I know Repro/reissues are a bit of a dirty word round here but they're a great introduction when you first start buying 45's on a limited budget & a bridge for future days of hungry OG vinyl eating all your spare (and sometimes not so spare) cash. I'm pretty open minded about them. However one thing that is immediate is the difference in sound quality. I could kind of understand that technology was limited in the 70's but weirdly a lot of the 70's repros sound & look better than todays efforts! There has been a flood of R&B 60's repros recently that just sound so flat with very little depth or definition. For example I played the Reg Guest syndicate - Underworld instro Og against the repro and was truly stunned how much sound was missing across the whole spectrum on the repro

Surely with todays technology there must be a way to get them sounding clear and authentic sounding.

Contrary to this I thought the recent Luther Ingram 'If it's all the same to you/Exus trek' legit reissue was superb : It sounded amazing even against the original. Kent record again also no problems, I think they do a fantastic job and obviously spend time and care on their catalogue.

Does anyone feel the vinyl quality these days is poorer? My ears definitely think so, some of the older records just sound so 'alive' and LOUD , so much so they can be pretty beat up and still sound good ! I have a many 45 that look completely trashed but apart from some crackle at the begining they play like an EX graded record,

Again visually with a repro I do like it have the artwork as close to original design as possible but again this seems a bridge too far nowadays with a lot of the 70's efforts being far superior to nowadays efforts. Mel Britt 'she'll come running back' being an excellent example of a really decent bootleg that I'm sure has fooled a few people over the years. again surely printing technology is far superior now ??

So the poor old repro sounds bad,looks bad almost like an audio/visual photocopy and remains an uncomfortable neighbour in the record box. This is a shame as if more care were taken in faithfully restoring/forging some of the great 45's priced so highly it might give a bit more longevity and even dare I say this respect to the poor old downtrodden repro which is evident in some of the prices paid for 70's repros recently. More importantly tho is they misrepresent the true sound of the original record and sound tired and lifeless : A real sin for any soul record

Be really interested to hear your thoughts ! Thanks for getting this far.... all this about repros eh whatever next tsk tsk ! lol

Edited January 26, 201213 yr by Guest

As far as the boots are concerned, I presume most are produced as cheap as possible to maximise any profit from their £6 price tag (probably £3 wholesale).

Also, I imagine some recordings of certain tracks probably come from dubious sources, especially rarer oddball stuff.

The end result......you pay peanuts you get monkeys!

I think you're dead right, it's short sighted but I guess they must be selling : It's a real shame as with a bit more effort they could become a lot more credible

I'd rather the lookalike ones remain that way to be honest.

I can't see them ever becoming any more credible, at least I'd hope not......they are still fakes at the end of the day.

I noticed the same thing when I bought a couple of those things for the jukebox: Timebox and the Quik. Terible, thin sounding and not all dynamic.

My thoughts are back in the 70s mastering vinyl was the norm, so as long as you had decent source (even a good condition 45), you should have been able to create a decent enough sounding copy. Some of the worse offenderts from the 70s were clearly bootlegged from low quality tapes and so on.

It seems likely that, as Mace said, the new crop are done cheaply and I guess one way of saving cash is not spend money on using experienced people at the mastering stage, they will be few and far between now anyway.

Same thing goes for those awful 'carvers' that were doing the rounds until recently. Mastering is an artform - you can't just stick an MP3/WAV onto vinyl and expect it sound ok.

Edited January 26, 201213 yr by Godzilla

I know Repro/reissues are a bit of a dirty word round here but they're a great introduction when you first start buying 45's on a limited budget & a bridge for future days of hungry OG vinyl eating all your spare (and sometimes not so spare) cash. I'm pretty open minded about them. However one thing that is immediate is the difference in sound quality. I could kind of understand that technology was limited in the 70's but weirdly a lot of the 70's repros sound & look better than todays efforts! There has been a flood of R&B 60's repros recently that just sound so flat with very little depth or definition. For example I played the Reg Guest syndicate - Underworld instro Og against the repro and was truly stunned how much sound was missing across the whole spectrum on the repro

Surely with todays technology there must be a way to get them sounding clear and authentic sounding.

Contrary to this I thought the recent Luther Ingram 'If it's all the same to you/Exus trek' legit reissue was superb : It sounded amazing even against the original. Kent record again also no problems, I think they do a fantastic job and obviously spend time and care on their catalogue.

Does anyone feel the vinyl quality these days is poorer? My ears definitely think so, some of the older records just sound so 'alive' and LOUD , so much so they can be pretty beat up and still sound good ! I have a many 45 that look completely trashed but apart from some crackle at the begining they play like an EX graded record,

Again visually with a repro I do like it have the artwork as close to original design as possible but again this seems a bridge too far nowadays with a lot of the 70's efforts being far superior to nowadays efforts. Mel Britt 'she'll come running back' being an excellent example of a really decent bootleg that I'm sure has fooled a few people over the years. again surely printing technology is far superior now ??

So the poor old repro sounds bad,looks bad almost like an audio/visual photocopy and remains an uncomfortable neighbour in the record box. This is a shame as if more care were taken in faithfully restoring/forging some of the great 45's priced so highly it might give a bit more longevity and even dare I say this respect to the poor old downtrodden repro which is evident in some of the prices paid for 70's repros recently. More importantly tho is they misrepresent the true sound of the original record and sound tired and lifeless : A real sin for any soul record

Be really interested to hear your thoughts ! Thanks for getting this far.... all this about repros eh whatever next tsk tsk ! lol

Hi there well i think an illegal/cheap budget repro 45 is bound to have poor sound quaility.However some of the more profesional reissue label's such as Kent ,Tramp ect put quality first and are well worth the dough.For many years I cringed at the quality of ska and reggae REPRO'S !!!! but even they are becoming almost top notch and as you say bridge the gap when buying an impossibly rare record Antelects on Kent for instance.A very strange trend I'm seeing at the moment is a few northern collectors who don't have a problem paying fifty quid for a northern track are starting to collect ska and reggae but only want a repro ! regards Simon.

Hi there well i think an illegal/cheap budget repro 45 is bound to have poor sound quaility.However some of the more profesional reissue label's such as Kent ,Tramp ect put quality first and are well worth the dough.For many years I cringed at the quality of ska and reggae REPRO'S !!!! but even they are becoming almost top notch and as you say bridge the gap when buying an impossibly rare record Antelects on Kent for instance.A very strange trend I'm seeing at the moment is a few northern collectors who don't have a problem paying fifty quid for a northern track are starting to collect ska and reggae but only want a repro ! regards Simon.

With the ska and reggae repros though, they just kept pressing them from the same old plates or even from disc (the majority of UK 60's ska releases were dubbed from Jamaican imports) so over the years the sound got worse unless they were done from master tapes from people like Bunny Lee...and also the Jamaican pressing facilities are or were quite basic, sometimes even brand new discs are unplayable. Lately, the people reissuing the stuff have managed to track down the original studio tapes, hence the high quality reissues coming mainly from Japan. At a price though - £20 a go.

With the ska and reggae repros though, they just kept pressing them from the same old plates or even from disc (the majority of UK 60's ska releases were dubbed from Jamaican imports) so over the years the sound got worse unless they were done from master tapes from people like Bunny Lee...and also the Jamaican pressing facilities are or were quite basic, sometimes even brand new discs are unplayable. Lately, the people reissuing the stuff have managed to track down the original studio tapes, hence the high quality reissues coming mainly from Japan. At a price though - £20 a go.

Pete you're absolutly right mate those Jap Dub store reissues are very exspencive but the weight's are exact , virgin vinyl , some have hand made screen printed sleeves and the sound quality is unreal however last week I sold 8 copies of man next door on the Jaguar reissue at £4.00 each , I must say not the best sound or manufacturing quality i know that if they'd been the Dub store reissues at around £20.00 I'd not have sold one respect Simon.

Intersting point re reggae releases Personally I'm happy to pay 20 quid for those jap reissues , they look and feel the real deal : Yep I think all points made so far are spot on and the way that the Japanese ska store go about things, shame more peeps aren't prepared to go that extra mile but as Pete rightly says the majority not happy to pay for it !

I'd rather the lookalike ones remain that way to be honest.

I can't see them ever becoming any more credible, at least I'd hope not......they are still fakes at the end of the day.

they keep making pressings of EVERY F****** R'N'B record we play out here so I'm not sad to hear they sound awful.

The 70's repros of doo-wop / r'n'b that were made in the US really run the gamut, some sound great, some are nearly unlistenable. I have a 70's boot of George Blackwell that I bought off Pete S many years ago and it sounds fabulous, too gronw up to play it out now but was nice when I didn't know better... Who made that one???

The 70's repros of doo-wop / r'n'b that were made in the US really run the gamut, some sound great, some are nearly unlistenable. I have a 70's boot of George Blackwell that I bought off Pete S many years ago and it sounds fabulous, too gronw up to play it out now but was nice when I didn't know better... Who made that one???

Simon Soussan..

Simon Soussan..

thanks for that, doubt i'll ever own a real GB but it's interesting to know where that one came from

thanks for that, doubt i'll ever own a real GB but it's interesting to know where that one came from

All that batch from 76 came from the same source, organised by SS, pressed by a famous bootlegger and sold via Russ Winstanley's sales list to begin with. Mel Britt, Salvadors, Johnny Vanelli, George Blackwell, kenny Smith, Flirtations and so on.

All that batch from 76 came from the same source, organised by SS, pressed by a famous bootlegger and sold via Russ Winstanley's sales list to begin with. Mel Britt, Salvadors, Johnny Vanelli, George Blackwell, kenny Smith, Flirtations and so on.

I was reading the recent thread about SS, wild stuff.

Also wow, bootlegged 3 years before I was "issued"

Edited January 26, 201213 yr by Preems

they keep making pressings of EVERY F****** R'N'B record we play out here so I'm not sad to hear they sound awful.

The only solution is to cover the more obscure ones up.

A cover-up a day keeps the booters at bay (for a while longer at least)

All that batch from 76 came from the same source, organised by SS, pressed by a famous bootlegger and sold via Russ Winstanley's sales list to begin with. Mel Britt, Salvadors, Johnny Vanelli, George Blackwell, kenny Smith, Flirtations and so on.

Off topic so apologies but Pete did any of the old articles you wrote have any more details about this kind of stuff? A subject I find interesting and would love to learn more about the who, where , why etc.

All that batch from 76 came from the same source, organised by SS, pressed by a famous bootlegger and sold via Russ Winstanley's sales list to begin with. Mel Britt, Salvadors, Johnny Vanelli, George Blackwell, kenny Smith, Flirtations and so on.

And of course sold as originals at very high prices originally.

And of course sold as originals at very high prices originally.

I remember the day I first sw these records, it was in an a5 catalogue from Russ's records, they were splashed all over the front page and definitely sold as originals. Elsewhere in the catalogue were copies of the Natural Four - I thought you were mine - Boola Boola, that was £5 and nobody wanted that version. Anyway I got the list on the day I was sitting an exam and took it into the hall with me, I was so excited about it that I ignored the exam and just read the list, it soon got confiscated and I got something like grade D cse maths for not doing the exam

p.s. Ady I've not forgot that thing, it's in here ready to go

Off topic so apologies but Pete did any of the old articles you wrote have any more details about this kind of stuff? A subject I find interesting and would love to learn more about the who, where , why etc.

Yeah that one I wrote about Black Music and the history of the scene mentions that kind of stuff quite heavily, I scanned it from an old fanzine that I wrote it for and the software changed some of the spellings so if it looks like I wrote some odd words, I didn't really LOL

https://www.rare-soul.com/wordpress/about/the-northern-soul-explosion/

get a cup of coffee though, it's about 15 pages long

Thanks Pete

they keep making pressings of EVERY F****** R'N'B record we play out here so I'm not sad to hear they sound awful.

Try playing the juke box jam seres they're top notch R-N-B repro's totaly legal and sell very well regards Simon.

Try playing the juke box jam seres they're top notch R-N-B repro's totaly legal and sell very well regards Simon.

I think you misread my meaning, many of the originals we spin are turning up as knock-offs in stores, it's lame.

It's great that there's good reissues for the kids tho I suppose

Edited January 27, 201213 yr by Preems

I think you're dead right, it's short sighted but I guess they must be selling : It's a real shame as with a bit more effort they could become a lot more credible

Sorry if things started going in a negative/off topic direction there. I don't buy many repros these days even in the area of dance music where I really don't care whether or not I'm playing an original Chicago house 12" and the simple fact is they rarely sound as good. A weird thing I notice is, if you are a buyer of LP's a lot of those 180g vinyl reissues seemed to have really muddy sound, even when people ostensibly had the masters. It got to the point where if a reissue felt heavy i wouldn't get it. I'm talkng here in the area of say psych/garage LP repros and also some minimal synth things..

I do have a delores repro from a few years ago that sounds good, and used to have the patrinell staten one done by light in the attic which was very nice as well..

But I would say Mace's point holds more often than not....

The worst sound quality on a repro I ever heard hands down, was Velvet Satins Nothing Can Compare To You, I'm sure it was recorded in an outside toilet next to an airport, good job the track was only about a minute long.

Aid.

The only solution is to cover the more obscure ones up.

A cover-up a day keeps the booters at bay (for a while longer at least)

How do they get away with it ??

Surely they cant have licences for all the different stuff they are booting so can they not be reported for boot legging?

Most of the R&B items are now hitting the 50 year mark - and falling under the "50yr Copyright rule".

See 6 ii > https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law

The booting of R&B has become rife - I was in a shop in Manchester last weekend and there must have been in excess of 100 of these new "re-issues".

I scanned through - and there was a large percentage of my old FlipSide and Back Beat playlists in there - some pretty obscure bits - and stuff that never really took off...

I hope they prove as popular with the purchasers, as they did with folks when i was playing them - ie not very.

Just notice this one

https://www.ebay.com/itm/NORTHERN-SOUL-VONDELLS-HEY-GIRL-YOUVE-CHANGED-hear-/170761532497?pt=UK_Records&hash=item27c22e3451#ht_500wt_915

The sound clip reveals what sounds like a cue burned record and according to the seller it's legit.

Most of the R&B items are now hitting the 50 year mark - and falling under the "50yr Copyright rule".

See 6 ii > https://www.copyright...k_copyright_law

Not read your link yet Joe, so might confirm this, but I believe the 50 year law is dated from first official release, not the recording date.

For example, Billy & The Moonlighters 'Little Indian Girl' was first officially released in something like 1977, even though its(presumably) an early 60s recording...so it's protected by the 50 year law until 2027.

So any unreleased 60s tracks that are legally released now would be covered until 2062......can anyone confirm if this is correct?

Not read your link yet Joe, so might confirm this, but I believe the 50 year law is dated from first official release, not the recording date.

For example, Billy & The Moonlighters 'Little Indian Girl' was first officially released in something like 1977, even though its(presumably) an early 60s recording...so it's protected by the 50 year law until 2027.

So any unreleased 60s tracks that are legally released now would be covered until 2062......can anyone confirm if this is correct?

Now I've read link, the facts seem to be as I suggested, though obviously only for recording made 1962 and onwards (as of 2012)

1. Sound Recordings and broadcasts
   50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was created, or,
   if the work is released within that time: 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was first released.
   

Edited January 27, 201213 yr by Mace