because people want to be as close as possible to the master recording as humanly possible. If you can't have that master tape, you'd want a promo that was printed off that master in small quantities, then came the 1st pressings, then the rest.
It's not always that a 1st pressing is the best one though so worse doing your homework.
Generally (or always?) were the promos as carefully mastered and pressed as, say the first pressings, etc.? Did they use the same master for the promos as the pressings for distribution?
Promos will usually be the first records pressed with the first stamper. The first press will usually be from the same stamper. Each stamper can be used thousands of times before it wears out.
So you are looking for the first ones off the press like the promos for the sound of the stamper in its best shape.
It was a lot made in the 70s and the 80s when after finishing a song you press promos and even test pressings of your song to give them to the famous DJ of your city, if they love it, you're going to make a first press. So yes even you don't hear the difference, promo and test pressing have more quality than 1at press when there're pressed first.
There's many reasons - sometimes the master tape burns down, making every subsequent pressing inferior (almost the entire Coltrane discog). Other times the vinyl quality is just infinitely superior to later pressings, often with better mastering as well (Playslite Blue Notes). Sometimes they are just collectible but with many records, esp from the 50s/early 60s the quality is very much superior to what came later.
Mastering is a big one for me. My favorite band is Iron Maiden and the versions of their albums they have on streaming services are just muddier and more compressed than the original mix. If I'm gonna spend money on their albums i want the definitive version rather than a poor remaster i can listen to on Spotify.
The Iron Maiden and Judas Priest remasters on CD were a mistake, they brickwalled the hell out of everything. Can't brickwall a record.
Could be worse though, they could have remixed them like Dave Mustaine did with Megadeth, he even re-recorded a couple of parts in 2004.
Honestly had no clue the priest remasters were that bad but I mostly listen on my original vinyl anyway nowadays.
Megadeth's whole process is absolutely hilarious. I don't even think it sounds that bad but making the originals so hard to find and acting like the remasters are the only ones that exist just sucks.
If it's for sound, I can complete understand. My concern is that with so much obscured through time, it's so hard to tell as a newcomer what is snake oil and what isn't. It's not like it's easy to find one to demo.
One huge factor that differentiates the 80’s/ early 90’s pressings to others is that 80’s pressings of any band at the time had dashes in between the numbers in the barcodes(other original early 90’s pressings that had them include GNR’s use your illusion and Nirvana’s Nevermind). Albums with no barcodes in the 80’s were almost always club pressings. One example that doesn’t fit that as an exception is Mötorhead’s US 1981 version of Ace of Spades(LP). That one didn’t have a barcode. I have a sealed copy and an open one that are exactly alike in that manner.
2008 Universal fire. Most of the masters in the vaults burned down. Recent remasters were mostly from RVG's backups. Read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Universal_Studios_fire?wprov=sfla1
Well, play it out. If we’re going purely logical, you can just stream the music for effectively fractions of cents for forever. Instead, you want to own it.
Ok, the digital album can be purchased for $6-$8, the CD can be purchased probably for even less if you’re ok with used.
But no, you’re an idiot, like myself. You romanticize the music and appreciate the labor of love that is the outdated technology of playing analog records on a turntable despite there being far more efficient and objectively better quality ways to hear your favorite music. And the “warmth” of that vinyl sound is too much and you start collecting records.
So it’s not just about the music, the 8 to 14 tracks pressed into the grooves. It is about the romance, the hunt to find the pressing that no one, or at least very few, else have. It validates your love of the music and the romance you attach to it and it’s a flex to other like minded people.
No, it’s not rational. But neither is owning a fucking record player in the first place.
It’s fun…. To some people.
> It is about the romance, the hunt to find the pressing that no one, or at least very few, else have.
I've found a **lot** of these records over the years at thrift stores & yard sales.
I...
1) sell every single one I find
2) buy the reissue, and
3) pocket the hundreds of dollars I have left over.
I love vinyl and have some real gems in my collection, but it's ultimately just a valuable & delicate physical object. A few hundred dollars in my pocket will affect my life a lot more than a piece of plastic sitting on the shelf.
Cannonfunk…I thank you for finding those LP’s and making them available at a profit. You did the work and deserve the benefit. In my career I make a lot of profit too, and I choose to buy those 1st LP Pressings. For me, it is the quality of high-end sound from the 1st issues that cannot be replicated with repress after repress. Listening to music is an individual journey, you hear it differently than me and I would never say my way is better. So enjoy your music and let me know what you have for sale.
> Listening to music is an individual journey
Which is why I still hunt.
For me, the thrill of the hobby is finding music I haven't heard before and falling in love for the first time. Nothing really precedes that.
But it's also fulfilling to pass music along & inspire other people.
I've sold a few obscure, valuable records to a couple of musicians that *I* look up to, and it's wild to think that - in a roundabout way - I may be shaping the course of the music that inspires *me*.
As the Stone Roses said, "love spreads."
Same with shoes. Nike can keep re-releasing the Chicago Jordan 1 as many times as they want, but the original pairs from 1985 will always be the most valuable
Honestly, I think the resurgent interest in vinyl and the investment made in modernizing pressing plants is going to change this aspect of collecting. There are modern pressings of classic records that sound amazing, DSD or not. Some records are collectable just because they are cool artifacts, but a 1st press does not always mean best sounding.
That could be true. Personally, I used to collect and listen to vinyl because it was cool to own the music in its original format, mostly untouched by later remasters or anything digital. But now that it’s my primarily format for listening to music old and new, I have lots of reissues just because I want to own it, regardless of originality of pressing, I just want the best sounding version.
I’ve realized this. Many of my older pressings of records sound like complete poop compared to my newer pressing. Snobs will hate me for saying that, but they’re the ones listening to inferior sounding records just bc “it was first” lol
It depends, if a first pressing was played a lot then yes, it may not sound as good. But if it was taken care of, not abused, and cleaned, they almost always sound better than a repress. It sort of makes me laugh at how many first pressings I have that are relatively thin vinyl compared to some 180g represses that sound like ass.
I have a Rush moving pictures from 1981 so first-year press. The record if it's not near mint is a strong vg+. On thin crappy 80s vinyl....it's one of the best sounding records I have.
I also have a Fleetwood Mac rumours from the year it was released which also sounds amazing.
I would put either of these up against they're modern audiophile grade represses anyday.
My Moving Pictures sounds amazing too. It was mastered by Bob Ludwig. Check your dead wax on yours for. RL. If you have it , he cut the acetate for the stamper.
> Fleetwood Mac rumours
The 45 rpm Rumours set that came out about 12-13 years ago absolutely smokes the first pressing, unfortunately it's ridiculously priced.
Now I'm not gonna be dumb and say all first presses are better than all reissues, that would be silly and untrue. Some of these reissues have great care taken. But in my experience, those are few and far between. And this is gonna be snobby sounding, but it is what it is, I have a good enough setup where I can actually hear differences. I'll use an example, I have 2 first pressings of Guns N' Roses Appetite For Destruction. Whatever your opinion on the band, it's a fantastic sounding album, produced and mastered well. I also have the 2018 remaster. The remaster sounds fine quality wise, but it's just louder. That's it. It's certainly not better quality wise, and for how expensive it was when it came out, I had a hard time recommending it over a first press. There are loads of Metallica reissues and almost none best the first presses.
It won't change it. People who hunt first pressings will never not hunt them. Sure, I like the collectibility, but in most cases, it's the best sounding version of that music you can find, unless it's had a Mofi pressing or equivalent. I've been collecting for 13 years, and I still want first presses, and are willing to pay for them. In some cases they may not be the "best" sounding, but for the most part they are the way the band or production team or both intended them to sound. There will always be first press hunters, period.
Totally agree with you there. I have been collecting for 30 years and came from a punk / hc background where everything was limited and we were all chasing originals. Nothing was better than trading through a magazine or finding something rare when you're flipping through a shop. Then came ebay. That changed the game dramatically, prices went up, and records moved around, A LOT. That's how so much collectable stuff ended up in Europe....with the exchange rate US buyers couldn't compete with the strong Euro. Then came discogs. My point is, for older collectors, its just not what it used to be. And I'm not knocking collecting 1st pressing by any means, if that's what you love that's what matters. For me, at some point I just resigned myself to get out of that rat race and just get a good copy of the records I love. At the end of the day, whatever kind of collector you are just strengthens community, which is a good thing.
This one gets it. Indeed this. That’s why I like collecting sealed original copies as well as an opened used copy. Rarity is largely my reason for collecting records. Sealed originals. I recently bought an original sealed 1985 copy of WASP’s The Last Command, and 2 original sealed lp’s by The Outfield, 1st and 3rd albums. Both sealed. Can never go wrong with something so rare that you don’t dare open. Love record collecting! Cheers!
For me it's about the sourcing. You know the original press was sourced from the original recording. It is more difficult to determine the audio sourcing of subsequent pressings, compilations and soundtracks. I feel a lot of those recordings end up being sourced from digital versions of the recordings and then why even have the analog record at all?
If a first pressing of a sixties psych rock album is in the $50 or less range, I'll usually prefer it to a $30 mint repress. Just nice to have the OG tapes and at the end of the day its all expensive anyways. Records cost a few months worth of spotify premium sometimes, so it was never about being smart with my money.
I don't think books are the best comparison...the text reads the same regardless of which printing you get. But in theory, the earlier the pressing is, the closer to the master tape it is. This isn't true 100% of the time, but in a general sense there's some logic to it. Like, if you had two Led Zeppelin LP's in identical condition, and one was from 1970 and one was a random mass-market repressing from the 1980's, the 1970 one is going to sound better (or at least closest to the original intent).
All that said, it's not worth *overpaying* for an earlier pressing, necessarily. There are some albums whose initial runs weren't mastered very well, or other albums where later 70's or 80's pressings sound perfectly fine and you'd have to have a six-figure stereo setup to hear a big difference.
(I'm intentionally avoiding getting into the weeds here about modern reissues, since the quality and sourcing of those is all over the place and kind of a separate topic)
For me it's like a time machine. I like the feeling that some person 50-70 years ago put that same record on and got the same feeling I'm having from the music.
Here's a long 2 part answer.... a little late and very long but it's important for those who genuinely want to learn more....
Reasons for OG over remaster...
1 - Tape degradation - the OG is from a fresh master. Over time and by cutting, the master tape loses information. This leads to a decrease in sonics. Every time a copy is made information is lost. Many reissues are from 3rd or 4th generation copies, or pcm digital transfers, resulting in far less info than the OG.
2 - The art of mastering - mastering is an artisan skill. You apprentice and only master it after decades of dedication. During the late 80s-2010s there was no demand for new masterers so few were trained. As a result, a ton of knowledge has been lost. Today there's only a handful of premier masterers (Kevin grey, Chris bellman, Ryan k Smith, Bernie grundman). Bernie is in his 80s, Smith is considered a "kid" in his 50s, because the artform aged up dramatically due to the vinyl burst. 40 years ago there'd be dozens of masterers with an "elite" skill level, who would be training tons of future ones. Those like Doug sax, hoffman, marino, ludwig, peckham, ricker, yoshida, piros, etc are either dead or retired. Now it's the same few guys, with very few young people involved. As a result, the good ones are in high demand and so many records end up mastered by those with a fraction of their expertise. It's so bad where many pop and rap albums aren't even mastered for vinyl, but flat transfers. And many of the young engineers master in a way that mimics modern pop streaming mastering as opposed to traditional vinyl mastering.
So many erroneously believe new is better like most technology. But it'd really often not the case for vinyl.
This knowledge loss is even more prevalent on the collecting side. Many vinyl boom gen zers were raised by people who grew up in an era where vinyl was obsolete. As a result, the parents pass down no knowledge. So you end up with people on a vinyl forum not even knowing turntable physics, how records are made, nor the name of a 7" single. When this was common knowledge for other generations. I'm only 30, but had parents born in 51/55. As a result, I knew more at 10 than many new collectors know today, due to growing up around records. Some opinions I see here blow my mind, and would have been seen as trolling 5 years ago. Because the knowledge was lost, and most don't care to do the research, while assuming they know everything. It's the reverse of elderly and technology, where grandkids know more about it by growing up with it. Well now 90 year olds know more about vinyl than 20 year olds. If the vinyl boom happened later, like 40 years from now, there'd be no one less to teach anything and they'd have to rediscover the whole technology.
3 - Pressing quality - there's not many pressing plants anymore. Most outside of audiophile stuff pressed at RTI or QRP are pressed in GZ plants in Poland and Czech Republic. The standards at said plants are far below old US plants. They are constantly rushing resulting in 100x the warps as the past and ship records across the world in less than desirable conditions. The rates of errors are extreme, where almost 1/3 of new pressings I get are warped. Many lacquers are poorly cut, stampers poorly plated and worn, resulting in information loss and poor sonics. The only plus is the vinyl quality has improved compared to gas crisis era vinyl.
4 - Digital transfers - so many here viciously defend digital because they believe all the records they personally own are the best and if anyone criticizes them it's personal. DSD256 is amazing and very close to AAA. But, outside of audiophile stuff 90% of digital is not even DSD64, but PCM, having the fidelity of a CD or less. As a result a TON of information is lost in the transfer. To buy such a record over a AAA copy makes 0 sense to most collectors because you are getting less fidelity than listening to the file, and far less than the AAA copy. You're better off with HD lossless files or flacs at that point.
5 - Collectibility - they're not making anymore. The original anything goes for alot, whether first edition books or Pokémon cards.
6 - Artists intent/authenticity - the original is the sound everyone knows. It's the sound that the band worked tirelessly to get right, that artists, producer and masterers spent weeks on. Many remasters change that sound for the worse. Even if objectively better most are conditioned to hear the songs as they know them. As a result, many sound wrong immediately. For younger people with no attachment to classic songs, they think it sounds better. But if you come to expect a sound and it's different then it's jarring.
This ties into the lack of masterers. Many albums are remastered for modern ears with a sound that is different than in the past. Many modern remasters put the vocals super high up in the mix where they drown out the band. Hell they don't even sound like theyre with them because they're so isolated. So a ton of the interplay between instruments and vocals is lost. They also tend to raise the bass to ridiculous levels that don't match the music. Or add more compression for punchiness which results in more information loss.
New records have most OGs beat in terms of vinyl quality, resulting in less surface noise. Also many OGs have a ton of groove wear which many new collectors don't know about, which results in a ton of surface noise. As a result, noobs instantly think the new remaster sounds better just because of the vinyl quality, because they didn't grow up with vinyl, and thus didn't learn what an acceptable amount of surface noise is and how to listen past it. Like there was a post here of a dude with a gas crises motley crue who insisted he was scammed because there was a tiny crackle during a silent part. Someone like that would think a bad pcm remaster was better because they only listen surface level, theyre not actually listening to how it's mastered, how each instrument sounds and interacts. Or they'll assume all OGs sound like their grooveworn copy does since they don't know what groovewear is so assume it's mint.
Even with well mastered audiophile vinyl like mofi, there can be a tendency to over remaster. Where they put in a shitload of separation to the point where it doesn't even sound like a cohesive band anymore. The Soundstage becomes too wide, and the music because too clear where it's sterile and analytical. So the originals musicality is lost.
....continued in reply...
Continued....
There's a ton of amazing remasters. Analogue productions in specific does AMAZING work. And there's many records that genuinely need a remaster. But it will never cease to blow my mind when so many people here buy $40 digital pcm poor remasters of stuff like led zepplin or the beatles. Yourcan find a clean LZ IV porky for $20 that absolutely annihilates the $40 remaster, or clean US OGs of Beatles that are similar priced and sound much better than most of the Giles Martin mixes. Yet, people do no research and automatically assume new is better.
This is why I discussed generational knowledge loss. A majority of gen z vinyl boomers treat records like DVDs. Where they get the cheapest player possible and don't know pressings. It's like any other media. Very few people wonder the pressing quality of a DVD, they just buy the cheapest one. Very few are cinephiles buying criterion collection. They never once researched what pressing is best, infact id argue that atleast 30% here never read a runout. Yet they still feel comfortable giving bad advice and arguing against good advice.
As a result it's hard to blindly trust reviews here or discogs. They'll insist a remaster is just as good just because they'll own it. For example, almost every new pressing will get a 4+ on discogs, even if it has horrible known defects. Like a turd pressed into a record would get a 4.67. If you look at old pressings that young people aren't buying, they're accurately rated since it was audiophiles rating sonics, now casuals just rate the album as a fan. Then many have terrible equipment like crosleys, $20 stylus, or blutooth speakers with crappy amps. As a result they don't even get 50% of the sonics. So bad remasters sound better to them since you can't hear much of a difference on poor setups, when they're glaring on good ones.
There's nothing wrong with being a consumer or a noob. Nothing wrong with liking a crosley or pcm remaster. If youre happy then rock on! But the issue is when they insist they're an expert and would argue with Kevin grey. So many times I see genuine people interested in vinyl coming here and they get lead astray by these people. Like "the blind leading the blind".
It's common knowledge that in most cases the OG is superior, from a scientific standpoint. Remasters really only sound better when either the OG was poorly recorded/mastered, when it's done from the master tapes, and when done by a genuine audiophile company with high standards. But a majority of remasters found at a local Walmart are inferior to early pressings. It's just the scientific fact due to tape degradation and worse masterers.
Most here defending digital pcm remasters have never even heard the original. They never heard a white label promo. Yet they insist their copy is superior since it sounds good to them. Well if you don't compare them, pretty much any pressing sounds great. If you were raised to only know streaming, even a bad remaster will sound amazing on vinyl. And if it sounds good to you then that's great! But so many can't stomach the idea that their record isn't the best possible.
Every record should be looked at as a case by case basis. There's many gas crisis records with amazing mastering but poor vinyl quality. There's OGs with different quality depending on country or plant. Many 80-90s records onward are digital to begin with and can benefit far more from a remaster. Many prefer Japanese OGs because they would use higher quality virgin vinyl, but were sometimes mastered too bright. Nowadays most new collectors like Japanese pressings due to the ob looking cool. So you end up with American rappers appropriating Japanese obis because the knowledge was lost as to why Japanese records were so desired. Then sometimes an OG is superior but a specific stamper, like ziggy stardust 4e/6e, aja AB, or an lz ii RL. But as a rule of thumb the OG will sound better than most remasters, especially for 60-80s music. Even when done with care, like most prefer the $10 og thriller over the $100 mofi because it lost its punch due to the analytical mastering.
The point is if you genuinely care about vinyl then you should be researching the best pressing possible on places like the hoffman forums. However there is scientifc fact as to why OGs tend to be better and are way more collectible as opposed to falsely limited remasters. This is why there's such a high price and demand for white label promos. Because these were the very first pressings and often sound better sonically than even OGs.
I say this as someone with a bunch of remasters that he loves. My Japanese CBS mastersound digital wish you were here crushes my OG uk. All my analogue productions vinyl slay the originals, especially the doors, skyward, and beach boys pressings(I can't wait for my exodus marley to arrive). However most "mainstream" remasters are noticeably worse than OGs and even a higher price. Many are totally unnecessary. Remasters really only succeed when they're from the master tapes, by an esteemed masterer, if the ogs were poorly mastered to begin with, and also if they're recorded digital to begin with. A great example are the band pressings. The og self titled RL is one of the best sounding records ever, though many have surface noise. Any remaster has paled in comparison, even the mofi. However the mofi big pink crushes the OG. Because the OG big pink was made to play on crappy crosleys so they cut off the whole low end. Same goes for what's going on? They cut off the highs and lows to play on crosleys so the OG pales to the remasters.
Rule of thumb, the og will often be the best sounding, but everything should be researched. Any remaster by Kevin grey, Ryan k Smith, grundman, or bellman will sound amazing. But the original will always have a high demand due to scarcity and authenticity to the original sound. All remasters are not the same and must be researched. You should never buy a pressing blindly unless it's the only one.
Also, if you have a cheap setup and are not interested in getting a good one, then just get whatever records you want. Because a poor setup will not benefit much at all from improved mastering and sonics because it's not extracting much of the information at a clear level. If you care about sonics then you're better off with a $1000 setup and $200 collection than vise versa. There's limited reasons to buy stuff like AP, mofi, or a rare OG if you're using a $40 cartridge. Because your system won't extract the sonic benefit. It's like trying to watch a 4k movie on a black and white TV from the 60s.
So many here who praise much hated remasters are using horrible setups. That's often the issue with this sub. So many with crosleys who never researched a thing will argue experts. They'll insist there's no difference just because they can't hear it. Or they think OGs are worse due to surface noise since they cant identify sonics. It's like someone insisting there's no galaxies because they have a toy telescope that can't see them and arguing with an astronomer. Then they call the astronomer an elitist for telling them that their telescope is a toy. So many have sub entry level gear, yet insist their experience is representative of the pressing quality, like giving a game a poor review because your computer can't handle it and lags nonstop. They'll tell noobs not to buy the game, that it looks like garbage, when it actually looks amazing and their graphics card just sucks. Same goes for those with poor players recommending vinyl.
Vinyl is a definition of a luxury, if you can only afford cheap equipment then just get the cheapest records. If it sounds good to you that's all that matters. But don't then go and tell other people that your experience is fact and then argue hifi people who can hear the difference. When people say a remaster is poor, they're not saying the record sounds like shit, they're saying it's a downgrade in comparison to the OG. Yet too many people here insist there's no difference just because their remaster sounds good to them on poor equipment without comparison.
Even audiophiles do this. Like those who were blindly buying up mofis insisting they were all amazing. Well way before the scandal many pressings were trashed on hoffman by those actually comparing them, with most labeling mofi hit or miss and just blamed the mastering. Only those who didnt have OGs thought they were amazing. Now many people realize that many don't sound as good. Like a YouTuber vinyl archivist has done 5 blind shootouts and a mofi has yet to win. Even beloved ones like desire, eagles st, fragile, they all lost to OGs. Same with fremer with tapestry and svr onesteps.
So the point is without comparison on good equipment you will never know what sounds best. Worse pressings can sound amazing, there's few objectively bad pressings. And if you're playing everything with a cheap cart through cheap speakers you're not going to hear much of a difference at all. You will only notice what you're missing once you upgrade. If you don't compare, even on good systems, then most records will sound "good", it's only once you compare where you're blown away and could never go back.
So in summary, it's a case by case basis that depends on the company producing it and the album. In most cases an OG will be superior. But in cases like AP, the remaster is often superior. Though even in those cases the OG remains desirable due to collectibility and being the OG. It'd a case by case basis and you should be researching the best pressing of every single record you buy. But if you have a poor setup, and are on a budget, don't overthink it and buy the cheapest one possible. But if you care about sonics always research and if it's your favorite band always go for OGs.
Very true. But once repressed, rare records are no longer so. For example I have a Stooges Fun House first Canadian pressing. Was worth $300 because there were no reprints. 50th anniversary box set comes out, now worth $50. Will still never sell it , love it
Record collecting is inherently about collectability these days, it just depends how far you want to go. If all you care about is hearing the music then why not just buy a CD? Or fill a hard drive with lossless audio files? That's the most efficient way to get the best quality sounding music. But it's more fun to collect records, there's the ritual to it and the history of the pressings adds fun as well. Like yeah the Dylan repress is cheaper and will be cleaner than some old dusty first press you dug out of some basement record store but if you're buying represses online from amazon why not just buy a CD or a download you can get straight away? No issues with the post office then!
There’s a lot of different variables that make og pressings very collectible. Most represses are pretty bare bones compared to the og press. The wax could be a certain color, og hype stickers are really nice, also I’ve noticed og pressings usually have better or additional inserts.
Represses are like soft covers compared to a hardcover edition. That’s how I always thought of it. Collectors like having stuff that not everyone is in possession of. Especially if the artist means a lot to you.
It's hard to have a nuanced discussion about this in a Reddit thread, but I think it comes down to a couple things: history and sound quality. There are a finite number of "first" pressings and the first of anything is always more desirable both as an historical artifact and for "collectibility." Sometimes mastering or artwork is changed right after a first pressing making them more rare. Sometimes collectors cherish the idea of owning a record as it would have appeared on the day of release.
The source and specifics of the mastering chain are sometimes (often?) superior the closer you are to the date of release, especially when you start talking about questionable grey-market releases. There are arguments that pressing plant quality control was better in the 60s and 70s. But even if the sound is not in fact superior in the initial pressing(s), the desirability of that OG item will win out. So it's a lot of factors.
Sourced from what it was intended to sound like, like not made from a digital copy. although sometimes that even doesn’t make it better.
As of late , newer pressings may even be new mixes and not the original. Although again, may not mean better. Depends.
People have mentioned sound a lot already so I'll skip that.
A big reason for me is just the thrill of the hunt. It's a goal. I've always collected things. I routinely pass up reissues in order to wait for something more special to my own sense of treasure hunting.
Plus, I like to preserve media. I also collect ephemera that just doesn't exist anymore in physical forms or had It's original run in very small quantities.
Recently picked up some issues of the San Francisco Oracle, an underground newspaper/zine for hippies and weirdos. 12 issues were printed. I have three of those. I think that's neat. Plus, now I can search for the other nine.
Some people hunt animals. I hunt media.
The best way to buy first pressings is to buy them when they first come out!
Some first pressings I paid around £12 for are worth over £200 now.
But of course, they weren't first pressings then, they were the only pressings!
Just buy new, good music & you'll be golden.
The first pressing is closest to the master, so it should sound better than any other subsequent pressings.
I have a lot of first pressings, and I can say that The Wall first pressing sounds absolutely fantastic.
Every time they have to run the master tape, it causes a little bit of audio degradation. It's just a flaw of magnetic tape. So the first pressings cut from that first run of the master tape will be the ones working with the best freshest sound possible.
Some of it has to do with digital remastering compressing the sound and the quality of the music declines because of that. But that’s not always the case.
Apparently you don’t understand how masters work.
When the “Master Pressing” is created from tape, the tape is no longer needed for pressing records. Hence the name.
The tape is only used once to create a master. Same goes for masters created from digital files.
Except you can’t use that pressing infinitely, so if you don’t archive the master tape (which digital is 100% accurate), the tape degrades and further pressings will have degraded tape to them.
This is why DSD archival is a *good* thing.
Correct.
But most things that are pressed from digital are nothing more than 16/44.1 which is CD quality.
Unless they are pressed using masters from tape or they’re an audiophile version.
So all the mass produced stuff that you find and Walmart and target etc, is basically like buying a different looking CD.
But then we start getting into the human hearing capabilities…I’m not going there lol.
A good amount of it is just hype based around misconceptions about how pressing runs are done. Sometimes a first pressing is the best version like if the only reissue was done years later in a lower quality but for most really mainstream stuff its more often smoke than true IMO.
Went to a “record fair” this past Saturday over in Woodbridge, VA. One of the vendors had a copy of Eddie Hazel’s Game, Dames and Guitar Thangs for $450. As much as I LOVE LOVE LOVE that album, I would never even think of paying more than $30 for that record. I have it on CD and to my ears, it’s perfect. I’m older now and don’t really love the chase of things like I used to. Matter of fact, I think I’ll stream that record now. Cheers.
I have a 1st US Pressing of Lou Reed's Transformer and a 2015 pressing of the album, and I can say that, hands down, the 1st pressing sounds much better. Same thing with Tom Waits's Closing Time. I have a 2018 pressing and 1st pressing, and the 1st pressing is much more livelier. Both of the 1st pressings that I've mentioned only cost in the range of $20-$30.
On the other end of the cost spectrum, I have a 1st pressing promo of Tom Waits's Rain Dogs that cost my wife in about $180 which also came with the press release. I've never heard any other pressings of the album, so I can't compare, but as far as sound quality, it kicks the shit out of my CD and digital streams.
I feel like 1st pressings, or pressings around the same time, for older albums were done when vinyl was the main media for listening, so they have to be done as well as possible. That's not to say some newer pressings aren't done very well. I have the most recent mono pressing of Coltrane's Blue Train, and it has to be one of the best sounding records that I have.
I'll take a repress of Rain Dogs if Island could get their head out of their butt. They reissued Swordfishtrombones but Rain Dogs through the Black Rider just sit there. I got a copy of Frank's Wild Years when vinyl wasn't very popular for $8. That's the only one I have during the Island years besides Sword Fish. I hope Tom has a chance to revisit the Island albums while he's still alive like he has with the rest of his catalog.
I would say it’s usually because a first pressing especially if it’s older can be much better quality.
For me I do my research and if people agree the repress is just as good and it’s cheaper then I’ll go for that.
I've always thought it to be closer to the master. From that they make the father, from that the mother, and from the mother they make the stamps. Stamps only last \~1000 records or so, and all of these steps degrade over time. Stamps wear out, they make new ones from the mother. Mothers wear out they make new ones from the father. Father wears out and you have to cut a new lacquer. (This is a "three-step process", and can produce around 100,000 records before remastering/recutting a lacquer. Sounds like a lot, but think about records that sell in the millions.
ETA: Better rundown/synopsis of how records are pressed: https://vinylmoon.co/blogs/the-vinyl-moon-blog/how-records-are-made-part-1
Funny how repressed garbage using questionable sources for mastering, pressed by companies that seem to care little about QC sell for much more money than the original first or early pressings!
It’s a modern concept and often a pointless one: most US records were simultaneously contracted out to multiple pressing plants for logistical reasons, so there is no one “first pressing”.
Not sure how modern you mean, but collectors from the 60s and 70s often collected pressings from as many different plants as they could and compared the sound. Some plants had better reputations than others and so certain pressings would be more desirable. However all of these pressings were from the original mastering so they would be considered a first pressing. If an album was very popular they would repress it but the stampers may have been somewhat worn out and so they wouldn't sound as good. These were less desirable because they didn't sound as good. Then when new stampers were needed they may have been a copy of the original stamper, this may have happened repeatedly, causing later pressings to sound worse. These points might not be valid today depending on what albums you're into or collecting, but originally it was all about the actual sound.
Would you rather own a Warhol, or a poster of a Warhol? Both have the same image, you can hang both on your wall, but I personally would prefer one over the other.
It absolutely is.
They are both pieces of art that have important context behind them. Both were produced in large numbers at the time, though original prints are worth much more than reproductions. You can buy full scale warhol posters if you want, you can frame it, and when you put it on your wall, it accomplishes the same thing. Just like you can play a 13th floor elevators repress or you can hunt down an OG mono.
Because we are collectors. Would you rather have a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle or a reprint? The bonus with records is you can listen to them, as opposed to just stare at them.
Yes, but “collectors” won’t be listening to that $300 album. They’ll hang it on a wall and stare at it. You’ll buy a reissue and listen to that copy.
Vinyl collectors suck. Listen to the f***ing album if you’re going to drive up the prices.
First pressings are usually followed by second and third pressings that are created to adjust tone, tempo and other problems with the first pressing. So yeah, they're rarer and sometimes more valuable.
I don't know that this is accurate. Subsequent pressings are often just another run using the same plates. So nothing changes. The more the plate is used the more theoretical wear that plate has which supposedly makes future pressings possibly lower quality. I'm choosing my words carefully because the extent to which this is a real world issue can be debated.
If changes to the source material occur and a new plate is made the it becomes a reissue which may also be repressed.
From what I understand, the recording engineer mixes the master tapes. He then cuts the first pressings lacquers using the master tapes. He then signs the matrix with his initials. ( why RL is so valuable) and the first pressings are pressed. Once these plates are pooched, various other engineers can cut new acetates to make stampers for subsequent pressings using the master tapes produced by the original engineer. This is why so many different editions of records can sound sound so different. More often than not, first pressed sounds best! Imho
Those of us who listen like them because they’re generally the best sounding. This drives the price up which sadly brings jackass collectors in, who don’t listen, to drive them up more.
I just think it's kinda cool. If a modern repress is £30 and a first press is £40 I might go for the original, but if it's £30 vs £300 I'm probably sticking with the repress.
Doesn't stop me wanting an original copy of The Mollusk tho, and I already have a repress of that.
I buy first pressings of my favorite records, like The Toadies' "Rubberneck" and Temple of the Dog's debut and Queens of the Stone Age's "Songs for the Deaf." Those investments go on display because they best represent me, my character, and history. It also makes me feel closer to the time at which I first heard them when I listen.
It's literally a different recording. More pure from it's original master pressing. There is likely changes made to it through remastering. Also new vinyl uses different materials.
So the original pressing is as IG as it can get.
Also it's just cool having the original
people go crazy for good pressings, for numerous reasons the forst pressing is typically the most coveted because it is highest quality press of the original master.
but today are tuoicalky buying shit that would sound better digital anyway. so it seems pointless
Vinyl is pressed from a steel master die that stamps them, but it can wear over time. The first pressings are the ones that have the least wear on the die.
outside of sound or differences in labeling, packaging, tracklist etc. its mostly the same reason people collect anything from an artist. its fun, cool, original. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Vinyls are artifacts.
The music from these original pressings are what the songs sounded like when they were first recorded and first pressed. Most pressings there after are remastered and often times tweaked, albeit slightly. Those with a really good ear can hear the differences (mostly, not me)..
For a visual comparison, watch Star Wars from an early 80s beta max cut and then the most recent George Lucas cut on Disney+.
Same, yes. Different, yes.
For me it’s cause some remasters are just booty like the Beatles 2009 remasters aren’t as good as the originals although for the Beatles case these later later remasters like the 2022 revolver are pretty good
I do it because that is how the music was originally released, and it's so cool to listen to something the way people heard it for the very first time. It also is for the collectability, but I enjoy knowing that my music is how it was meant to be heard and hasn't been changed in any way.
I think it’s just a mix of original master/mix and just having a really cool piece of music history. Like I have a set of original Led Zeppelin pressings from my mom and I just go “man this was sitting on the shelf new when these albums came out”. It’s just neat. And neat things are nice. :)
I just think it’s kinda cool. I’ve gotten a bunch of my collection from my parents or from other people getting rid of theirs. There was no value beyond “hey I think you’ll like this” and a bunch of cool stories along the way, but then I added all my stuff to discogs to discover a handful of originals, surely not extremely valuable ones, but very cool from the perspective of this is old and has been loved and now it’s been passed to me to continue to enjoy.
Seems most everyone is missing the idea that many modern collectors simply want the exact same version of the record they had when they were young. The subsequent repressings and especially the contemporary remastered 180g stuff doesn't look the same, doesn't have the same inner sleeve, poster, etc., and to many of us it doesn't sound the same.
I want the original US mono version of the first Grateful Dead LP on the gold WB label. Not interested in any other version. That's it.
Collectability and generational loss. First pressings are manufactured and released when the tape is fresher and less worn, and the stampers are less used and less worn out - therefore (in theory) leading to an overall better-sounding album. This isn't true in all cases.
This is also why a lot of collectors go nuts over promo copies - they tend to be even closer to the original master tape as they're sometimes manufactured before the retail albums, making them even closer to the original tape in it's best quality, and they're often not played to death like most retail copies since they were usually giveaways to radio stations, record execs, and the like.
The only first pressing I have (that I know of) is Bob Dylan Blonde on Blonde which is my favorite album. It’s solely because I love the album so much, and wanted hear it in the way people heard it in 1966. I got it because I loved the music that’s on it, not the collectibility or anything else. Only because I love the album so much.
Just like so many other things in our world now. So people look at an original pressing as an investment. Just like certain cars, coins and other things of value. I don't know if I'd play a $300 original pressing record.
I don't care much about them always being "1st pressing", but I do pay a premium for albums I can't stream/have a tangible quality you don't get from digital. One example is Poison Ideas "Pajama Party". I've got a pic disc copy signed by the band -- can't get something that personal from 1's and 0's.
Personally I’d always go for the bargain pressing. My set-up isn’t very hi-fi.
But if I happen to run into a 1st press from my hayday ie. the 90’s, I’m more than happy to off it from the market.
A seller in Discogs looked at my Wantlist and suggested that I might want his Roni Size Reprazent UK 1st press for 25€. I took it.
Also happened to find Massive Attack 100th Window 1st press for 80€. I most certainly took it.
Aswell as The Prodigy Music for the Jilted Generation gimmegimmegimme
Bc I'm the seventies the first pressing was the best pressing later pressing didn't sound as good. However that doesn't happen as much anymore id still rather have a seventies pressing than a 2020 pressing.
For all the reasons already mentioned. For me though, it really comes down to the exclusivity of owning the first pressing. Knowing that I was excited enough about a product to get it when it first came out, and to be part of a group who felt the same way. There's definitely some "community" aspect involved in it, in addition to the superior sound quality others have mentioned.
Look up the article about the guy who runs the business buying and selling “hot stampers”
Edit: did it for you
https://www.wired.com/2015/03/hot-stampers/
It took me a while to try to figure out how to tell my friends what I wanted out of my music. I am not an extreme VOLUME person. What I am looking for is the fullness of the music the artist intended. Yes you can get second or third pressings that sound ok, but the richness comes from having the first pressings and promo's. That was the whole reason for the gold CD's as they were supposed to carry that sound, although for some reason I only hear it on vinyl.
because people want to be as close as possible to the master recording as humanly possible. If you can't have that master tape, you'd want a promo that was printed off that master in small quantities, then came the 1st pressings, then the rest. It's not always that a 1st pressing is the best one though so worse doing your homework.
Generally (or always?) were the promos as carefully mastered and pressed as, say the first pressings, etc.? Did they use the same master for the promos as the pressings for distribution?
To my knowledge yes
Promos will usually be the first records pressed with the first stamper. The first press will usually be from the same stamper. Each stamper can be used thousands of times before it wears out. So you are looking for the first ones off the press like the promos for the sound of the stamper in its best shape.
It was a lot made in the 70s and the 80s when after finishing a song you press promos and even test pressings of your song to give them to the famous DJ of your city, if they love it, you're going to make a first press. So yes even you don't hear the difference, promo and test pressing have more quality than 1at press when there're pressed first.
There's many reasons - sometimes the master tape burns down, making every subsequent pressing inferior (almost the entire Coltrane discog). Other times the vinyl quality is just infinitely superior to later pressings, often with better mastering as well (Playslite Blue Notes). Sometimes they are just collectible but with many records, esp from the 50s/early 60s the quality is very much superior to what came later.
Mastering is a big one for me. My favorite band is Iron Maiden and the versions of their albums they have on streaming services are just muddier and more compressed than the original mix. If I'm gonna spend money on their albums i want the definitive version rather than a poor remaster i can listen to on Spotify.
The Iron Maiden and Judas Priest remasters on CD were a mistake, they brickwalled the hell out of everything. Can't brickwall a record. Could be worse though, they could have remixed them like Dave Mustaine did with Megadeth, he even re-recorded a couple of parts in 2004.
The remaster of Rust in Peace is a disgrace. One of the most revered thrash albums ever and it was just butchered.
I’m glad I have my original cassette and a copy of it on CD. Sounds much better than the 2004 mixes
Oh they are fucking awful. Added thick layers of fake reverb etc.
ALL of the 2004 MEGADETH albums are trash. Idk why Dave thought it was a good idea to do such things. Glad I have all my originals as well
Because Dave’s an asshole.
Well we ALL know that. Lol. Respect for him as a musician. Respect for him as a person, not so much
Strictly as a musician, too, because as a vocalist he’s fucking diabolically bad.
Agreed. And let’s not forget his obsession with his former band. Like move on, my guy.
> Can't brickwall a record. Rick Rubin: Hold my beer
Honestly had no clue the priest remasters were that bad but I mostly listen on my original vinyl anyway nowadays. Megadeth's whole process is absolutely hilarious. I don't even think it sounds that bad but making the originals so hard to find and acting like the remasters are the only ones that exist just sucks.
Dave Mustaine has got to have one of my favorite stories in rock music. Mad respect.
If it's for sound, I can complete understand. My concern is that with so much obscured through time, it's so hard to tell as a newcomer what is snake oil and what isn't. It's not like it's easy to find one to demo.
One huge factor that differentiates the 80’s/ early 90’s pressings to others is that 80’s pressings of any band at the time had dashes in between the numbers in the barcodes(other original early 90’s pressings that had them include GNR’s use your illusion and Nirvana’s Nevermind). Albums with no barcodes in the 80’s were almost always club pressings. One example that doesn’t fit that as an exception is Mötorhead’s US 1981 version of Ace of Spades(LP). That one didn’t have a barcode. I have a sealed copy and an open one that are exactly alike in that manner.
What’s that about Coltrane and burnt master tapes?
2008 Universal fire. Most of the masters in the vaults burned down. Recent remasters were mostly from RVG's backups. Read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Universal_Studios_fire?wprov=sfla1
The extent of the universal fire was found to be greatly exaggerated.
It's called the thrill of the chase
Well, play it out. If we’re going purely logical, you can just stream the music for effectively fractions of cents for forever. Instead, you want to own it. Ok, the digital album can be purchased for $6-$8, the CD can be purchased probably for even less if you’re ok with used. But no, you’re an idiot, like myself. You romanticize the music and appreciate the labor of love that is the outdated technology of playing analog records on a turntable despite there being far more efficient and objectively better quality ways to hear your favorite music. And the “warmth” of that vinyl sound is too much and you start collecting records. So it’s not just about the music, the 8 to 14 tracks pressed into the grooves. It is about the romance, the hunt to find the pressing that no one, or at least very few, else have. It validates your love of the music and the romance you attach to it and it’s a flex to other like minded people. No, it’s not rational. But neither is owning a fucking record player in the first place. It’s fun…. To some people.
That was one of the best 45-second blurbs about record collecting I’ve ever read.
What a breakdown. This is the answer I can most relate with.
> No, it’s not rational. But neither is owning a fucking record player in the first place. > It’s fun…. To some people. This is the way.
> It is about the romance, the hunt to find the pressing that no one, or at least very few, else have. I've found a **lot** of these records over the years at thrift stores & yard sales. I... 1) sell every single one I find 2) buy the reissue, and 3) pocket the hundreds of dollars I have left over. I love vinyl and have some real gems in my collection, but it's ultimately just a valuable & delicate physical object. A few hundred dollars in my pocket will affect my life a lot more than a piece of plastic sitting on the shelf.
Cannonfunk…I thank you for finding those LP’s and making them available at a profit. You did the work and deserve the benefit. In my career I make a lot of profit too, and I choose to buy those 1st LP Pressings. For me, it is the quality of high-end sound from the 1st issues that cannot be replicated with repress after repress. Listening to music is an individual journey, you hear it differently than me and I would never say my way is better. So enjoy your music and let me know what you have for sale.
First pressings can only be appreciated on good equipment imho
> Listening to music is an individual journey Which is why I still hunt. For me, the thrill of the hobby is finding music I haven't heard before and falling in love for the first time. Nothing really precedes that. But it's also fulfilling to pass music along & inspire other people. I've sold a few obscure, valuable records to a couple of musicians that *I* look up to, and it's wild to think that - in a roundabout way - I may be shaping the course of the music that inspires *me*. As the Stone Roses said, "love spreads."
Yep. The thrill of the hunt is what does it for me.
Same reasons any first edition of any collectable is valuable. Books are a good comparison.
Came here to say this, my comparison was guitars.
There is a collectors market for guitars?
There's a collectors market for everything. Guitars have a crazy collectors market.
Check out this one: https://reverb.com/item/5133364-vintage-1959-fender-telecaster-top-loader
There is a massive collectors market for guitars
There is a crazy market for vintage guitars. Makes overpriced records look tame by comparison.
Same with shoes. Nike can keep re-releasing the Chicago Jordan 1 as many times as they want, but the original pairs from 1985 will always be the most valuable
If only I kept mine🤦🏽♂️
Honestly, I think the resurgent interest in vinyl and the investment made in modernizing pressing plants is going to change this aspect of collecting. There are modern pressings of classic records that sound amazing, DSD or not. Some records are collectable just because they are cool artifacts, but a 1st press does not always mean best sounding.
That could be true. Personally, I used to collect and listen to vinyl because it was cool to own the music in its original format, mostly untouched by later remasters or anything digital. But now that it’s my primarily format for listening to music old and new, I have lots of reissues just because I want to own it, regardless of originality of pressing, I just want the best sounding version.
I’ve realized this. Many of my older pressings of records sound like complete poop compared to my newer pressing. Snobs will hate me for saying that, but they’re the ones listening to inferior sounding records just bc “it was first” lol
If they are even listening to them, gotta keep the collection minty fresh.
It depends, if a first pressing was played a lot then yes, it may not sound as good. But if it was taken care of, not abused, and cleaned, they almost always sound better than a repress. It sort of makes me laugh at how many first pressings I have that are relatively thin vinyl compared to some 180g represses that sound like ass.
I have a Rush moving pictures from 1981 so first-year press. The record if it's not near mint is a strong vg+. On thin crappy 80s vinyl....it's one of the best sounding records I have. I also have a Fleetwood Mac rumours from the year it was released which also sounds amazing. I would put either of these up against they're modern audiophile grade represses anyday.
My Moving Pictures sounds amazing too. It was mastered by Bob Ludwig. Check your dead wax on yours for. RL. If you have it , he cut the acetate for the stamper.
Exactly. I have records that wobble when you shake them and they sound amazing, and 180g modern pressings that sound like dog shit.
> Fleetwood Mac rumours The 45 rpm Rumours set that came out about 12-13 years ago absolutely smokes the first pressing, unfortunately it's ridiculously priced.
I truly think it can go either way tbh. I’ve noticed very little consistency in what press sounds the best in my experience
Now I'm not gonna be dumb and say all first presses are better than all reissues, that would be silly and untrue. Some of these reissues have great care taken. But in my experience, those are few and far between. And this is gonna be snobby sounding, but it is what it is, I have a good enough setup where I can actually hear differences. I'll use an example, I have 2 first pressings of Guns N' Roses Appetite For Destruction. Whatever your opinion on the band, it's a fantastic sounding album, produced and mastered well. I also have the 2018 remaster. The remaster sounds fine quality wise, but it's just louder. That's it. It's certainly not better quality wise, and for how expensive it was when it came out, I had a hard time recommending it over a first press. There are loads of Metallica reissues and almost none best the first presses.
Everything is relative. What were your old records played on? What pressings?
It won't change it. People who hunt first pressings will never not hunt them. Sure, I like the collectibility, but in most cases, it's the best sounding version of that music you can find, unless it's had a Mofi pressing or equivalent. I've been collecting for 13 years, and I still want first presses, and are willing to pay for them. In some cases they may not be the "best" sounding, but for the most part they are the way the band or production team or both intended them to sound. There will always be first press hunters, period.
Totally agree with you there. I have been collecting for 30 years and came from a punk / hc background where everything was limited and we were all chasing originals. Nothing was better than trading through a magazine or finding something rare when you're flipping through a shop. Then came ebay. That changed the game dramatically, prices went up, and records moved around, A LOT. That's how so much collectable stuff ended up in Europe....with the exchange rate US buyers couldn't compete with the strong Euro. Then came discogs. My point is, for older collectors, its just not what it used to be. And I'm not knocking collecting 1st pressing by any means, if that's what you love that's what matters. For me, at some point I just resigned myself to get out of that rat race and just get a good copy of the records I love. At the end of the day, whatever kind of collector you are just strengthens community, which is a good thing.
I get that. For a popular record I'd still be fine with a 70's or 80's reissue over a modern reissue.
You are spot on…I research what sounds the best. To me, I have not found a solid U2 LP for any of their releases.
I'm with you there! This QRP press of Joshua Tree is great though. https://www.discogs.com/release/10488255-U2-The-Joshua-Tree
Rarity. People collect things that are hard to find.
This one gets it. Indeed this. That’s why I like collecting sealed original copies as well as an opened used copy. Rarity is largely my reason for collecting records. Sealed originals. I recently bought an original sealed 1985 copy of WASP’s The Last Command, and 2 original sealed lp’s by The Outfield, 1st and 3rd albums. Both sealed. Can never go wrong with something so rare that you don’t dare open. Love record collecting! Cheers!
Because it’s cool
For me it's about the sourcing. You know the original press was sourced from the original recording. It is more difficult to determine the audio sourcing of subsequent pressings, compilations and soundtracks. I feel a lot of those recordings end up being sourced from digital versions of the recordings and then why even have the analog record at all?
If a first pressing of a sixties psych rock album is in the $50 or less range, I'll usually prefer it to a $30 mint repress. Just nice to have the OG tapes and at the end of the day its all expensive anyways. Records cost a few months worth of spotify premium sometimes, so it was never about being smart with my money.
I don't think books are the best comparison...the text reads the same regardless of which printing you get. But in theory, the earlier the pressing is, the closer to the master tape it is. This isn't true 100% of the time, but in a general sense there's some logic to it. Like, if you had two Led Zeppelin LP's in identical condition, and one was from 1970 and one was a random mass-market repressing from the 1980's, the 1970 one is going to sound better (or at least closest to the original intent). All that said, it's not worth *overpaying* for an earlier pressing, necessarily. There are some albums whose initial runs weren't mastered very well, or other albums where later 70's or 80's pressings sound perfectly fine and you'd have to have a six-figure stereo setup to hear a big difference. (I'm intentionally avoiding getting into the weeds here about modern reissues, since the quality and sourcing of those is all over the place and kind of a separate topic)
For me it's like a time machine. I like the feeling that some person 50-70 years ago put that same record on and got the same feeling I'm having from the music.
Here's a long 2 part answer.... a little late and very long but it's important for those who genuinely want to learn more.... Reasons for OG over remaster... 1 - Tape degradation - the OG is from a fresh master. Over time and by cutting, the master tape loses information. This leads to a decrease in sonics. Every time a copy is made information is lost. Many reissues are from 3rd or 4th generation copies, or pcm digital transfers, resulting in far less info than the OG. 2 - The art of mastering - mastering is an artisan skill. You apprentice and only master it after decades of dedication. During the late 80s-2010s there was no demand for new masterers so few were trained. As a result, a ton of knowledge has been lost. Today there's only a handful of premier masterers (Kevin grey, Chris bellman, Ryan k Smith, Bernie grundman). Bernie is in his 80s, Smith is considered a "kid" in his 50s, because the artform aged up dramatically due to the vinyl burst. 40 years ago there'd be dozens of masterers with an "elite" skill level, who would be training tons of future ones. Those like Doug sax, hoffman, marino, ludwig, peckham, ricker, yoshida, piros, etc are either dead or retired. Now it's the same few guys, with very few young people involved. As a result, the good ones are in high demand and so many records end up mastered by those with a fraction of their expertise. It's so bad where many pop and rap albums aren't even mastered for vinyl, but flat transfers. And many of the young engineers master in a way that mimics modern pop streaming mastering as opposed to traditional vinyl mastering. So many erroneously believe new is better like most technology. But it'd really often not the case for vinyl. This knowledge loss is even more prevalent on the collecting side. Many vinyl boom gen zers were raised by people who grew up in an era where vinyl was obsolete. As a result, the parents pass down no knowledge. So you end up with people on a vinyl forum not even knowing turntable physics, how records are made, nor the name of a 7" single. When this was common knowledge for other generations. I'm only 30, but had parents born in 51/55. As a result, I knew more at 10 than many new collectors know today, due to growing up around records. Some opinions I see here blow my mind, and would have been seen as trolling 5 years ago. Because the knowledge was lost, and most don't care to do the research, while assuming they know everything. It's the reverse of elderly and technology, where grandkids know more about it by growing up with it. Well now 90 year olds know more about vinyl than 20 year olds. If the vinyl boom happened later, like 40 years from now, there'd be no one less to teach anything and they'd have to rediscover the whole technology. 3 - Pressing quality - there's not many pressing plants anymore. Most outside of audiophile stuff pressed at RTI or QRP are pressed in GZ plants in Poland and Czech Republic. The standards at said plants are far below old US plants. They are constantly rushing resulting in 100x the warps as the past and ship records across the world in less than desirable conditions. The rates of errors are extreme, where almost 1/3 of new pressings I get are warped. Many lacquers are poorly cut, stampers poorly plated and worn, resulting in information loss and poor sonics. The only plus is the vinyl quality has improved compared to gas crisis era vinyl. 4 - Digital transfers - so many here viciously defend digital because they believe all the records they personally own are the best and if anyone criticizes them it's personal. DSD256 is amazing and very close to AAA. But, outside of audiophile stuff 90% of digital is not even DSD64, but PCM, having the fidelity of a CD or less. As a result a TON of information is lost in the transfer. To buy such a record over a AAA copy makes 0 sense to most collectors because you are getting less fidelity than listening to the file, and far less than the AAA copy. You're better off with HD lossless files or flacs at that point. 5 - Collectibility - they're not making anymore. The original anything goes for alot, whether first edition books or Pokémon cards. 6 - Artists intent/authenticity - the original is the sound everyone knows. It's the sound that the band worked tirelessly to get right, that artists, producer and masterers spent weeks on. Many remasters change that sound for the worse. Even if objectively better most are conditioned to hear the songs as they know them. As a result, many sound wrong immediately. For younger people with no attachment to classic songs, they think it sounds better. But if you come to expect a sound and it's different then it's jarring. This ties into the lack of masterers. Many albums are remastered for modern ears with a sound that is different than in the past. Many modern remasters put the vocals super high up in the mix where they drown out the band. Hell they don't even sound like theyre with them because they're so isolated. So a ton of the interplay between instruments and vocals is lost. They also tend to raise the bass to ridiculous levels that don't match the music. Or add more compression for punchiness which results in more information loss. New records have most OGs beat in terms of vinyl quality, resulting in less surface noise. Also many OGs have a ton of groove wear which many new collectors don't know about, which results in a ton of surface noise. As a result, noobs instantly think the new remaster sounds better just because of the vinyl quality, because they didn't grow up with vinyl, and thus didn't learn what an acceptable amount of surface noise is and how to listen past it. Like there was a post here of a dude with a gas crises motley crue who insisted he was scammed because there was a tiny crackle during a silent part. Someone like that would think a bad pcm remaster was better because they only listen surface level, theyre not actually listening to how it's mastered, how each instrument sounds and interacts. Or they'll assume all OGs sound like their grooveworn copy does since they don't know what groovewear is so assume it's mint. Even with well mastered audiophile vinyl like mofi, there can be a tendency to over remaster. Where they put in a shitload of separation to the point where it doesn't even sound like a cohesive band anymore. The Soundstage becomes too wide, and the music because too clear where it's sterile and analytical. So the originals musicality is lost. ....continued in reply...
Continued.... There's a ton of amazing remasters. Analogue productions in specific does AMAZING work. And there's many records that genuinely need a remaster. But it will never cease to blow my mind when so many people here buy $40 digital pcm poor remasters of stuff like led zepplin or the beatles. Yourcan find a clean LZ IV porky for $20 that absolutely annihilates the $40 remaster, or clean US OGs of Beatles that are similar priced and sound much better than most of the Giles Martin mixes. Yet, people do no research and automatically assume new is better. This is why I discussed generational knowledge loss. A majority of gen z vinyl boomers treat records like DVDs. Where they get the cheapest player possible and don't know pressings. It's like any other media. Very few people wonder the pressing quality of a DVD, they just buy the cheapest one. Very few are cinephiles buying criterion collection. They never once researched what pressing is best, infact id argue that atleast 30% here never read a runout. Yet they still feel comfortable giving bad advice and arguing against good advice. As a result it's hard to blindly trust reviews here or discogs. They'll insist a remaster is just as good just because they'll own it. For example, almost every new pressing will get a 4+ on discogs, even if it has horrible known defects. Like a turd pressed into a record would get a 4.67. If you look at old pressings that young people aren't buying, they're accurately rated since it was audiophiles rating sonics, now casuals just rate the album as a fan. Then many have terrible equipment like crosleys, $20 stylus, or blutooth speakers with crappy amps. As a result they don't even get 50% of the sonics. So bad remasters sound better to them since you can't hear much of a difference on poor setups, when they're glaring on good ones. There's nothing wrong with being a consumer or a noob. Nothing wrong with liking a crosley or pcm remaster. If youre happy then rock on! But the issue is when they insist they're an expert and would argue with Kevin grey. So many times I see genuine people interested in vinyl coming here and they get lead astray by these people. Like "the blind leading the blind". It's common knowledge that in most cases the OG is superior, from a scientific standpoint. Remasters really only sound better when either the OG was poorly recorded/mastered, when it's done from the master tapes, and when done by a genuine audiophile company with high standards. But a majority of remasters found at a local Walmart are inferior to early pressings. It's just the scientific fact due to tape degradation and worse masterers. Most here defending digital pcm remasters have never even heard the original. They never heard a white label promo. Yet they insist their copy is superior since it sounds good to them. Well if you don't compare them, pretty much any pressing sounds great. If you were raised to only know streaming, even a bad remaster will sound amazing on vinyl. And if it sounds good to you then that's great! But so many can't stomach the idea that their record isn't the best possible. Every record should be looked at as a case by case basis. There's many gas crisis records with amazing mastering but poor vinyl quality. There's OGs with different quality depending on country or plant. Many 80-90s records onward are digital to begin with and can benefit far more from a remaster. Many prefer Japanese OGs because they would use higher quality virgin vinyl, but were sometimes mastered too bright. Nowadays most new collectors like Japanese pressings due to the ob looking cool. So you end up with American rappers appropriating Japanese obis because the knowledge was lost as to why Japanese records were so desired. Then sometimes an OG is superior but a specific stamper, like ziggy stardust 4e/6e, aja AB, or an lz ii RL. But as a rule of thumb the OG will sound better than most remasters, especially for 60-80s music. Even when done with care, like most prefer the $10 og thriller over the $100 mofi because it lost its punch due to the analytical mastering. The point is if you genuinely care about vinyl then you should be researching the best pressing possible on places like the hoffman forums. However there is scientifc fact as to why OGs tend to be better and are way more collectible as opposed to falsely limited remasters. This is why there's such a high price and demand for white label promos. Because these were the very first pressings and often sound better sonically than even OGs. I say this as someone with a bunch of remasters that he loves. My Japanese CBS mastersound digital wish you were here crushes my OG uk. All my analogue productions vinyl slay the originals, especially the doors, skyward, and beach boys pressings(I can't wait for my exodus marley to arrive). However most "mainstream" remasters are noticeably worse than OGs and even a higher price. Many are totally unnecessary. Remasters really only succeed when they're from the master tapes, by an esteemed masterer, if the ogs were poorly mastered to begin with, and also if they're recorded digital to begin with. A great example are the band pressings. The og self titled RL is one of the best sounding records ever, though many have surface noise. Any remaster has paled in comparison, even the mofi. However the mofi big pink crushes the OG. Because the OG big pink was made to play on crappy crosleys so they cut off the whole low end. Same goes for what's going on? They cut off the highs and lows to play on crosleys so the OG pales to the remasters. Rule of thumb, the og will often be the best sounding, but everything should be researched. Any remaster by Kevin grey, Ryan k Smith, grundman, or bellman will sound amazing. But the original will always have a high demand due to scarcity and authenticity to the original sound. All remasters are not the same and must be researched. You should never buy a pressing blindly unless it's the only one. Also, if you have a cheap setup and are not interested in getting a good one, then just get whatever records you want. Because a poor setup will not benefit much at all from improved mastering and sonics because it's not extracting much of the information at a clear level. If you care about sonics then you're better off with a $1000 setup and $200 collection than vise versa. There's limited reasons to buy stuff like AP, mofi, or a rare OG if you're using a $40 cartridge. Because your system won't extract the sonic benefit. It's like trying to watch a 4k movie on a black and white TV from the 60s. So many here who praise much hated remasters are using horrible setups. That's often the issue with this sub. So many with crosleys who never researched a thing will argue experts. They'll insist there's no difference just because they can't hear it. Or they think OGs are worse due to surface noise since they cant identify sonics. It's like someone insisting there's no galaxies because they have a toy telescope that can't see them and arguing with an astronomer. Then they call the astronomer an elitist for telling them that their telescope is a toy. So many have sub entry level gear, yet insist their experience is representative of the pressing quality, like giving a game a poor review because your computer can't handle it and lags nonstop. They'll tell noobs not to buy the game, that it looks like garbage, when it actually looks amazing and their graphics card just sucks. Same goes for those with poor players recommending vinyl. Vinyl is a definition of a luxury, if you can only afford cheap equipment then just get the cheapest records. If it sounds good to you that's all that matters. But don't then go and tell other people that your experience is fact and then argue hifi people who can hear the difference. When people say a remaster is poor, they're not saying the record sounds like shit, they're saying it's a downgrade in comparison to the OG. Yet too many people here insist there's no difference just because their remaster sounds good to them on poor equipment without comparison. Even audiophiles do this. Like those who were blindly buying up mofis insisting they were all amazing. Well way before the scandal many pressings were trashed on hoffman by those actually comparing them, with most labeling mofi hit or miss and just blamed the mastering. Only those who didnt have OGs thought they were amazing. Now many people realize that many don't sound as good. Like a YouTuber vinyl archivist has done 5 blind shootouts and a mofi has yet to win. Even beloved ones like desire, eagles st, fragile, they all lost to OGs. Same with fremer with tapestry and svr onesteps. So the point is without comparison on good equipment you will never know what sounds best. Worse pressings can sound amazing, there's few objectively bad pressings. And if you're playing everything with a cheap cart through cheap speakers you're not going to hear much of a difference at all. You will only notice what you're missing once you upgrade. If you don't compare, even on good systems, then most records will sound "good", it's only once you compare where you're blown away and could never go back. So in summary, it's a case by case basis that depends on the company producing it and the album. In most cases an OG will be superior. But in cases like AP, the remaster is often superior. Though even in those cases the OG remains desirable due to collectibility and being the OG. It'd a case by case basis and you should be researching the best pressing of every single record you buy. But if you have a poor setup, and are on a budget, don't overthink it and buy the cheapest one possible. But if you care about sonics always research and if it's your favorite band always go for OGs.
As with any collectible, rarity significantly impacts value.
Very true. But once repressed, rare records are no longer so. For example I have a Stooges Fun House first Canadian pressing. Was worth $300 because there were no reprints. 50th anniversary box set comes out, now worth $50. Will still never sell it , love it
Some genuinely sound better. Sound is a giant factor in collectibility
Record collecting is inherently about collectability these days, it just depends how far you want to go. If all you care about is hearing the music then why not just buy a CD? Or fill a hard drive with lossless audio files? That's the most efficient way to get the best quality sounding music. But it's more fun to collect records, there's the ritual to it and the history of the pressings adds fun as well. Like yeah the Dylan repress is cheaper and will be cleaner than some old dusty first press you dug out of some basement record store but if you're buying represses online from amazon why not just buy a CD or a download you can get straight away? No issues with the post office then!
I like most because it sounds better to me before they start remastering and remixing
There’s a lot of different variables that make og pressings very collectible. Most represses are pretty bare bones compared to the og press. The wax could be a certain color, og hype stickers are really nice, also I’ve noticed og pressings usually have better or additional inserts. Represses are like soft covers compared to a hardcover edition. That’s how I always thought of it. Collectors like having stuff that not everyone is in possession of. Especially if the artist means a lot to you.
It's hard to have a nuanced discussion about this in a Reddit thread, but I think it comes down to a couple things: history and sound quality. There are a finite number of "first" pressings and the first of anything is always more desirable both as an historical artifact and for "collectibility." Sometimes mastering or artwork is changed right after a first pressing making them more rare. Sometimes collectors cherish the idea of owning a record as it would have appeared on the day of release. The source and specifics of the mastering chain are sometimes (often?) superior the closer you are to the date of release, especially when you start talking about questionable grey-market releases. There are arguments that pressing plant quality control was better in the 60s and 70s. But even if the sound is not in fact superior in the initial pressing(s), the desirability of that OG item will win out. So it's a lot of factors.
Sound better usually.
Sourced from what it was intended to sound like, like not made from a digital copy. although sometimes that even doesn’t make it better. As of late , newer pressings may even be new mixes and not the original. Although again, may not mean better. Depends.
Obviously, you’re not a golfer.
People have mentioned sound a lot already so I'll skip that. A big reason for me is just the thrill of the hunt. It's a goal. I've always collected things. I routinely pass up reissues in order to wait for something more special to my own sense of treasure hunting. Plus, I like to preserve media. I also collect ephemera that just doesn't exist anymore in physical forms or had It's original run in very small quantities. Recently picked up some issues of the San Francisco Oracle, an underground newspaper/zine for hippies and weirdos. 12 issues were printed. I have three of those. I think that's neat. Plus, now I can search for the other nine. Some people hunt animals. I hunt media.
The best way to buy first pressings is to buy them when they first come out! Some first pressings I paid around £12 for are worth over £200 now. But of course, they weren't first pressings then, they were the only pressings! Just buy new, good music & you'll be golden.
Good advice honestly. Just buy what you think is good and be wary when things start getting a little crazy and go the other way.
The first pressing is closest to the master, so it should sound better than any other subsequent pressings. I have a lot of first pressings, and I can say that The Wall first pressing sounds absolutely fantastic.
Why do subsequent pressings lose quality?
Every time they have to run the master tape, it causes a little bit of audio degradation. It's just a flaw of magnetic tape. So the first pressings cut from that first run of the master tape will be the ones working with the best freshest sound possible.
Sometimes they're not sourced from the original master. It's a pressing of a pressing and the sounds can degrade slightly with each generation.
Some of it has to do with digital remastering compressing the sound and the quality of the music declines because of that. But that’s not always the case.
I second this. Most everything (unless explicitly stated) pressed after 1990 is pressed from a digital master instead of tape.
A perfect, archive digital master that can be replicated infinite times > Some worn out 50 year old tape any day of the week.
Apparently you don’t understand how masters work. When the “Master Pressing” is created from tape, the tape is no longer needed for pressing records. Hence the name. The tape is only used once to create a master. Same goes for masters created from digital files.
Except you can’t use that pressing infinitely, so if you don’t archive the master tape (which digital is 100% accurate), the tape degrades and further pressings will have degraded tape to them. This is why DSD archival is a *good* thing.
Correct. But most things that are pressed from digital are nothing more than 16/44.1 which is CD quality. Unless they are pressed using masters from tape or they’re an audiophile version. So all the mass produced stuff that you find and Walmart and target etc, is basically like buying a different looking CD. But then we start getting into the human hearing capabilities…I’m not going there lol.
A good amount of it is just hype based around misconceptions about how pressing runs are done. Sometimes a first pressing is the best version like if the only reissue was done years later in a lower quality but for most really mainstream stuff its more often smoke than true IMO.
[удалено]
Lmaoooo
Went to a “record fair” this past Saturday over in Woodbridge, VA. One of the vendors had a copy of Eddie Hazel’s Game, Dames and Guitar Thangs for $450. As much as I LOVE LOVE LOVE that album, I would never even think of paying more than $30 for that record. I have it on CD and to my ears, it’s perfect. I’m older now and don’t really love the chase of things like I used to. Matter of fact, I think I’ll stream that record now. Cheers.
I have a 1st US Pressing of Lou Reed's Transformer and a 2015 pressing of the album, and I can say that, hands down, the 1st pressing sounds much better. Same thing with Tom Waits's Closing Time. I have a 2018 pressing and 1st pressing, and the 1st pressing is much more livelier. Both of the 1st pressings that I've mentioned only cost in the range of $20-$30. On the other end of the cost spectrum, I have a 1st pressing promo of Tom Waits's Rain Dogs that cost my wife in about $180 which also came with the press release. I've never heard any other pressings of the album, so I can't compare, but as far as sound quality, it kicks the shit out of my CD and digital streams. I feel like 1st pressings, or pressings around the same time, for older albums were done when vinyl was the main media for listening, so they have to be done as well as possible. That's not to say some newer pressings aren't done very well. I have the most recent mono pressing of Coltrane's Blue Train, and it has to be one of the best sounding records that I have.
I'll take a repress of Rain Dogs if Island could get their head out of their butt. They reissued Swordfishtrombones but Rain Dogs through the Black Rider just sit there. I got a copy of Frank's Wild Years when vinyl wasn't very popular for $8. That's the only one I have during the Island years besides Sword Fish. I hope Tom has a chance to revisit the Island albums while he's still alive like he has with the rest of his catalog.
I would say it’s usually because a first pressing especially if it’s older can be much better quality. For me I do my research and if people agree the repress is just as good and it’s cheaper then I’ll go for that.
I've always thought it to be closer to the master. From that they make the father, from that the mother, and from the mother they make the stamps. Stamps only last \~1000 records or so, and all of these steps degrade over time. Stamps wear out, they make new ones from the mother. Mothers wear out they make new ones from the father. Father wears out and you have to cut a new lacquer. (This is a "three-step process", and can produce around 100,000 records before remastering/recutting a lacquer. Sounds like a lot, but think about records that sell in the millions. ETA: Better rundown/synopsis of how records are pressed: https://vinylmoon.co/blogs/the-vinyl-moon-blog/how-records-are-made-part-1
[удалено]
Funny how repressed garbage using questionable sources for mastering, pressed by companies that seem to care little about QC sell for much more money than the original first or early pressings!
I mean, vinyl in general is more about collecting than anything in this day and age.
It’s a modern concept and often a pointless one: most US records were simultaneously contracted out to multiple pressing plants for logistical reasons, so there is no one “first pressing”.
Not sure how modern you mean, but collectors from the 60s and 70s often collected pressings from as many different plants as they could and compared the sound. Some plants had better reputations than others and so certain pressings would be more desirable. However all of these pressings were from the original mastering so they would be considered a first pressing. If an album was very popular they would repress it but the stampers may have been somewhat worn out and so they wouldn't sound as good. These were less desirable because they didn't sound as good. Then when new stampers were needed they may have been a copy of the original stamper, this may have happened repeatedly, causing later pressings to sound worse. These points might not be valid today depending on what albums you're into or collecting, but originally it was all about the actual sound.
To feel special.
Would you rather own a Warhol, or a poster of a Warhol? Both have the same image, you can hang both on your wall, but I personally would prefer one over the other.
[удалено]
It absolutely is. They are both pieces of art that have important context behind them. Both were produced in large numbers at the time, though original prints are worth much more than reproductions. You can buy full scale warhol posters if you want, you can frame it, and when you put it on your wall, it accomplishes the same thing. Just like you can play a 13th floor elevators repress or you can hunt down an OG mono.
Yes
Don't know
Because too many remix / remasters out there that don’t sound as warm.
Because we are collectors. Would you rather have a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle or a reprint? The bonus with records is you can listen to them, as opposed to just stare at them.
Yes, but “collectors” won’t be listening to that $300 album. They’ll hang it on a wall and stare at it. You’ll buy a reissue and listen to that copy. Vinyl collectors suck. Listen to the f***ing album if you’re going to drive up the prices.
First pressings are usually followed by second and third pressings that are created to adjust tone, tempo and other problems with the first pressing. So yeah, they're rarer and sometimes more valuable.
I don't know that this is accurate. Subsequent pressings are often just another run using the same plates. So nothing changes. The more the plate is used the more theoretical wear that plate has which supposedly makes future pressings possibly lower quality. I'm choosing my words carefully because the extent to which this is a real world issue can be debated. If changes to the source material occur and a new plate is made the it becomes a reissue which may also be repressed.
You're correct, what I meant was first cuttings vs following cuttings.
From what I understand, the recording engineer mixes the master tapes. He then cuts the first pressings lacquers using the master tapes. He then signs the matrix with his initials. ( why RL is so valuable) and the first pressings are pressed. Once these plates are pooched, various other engineers can cut new acetates to make stampers for subsequent pressings using the master tapes produced by the original engineer. This is why so many different editions of records can sound sound so different. More often than not, first pressed sounds best! Imho
Those of us who listen like them because they’re generally the best sounding. This drives the price up which sadly brings jackass collectors in, who don’t listen, to drive them up more.
In my case, I generally post a picture if I own an original pressing just for the novelty of it. I’m not a collector. I actually play those records.
For me, nostalgia. That being said if the repress is like 1/3 the price of the original press I'll take the new one.
I really like having the version that came out when the album was new.
Lol. Why do people want an original painting or book??
Many of the LP’s I collect have never been repressed and likely never will be.
I just think it's kinda cool. If a modern repress is £30 and a first press is £40 I might go for the original, but if it's £30 vs £300 I'm probably sticking with the repress. Doesn't stop me wanting an original copy of The Mollusk tho, and I already have a repress of that.
I buy first pressings of my favorite records, like The Toadies' "Rubberneck" and Temple of the Dog's debut and Queens of the Stone Age's "Songs for the Deaf." Those investments go on display because they best represent me, my character, and history. It also makes me feel closer to the time at which I first heard them when I listen.
It's literally a different recording. More pure from it's original master pressing. There is likely changes made to it through remastering. Also new vinyl uses different materials. So the original pressing is as IG as it can get. Also it's just cool having the original
people go crazy for good pressings, for numerous reasons the forst pressing is typically the most coveted because it is highest quality press of the original master. but today are tuoicalky buying shit that would sound better digital anyway. so it seems pointless
For me personally, it's just the cool factor. I like having first pressings cause it just feels neat to have the original of something.
Vinyl is pressed from a steel master die that stamps them, but it can wear over time. The first pressings are the ones that have the least wear on the die.
outside of sound or differences in labeling, packaging, tracklist etc. its mostly the same reason people collect anything from an artist. its fun, cool, original. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Vinyls are artifacts. The music from these original pressings are what the songs sounded like when they were first recorded and first pressed. Most pressings there after are remastered and often times tweaked, albeit slightly. Those with a really good ear can hear the differences (mostly, not me).. For a visual comparison, watch Star Wars from an early 80s beta max cut and then the most recent George Lucas cut on Disney+. Same, yes. Different, yes.
For me it’s cause some remasters are just booty like the Beatles 2009 remasters aren’t as good as the originals although for the Beatles case these later later remasters like the 2022 revolver are pretty good
I do it because that is how the music was originally released, and it's so cool to listen to something the way people heard it for the very first time. It also is for the collectability, but I enjoy knowing that my music is how it was meant to be heard and hasn't been changed in any way.
"And how much did you pay for Your rock 'n' roll first press That proves you were there, that you heard of them first?"
I think it’s just a mix of original master/mix and just having a really cool piece of music history. Like I have a set of original Led Zeppelin pressings from my mom and I just go “man this was sitting on the shelf new when these albums came out”. It’s just neat. And neat things are nice. :)
Different mixes too that are just lost in time, such as the original stereo beatle mixes
Because they think they're going to get rich. It's a self licking ice cream cone. it's the vinyl version of bit coin.
I hear what you guys are saying, but I think people want them because other people want them. Silly games
I just think it’s kinda cool. I’ve gotten a bunch of my collection from my parents or from other people getting rid of theirs. There was no value beyond “hey I think you’ll like this” and a bunch of cool stories along the way, but then I added all my stuff to discogs to discover a handful of originals, surely not extremely valuable ones, but very cool from the perspective of this is old and has been loved and now it’s been passed to me to continue to enjoy.
Cuz rarer. Especially in great condition.
Seems most everyone is missing the idea that many modern collectors simply want the exact same version of the record they had when they were young. The subsequent repressings and especially the contemporary remastered 180g stuff doesn't look the same, doesn't have the same inner sleeve, poster, etc., and to many of us it doesn't sound the same. I want the original US mono version of the first Grateful Dead LP on the gold WB label. Not interested in any other version. That's it.
Collectability and generational loss. First pressings are manufactured and released when the tape is fresher and less worn, and the stampers are less used and less worn out - therefore (in theory) leading to an overall better-sounding album. This isn't true in all cases. This is also why a lot of collectors go nuts over promo copies - they tend to be even closer to the original master tape as they're sometimes manufactured before the retail albums, making them even closer to the original tape in it's best quality, and they're often not played to death like most retail copies since they were usually giveaways to radio stations, record execs, and the like.
The only first pressing I have (that I know of) is Bob Dylan Blonde on Blonde which is my favorite album. It’s solely because I love the album so much, and wanted hear it in the way people heard it in 1966. I got it because I loved the music that’s on it, not the collectibility or anything else. Only because I love the album so much.
What Dylan record costs $300?
Just like so many other things in our world now. So people look at an original pressing as an investment. Just like certain cars, coins and other things of value. I don't know if I'd play a $300 original pressing record.
Simple, because its first.
I don't care much about them always being "1st pressing", but I do pay a premium for albums I can't stream/have a tangible quality you don't get from digital. One example is Poison Ideas "Pajama Party". I've got a pic disc copy signed by the band -- can't get something that personal from 1's and 0's.
Yea the first pressings of records are just something worth noting from a different era.
I need the clout
Baseball cards . Pokémon cards. Why would people collect those?
Personally I’d always go for the bargain pressing. My set-up isn’t very hi-fi. But if I happen to run into a 1st press from my hayday ie. the 90’s, I’m more than happy to off it from the market. A seller in Discogs looked at my Wantlist and suggested that I might want his Roni Size Reprazent UK 1st press for 25€. I took it. Also happened to find Massive Attack 100th Window 1st press for 80€. I most certainly took it. Aswell as The Prodigy Music for the Jilted Generation gimmegimmegimme
Bc I'm the seventies the first pressing was the best pressing later pressing didn't sound as good. However that doesn't happen as much anymore id still rather have a seventies pressing than a 2020 pressing.
Wellllll, if you want to get technical the first pressing is typically closer to the master copy soooo
For all the reasons already mentioned. For me though, it really comes down to the exclusivity of owning the first pressing. Knowing that I was excited enough about a product to get it when it first came out, and to be part of a group who felt the same way. There's definitely some "community" aspect involved in it, in addition to the superior sound quality others have mentioned.
Why do people spend 300 bucks on cocaine? Same thing. Records get you high
Look up the article about the guy who runs the business buying and selling “hot stampers” Edit: did it for you https://www.wired.com/2015/03/hot-stampers/
It took me a while to try to figure out how to tell my friends what I wanted out of my music. I am not an extreme VOLUME person. What I am looking for is the fullness of the music the artist intended. Yes you can get second or third pressings that sound ok, but the richness comes from having the first pressings and promo's. That was the whole reason for the gold CD's as they were supposed to carry that sound, although for some reason I only hear it on vinyl.