Vinyl Me Please Classics

dhodo said:
OGs are AAA too. Can't speak to the average pressing quality though.
Click to expand...

To be devil’s advocate, I don’t thinks it’s apples to apples. For albums released in this volume it’s quite likely they were not cut from the master, but instead from a dub tape. Besides the generation loss these tapes were often EQ’ed and compressed to match the realities of playback at the time. People will debate about this forever but IMO the only real downside to a modern reissue is tape degradation which may or may not result in some lost HF detail. These days top engineers are working with really amazing analog setups that are pretty much aimed at audiophile mastering only since those are the only clients for AAA mastering.

Of course source aside, one big plus is the attention afforded by the engineer. Going from what I know, these Isley albums were mostly cut at Columbia along with a large volume of other albums, so not exactly a boutique operation like Sterling provides. So with a superior source, superior mastering chain, and more attention from a top engineer there really is more inherent potential for this to be superior.

At the end of the day you’re going to like what you like mostly down to detail level and EQ in my own experience. Plenty of times when I’ve liked an older copy with a comprised source myself, but I’ve rarely preferred that to a more accurate modern audiophile reissue.
 
zombie.modernist said:
To be devil’s advocate, I don’t thinks it’s apples to apples. For albums released in this volume it’s quite likely they were not cut from the master, but instead from a dub tape. Besides the generation loss these tapes were often EQ’ed and compressed to match the realities of playback at the time. People will debate about this forever but IMO the only real downside to a modern reissue is tape degradation which may or may not result in some lost HF detail. These days top engineers are working with really amazing analog setups that are pretty much aimed at audiophile mastering only since those are the only clients for AAA mastering.

Of course source aside, one big plus is the attention afforded by the engineer. Going from what I know, these Isley albums were mostly cut at Columbia along with a large volume of other albums, so not exactly a boutique operation like Sterling provides. So with a superior source, superior mastering chain, and more attention from a top engineer there really is more inherent potential for this to be superior.

At the end of the day you’re going to like what you like mostly down to detail level and EQ in my own experience. Plenty of times when I’ve liked an older copy with a comprised source myself, but I’ve rarely preferred that to a more accurate modern audiophile reissue.
Click to expand...
Why do you assume original presses are from compromised sources?

Edit: Sterling has been around since the 60s and their stamp sure is on a lot of my original records to be considered a boutique mastering studio. They have always been a good bet for quality.
 
Last edited:
dhodo said:
Why do you assume original presses are from compromised sources?

Edit: Sterling has been around since the 60s and their stamp sure is on a lot of my original records to be considered a boutique mastering studio. They have always been a good bet for quality.
Click to expand...

Well I don’t know for sure that this LP wasn’t cut from the master tape, but dubbed LP cutting masters were common in production from back in the day. Lots of threads about this over on Hoffman, and other engineers who cut records, or were cutting records back in the day talk about this as well. This prevented master tapes from being worn out from repeat lacquer cutting, and baked in EQ choices that were considered necessary for vinyl. That’s essentially the whole “stichk” of MoFi from back in the 70s, that their LPs were cut straight off the uncompressed master tapes, which other audiophile labels have emulated throughout the years. The essential idea being that there is more detail, dynamics etc in the actual master, which should be more accurate to what the artists signed off to in the studio.

Of course Sterling has been around forever, and yes I agree their cuts have always been good. That said, it’s hardly the same company or same mastering chain as it was back in the 60s-80s, all those old engineers are retired or deceased and vinyl operarions aren’t even in the same state anymore, so I’m not sure how much continuity is really there anymore.

Not disagreeing that there are so many good cuts from back in the day, and a lot of them probably were from master tapes. All I’m getting at is there’s just more attention being paid to dynamics, sourcing, and accuracy today now that this type of mastering is mostly an audiophile concern. Advantages to older pressings are great too, fresher tapes for one, potential better EQ, perhaps a final balance that was preferred by the producer or artist. Personally my collection is a healthy 50/50 mix of older and newer pressings.
 
zombie.modernist said:
Well I don’t know for sure that this LP wasn’t cut from the master tape, but dubbed LP cutting masters were common in production from back in the day. Lots of threads about this over on Hoffman, and other engineers who cut records, or were cutting records back in the day talk about this as well. This prevented master tapes from being worn out from repeat lacquer cutting, and baked in EQ choices that were considered necessary for vinyl. That’s essentially the whole “stichk” of MoFi from back in the 70s, that their LPs were cut straight off the uncompressed master tapes, which other audiophile labels have emulated throughout the years. The essential idea being that there is more detail, dynamics etc in the actual master, which should be more accurate to what the artists signed off to in the studio.

Of course Sterling has been around forever, and yes I agree their cuts have always been good. That said, it’s hardly the same company or same mastering chain as it was back in the 60s-80s, all those old engineers are retired or deceased and vinyl operarions aren’t even in the same state anymore, so I’m not sure how much continuity is really there anymore.

Not disagreeing that there are so many good cuts from back in the day, and a lot of them probably were from master tapes. All I’m getting at is there’s just more attention being paid to dynamics, sourcing, and accuracy today now that this type of mastering is mostly an audiophile concern. Advantages to older pressings are great too, fresher tapes for one, potential better EQ, perhaps a final balance that was preferred by the producer or artist. Personally my collection is a healthy 50/50 mix of older and newer pressings.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I've heard the opposite about MOFI, they were notorious back in the day for using a "smiley-face" EQ and were maligned by many in the audiophile community until they changed that practice a decade or two ago.

There is also a sect of audiophiles who feel that many modern reissues are worse than originals (especially with Blue Note and the like) even if AAA from the original tapes. Definitely true that a flat transfer isn't always the best option.

I don't think you can really trust master tape marketing these days either unless you hear it from the actual engineer. Hard to be sure it is even cut from tape many times, much less whether or not a dupe tape was used.

I've spent a lot of time researching pressings over at hoffman and I haven't heard the concerns you are voicing. I've yet to hear hardly any 70s vinyl that doesn't sound great except for notorious exceptions. The engineers working back then are famous for a reason and I think a lot of the snobs over at hoffman would disagree with you that it is common for a current AAA reissue to sound considerably better than an original press. A great one is usually divided between people who say it is as good or almost as good as the original in my experience. Pressing quality/noise is a whole other issue though, especially with some of those funk labels for whatever reason.

That said, I'll go reissue all day if it has a great reputation, AAA or digitial, is reasonably priced and originals are $$$$$$$.

Obviously it is all personal preference and many times it seems like probably splitting hairs. It seems like the only way to really be sure is to compare them yourself (which for me and many is often cost prohibitive). And even then, two different people with two different systems seem to often have opposite opinions (sometimes seemingly influenced by how much each original or reissue is worth or costs).
 
Last edited:
I was lucky enough to get the Isley Bros Guns in a 10 for a dollar bin at my Fleamarket/Swapmeet (along with about 50 other pretty cool records) I'm sure the VMP copy is much much clearer sounding , but is it better enough for me to spend an additional 3000 percent?
 
Rahawk2 said:
...spend an additional 3000 percent?
Click to expand...

CUT TO INTERIOR, A FANCY OFFICE

A man, an important man... dressed as you would imagine a cartoon villian businessman would dress, leaps up from his desk. A double foam half de-cafe latte flies from his desk and tumbles across the floor, foam sprays up the wall and across a white board covered in doodles. Most of the doodles are just the word "profit" written in different styles and sizes interspersed with some scrawled money symbols and one very large and poorly drawn skull and crossbones inside a larger star symbol. The man rushes to the board and hastily wipes an arm across its face obliterating most of what was written. He grabs a marker and furiously begins to write. He writes seven short words and then takes two steps back from the wall and admires his work. A smile slowly creeps across his face.

Man - Susan! (He shouts offscreen to his long suffering assistant)

Man - Susan, assemble the team, we have work to do.

The camera pulls back to to reveal the board, we see the seven words the man has written.

-MAKE THEM SPEND AN ADDITIONAL 3000 PERCENT-

The man begins to laugh, an ominous chuckle...

The camera continues to pull out, right past the man, the room, and out of the window revealing the Denver skyline and the front facing of the building.

Three letters come into view.

Somewhere, a wolf howls...
 
Last edited:
Mather said:
CUT TO INTERIOR, VMP HEAD OFFICE

A man, an important man... dressed as you would imagine a cartoon villian businessman would dress, leaps up from his desk. A double foam half de-cafe latte flies from his desk and tumbles across the floor, foam sprays up the wall and across a white board covered in doodles. Most of the doodles are just the word "profit" written is different styles and sizes interspersed with some scrawled money symbols and one very large and poorly drawn skull and crossbones inside a larger star symbol. The man rushes to the board and hastily wipes an arm across its face obliterating most of what was written. He grabs a marker and furiously begins to write. He writes seven short words and then takes two steps back from the wall and admires his work. A smile slowly creeps across his face.

Man - Susan! (He shouts offscreen to his long suffering assistant)

Man- Susan, assemble the team, we have work to do.

The camera pulls back to to reveal the board to the viewer, and now we see the seven words the man has written.

-MAKE THEM SPEND AN ADDITIONAL 3000 PERCENT-

The man begins to laugh, an ominous chuckle..

The camera continues to pull out, right past the room and out of the window revealing the Denver skyline and the front facing of the building.

Three letters come into view.
Click to expand...
***POST-CREDITS SCENE:***

INT: VMP BASEMENT
Long shot of MAN walking down a long, poorly-lit hallway until he reaches a door at the very end with the words “MATHER’S MONTHLY SHIPMENT.” He opens it and reveals a single INTERN sitting in a folding chair in the middle of the room.

MAN: How many records this month?

The INTERN points to a stack of records sitting on a table next to her.

MAN: Well, you’ve got some work to do, I see. I want this completed by the end of day. Prioritize the records that will not have replacements available.

INTERN nods.

MAN turns and leaves the room, smiling as the camera pushes over his shoulder to show the INTERN behind him reach for the top record on the stack and proceeds to bend it over her knee until it is severely warped. She then reaches for the next record on the stack. We can hear the MAN cackling an evil laugh down the hallway as the scene fades out.
 
dhodo said:
Hmm, I've heard the opposite about MOFI, they were notorious back in the day for using a "smiley-face" EQ and were maligned by many in the audiophile community until they changed that practice a decade or two ago.

There is also a sect of audiophiles who feel that many modern reissues are worse than originals (especially with Blue Note and the like) even if AAA from the original tapes. Definitely true that a flat transfer isn't always the best option.

I don't think you can really trust master tape marketing these days either unless you hear it from the actual engineer. Hard to be sure it is even cut from tape many times, much less whether or not a dupe tape was used.

I've spent a lot of time researching pressings over at hoffman and I haven't heard the concerns you are voicing. I've yet to hear hardly any 70s vinyl that doesn't sound great except for notorious exceptions. The engineers working back then are famous for a reason and I think a lot of the snobs over at hoffman would disagree with you that it is common for a current AAA reissue to sound considerably better than an original press. A great one is usually divided between people who say it is as good or almost as good as the original in my experience. Pressing quality/noise is a whole other issue though, especially with some of those funk labels for whatever reason.

That said, I'll go reissue all day if it has a great reputation, AAA or digitial, is reasonably priced and originals are $$$$$$$.

Obviously it is all personal preference and many times it seems like probably splitting hairs. It seems like the only way to really be sure is to compare them yourself (which for me and many is often cost prohibitive). And even then, two different people with two different systems seem to often have opposite opinions (sometimes seemingly influenced by how much each original or reissue is worth or costs).
Click to expand...

Right, early MoFi was a bit of a contradiction in that Ricker applied that rock V curve to everything, so it was far from accurate. I think he was mostly interested in the raw tapes to get more dynamics and a flatter sound so he could impose his own curve on top. Post acquisition, they really are a different outfit with different engineers (although some were trained by Stan) and a new mastering chain and flat transfer philosophy. IIRC, they even stopped half-speed mastering in recent years which was Ricker's signature move. The enduring legacy of early MoFi to the audiophile world was that idea of returning to the original tapes whenever possible. That was copied by all the other following audiophile labels because it was really a unique proposition in the industry.

Check this post by Hoffman out. Ignoring that Hoffman does like to spin some yarns, and that this is an extreme example, this is the exact type of thing I'm talking about. His CD master, and Kevin Gray's MCA heavy vinyl issue from the 90s use the original tapes. Of course some people may still prefer the sound of the TML cuts from any iteration as all of this is super subjective, but in a best case scenario his version and Kevin's version should be closer to the sound heard by The Who in the studio. This is say what is better and what someone would prefer. In fact based on this tale it seemed the band themselves were quite happy with the prospect of TML doing their thing to the masters, for whatever that is worth. There were quite a few other documented examples of studios that cut from cutting master tapes only, like Bell Sound, and Capitol in the 60s, and more.

The whole OG vs AAA reissue thing is really becoming quite a stupid debate IMO, especially in the jazz community as you mention. In my view there's no reason to be sectarian, as I've heard good and bad OG pressings and good and bad reissues. I just wanted to point out that there are plenty of advantages to AAA master-tape sourced reissues, and I've heard some that kill my earlier copies to my ears (Rumors, Blue, and Electric Warrior by Kevin Gray).
 
Wes C. Attle said:
***POST-CREDITS SCENE:***

INT: VMP BASEMENT
Long shot of MAN walking down a long, poorly-lit hallway until he reaches a door at the very end with the words “MATHER’S MONTHLY SHIPMENT.” He opens it and reveals a single INTERN sitting in a folding chair in the middle of the room.

MAN: How many records this month?

The INTERN points to a stack of records sitting on a table next to her.

MAN: Well, you’ve got some work to do, I see. I want this completed by the end of day. Prioritize the records that will not have replacements available.

INTERN nods.

MAN turns and leaves the room, smiling as the camera pushes over his shoulder to show the INTERN behind him reach for the top record on the stack and proceeds to bend it over her knee until it is severely warped. She then reaches for the next record on the stack. We can hear the MAN cackling an evil laugh down the hallway as the scene fades out.
Click to expand...
Disclaimer flashes:
No actual records were harmed in the making of this film.
 
zombie.modernist said:
Right, early MoFi was a bit of a contradiction in that Ricker applied that rock V curve to everything, so it was far from accurate. I think he was mostly interested in the raw tapes to get more dynamics and a flatter sound so he could impose his own curve on top. Post acquisition, they really are a different outfit with different engineers (although some were trained by Stan) and a new mastering chain and flat transfer philosophy. IIRC, they even stopped half-speed mastering in recent years which was Ricker's signature move. The enduring legacy of early MoFi to the audiophile world was that idea of returning to the original tapes whenever possible. That was copied by all the other following audiophile labels because it was really a unique proposition in the industry.

Check this post by Hoffman out. Ignoring that Hoffman does like to spin some yarns, and that this is an extreme example, this is the exact type of thing I'm talking about. His CD master, and Kevin Gray's MCA heavy vinyl issue from the 90s use the original tapes. Of course some people may still prefer the sound of the TML cuts from any iteration as all of this is super subjective, but in a best case scenario his version and Kevin's version should be closer to the sound heard by The Who in the studio. This is say what is better and what someone would prefer. In fact based on this tale it seemed the band themselves were quite happy with the prospect of TML doing their thing to the masters, for whatever that is worth. There were quite a few other documented examples of studios that cut from cutting master tapes only, like Bell Sound, and Capitol in the 60s, and more.

The whole OG vs AAA reissue thing is really becoming quite a stupid debate IMO, especially in the jazz community as you mention. In my view there's no reason to be sectarian, as I've heard good and bad OG pressings and good and bad reissues. I just wanted to point out that there are plenty of advantages to AAA master-tape sourced reissues, and I've heard some that kill my earlier copies to my ears (Rumors, Blue, and Electric Warrior by Kevin Gray).
Click to expand...
I definitely agree with your last paragraph, but I think the difference s of opinion even within the audiophile community definitely keep me a skeptic. SH is a good example, because he likes to talk shit about RVG, but people like Ken Micallef completely wrote off the MM reissues that he and KG did because of how much they prefer the originals. To me that debate is pretty worthless, since I'll never think it is worth it to spring for those original Blue Notes and the MM reissues I do have sound great.

Is the Electric Warrior really better than the original Fly? I have a 70s UK cube that sounds great so I didn't go for it.
 
THE SWAPS ARE WEAK! Does anyone know what the story with swaps are? It seems like it's just previous ROTM and some stragglers, has it always been that way? As a classics fan there is so much that I'm not into and since I've been around a while I have most of the classics, and certainly the ones I really want. If there aren't more interesting swaps in the future I don't know if I'll stick around after my subscription runs out.
 
dhodo said:
Worth noting the quote from Storf for the Isley record is "remastered from tape" as opposed to original master tapes. That could mean something, or it could just be because Storf still remains willfully ignorant about mastering, even though it is central to his job.
Click to expand...
Hey it sounds great through his speakers made from old doobie brothers records and thats all that matters!!!
 
dhodo said:
I definitely agree with your last paragraph, but I think the difference s of opinion even within the audiophile community definitely keep me a skeptic. SH is a good example, because he likes to talk shit about RVG, but people like Ken Micallef completely wrote off the MM reissues that he and KG did because of how much they prefer the originals. To me that debate is pretty worthless, since I'll never think it is worth it to spring for those original Blue Notes and the MM reissues I do have sound great.

Is the Electric Warrior really better than the original Fly? I have a 70s UK cube that sounds great so I didn't go for it.
Click to expand...

I've seen Ken's videos and think his reasoning is very weak, and seems to just come down to the usual OG fetishism rather than just admitting it's his tastes. The whole deal with Hoffman slagging RVG is obviously to generate buzz for his own stuff so I would say I'd take most of his stuff with a huge grain of salt too, but I do think the main point was that after hearing the master tapes, they discovered there was a heavy handed use of EQ on those old Blue Note records. Wether you think that makes them sound more "natural" like Ken, or muddy like Steve and Kevin Gray is probably going to depend on your taste, and system. Most people's systems are far from flat, especially with vinyl, compared to a mastering engineer like Kevin (Hoffman is another story and in another world from the rest of them) who would have a ruler flat system, and probably a taste for a flat neutral sound. Lots of notable audiophiles like Fremer do tend to prefer the newer AAA issues to their old copies. Of course you can say this is to generate click revenue as well lol. Honestly, I'm with you, lots of early Impulse and Blue Note stuff is $$$$$$$ so if the reissue can even be mentioned in the same breath, I'm on board.

As for the Electric Warrior, I'm not sure! I only have the US Reprise pressing which isn't that good. The Rhino has more bass, more detail while being smoother on the topped, and better midrange clarity to my ears. That Reprise one was certainly from a dub tape due to the it being a UK production. I'm going to Europe this summer and do plan on looking out for any UK originals for T-Rex out of curiosity. I'll let you know if I ever get any of EW.

dhodo said:
Worth noting the quote from Storf for the Isley record is "remastered from tape" as opposed to original master tapes. That could mean something, or it could just be because Storf still remains willfully ignorant about mastering, even though it is central to his job.
Click to expand...

I think it could be option C, too busy trying to sound cool (and refute the obvious critique that this is a $5 bin record) to bother getting any details right. I'm fairly certain he still doesn't grasp the fundamental difference in mastering a digital file to mastering for vinyl, as he continues to use it interchangeably. Personally I think they should let Ryan Smith write up a few sentences on the mastering of each release, or do a video like they did for Grundman. It would be interesting to hear and put the focus on the craft.
 
Help me out: I am trying to decide between Darrell Banks and Eddie Floyd. Leaving the music enjoyment factor out of it since I enjoy both, which one is the better release from a quality/scarcity standpoint? Is it a push? Is one better than the other? Is one more rare? Any opinions are appreciated!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top