The majority of these audiophiles Pressings are dead, awful and a waste of time for a listener. I think, these are made for review believers and for those they are ok. I know a lot of wealthy Audiophiles, they don't care for anything. They feel absolutely no pain (when it is expensive enough).
Your example with Chesky: These are an exception, very seriously made, same with the first batch of Classic Records LSC (and their 4 Mercuries).
To be honest people think a reviewer just throws the album on the platter and away we go.Sometimes you have to adjust the vta of your tonearm,sometimes the azimuth angle of the cartridge to get things just right. You have albums in your collection that you think sound great but by god if you have a turntable that you can make adjustments then your only scratching the surface.
I remember someone coming on here saying their copy of MCA heavy vinyl pressing of Who's Next sucked,said Daltry sounded like he was singing in the basement. I remember telling the poster to adjust the VTA to take into the increased thickness of the vinyl and Bam, Daltry was in the hallway,front and center.
Warning: Major Rant ahead!
Don't get me started... I have wanted to believe the reviews, but like you, I've spent too much time and money shopping for, cleaning, playing and almost always screaming bloody murder at those liars who betrayed my trust, again. The new Beatles' LPs can't touch my old garage sale pressings, in fact, there are so few exceptions that it's almost a given that a new pressing will pale in comparison to even a second or third pressing from way back, let alone the originals. This is not system dependent. Comparing any two pressings of the same LP on the same system is a valid way to discern the better of the two.
And what about deceptive wording by the record labels? "Mastered by Joe Shmo from the original Analog tape!" What they're not saying is that they killed it. All they had to to was reissue the LP, insuring they made it the best pressing possible and not to F*** with the sound. But no, these deaf technicians have to make it "better" by digitally remastering a perfectly good recording and then trying to hide the fact that they did that so we would buy it.
Here's what's going to happen: over the next few years, vinyl in its pure AAA analogue form will win the hearts and ears of the thousands of newly converted turntable buyers... How? Eventually, they will stumble upon a good 30 year old original pressing of an LP for $0.25 at a garage sale, which they also just bought as a reissued 180g new pressing. They will compare it to the new, heavyweight vinyl, digitally remastered $50 version of the same album and they will be stunned. Game over.
Soon, the buyers will speak their disgust with their dollars, and record companies will stop trying to deceive us with sneaky misleading language. Shame on them. Just give people what they want and stop trying to trick us! By the time the needle hits the groove it's too late, $50 down the digital drain.
As for exceptions in the new category: Shelby Lynne doing Dusty Springfield (get the AAA version, not the AAD), Anything Chesky is usually great, Both LPs from Bob Attiyeh's Yarlung Records (possibly the best classical recordings ever! Really)... OK, I just had to get up to look at my Reference collection of the most beautifully made recordings, and out of about 100 superb LPs, I have only a few new ones: Cheskys, Yarlungs and not much else.
Well, I really needed to get that off my chest. Now I'm gong to listen to some old records.
There are great sounding "audiophile" LPs. The Stockfisch label is another one that deserves mention IMO. What really hooked me on vinyl was the amazing SQ of many $3.00 used LPs. As a recent example, pick up a clean looking original Jim Croce LP the next time you see one. They're always around $3.00 and IMO are an example of SQ that surpasses most $50.00 45 rpm double LP reissues. That hasn't stopped me from buying my share of audiophile vinyl though.
More than just a few people would nod their heads in approval of your "rant". Quite a number have 'been there and done that'.
I know the guitarist who played on the album, Willie Fulton. He is an audiophile and he too felt that it missed the mark. You are much better off getting their seminal effort, "Back to Oakland", but that's just my opionion.
DD recording was a crap shoot as the engineer must set the gain levels as the band is playing. No second chances, unless you start all over again. It created some overly cautious playing and some really bad recordings. Thelma Huston and Pressure cooker has one side recorded way too hot.
But when it works, I think that it's as close as an LP is going to get to live. The first Harry James album on Sheffeild and the Klemmer LP are good examples of DD done right.
Oh, and if you like those two Chesky LPs, you really need to get their reissue of "The Power Of The Orchestra"; it's off the chart.
Rebbi ... First of all, Chesky is top of the line as u have found.
Secondly, I have been taken in too many times by these "new" audiophile records and will never fall for their sales pitch again. These newly pressed records are not up to the quality of earlier pressed vinyl.
The only Chesky lp I purchased was Mussorgsky: Pictures at an Exhibition.
I was convinced that the a trick was played at the mixing deck, boosting the volume/dynamics on a standout instrument at the beginning of the record. It really turned me off.
Anyone else have a similar experience?
Probably the trumpet on "Promenade?"
Maybe. But I'm sure it was a studio trick.
I haven't listened to any of the Chesky vinyl in years, though I have a lot of
the classical reissues. Does that company even still release in vinyl?
My experience has been mixed- as my equipment got better and I kept
buying more records, I found that, for the most part, I didn't really find
anything special about the MFSL vinyl. I had a UHQR of Tea that I bought
new, back in the day, and I liked both the pink rim and pink label better. My
MFSL Led Zep II doesn't compare to the original US 'RL' pressing. Most of
the Sheffield's are just not that interesting musically to me. Some of the
d2d on Eastwind, like 'Hello Hank Jones' not only sound great, but are
interesting to me, musically, so it's not that I'm against D2D on principle. I
the new Beatles' Revolver to sound sterile on vinyl, but that's been pretty
well covered. I've also bought reissues of other records, pop and blues, that
sound lifeless compared to the original pressings. On the other hand, some
reissues have been pretty good, including the 45 rpm of 88 Basie St., some
of the Classic Records reissues of various classical, pop and jazz (when
not affected by the QC problems that plagued Classic); I have most of the
Lyritas, either pressed by Decca or Nimbus. The Elizabeth McConchey,
Lloyd symphonies and a few others (including that harpsichord/string one,
the name of which escapes me) were always very enjoyable, sonically and
musically and are still not expensive, used. I was blown away with a couple
of original Columbia 6-eyes recently, stuff that you can probably find
cheaper used than the audiophile remasters.
On the other hand (now up to three hands), some of the originals are
unobtanium, or very hard to find in good condition. So, I'll put up with a
reissue just to get at the music. I think it's hard to say, in a blanket way, that
all reissues are terrible, so i think you have to go record by record.
I don't understand why they can't simply list on the LP AAA or ADA or DDA, whatever, but like Alonski said, they know what we want, why won't they give it to us?! What is the point of a digitally remastered LP? I unknowingly wasted a lot of money, now I am much more careful, but I am certain that I am still being deceived in some instances.