully cutting lathe. To me, it's the difference between sitting next to a warm fire on a cold winters night and falling through the top layer of a frozen lake. 

There is a lot that can go wrong in the pressing of a vinyl record. It's really surprising that they could have gotten it right so many times in the past and produced such great sounding records. It's really a tribute to the people in the past who devoted so much time, effort, skill and love for music to care enough to produce quality products. Some of that is missing in the reissues released today.

I found this on Simply Vinyl.

Quote from the article:
When I contacted a Simply Vinyl spokesperson to find out about sources, I was told that the company was not an “audiophile” label, and that it was more interested in keeping vinyl alive than it was concerned about sound quality. I’m paraphrasing, but essentially he told me, “Our research shows that our buyers don’t really care about sound quality and that only a few percent call themselves ‘audiophiles.”

It's almost like a running joke in the vinyl industry since some releases get very good and very bad reviews at the same time, which seems to prove their point about the sound quality. Looks like when they do get it right, it's completely by accident.

It reminds me of the story someone told me about the quality of vinyl releases of a private (most likely illegal) Russian label named 'BRS'. They would pay someone to travel to the states and smuggle a copy of a studio master on tape back to Russia so they can duplicate it on vinyl for the Russian people. The whole operation was really old-school, from the tape deck to the cold war era cutting equipment (tube driven), the whole signal path and the equipment used was considered antique. It turns out that by using great vintage equipment and keeping the signal path simple and clean, they produced some fantastic sounding vinyl. I own one BRS produced record; REM's 'Out of Time' from 1991:

REM - 'Belong' (320K mp3, recorded with my Rega P25, Zyx R100H and Audio Research PH5 preamp)
http://www.vinylaudio.net/forum/music/REM_Belong.mp3

A couple things really stand out - the separation of voices and instruments is fantastic. The Piano resonates with clarity and power. The snare drum has a nice, beefy, real sounding snap. The guitar on the left floats within the sound stage with pinpoint accuracy. The tambourine is consistent and is easy to follow. The singing in the chorus is distinct with each singer cutting through the mix distinctly instead of blending together like the CD version. The cymbals have a sweet, rich sound. The dynamics of the mix are nicely balanced without being brick walled or crushed with compression. Overall, It's a real pleasure to listen to and IMHO, sounds much better then the CD.

All of this, is most likely a 'happy accident' since I don't believe BRS was trying to cater to an 'audiophile' market - they were just trying to bring American music to Russia and make money to survive. The record isn't 180g, more like 130g. The record sleeve was printed on cardboard not much thicker than three sheets of paper. But even with limited means and old equipment, they were able to produce better quality vinyl then some of what is being passed off today as 'audiophile' and 'HQ'.

Actually, I lied. 

I have one Simply Vinyl LP - but it's not a standard release, it's a promo test pressing. It actually sounds very nice, but it does sound a lot like a CD, maybe slightly better. The quality of the pressing itself seems decent, no clicks, pops or groove noise to speak of.

It's Afro Celt Sound System - 'Further Out in Time':
[attach=1]  [attach=2]  [attach=3]  [attach=4]

Sample audio:  (320K mp3, recorded with my Rega P25, Zyx R100H and Audio Research PH5)
http://www.vinylaudio.net/forum/photo/Simply_Vinyl/ACSS.mp3

I bought it off eBay from this seller. He still has them listed for $23.99 with free shipping. He has a lot of Simply Vinyl test pressings actually.

I agree with you. I'm a purist too: when I'm going to buy a vinyl record, I expect it to be 100% analog. Using a digital master is a nonsense to me.
But I suspect what Simply Vinyl said about their customers is true: most of them don't care of sound quality, or they simply don't know what sound quality is. Very few are audiophile listeners.
I've just read your post about the 39% increase of vinyl sales in 2011, and I wonder: how much of those sale are "caused" by audiophiles? I think that in most case it's a nostalgia factor, where people go back to vinyl following the trend of the moment, not really knowing the potential and capability vinyl can have in terms of sound quality. So it's explained the existence of labels like Simply Vinyl, and the cash-aiming operations of the big names like Universal with its crappy Back To Black series.
I just hope those casual listeners can get their hands on a good, honest 100% analog vinyl record, and feel the difference between that and a poor made copy, or a CD or even the low bitrate mp3 they listen to when they are at the gym.

P.S. See if you can get some Music on Vinyl reissues and let me know what you think

Maybe we can come up with our own "Recommended Label list".

Maybe we can come up with our own "Recommended Label list".

That's a great idea! I could make the topic a 'sticky'.

One of the features I'm testing for the forum is an 'articles' section. A place where we can collect information and write-ups in one central place so you don't have to search the message forum to find it.

I would also like to start a thread on recommended LP's with exceptional sound quality; the LP's you use to test new equipment with. I'm going through my collection and making notes on the LP's I use, which I will be posting shortly. It should be interesting to see what each of us use. I know I sometimes buy records specifically because of the sound quality, even though it may not have been a record I would have purchased normally. For example, when digging through used records, if I come across a Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs LP, I usually buy it, even if the artist isn't one of my favorites or one I heard of. MFSL pressings usually have very good sound quality. Even if the artist isn't one of my favorites, I listen to it anyway just to hear and appreciate the quality of the recording, mastering and pressing.

Hi there  This is my first post here. My native language is not english so be patient with me. I'll try to do my best

I wondered many times if the remastered reissues were worth it...that's a good question. I suppose that it depends on many things. Out of the 180g remastered edtions I have most of them sound worse than the original pressings IMO. Some of the "Back To Black" vinyls I own sound as if they were made from the same master of the CD. To me it's hard to explain because I am not an expert on this (I'm only a "GoodVinylLover"  ) but it seems as though a bit of the dynamics were gone.

I'd like to share some needledrops with you in order to make comparisons between different editions but I have just landed here and I don't know how to do it yet 

Maybe we can come up with our own "Recommended Label list".

That would be great 

Hi GoodVinylLover, welcome aboard
The Back to Black series is to be avoided: the LPs are clearly mastered from digital masters. They are not intended for audiophile listeners. Warner / Rhino reissues are better.