Vote

... that don't exist on the other file! 10 seconds is enough to hear that :) 1014ReinerAP file sounds much better to me.

Sample 1 has more depth. Sample 2 sounds more "in your face" like the mid-range was boosted, which takes away the atmospheric magic.

I'm guessing Sample 2 is the reissue, since it has the AP (Analogue Productions) initials in the sample title.

I guess this an "Emperors New Clothes" or a blind wine test moment, everyone is taking a back seat before they comment hehe.
I'll have a stab at it then and make a fool of myself.

My opinion when I close my eyes is that Sample 2 sounds like a recording whereas Sample 1 sounds more live and more real to me.

Because of the increased background noise, I will on a hunch say that Sample 1 is the Super Hot Stamper and Sample 2 is the AP reissue because it is quieter.
Both are good, but I'm leaning towards Sample 1 as sonically superior as the music filled me more, if that makes any sense....

Having never heard the piece of music given as a sample, I listened back and forth for some time to familiarize myself with the recording. As I did, I began to pick out the reasons for voting for File 2. File 1, which I am guessing is the original pressing, sounded fine at first, but after a few minutes, I couldn't help but hear a rumble during the quieter passages, smearing during more complicated, multi-instrument sections and the surface noise of the LP, though not prevalent probably due to the Caliburn pushing it back.
At the same time, I heard in File 2, a blacker background with less noise and no rumble, clear transient and decay and awesome separation of instruments during complicated sections, and what seemed to me, a brand new hunk of beautiful vinyl being played back better than I will ever hear it in my own home.
A confession, I don't pick through record bins looking for a certain pressing, nor would I begin to know how, unless I had a mental breakthrough and remembered an article from Mr. Fremer on just how to do such, but this brain isn't likely to recall anything such as that. Being from a small town in Michigan, which just lost its last independent new/used LP store( The wonderful Wyatt Earp's Records in Flint, MI, which could be trusted without hesitation for the best recommendations, not having to worry about getting home and finding grooves as wide as the Grand Canyon and prices that could not be beat. Miss you Doug-RIP and Al). There are, I believe, two stores that carry used vinyl in Flint. One is owned by a former local DJ from, i don't know, the early 60's-mid 80's, which I have been in twice. He is the kind of owner that likes to price his product as if it were graded Mint/Mint(Cover/Vinyl), though I have yet to find a single album in such condition and have even found "Record Mfd by BMG for 'insert label here'", which was probably free along with the other ten and sounds like shite, but is priced as if it has been professionally graded, and if pressed, he would probably tell you every record in his store is the best pressing that can be had. Ridiculous. The other is a chain of used LP's, comics, magazines, books, cd's, tapes( cassette and 8-Track!!!) Price gouging is not uncommon, and as you open the door, the smell of mildew and dust and, if it has a smell, I am about to be ripped off in here if I buy.
So, on a couple of recent trips to Chicago, my Son(17!!!) and I had a little time to check out some nice stores and load up on new and used vinyl, though, even in the Windy City, its not like you get to browse through 4 or 5 copies of the same record and try and figure out which is going to sound the best. Reckless Records, our favorite for current, new and old indie and alternative will play the LP for you before purchase, is priced fairly and has friendly, knowledgeable staff.
Down around the corner and down the steps, there is a Jazz and Blues LP/CD store(80%/20%) with a proprietor who really knows his stuff. I picked up a reissue of Thelonious Monk 'Paris 1969', Double LP, Gatefold with extensive liner notes on 180Gram Vinyl for $19.99. Before purchasing, I walked through the strode with the copy in my hands, stacked on top of a 1969 release of the same LPs(not 180Gram) retail of $29.99. Also in my sweaty palms was The Incredible Jimmy Smith feat. Kenny Burrell and Grady Tate, 'Organ Grinder Swing' on Verve, original 1965 recording, single LP Gatefold with VANGELDER proudly printed in the runoff for $7.99, a quick but thorough check of the vinyl made it a no brainer. How nice, I thought, it would go with Verve's Wynton Kelly Trio/Wes Montgomer's 'Smokin' at the Half Note', also from '65 i believe, also a single LP Gatefold with VANGELDER stamped, I had that at home already and it is a 'showoff' LP for the slightest Jazz fan who enters my home. I only hoped that my new purchases would sound close to 'Smokin', if so, i would be a happy man. I am a happy man. I only wish it wasn't 1:40 AM or I would cue one or all up and crank them, yea, headphones, Grado SR125's, or my very accurate, natural if slightly warm SOL on ear V10's, but, I should go to bed since I just dozed off here on the couch fro about an hour and a half.

Thanks For Reading my Rambling On, if you made it,
JeepLar

Felt like I understood the music better in file 2 via my headphone playback. File 1 didn't grab me as much.

I found sample one more, natural, laid back and smoother. File 2 seemed louder with great HF energy and was more up-front for lack of a better word. I think that I have the SACD of this at home which I will check and listen to when I get home from school. That is one of a number of SACDs I own from that RCA series which are great.

Adding some light to my previous comment, Sample 2 (I think is the reissue) to me sounds more refined/polished which is why I said it sounds like a recording, compared to Sample 1 which sounds raw to me and more real.
I have orded the AP reissue (havnt received it yet) and If it is Sample 2, I'm not complaining. Both are ok and both have their strengths and weaknesses.
I must admit, I did not listen to this on my full system as my amp is out of action so didn't get the full force.
Would love a few more comments from others.

Both sounded great, but two did sound a bit more Hi-Fi to me while 1 sounded a less etched. I am just listening at work, but that is what I hear. I look forward to the reveal!

Trey

For me File 1 has ambiance not present in file two. It sounds spacious, open and "live"; like the orchestra is there in front of you. File 2, even though it has a darker background ends up sounding more closed in to my ears. Further, the instrumental separation is better in File 1. An example is the trumpet puttering away underneath the woodwinds at 0:35 which is nice and audible in File 1 and a bit muffled in File 2.

Anyhow, I think the differences here are mainly in the mastering and not so much the pressing. Both pressings sound pretty good. File 1 has a touch more surface noise so I'm guessing it's the original.

File one sounds smoother and allows me to hear the inner clarity better. File 2 got a little loud (good dynamics) but a little too forward and brash. Good, but I would pick the lusher sounding file ONE if I had to choose.

Thank you for the two snippets - I am constantly swaying between originals and hi-q reissues - I really think they illustrate the differences I often hear - typically originals sound more ethereal, delicate and freer while re-issues have better, quieter vinyl, less distortion and a more solid etched picture but peversely constrained - I guess it is not a RIAA thing but something to with EQ, tape loss etc etc (wtf) Anyway my guess (and preference) was file 1 is the "original" but liking bits of 2 better. PS Does anyone think there is a different approach between US and UK/Europe mastering?

These blind tests are my fave of your posts, Mikey.
I picked File #1, because it did NOT sound more live. Having attended more symphony concerts than my wallet cares to remember, File #2 sounded thicker and more back of the hall. It's bass bloomed and overwhelmed other details. It was also louder.
File #1 had more of a front row or conductor's podium sound; wider, deeper, closer to instrumental details with a dryer bass. Once volume equalized, I'm sure that difference would be even more apparent.
Personally, I prefer stereo recordings to sound as if made from the conductor's podium. I want to be "in" the performance, not a distant witness. Mono, of course, tends to sound more back of the hall.

Sounds to me like the files are pretty close with #1 sounding light it has a brighter frequency balance, and maybe a wider presentation. Who knows if the frequency differences are down to differences between working from the new master vs. a 60-year-old master, different mastering and cutting lathe or whatever; but to me file #2 has less surface noise and extraneous non-musical stuff going on, which to me makes it the better record.

Ok Michael, we give up. Please post which was which and what "your" thoughts were as you listened to both in your room. Most of us are only listening with headphones to these snippets. That's nothing like listening to each lp on your system. What was the cost of the "hot stamper?" I hear a difference.

Why on earth would he send you a copy with obvious flaws on one side? If a serious collector like him doesn't even own a copy with 2 good sounding sides, that alone validates the AP reissue.

... describing lack of energy, inferior transient response, and EQ that is slightly rolled off at the top, as sounding more "spacious" and "life like", is not the best way to approach this. It does reflect a very personal preference/taste but when it comes to audio fidelity it makes little sense...

Better transients and full range sound presentation is better and more "real" in the sense that it represents more faithfully what was indeed recorded.

When this is not taken as a fact, then I suppose some listeners are mostly fondly remembering how the original LP sounded, and not how the actual recording session / performance sounded.

The "hot stamper" sampled here is not bad, sure, but it's not hot at all (and I hope it's not expensive, specially being useful only on a single side, which is a bit ridiculous), actually it's "cold" sounding when compared to the AP reissue that is better in every conceivable way if accurate sound reproduction and being faithful to the original recording/performance is still the criteria for a good music production on any format.

At the risk of multiple comments ( t though I had already posted), listening over a desktop computer, the differences are pronounced. I suspect File 1 is the RCA and 2 is the re-do. If that is correct, it is consistent with what I find on a lot of good remasters- more detail, better bass, but lacking a certain coherence or natural quality that the original conveys. This, over a crappy computer and 40 dollar satellite speakers. If my take on all this is right, why are the remasters more 'audiophile' in detail but a little bright sounding, generally, compared to the originals? Is it modern mastering, compensating for losses from old tape, or a choice based on more modern sensibilities? I know I'm painting with a wide brush, I've heard differences in the same mastering engineer's remasters for different labels of the same track that are not as pronounced, which leads me to believe there are choices being made here. I have an old white dog of this record, but no new re-do's.
Best,
Bill Hart

I think there is a channel balance problem in your two samples: if I compare the two wav files to all three editions of Reiner's recording on spotify, I find your transfer to be panned hard to the right channel:
in the spotify versions the cymbals are way to the left, not to the right like in your samples. Also the first violins are placed left of center on spotify, like they usually are in a concert hall, while they are clearly to the right on your samples.