I have the Kiss Revenge blue marble first pressing vinyl signed by lead guitarist Bruce Kulick (looks like he signed it with one of those gold pens that have the ball bearing inside that makes that clicking sound when you shake it) right on side A and that obviously has never been played on my turntable, not even side B. I had to wait 1-2 years after I got that when a new re-pressing of Revenge was released. This was about 8-9 years ago.

Wait, he signed the actual wax? That original KISS Revenge blue is sweet.

Nice, that goes for a pretty penny on Discogs these days, looks like they only pressed 5000 copies.

I'm just getting back into vinyl after having gotten rid of over half of my collection (which was roughly 500 albums or so) back in the '90s. I'm rather surprised at a) how much new vinyl albums cost these days, and b) how many colored vinyl discs and picture discs are being released these days, since it was drilled into my head back in the late '70s and early '80s how bad anything except black vinyl sounded.

I'd like to know what you guys think about one thing: overall, and all things being equal, would you rather buy an original pressing from...whenever, or would you rather buy a brand-new pressing of the same album? As an example, assuming that you'd like to own the album in the first place, would you rather buy a sealed original copy of Todd Rundgren's A Wizard - A True Star from 1973, or would you rather buy a copy of the new pressing that was available today via RSD. Let's assume that they're both in mint, unopened condition, and they're selling for the same price.

Personally, I'd go for the original pressing, because that's exactly what people were listening to 50 years ago. But what are your thoughts?

Almost exclusively, I'd rather have the original pressing. Guaranteed to be all analogue, from the master tapes.

That being said, there are new releases that have been mastered by excellent engineers, from the master tapes. Kevin Gray, Steve Hoffman, Bernie Grundman, are some of the engineers that come to mind.

It goes without saying that you probably shouldn't be listening to vinyl if you're drunk or high.

With the high cost and collectability of vinyl records, and the precision turntables we have, everything should be operated fully sober.

Which is kind of weird and sad when you think about it. Fifty years ago, Hippie Dave could roll a joint on his Columbia House copy of Led Zeppelin IV without fear or guilt, then stick it on his $20 Sears record player with a quarter on top of the needle.

What andicus says ...

The Steve Hoffman music forums are a fantastic resource for vinyl comparison, as well.

Original (sealed, mint) all the way.

I find that original pressings of stuff, in most cases, sound superior to modern pressings. Also, the jackets look better, too.

One case the really stands out is that I bought the recent Walmart pressing of Metallica's "Kill'em All" on red colored vinyl. I own an original 80s pressing of that album (it's a later issue of that album with "Am I Evil?" and "Blitzkrieg" on it) that I got from Columbia House, and it's glaringly obvious that the album art was digitally scanned because the band photo on the back is obviously blurrier than the original.

Unfortunately, mint/sealed copies of records are kind of scarce and command a premium on the collectors market. I also don't like to buy used vinyl because I don't know how the record was stored or treated (like, did Hippie Dave play it with a quarter on the needle?) for the forty or more years since came out of the factory. Even if it's sealed, it might have languished on a shelf in a hot warehouse or storage locker for decades.

Fortunately, I bought most of the old albums I would want when I was a kid in the 80s, played them carefully, and stored them well.

In the early days of eBay, I did buy up quite a bit of vinyl -- mostly obscure 80s heavy metal bands that I either couldn't find in stores or didn't pick up when I had the chance, or stuff I had on CD that I wanted to "downgrade" -- but only in mint condition. I figured that if the jacket is mint, it was probably well cared for by the owner and took a chance.

The late 90s and early 00s were a really interesting time to buy vinyl. I bought albums that were out of print that would command up to $100 on CD, but I could buy mint condition vinyl copies for under ten dollars. And, believe me, I took advantage of that.

I had something very close to this situation happen last RSD (Black Friday), I might have even posted about it. One of the exclusives that day was a re-issue of The Rubinoos' second album. One of the stores I went to had a sealed copy of an original pressing, same record, and it was a no-brainer for me; I got the original. The only difference with that and the situation you're proposing is that in this case the sealed original was a lot cheaper than the reissue. But had the prices been the same, I'd still have gone for the original.

Yep, right on the wax. I bought the signed edition from a friend for about $50 since he was a big Kiss fan. He just had the vinyl as a collector's item sort of thing since he never had a turntable I don't think.

Similar question, but if there's a brand new pressing with color options, and traditional black, which do you choose? I've been a little skeptical of all the color options, but haven't done any research to see if there's any difference in AQ.

OG presses all the way. The vinyl geek in me gets an adrenaline rush when I stumble upon a minty fresh specimen that's half a century old of music/bands I love. Give me a WB green label, Kama Sutra pink label, Fantasy blue label, or Vertigo swirl any day. Pressed from analog masters, original stampers, etc.

The vinyl that records are made of is naturally translucent and black carbon is added primarily because it makes the record more durable and black vinyl is easier to quality control. Pressing plants are very good at pressing colored vinyl these days though, so typically newly-released colored vinyl would only have very subtle potential differences in audio quality that you would probably only hear if you have golden ears and an audiophile-grade setup. Colored vinyl may wear out a bit quicker if you're playing those records a lot though.

I usually opt for colored vinyl because part of the appeal of records for me is the physical aesthetic.

I'll admit to playing vinyl while somewhat inebriated. I'm verrrrry careful, haven't dropped a record yet. (to be fair, weed does not fuck up your motor skills anywhere near the way booze does)

Yeah, I compared the jacket of my early pressing of Metallica's Ride the Lightning with the one in my RTL box set, the photos on the back of the new jacket have colors that are way too saturated. You'd think the band would put as much care in the jackets as they do with their vinyl (every LP I own that were pressed on the band's own Metallipress are flat and very quiet) but this one looked blatantly wrong.

I prefer black if it's an option, I just think it looks "sexier". I hate when sometimes I order an album on Amazon and when it arrives it is some weird color but was not advertised as such. One time I even received a picture disc version and that was not mentioned in the listing at all. That one got sent back.

Yeah, it used to be a given that we'd get high and listen to stuff life Several Species.

And, was it Q107, or CFNY, that used to have For Headphones Only? That was just asking for it. Of course, that didn't involve playing your own vinyl.

I wouldn't be surprised if the album covers were digitally recreated. The photos and some art look scanned, blurry, and photoshoppy, but the text is crisp and sharp. I suspect that most of the original elements used to print the record jackets are long gone or unavailable to them. Once everyone stopped making records in the early 1990s, the record companies probably didn't bother with keeping the original elements make the jackets around.

I don't have a lot of "doubles" -- albums I bought in the 1980s and then rebought on vinyl in the last few years -- to do a lot of side-by-side comparisons. Some look basically the same, and some newer ones don't look quite as sharp as the old ones. And some just look a little different, and occasionally the new one will look better in some ways and worse than others in ways that I have difficulty defining.

In 1977, the average record price was around $7.50.
Adjusted for inflation, that is now around $38 - pretty much in line with what records cost today.
If you haven't been collecting for more than a decade, you're gonna get sticker-shock, but it's mostly just inflation.

Advances have been made where colored vinyl sounds as good as black - in fact, black IS a colored vinyl (it's just easier to see crud on a black vinyl). Some splatter and multi-colored vinyl may have a bit more surface noise, but solid colored vinyl is as good as anything.
What affects quality more than anything is just the quality of the raw vinyl being used - virgin vinyl being the best, and stay away from "recycled" vinyl, as that can make things sound bad.

Original pressings can be good, IF you can find one in decent shape. Unfortunately, in the last year or two, most original pressings for most classic albums that are in decent shape, have shot up in cost - like crazy (way more than inflation, even).

Though there have been plenty of new pressings that are as good, if not better, than original pressings. Look at most anything put out by Intervention Records, and you can be guaranteed a great sounding vinyl, and in most cases, better than the original pressing. And you can find good stuff here and there, but you have to do some research. Your example, however, is a fantasy - a still-sealed A Wizard - True Star from 1973 goes for around $150 to $200, IF you can even find one, about $100 for an opened one but in good shape - a recent pressing would be a fraction of that, and sound mostly the same.

Me, I'm pretty much done with catalog titles, so all I buy these days are new releases anyway, so I guess I am buying original pressings, they just happen to be from 2022/2023.

This seems insane to me...


50% of vinyl buyers in the US don’t own a record player, data shows

Insane but I'll admit not terribly surprising. I know a few casual vinyl buyers that don't own a TT (I can't get a practical answer as to why) and I think it further exposes the "flipper" community - whether it's RSD or other exclusives that are purchased with no intention of listening -- which is a good segue to another interesting article published this week: Record Store Day Can't Save The Record Store (okayplayer.com)

I mean, I kinda get it - records are cool, if you love an artist, there's no better thing to "collect" of theirs than their record - but if I can't play them and enjoy the best thing about them (their sound quality), then what's the point?

Which begs the question, how many of the remaining 50% who do have turntables just have the cheap little Crosleys that, not only sound terrible, but can actually end up damaging the records they play?

Wow.. I'm the opposite. I'm all about catalog titles. I mean, there are new bands out there releasing good stuff, but it's so much work trying to find out who they are (like, my recent discovery of the fantastic Screaming Females...my first exposure to their music was when they got up on stage and played it). Maybe it's because I'm so damn old and my favorite music was only in vogue about 40 years ago, but that's why I dig through bargain bins trying to find that band that should have made it but for some reasons never did. And I've found several (as well as those who didn't make it for damn good reasons).

More than I'd like to think about. A buddy of mine got one and complains that he thought vinyl was supposed to sound better, and like, yeah, it does, IFF you play it on the right setup.

And yeah, competing with other people who just collect things they can't even use for it's intended purpose is maddening. I remember getting into an eBay bidding war on a bundle of horror laserdiscs that included a copy of the rare (at the time) Elite Entertainment Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and the guy i was bidding against just bought any and all TCM memorabilia, i highly doubted he even owned a LD player. He was gonna buy the bundle to display the TCM disc and just toss the others, I wanted all the movies to actually watch them.

I'm an old fart as well (I'll be 52 later this year), and I do have plenty of classic records (out of my nearly 1,000 records, more than half are well over 20 years old), but I like music more than nostalgia (as in, I don't care about reliving my "glory days" - not that I'm accusing you of that), so I can't live on old records alone, and need to seek out new stuff. But yeah, as you say, it does take more work as the stuff I like, even the new stuff, is pretty underground, and needs to be sought out, as it'll never find me on it's own.

Same with me, my purchases these days are roughly 50/50 new and catalog titles. Most of the new stuff I listen to is pretty underground as well, in some cases, a first vinyl pressing may only be a couple hundred copies, so I gotta jump on them fast. I hate discovering a new band I like, go to buy their album and find out that the vinyl version is already sold out, and the album only came out a month or two ago. Thank god for repressings (usually but not always)

So my player came with a felt record mat that rests between the platter and the record. But it seems like whenever I take a record off it, it is stuck to the record via static cling.
Is that expected? Or should I get a different kind of mat (maybe rubber?) or is there some other thing I can do to get rid of the static?

Move to where it's more humid? Or perhaps try a cork mat.