Big Star's #1 Record and Radio City - Classic Vinyl

Not that I doubt you but details, please? I rarely find Classic competitive with an original. But what was worse? What kind of system and turntable?

 

What difference did hear?

I think these sound pretty good. "Smoked" implies a huge difference. I'd love to heard your thoughts on this... I've never owned an original "No. 1 Record," only "Radio City." What's your system like?

 

Just heard from Classic Records. Here are answers to questions I asked

Me: I have a question as to the difference between your issues and the
> reissues by Concord Music, which are selling for a great deal less.
> Can you confirm that their issues use the same mastering as yours? As
> their issues are selling for $18-$20 less, if it is the same mastering
> I'm a bit upset at not having this disclosed.

Classic: The mastering is the same on the Concord release and the Classic release
- both having been done by Classic Records. The difference is that we
use the first sets of stampers for the
FLAT PROFILE Clarity 200g pressings which are sonically superior to the
black vinyl 140g pressings. You can take up the non-disclosure of same
mastering with Concord if you'd like
as this disclosure is NOT our responsibility.

Me: The other question regards that I requested 1S stampers when I made my
> purchase. As there is no 1S in the deadwax, how can I confirm that I
> indeed get the first pressing?

Classic: TheMusic.com is afforded a number of first stamper pressings to market
and sell as same. They typically get Classic releases first and as such
have the earliest pressings off
the stampers.

So there you go. I, unlike the poster above, really like the new Classic reissues. And on my system, my originals(one of which, Radio City, is a promo) do not "smoke" them. Not by a wide margin, but I find them different listens, sort of like listening to an original Beatles mono title vs. a Japanese red vinyl. There are things to like with both. And I do think Bellman did a real nice job.

That said, if I knew then that Concord was using Bellman's mastering, I would have saved some dollars for the experience as I do not think the vinyl is worth the extra $$. But I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

 

So both versions were pressed by Classic but the fact that the mastering is the same is not their responsibility? The question about the stamper number was never answered either. Not a very pleasant response to your questions. Seems to me that in a fragile business like record manufacturing you'd go out of your way to be nice and cooperative. All Classic needs is a bad rap on a couple of forums and their business goes away. Odd.

Anyway, the news doesn't surprise me and I'm not disappointed. I also agree with you that there are excellent things about the Classic version. Different listens and well worth it if you're a fan.

I'd be interested to hear more from Exanding Man.

 

Hype like what?

Classic didn't promise that the new version would sound better than the original. And there certainly wasn't any "hype" here. So far everyone has liked the new pressing but no one has said it was drastially different - that I remember. I find it less bright and more detailed. Overall a more pleasant listen than the original. But even if you don't prefer the new one I don't think Ardent vinyl is going to "smoke" anything.

 

I agree; I found that response particularly interesting. Why criticize Concord, saying that it's Concord's responsibility to disclose that their $12 LPs are the same mastering as Classic's $33 LPs?

Think about it:
1. Classic stands to benefit most if Concord doesn't reveal that they're selling the same mastering for 1/3rd the price that Classic is charging.
2. If anything, Concord should be advertising everywhere (all the product listings and promotional copy) they can that their 140gram $12 LP "Includes the same mastering as Classic's 200gram reissue of this title."
3. That response makes it sound like that's what Classic wants Concord to do!
4. Of course Classic isn't going to want to disclose this information, because they'd be shooting themselves in the foot. Yet the reply above almost makes it sound like they wanted to disclose this information, but Concord wasn't letting them, or something. Behind the scenes, they should be thanking Concord for keeping their mouths shut about it, but they should not making it sound like Concord did something wrong by keeping it a secret!

Craig(VC).

 

A lot of these reissues sound too pleasant. I'm sticking with my crunchy sounding originals. Crazy, huh?

 

Not at all. Like what you like. I'm up for hearing just about any version of #1 Record I can get my hands on. It's one of my fave albums of all time.

 

Great analogy. I just finished comparing my Ardent Promo of Radio City to the Classic and I find them to be very similar. All in all, I like the Classic best, but it's not a huge difference.

As far as the Concord/Classic issue... I'm sure the Classics will be worth more in the future, so if I ever decide to sell them off I can probably make a good profit. Besides, I like the feel of heavier vinyl. Call me crazy, but that's my opinion.

 

Now that I know they use the same mastering, I'll definitely be going with the Concords, and save $42 on the purchase!

Personally I see ZERO benefit to the "audiophile" vinyl Classic presses. Moreover, half the Classic records I've bought in the past year have been scuffed beyond belief and noisy to boot. What good is an audiophile record if it has a scuff the size of a shoeprint on it and the clicks and pops to go along with it? No thanks.

 

You're crazy.

 

Actually I think we're all a little crazy about all this stuff.

 

Yeah, it's odd, but I think the point from the Classic rep was that Concord owns the rights, and they call the shots. I'm not sure why they wouldn't say anything, unless there is a financial benefit for them to keep their mouth's shut, which is the only thing that I can come up. Why else? Perhaps it's in their best interests to see Classic sell as many copies as possible, in which case they are the one's being deceptive here.

It's also interesting that nobody selling the Concord has this information as a blurb. Obviously it is not hard to find it out, which means to me that they are specifically being told to not disclose.

The whole thing really does smell, but that's the(majority) of the music business for you.

 

Same here.

 

Is this the same thing that happened with Neil Young's "Live at Massey Hall"? Classic did the mastering, and the WEA make their own pressings? It seems that Classic can't get exclusive LP rights these days.

I recall that Steve had the Big Star masters in his hands a few years back. and almost remastered #1 Record and Radio City around the time that the SACD came out.

I have nice promo copies of the Ardent LPs, that I bought for $5 in the '80s. I might get the Concords when they come out.

 

Classic probably can't afford the licensing on their own so they make a deal to press the vinyl and they get to market their own version. It probably works out for the larger companies that Classic sells to a specific, collector oriented audience and the regular pressings sell to the general public. But I don't see where it's misleading (as some seem to be suggesting). Classic is marketing a type of pressing that is exclusive to them. They aren't promising that the mastering is unique.

 

Thanks a lot for posting this info! This info will definitely save me a few dollars.

 

I just received my copies as well, no initials in the deadwax. I listened to #1 Record and did not find the mid-range to be "scooped" relative to the bass and treble frequencies. My Stax 2fer CD is going to be retired at this point. Vinyl quality is very good, quiet surfaces and virtually no pops or clicks. The jackets are heavy board as opposed to thin card, #1 Record is laminated.

 

Thank you for posting this information as this confirms what most of us suspected. I will update my review site. What is most interesting to me is how Chris Bellman failed to inscribe his initials in the deadwax, as I recall seeing "CB" inscribed in all of his recent efforts. I suspect he may have been instructed not to do so at the time of mastering.

As for your analogy to having various pressings of Beatles titles, I think it is a good one. While I still think that Bellman did a much better job with Radio City than with #1 Record (and granted, "fixing" #1 Record was a more difficult task), his #1 Record is still a pretty good listen, scooped-mids and all. If you aren't doing a direct comparison, such deficiencies aren't nearly as apparent.

 

I agree. I wouldn't expect Classic to make of point of advertising that their version is the same mastering as the Concord version. Why would they say that? They are advertising their product only which makes sense. Why would they advertise Concord's version?

They are also not hiding the fact as they did confirm the fact in their email. I think we all have been watching too many conspiracy theory movies.

 

I'm still not sure why Concord just didn't have Classic do a 150g version of this album.

 

This is speculation, of course, but as these are the first (AFAIK) rock titles from Classic on Clarity vinyl, perhaps Classic wanted to limit their release of them to Clarity only and not offer the usual 150 gram (non-Clarity) alternative.

 

Thanks to all who have posted in this thread. I was going to order the Classics but have ordered the Concords instead. My personal opinion is that the weight of the vinyl doesn't make much difference and with such a differential in price I cannot justify the additional expense of the Classics.

Tom

 

Absolutely! The problematic twofer sacd is a permanent fixture in my car.