sorry to say this but..... REISSUES ----------------------------------------JUST ----------------------------------------------DONT ---------------------------------------------------FEEL ---------------------------------------------------------RIGHT!
So what you reissue hatter doin'? Buying CD's? Cause I know most of ya'll too cheap to buy "baller" "pieces". And with all the "Ohhhh! LUCKY!" that goes on in the finds posts, I know you ain't finding this stuff "in the field" neither.
Sheeet, don't find much at all "in the field" where I dwell, got to rely on the ebay game in the most...Infact most of the "dollarbin commons" people post on here would be raer in my neighbourhood. So no hattin the reissues here...
I personally like reissues. Yeah of course I'd like an OG of Mulatu of Ethiopia or whatever. But I'd way rather have a dozen 50 dollar pieces that personally meant something to me. There are so many dope records under 50 dollars its mind boggling. Having triples of Headless Heroes or whatever doesn't really impress me Rey. Having taste and knowledge does. I think alot of these dudes that are just chasing the same 20 records are trying to impress others sometimes. Why? At the end of the day the bread and butter records (Curtis/Impressions, Al Green, Marvin Gaye, James Brown etc.) are better then any raer one tracker italian library boogie private press blah blah blah..... I love it when people claim they'll never buy a reish. Oh I'm just waiting til the day I find a Soul Expedition or Turner Bros out in the field...yeah keep waitin cuz that day ain't never gonna happen.
So what you reissue hatter doin'? Buying CD's? Cause I know most of ya'll too cheap to buy "baller" "pieces". And with all the "Ohhhh! LUCKY!" that goes on in the finds posts, I know you ain't finding this stuff "in the field" neither.
Thank you.
Know what I ain't finding in the field either? That Carla Whitney lp. Just bought the cd and guess what? It sounds fantastic.
So what you reissue hatter doin'? Buying CD's? Cause I know most of ya'll too cheap to buy "baller" "pieces". And with all the "Ohhhh! LUCKY!" that goes on in the finds posts, I know you ain't finding this stuff "in the field" neither.
Thank you.
Know what I ain't finding in the field either? That Carla Whitney lp. Just bought the cd and guess what? It sounds fantastic.
Have you compared it, sound-wise, to a mint OG? I would submit that if one has only heard a low quality "reisssue"/bootleg version of a record, then they haven't *actually* heard the record, and therefore can't *really* comment on the music.
Have you compared it, sound-wise, to a mint OG? I would submit that if one has only heard a low quality "reisssue"/bootleg version of a record, then they haven't *actually* heard the record, and therefore can't *really* comment on the music.
So what you reissue hatter doin'? Buying CD's? Cause I know most of ya'll too cheap to buy "baller" "pieces". And with all the "Ohhhh! LUCKY!" that goes on in the finds posts, I know you ain't finding this stuff "in the field" neither.
Thank you.
Know what I ain't finding in the field either? That Carla Whitney lp. Just bought the cd and guess what? It sounds fantastic.
Have you compared it, sound-wise, to a mint OG? I would submit that if one has only heard a low quality "reisssue"/bootleg version of a record, then they haven't *actually* heard the record, and therefore can't *really* comment on the music.
Damn I wish one of my favorite records wasn't so lo-fi and has tape hiss. I guess I'll have to go back to listening to my Original Master Recording Supertramp and Toto records. Those sound great! Man its rough being an audiophile nerd. lol
IMO....Audiophiles are looking for something that isn't there...and if "IT" was there you wouldn't need $10,000 equipment and a virgin vinyl pressing to figure it out.
IMO....Audiophiles are looking for something that isn't there...and if "IT" was there you wouldn't need $10,000 equipment and a virgin vinyl pressing to figure it out.
You talk a lot of sense man !
Most of that Audiophile speil is just like the emperors new clothes, ya get me....
IMO....Audiophiles are looking for something that isn't there...and if "IT" was there you wouldn't need $10,000 equipment and a virgin vinyl pressing to figure it out.
You talk a lot of sense man !
Most of that Audiophile speil is just like the emperors new clothes, ya get me....
Reissue: $30 (Mint OG: $1500+). I have both and they sound the same.
The Rudy Van Gelder recorded full track mono tape was used for the mastering and transfer by Bernie "Be Bop" Grundman using Classic's "all tube" pure mono cutting system and pressed on Quiex 200g Super Vinyl Profile.
How to Reissue a Record
A step-by-step guide to the reissue process
The first step in the reissue process is to procure the master tape.
The first question to ask is, "Which master tape to use?" The answer is somewhat involved and can vary, depending on the objectives of the reissue project. If the goal is to recreate the sound of the original release as closely as possible, then finding the so-called "production master tape" makes sense. However, there are some caveats to consider. The production master tape may have been generated from a previous source, closer to the original performance. This earlier generation tape is often referred to as the "session tape" or "edited work part." In most cases, it is the same tape that was used during the recording sessions. The differences between session tapes and production masters can be slight. Or they may be significant. In any case, an increase in noise level of at least three dbs can be expected in any analog tape transfer.
In the early days of high fidelity, most major labels used production master tapes to cut their original records. This was due in part to the session tapes being "doctored" to correct recording problems in post-production. It also simplified the engineer's task of cutting the record. Since no further changes were made during this stage, the cutter was simply referred to as a "transcription engineer." One has to remember that this was years before the advent of so-called "mastering engineers."
Obviously, the question of which tape to use is a complicated one. The solutions can be equally problematic. For example, production masters were often compressed dynamically during the transfer of the edited work parts. Although this proved helpful during the cutting process, it also negatively affected sound quality.
Furthermore, cutter heads during those first years contained all sorts of anomalies. They peaked at certain levels instead of maintaining an even response. As a result, certain unwanted frequencies were unavoidably highlighted. In addition, most of the early cutter heads were unable to effectively handle the entire dynamic range of the original session tapes. Therefore, to avoid cutter head problems, overall sound quality was often compromised to achieve a flat transfer without equalization.
Another factor to consider is the number of tracks contained on the original session tapes. The earliest stereo recordings were made on two-track tapes that were run at 30 ips (inches per second). But these two-track tapes were not used in the cutting process because an edited side of an LP, recorded at 30 ips, required an amount of tape far exceeding the capacity of that era's 12-inch reels (the largest then available). This was partially remedied by transferring the 30 ips tapes to a 15 ips production master, thereby fitting an entire side of an LP onto a standard 10-inch reel.
By 1957, RCA and other companies started to use 15 ips, three-track tape recorders, which allowed more flexibility in microphone placement. However, the new three-track machines were also not used in post-production since there was no effective way of mixing the extra channel while cutting the record. The answer was to mix down the three-track tape and transfer the result to a two-track production master. Simply put, three-track tapes were not an option for cutting records at that time.
In the last 40 years, however, many things have changed. Tape recorders can now accommodate 14-inch reels, so that it is quite possible to use a 30 ips session tape to cut an entire side of a long-playing record. Mastering consoles can also allow a third channel of audio input during the mixing process. This extra track is passively mixed to both left and right channels.
Once a MASTER TAPE is chosen, engineers will compare it against an original issue LP to analyze differences in audio quality.
In the photo below, Tony Hawkins holds an LP made by his company, Decca. He will compare it, along with other versions and re-issues of different vintage, against the original master tape.
The comparison involves playing the original LP on a cutting lathe, which is outfitted with a tonearm and cartridge.
The engineers will equalize the master tape and LP at the same level before using an A/B switch on the mastering board to alternate between the two audio sources, listening for any discrepancies in the process.
In the case of a three-track master, A/B-ing also determines the amount of "center" audio signal to mix to the right and left channels. Such close examination of the master tapes and various versions of the LP will inevitably reveal many unexpected details, which are then documented in mastering notes and write-ups...
except, one more thing: does the OG of Eddie Fisher Next 100 Years sound like garbage? Cause the "reissue" does...and I'm not trying to prove a point, I just have heard that the OG sounded as bad - but if not I may need to mint up.
Anybody have the Lou Courtney In Need of Love repress? absolute junk.
I'll agree that it's not as important for playing out, but buying garbage bootlegs of $30-100 albums for keeping and listening to is kind of pointless.
At least with the OG, if it's clean, you can generally expect it will sound legit.
except, one more thing: does the OG of Eddie Fisher Next 100 Years sound like garbage? Cause the "reissue" does...and I'm not trying to prove a point, I just have heard that the OG sounded as bad - but if not I may need to mint up.
What fatback wrote above is the straight dope & most reissues out there, like those made by scorpio, are not made like that. They are mastered from cd's. You're getting a shitty reproduction. That is the emperor's new clothes. Its the toys who fuck around with these things - who wants a 12" cd? Just go and buy a cd. This is some make believe shit for people who need to feel hip. "look at me!" "I have a record!" You want to hear some music? turn on a computer & check out something called the internet. There's some free music there that will match the quality of your scorpio reissue lp. But then, you couldn't pretend to be a collectro.
Comments
----------------------------------------JUST
----------------------------------------------DONT
---------------------------------------------------FEEL
---------------------------------------------------------RIGHT!
OG copy > Reissue > Shady Bootleg > Bootleg Comp > Legit Comp
So no hattin the reissues here...
Dunno what that has to do with re-issues.
Buying reissues is like trying to be a good consumer and failing. Ya think ogs have bar codes on them? I think not.
Thank you.
Know what I ain't finding in the field either? That Carla Whitney lp. Just bought the cd and guess what? It sounds fantastic.
All about the music over here...
pretentious twat
Here we go...
Damn I wish one of my favorite records wasn't so lo-fi and has tape hiss. I guess I'll have to go back to listening to my Original Master Recording Supertramp and Toto records. Those sound great! Man its rough being an audiophile nerd. lol
Most of that Audiophile speil is just like the emperors new clothes, ya get me....
Hificondriacs.
Reissue: $30 (Mint OG: $1500+). I have both and they sound the same.
The Rudy Van Gelder recorded full track mono tape was used for the mastering and transfer by Bernie "Be Bop" Grundman using Classic's "all tube" pure mono cutting system and pressed on Quiex 200g Super Vinyl Profile.
How to Reissue a Record
A step-by-step guide to the reissue process
The first step in the reissue process is to procure the master tape.
The first question to ask is, "Which master tape to use?" The answer is somewhat involved and can vary, depending on the objectives of the reissue project. If the goal is to recreate the sound of the original release as closely as possible, then finding the so-called "production master tape" makes sense. However, there are some caveats to consider. The production master tape may have been generated from a previous source, closer to the original performance. This earlier generation tape is often referred to as the "session tape" or "edited work part." In most cases, it is the same tape that was used during the recording sessions. The differences between session tapes and production masters can be slight. Or they may be significant. In any case, an increase in noise level of at least three dbs can be expected in any analog tape transfer.
In the early days of high fidelity, most major labels used production master tapes to cut their original records. This was due in part to the session tapes being "doctored" to correct recording problems in post-production. It also simplified the engineer's task of cutting the record. Since no further changes were made during this stage, the cutter was simply referred to as a "transcription engineer." One has to remember that this was years before the advent of so-called "mastering engineers."
Obviously, the question of which tape to use is a complicated one. The solutions can be equally problematic. For example, production masters were often compressed dynamically during the transfer of the edited work parts. Although this proved helpful during the cutting process, it also negatively affected sound quality.
Furthermore, cutter heads during those first years contained all sorts of anomalies. They peaked at certain levels instead of maintaining an even response. As a result, certain unwanted frequencies were unavoidably highlighted. In addition, most of the early cutter heads were unable to effectively handle the entire dynamic range of the original session tapes. Therefore, to avoid cutter head problems, overall sound quality was often compromised to achieve a flat transfer without equalization.
Another factor to consider is the number of tracks contained on the original session tapes. The earliest stereo recordings were made on two-track tapes that were run at 30 ips (inches per second). But these two-track tapes were not used in the cutting process because an edited side of an LP, recorded at 30 ips, required an amount of tape far exceeding the capacity of that era's 12-inch reels (the largest then available). This was partially remedied by transferring the 30 ips tapes to a 15 ips production master, thereby fitting an entire side of an LP onto a standard 10-inch reel.
By 1957, RCA and other companies started to use 15 ips, three-track tape recorders, which allowed more flexibility in microphone placement. However, the new three-track machines were also not used in post-production since there was no effective way of mixing the extra channel while cutting the record. The answer was to mix down the three-track tape and transfer the result to a two-track production master. Simply put, three-track tapes were not an option for cutting records at that time.
In the last 40 years, however, many things have changed. Tape recorders can now accommodate 14-inch reels, so that it is quite possible to use a 30 ips session tape to cut an entire side of a long-playing record. Mastering consoles can also allow a third channel of audio input during the mixing process. This extra track is passively mixed to both left and right channels.
Once a MASTER TAPE is chosen, engineers will compare it against an original issue LP to analyze differences in audio quality.
In the photo below, Tony Hawkins holds an LP made by his company, Decca. He will compare it, along with other versions and re-issues of different vintage, against the original master tape.
The comparison involves playing the original LP on a cutting lathe, which is outfitted with a tonearm and cartridge.
The engineers will equalize the master tape and LP at the same level before using an A/B switch on the mastering board to alternate between the two audio sources, listening for any discrepancies in the process.
In the case of a three-track master, A/B-ing also determines the amount of "center" audio signal to mix to the right and left channels. Such close examination of the master tapes and various versions of the LP will inevitably reveal many unexpected details, which are then documented in mastering notes and write-ups...
Come on! Don't want to get cue burn on my $400 test press. Come on!
Post a photo holding both (as well as your physical address) or you are soft.
And Reynaldo would argue that since "True Blue" never sold well in it's original run, it's not a successful record.
except, one more thing: does the OG of Eddie Fisher Next 100 Years sound like garbage? Cause the "reissue" does...and I'm not trying to prove a point, I just have heard that the OG sounded as bad - but if not I may need to mint up.
Anybody have the Lou Courtney In Need of Love repress? absolute junk.
I'll agree that it's not as important for playing out, but buying garbage bootlegs of $30-100 albums for keeping and listening to is kind of pointless.
At least with the OG, if it's clean, you can generally expect it will sound legit.
of course, i believe those guys at Scorpio put it out--and they aren't legit.
the OG sounds very "rough".