# Vinyl original pressings versus reissues?



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

As a person who is interested in getting vinyl cheaply but wanting the best sound quality... is it better to get the original pressing if possible or the reissue?

Just curious. Today I scored nearly 18 old DG vinyl releases on vinyl for dirt dirt cheap.

I know that DG is doing re-pressing of old classics supposedly.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

I know that I am going to sound like a snot, but if you are playing the lps on that one box gizmo you described earlier, I am wondering why you would be obsessed about the sound quality. That contraption will probably be the great equalizer--dross and pure gold vinyl won't sound appreciably different.
Most reissued lps these days are done by companies like Speakers Corner. They use extra heavy, high grade vinyl and they ain't cheap. $35 is the norm for most of their reissues, which come from Decca, DG, and other companies that will liscense their master tapes.
Many lps issued in the 60s and 70s were not high quality. The vinyl was cheap, the pressings could be crap,a cartridge could resemble a surfer in Waikiki trying to stay in the grooves, and various forms of compression and harmful mastering were frequently employed. It is impossible to generalize; each lp would have to be judged on it's own merits.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Albert7 said:


> As a person who is interested in getting vinyl cheaply but wanting the best sound quality...


I sense a contradiction in there somewhere.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Triplets said:


> I know that I am going to sound like a snot, but if you are playing the lps on that one box gizmo you described earlier, I am wondering why you would be obsessed about the sound quality. That contraption will probably be the great equalizer--dross and pure gold vinyl won't sound appreciably different.
> Most reissued lps these days are done by companies like Speakers Corner. They use extra heavy, high grade vinyl and they ain't cheap. $35 is the norm for most of their reissues, which come from Decca, DG, and other companies that will liscense their master tapes.
> Many lps issued in the 60s and 70s were not high quality. The vinyl was cheap, the pressings could be crap,a cartridge could resemble a surfer in Waikiki trying to stay in the grooves, and various forms of compression and harmful mastering were frequently employed. It is impossible to generalize; each lp would have to be judged on it's own merits.


I gather that the heavier 200 gm vinyl or 180 gm vinyl are the best for audiophile quality? Not sure yet as I only just begun to study vinyl and it's crazy how many bargains can be found amongst the vinyl selections for older releases from 1960-1980's.


----------



## Antiquarian (Apr 29, 2014)

Albert7, personally I think this vintage vs 180 or 200 gm issue is a sort of non-issue. The stability of the turntable's platter, and it's support for the vinyl is what's important. My turntable has a heavy, full sized aluminium platter, so the difference of a mere 20 grams shouldn't matter so much. The portable that you are using does seem to have a smaller platter, so perhaps the heavier vinyl pressings might (and I stress the might) add some stability. I don't really know, however; I think if you are looking for better sound quality, you might look into different cartridges for your tonearm, if it is possible to switch them out.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Antiquarian said:


> Albert7, personally I think this vintage vs 180 or 200 gm issue is a sort of non-issue. The stability of the turntable's platter, and it's support for the vinyl is what's important. My turntable has a heavy, full sized aluminium platter, so the difference of a mere 20 grams shouldn't matter so much. The portable that you are using does seem to have a smaller platter, so perhaps the heavier vinyl pressings might (and I stress the might) add some stability. I don't really know, however; I think if you are looking for better sound quality, you might look into different cartridges for your tonearm, if it is possible to switch them out.


Awesome, since I am saving up for the Project turntable I think that I won't have to worry so much about platter weight with those turntable labels.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I find that older pressings are the best. Before the oil crisis in the 70s, they used high quality virgin vinyl and they were focused on producing LPs. Today, very expensive audiophile recordings use good vinyl, but people today don't know how to master and cut records like they used to. Don't judge sound quality by price. 50s RCA Living Stereo or 60s London LPs will blow you away sonically. DGG wasn't actually one of the best labels for sound quality.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Likewise I find that even inexpensive turntables from the 60s and 70s outperform midrange ones today that cost hundreds of dollars more. They were making and distributing records and players back then. It wasn't just a niche market for audiophools.


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

bigshot said:


> Likewise I find that even inexpensive turntables from the 60s and 70s outperform midrange ones today that cost hundreds of dollars more. They were making and distributing records and players back then. It wasn't just a niche market for *audiophools*.


I guess this wasn't a typing error? :lol:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Likewise I find that even inexpensive turntables from the 60s and 70s outperform midrange ones today that cost hundreds of dollars more. They were making and distributing records and players back then. It wasn't just a niche market for audiophools.


In terms of the buying power of the dollar, those Duals and Thorenses and so forth weren't exactly cheap back then. In those terms, decent stereo LPs cost $30-40 apiece!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

KenOC said:


> In terms of the buying power of the dollar, those Duals and Thorenses and so forth weren't exactly cheap back then. In those terms, decent stereo LPs cost $30-40 apiece!


I bought my Thorens back in the late 70s for about $150. They sell for about the same second hand today. You'd have to spend three times that to get a halfway decent turntable today. When I first started buying records, I think the Wherehouse was charging something like $2.75 for new releases. It got up to $7 by the end of the LP era.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

In the 60s, where I bought LPs they cost $5 ($4.98) for major brand mono, $6 for stereo, and $7 for premium like DGG. I checked the CPI not long ago and $6 then was about $48 now! No wonder I did a lot of soul-searching before moving beyond the cut-out bin.

A Thorens in the late 70s for $150? Did that include the cartridge (usually Ortofon if memory serves)? Sounds like a bargain.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Antiquarian said:


> Albert7, personally I think this vintage vs 180 or 200 gm issue is a sort of non-issue. The stability of the turntable's platter, and it's support for the vinyl is what's important. My turntable has a heavy, full sized aluminium platter, so the difference of a mere 20 grams shouldn't matter so much. The portable that you are using does seem to have a smaller platter, so perhaps the heavier vinyl pressings might (and I stress the might) add some stability. I don't really know, however; I think if you are looking for better sound quality, you might look into different cartridges for your tonearm, if it is possible to switch them out.


 I agree that I don't know how the 180 or 200 gram lp found it's niche. Presumably they are meant to be played on turntables that have super heavy platters that are suppossed to be vibration resistant. Some manufacturers however go away from the heavy platter philosophy, such as Rega and Project. Rega has pubished white papers stating their position, which is that the heavier the platter, the more energy that gets diverted into moving it, and makes the resulting music sound less energetic. On the other hand, Regas are notorious for their speed instability, particularly towards the beginning and end of lps.
Again, at the risk of sounding like an audiophool snot, I woudn't waste time fiddiling with tone arms and cartridges for your one box wonder. Get a decent entry level tt, hook it to your main system, with real speakers (if you have those), and then you will start to be able to discern differences. The entry level Project complete with mm cartridge and tone arm can be had for well under $200 new and less used; not sure what Rega's P1 is going for now.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

bigshot said:


> Likewise I find that even inexpensive turntables from the 60s and 70s outperform midrange ones today that cost hundreds of dollars more. They were making and distributing records and players back then. It wasn't just a niche market for audiophools.


Presuming that the bearings and motor have been maintained properly, of course. Don't expect to find something that works flawlessly at a garage or estate sale.


----------



## AnotherSpin (Apr 9, 2015)

I would suggest to buy old press LPs in good condition for cheap rather than new 'heavy' expensive pressings. 
BTW, in my old vinyl days I often washed dusty LP's just by hand with very soft cloth, and small amount of quality shampoo in not very warm water. Of course, there are special washer equipment, but we are not such deep into this, right?


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

AnotherSpin said:


> I would suggest to buy old press LPs in good condition for cheap rather than new 'heavy' expensive pressings.
> BTW, in my old vinyl days I often washed dusty LP's just by hand with very soft cloth, and small amount of quality shampoo in not very warm water. Of course, there are special washer equipment, but we are not such deep into this, right?


 A store in my town that sells second hand lps invested in one of the ultrasonic cleaners, and charges $5.00 an lp for a cleaning. I was skeptical but after hearing them demo one in the store I was impressed by the improvement. However, I pretty much clean my records in the manner which you suggested.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I wash my records in a 50-50 blend of distilled white vinegar and distilled water. Then a rinse in distilled water. It cleans as good as the machines and leaves absolutely no residue behind.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

KenOC said:


> In the 60s, where I bought LPs they cost $5 ($4.98) A Thorens in the late 70s for $150? Did that include the cartridge (usually Ortofon if memory serves)? Sounds like a bargain.


Maybe costs of these things were lower in Los Angeles. (The Thorens didn't come with a preamp or cartridge.)


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Triplets said:


> Rega has pubished white papers stating their position, which is that the heavier the platter, the more energy that gets diverted into moving it, and makes the resulting music sound less energetic.


Can a very heavy platter make a Sex Pistols record sound like a Jackie Gleason record?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Triplets said:


> Presuming that the bearings and motor have been maintained properly, of course. Don't expect to find something that works flawlessly at a garage or estate sale.


I've found several of them that work flawlessly that way. I bought one on eBay too. The real trick is packing for shipping. A tt can be handed to the postman in perfect order and arrive as a complete wreck. Easier to buy them at garage sales and thrift stores. Whenever a friend needs a turntable, they call me up and I go thrifting for them. It's really easy to find VERY nice turntables for under $50.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

bigshot said:


> I bought my Thorens back in the late 70s for about $150. They sell for about the same second hand today.


Hmmm. The CPI in 1978 was 65.2. In 2014 it was 236.736. That makes the $150 price of your Thorens turntable about $544 in today's dollars. For that price, you should have demanded a cartridge! :lol:


----------



## Baregrass (Feb 16, 2015)

bigshot said:


> Likewise I find that even inexpensive turntables from the 60s and 70s outperform midrange ones today that cost hundreds of dollars more. They were making and distributing records and players back then. It wasn't just a niche market for audiophools.


I pretty much agree with your statement but the problem vinyl novices have these days is that many of the older turntables need some or a lot of work and most just don't have the skills to do that. They can take them in and have a good tech work them over but when that cost factor is added in a person can get a good modern table for about the same money. Also, old 70's turntables are selling for what I consider obscene amounts of money and in most places capable turntable techs just aren't around anymore. I use a 70's turntable but I know how to work on it.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Here in Los Angeles, great 70s turntables in perfect condition are plentiful.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

bigshot said:


> Here in Los Angeles, great 70s turntables in perfect condition are plentiful.


Not so much here in SLC. No used turntables except maybe on KSL and I wouldn't trust that implicitly.


----------

