Thinking Critically About Records Is Key to Understanding Them
Finally, with the help of Gemini AI I have been able to find and format some of the dialogue from a famous scene from the British sitcom Blackadder (“The Queen of Spain’s Beard” (Series 1, Episode 4).
A young lady named Infanta is expected to visit shortly. No one has seen her, so naturally the discussion turns to how exceptionally beautiful she is rumored to be. Especially her eyes.
I believe this colloquy will have an obvious bearing on a subject that seems to obsess the very-online audiophile community, to wit: whether a particular pressing has more of the sound of the master tape from which it was sourced, or less of that sound. (For some reason it never seems to have the same amount.)
Perhaps another way to think about it would be this: If one had a number of pressings to choose from for a particular title, and had heard that the master tapes were a special shade of blue, would the pressing that was closest to that shade of blue be the ideal pressing to own, regardless of sound quality or one’s personal preferences?
Let’s see what Percy and Edmund Blackadder have to say about the subject.
Percy: My Lord…
Edmund: Yes, what is it?
Percy: You know, they do say that the Infanta’s eyes are more beautiful than the famous Stone of Galveston.
Edmund: Mm! … What?
Percy: The famous Stone of Galveston, My Lord.
Edmund: And what’s that, exactly?
Percy: Well, it’s a famous blue stone, and it comes (points dramatically) from Galveston.
Edmund: I see. And what about it?
Percy: Well, My Lord, the Infanta’s eyes are bluer than it, for a start.
Edmund: I see. And have you ever seen this stone?
Percy: (nods) No, not as such, My Lord, but I know a couple of people who have, and they say it’s very very blue indeed.
Edmund: And have these people seen the Infanta’s eyes?
Percy: No, I shouldn‘t think so, My Lord.
Edmund: And neither have you, presumably.
Percy: No, My Lord.
Edmund: So, what you’re telling me, Percy, is that something you have never seen is slightly less blue than something else you have never seen.
Percy: (finally begins to grasp) Yes, My Lord.
Some background, again with the help of Genesis:
There is no such thing as the “Stone of Galveston.” The mention of it in the show serves to highlight Percy‘s foolishness and his tendency to believe in or invent things that have no basis in reality.
The Percys of the audio world want to talk about how the records of today must sound more like the master tapes from which they are being made than the earlier pressings produced from those same tapes sounded when they were first released.
In other words, they believe that pressings remastered for audiophiles in the modern era clearly show more fidelity to the master tapes than the original pressings could. Including vintage reissues.
Or any pressings not specifically produced for audiophiles, since the records of today use the obviously superior mastering and pressing technologies that simply did not exist when the titles were first released. (And there are plenty of other reasons they give that we will get into at a later date.)
We know a little about this phenomenon, having played quite a number of original and vintage pressings that were very badly mastered, many of which have been written up right here on the blog. Here’s one from 2024 and another from 2026. The complete list we’ve compiled to date can be found here.
To be clear, we’re not defending bad mastering. We sell a great many reissues that murder the originals we’ve played.
We will be adding many more titles to that list in the coming months, as we have run into a great number of bad sounding records mastered by Rudy Van Gelder. (A lot of great ones too, but that is another story for another time.)
Rather than drone on any further, let me sum up where we stand on these issues with these thoughts:
- Master tapes you have never heard do not sound any more or any less like the pressings you like simply because you like them. One can hardly imagine a more clear cut case of confirmation bias.
- You cannot compare the sound quality of two things unless you have heard both of them.
- You really cannot have a good idea of what a particular master tape might sound like unless you have actually heard if for yourself.
- You should be very skeptical of what others who have played such tapes tell you about the sound of those tapes, especially if they stand to make money by convincing you that their corrections of the tapes’ faults have resulted in superior sound quality.
- The same would be true for those who work with the master tapes and claim they are fine, that it was the inferior mastering of the vintage pressings that was the problem, a problem which they have now fixed.
- Etc., etc.
I expect I will have a great deal more to say on this subject so please stay tuned.
Further Reading
I’m really looking forward to the upcoming installments of this series. I find this subject particularly fascinating because, through watching countless YouTube videos and discussions on so-called “audiophile” channels, I have increasingly noticed a widely held belief that the ultimate sound quality can only be found in modern, explicitly audiophile reissues.
The argument often seems to be that releases from labels such as Analogue Productions, Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab, Rhino and others, when sourced from the original master tapes and mastered and cut by renowned engineers such as Kevin Gray, Chris Bellman, Bernie Grundman, Ryan K. Smith or Matthew Lutthans, must inevitably bring us closer to the sound of the master tape than the original LP releases ever could.
Original pressings, according to this way of thinking, are therefore often assumed to pale in comparison simply because they were produced decades ago, using supposedly inferior technology and without the benefit of today’s “audiophile” approach.
But this raises some very interesting questions: How can we know that a modern remaster is actually closer to the sound of the master tape if we have never heard that tape ourselves? And should the reputation of the mastering engineer, the label, the source used, or the modern production process automatically be taken as proof of greater fidelity?
For me, this is exactly why your series promises to be so interesting. I’m very much looking forward to reading the further installments and to seeing these assumptions examined and discussed in greater depth.
Dear Sir,
Thanks for asking all the right questions!
I plan to address them in full on the blog soon.
TP
I was profoundly disappointed by YouTuber Isaac Brown’s Aja format shootout where his sole vinyl copy was a Heavy Vinyl reissue. Where would we be if the contemporary “audiophile” industry wasn’t a LARP whose fictions only persist because everyone involved is invested in sustaining them? Trying to cut through the noise seems an exercise in futility. It saddens me there aren’t more people who know better.
Dear Sir,
If this fellow and those of his ilk sadden you, be prepared to spend your time being sad.
No one — no audiophile anyway — should be paying any attention to this person. Who cares what he thinks about Aja, or any other record? Why would you?
As per the Stoic Epictitus: “You become what you give your attention to.
“If you yourself don’t choose what thoughts and images you expose yourself to, someone else will.”
What insights has he to offer about the album? I could not find any and I doubt he has any that would be of interest to me, but of course I will never find out because I cannot waste time digging through the chaff to find what kernal of wheat he might be able to enlighten us about.
Best, TP