Audiophile pressings on mid-fi equipment

[Macca]

I don't see the point of discussing recording quality. I'm not going to listen to music I don't like just because it is well recorded and I'm not going to avoid listening to the music I do like just because it's a dodgy transfer or whatever.

Once you start worrying that the recording/ pressing/whatever quality isn't good enough to do your system justice then that's the end of the line.

The point of this hobby, if it has one, is to worry that your kit is not good enough to do the recording justice. Not the other way around.

[JohnMcC]

Just to chuck in a side issue - original pressings cut from master tapes often sound better than audiophile pressings made from digitally remastered versions of the original masters. Some Beatles reissues are a case in point. Whether this is because engineers like to have an unmusical little fiddle while they're remastering . . .

[magiccarpetride]

In my personal opinion, I would say they are not what they claim to be (most of the time - some are done very well). 180g for a start is a load of bull, 120g or 140g is perfectly fine but the labels/industry tout it like it's gotta be 180g or it's trash. I would advise that you just try to research before purchasing these reissues as it could help save hassle and money buying any that are badly done.

The problem right now with older pressings is that they're commanding premium prices too (especially if in good condition) due to this vinyl 'boom'. It's a minefield out there. It has taken me ages to find all the 80's Iron Maiden original UK pressings in decent condition - and most of those cost me £20-30 a piece. Lots of trashed copies out there and people not grading properly.

I am not too hung up on the condition of the old pressings. I find that, nine times out of ten, if the pressing is good, and if I take the time to wash it and vacuum it thoroughly, then the ENERGY that a good pressing releases tends to drown out any surface noises, pops and clicks.

On the other hand, a perfectly silent audiophile pressing that lacks that energy makes for a positively angry listening experience. The whole idea about music is that is is a source of energy, both physical and emotional. An expensive sound reproduction system is worthless if it cannot replicate that energy, even if some finer details might be missing.

[magiccarpetride]

Some of my thinnest original records give the best aural experience

I was never able to detect any correlation between the sound quality and the thickness of the LP. It tends to be all over the map. Some great sounding records are the flimsiest I've ever held in my hands, and also some great sounding records are super thick and heavy. I don't think there are any rules that apply there.

[magiccarpetride]

Quite possibly the wisest post I've read in quite a while, Peter

We're completely at the mercy of the producer/engineers/technicians in the studio, the mastering facility and the pressing plant ... any one of those guys has an off-day and things go down-hill rapidly. I mean, what are the chances that some vibrations in the air, captured fifty years ago in California, can be accurately reproduced in my living room today? Considering the intervening electronic and mechanical transducers, not to mention the ears and biases of the operators, it's a miracle we ever get anything approaching decent fidelity from vinyl.

I reckon it's pretty much pot-luck whether a recording or pressing gets it spot-on. IME, buying vinyl is basically gambling ... you can slightly improve the odds by diligent research, maybe. Re-issues can be improvements, but probably half of them ain't imo, especially some of the 're-mastered' ones. I suspect that the knowledge needed to produce top-quality vinyl left the industry decades ago, the guys who really knew what they were doing. In my case, I buy re-issues if they are my only viable choice, or if they are 45rpm LPs (which I find really does make a difference). Otherwise, I actually quite enjoy/prefer the 'hunt' for good, used ones.

Luckily, prices of used LPs are still driven by the estimated condition. Meaning, it is still possible to nail awesome deals for just a couple of bucks. I hope they never switch to pricing used LPs by the actual QUALITY OF THE PRESSING.

For example, my latest stunning purchase is Jim Hall Live 1975, which is one of the absolutely best sounding LPs I've ever heard. I bought it for one dollar (yes, $1.00)! It sounds heavenly.

So why was it priced at $1.00? Because the album cover is in a pretty bad shape and there are some intermittent pops and clicks and some surface noise. But who cares, since the energy that this record emanates is akin to standing next to the nuclear power plant that is in full meltdown!! You barely notice any surface noise and the occasional click or pop -- the music is so mesmerizing (some of the best drums/bass interaction I've heard).

So the point is, there is still a wealth of incredibly high quality used LPs going for peanuts, because all the sales staff care about is the condition of the used LP. Let's hope it stays that way

[DSJR]

My analogue front end is mid-fi (at best). Denon DL-103 mounted on Rega RB300 arm on Systemdek IIX turntable isn't going to turn any heads, that's for sure.

And I'm getting that distinction from the mid-fi system. I cannot help but wonder if my impressions would change should I go up the totem pole and upgrade my system to a much pricier high-end hi fi?

Define 'Mid-Fi' please?

Mid price (when new) yes, but the quality of a IIx/RB300 was excellent as I recall and rather above a Planar 3 with same arm! Don't ever judge vinyl playback by the price tag and amount of bling it's fitted with - just makes for a mugs eyeful imo!

The DL103 has a conical tip and it's this that will limit hf clarity and 'brilliance' slightly at end of side I found. After this cartridge, you'd probably not like a 2M Bronze, Goldring 1042 or AT540, which is eighty quid dearer than it's immediate predecessor if I'm not mistaken, but these have better profiled styli and the deck and arm you have can exploit the benefits easily I reckon.

As for audiophool pressings, some were better than commercial alternatives, but not all ime.

[magiccarpetride]

Just to chuck in a side issue - original pressings cut from master tapes often sound better than audiophile pressings made from digitally remastered versions of the original masters. Some Beatles reissues are a case in point. Whether this is because engineers like to have an unmusical little fiddle while they're remastering . . .

I concur. I have all the 2012 stereo Beatles remasters, and every LP pales in comparison to the earlier pressings. For example, my 2012 Abbey Road sounds limp and lifeless compared to my old scratched and beat up Canadian pressing from 1969. You can't even compare the two pressings, the difference is ridiculous.

[magiccarpetride]

Define 'Mid-Fi' please?

Mid price (when new) yes, but the quality of a IIx/RB300 was excellent as I recall and rather above a Planar 3 with same arm! Don't ever judge vinyl playback by the price tag and amount of bling it's fitted with - just makes for a mugs eyeful imo!

The DL103 has a conical tip and it's this that will limit hf clarity and 'brilliance' slightly at end of side I found. After this cartridge, you'd probably not like a 2M Bronze, Goldring 1042 or AT540, which is eighty quid dearer than it's immediate predecessor if I'm not mistaken, but these have better profiled styli and the deck and arm you have can exploit the benefits easily I reckon.

As for audiophool pressings, some were better than commercial alternatives, but not all ime.

When I say 'mid-fi', I'm comparing my front end to my friend's front end which consists of:

VPI Super Scout Master turntable with rim drive, Benz LP S mounted on VPI 10.5 inch uni pivot, into Coincident phono.

I don't think my configuration could come anywhere near to that one, no?

I chose DL-103 not for its detail retrieval, but for its energy. Also, being conical, it appears to be much more forgiving when it comes to used, imperfect LPs. Plus, I don't have to dick around with VTA

[magiccarpetride]

I don't see the point of discussing recording quality. I'm not going to listen to music I don't like just because it is well recorded and I'm not going to avoid listening to the music I do like just because it's a dodgy transfer or whatever.

Once you start worrying that the recording/ pressing/whatever quality isn't good enough to do your system justice then that's the end of the line.

The point of this hobby, if it has one, is to worry that your kit is not good enough to do the recording justice. Not the other way around.

Poorly mastered/pressed LP will result in poor listening experience. There is no turntable configuration in the world that could ever remedy that fact. That's why we're after good quality pressings, because this hobby is basically all about enjoying music reproduction to the max.

[walpurgis]

I chose DL-103 not for its detail retrieval, but for its energy. Also, being conical, it appears to be much more forgiving when it comes to used, imperfect LPs. Plus, I don't have to dick around with VTA

Why not?

Even with a conical diamond, VTA can be critical. Try a conical Decca without checking VTA and see what happens.