Comment Re:Another Example of a Negative Headline (Score 1) 89
Sadly, that is no longer true. Vinyl releases aren't premium - they're for the people who buy a Crosley Cruiser (you know, those suitcase players). So the vinyl master is often the same as the CD master with all the loss of dynamic range.
In the 90s this would be true, but the retro revival of vinyl means people are buying because it's trendy, not because it sounds better.
This is not always the case; there are some albums (albeit they are the exception, not the rule) where a modern day 'reissue' played side-by-side against an earlier release does in fact sound better.
As well, there are a number of companies out there re-mastering from original recordings (where available) specifically for vinyl.
Sites like Discogs have a large database of the quality of individual releases, and if you're looking for good quality sound, always check your issue against them before you buy.
Case in point, a few years ago I saw both an original pressing and a modern reissue (not re-mastered) of Red Hot Chili Pepper's 'Blood Sugar Sex Magick' in a record-store chain; the price difference was negligible, and both aligned fairly well to the 'market' value.
While in that situation I'd normally pick up the original pressing, in this case Discogs said the reissue was a better/cleaner sound, so I bought that one instead, and was not disappointed.
Your assertion is correct for most modern issuances, though, as unfortunate as that is.