Quality CD recordings

[j_garcia]

My first SACD player was the reason why I upgraded my speakers. When I first heard Patricia Barber on them, I thought WOW, I didn't think they could sound this good...and yet it still sounded like the speakers were what was holding me back.

 

[Zer0beaT]

I actually work in a CD store (new and used) and we have a handful of regulars who come in and want to inspect certain CD's to see where they were made.

They're usually looking for German pressings of certain CD's, or Japanese issues, or whatever. I don't really know what but it's annoying all the same because they're never what they're looking for

Obviously, most Cd's only have one version, but like you said something like Pink Floyd DSOTM has been issued many times and each time "remastered" etc etc.

The newest one is an SACD hybrid. So if you have an SACD player you'd probably want that right? Sounds fine to me.

But the newest version doesn't always mean best especially with all this "loudness war" stuff going around.

I have an example I just came upon the other day that actually has me concerned.

The Doors-Very Best Of 2CD on RHINO.

I have 2 versions of this. One is from 2000 and looks like this

The other is 2007 and looks like this

The second one was remixed by the band (obviously minus Jim Morrison) though it doesn't really say that on the packaging or even in the credits and they sound completely different, and odd I'd say. Comparing songs back to back the difference is major. Some are in completely different octaves! The newer one actually sounds less defined and overly reverberated, while the other sounds too up front and clean!

So there you go, in cases where there more than one option for a particular recording there can be a huge difference and it's possible that without hearing both you wouldn't ever realize!

 

[MDS]

So there you go, in cases where there more than one option for a particular recording there can be a huge difference and it's possible that without hearing both you wouldn't ever realize!

That is true as the different versions can be on different labels and/or have different mixing or mastering engineers working on it. That's why I said before that over time you may start to notice which labels are consistently good for the music you like and even start to recognize the name of the person that mastered it.

One thing to note though is that things are sometimes not what they appear and here is an example. I bought a set of the Eagles first three albums and the label was Warner Australia. The set was extremely cheap - like $9 for all three. I then wanted to get the next 4 albums to complete the collection but I decided to buy all 7 at once so they would all be the same.

Well...it turns out that there is absolutely zero difference between the Warner Australia label and Warner USA (other than slight differences in the cover art). I ripped both versions and compared them and they were bit for bit identical!

 

[Joe Schmoe]

For me the same holds true with Rush's "Vapor Trails." Although the music is pretty good and it does sounds ok while driving around in my car, I have yet to be able to play it all the way through on my home system.

The new one has really bad SQ too. Unfortunate, as some of the songs are great.

 

[skizzerflake]

Even if it isn't a great recording, the MUSIC should be why you are listening. I don't mind a less than stellar recording if I like what I am hearing.

Yes but...Music comes first but if there's a better recording, I will probably get it. With the technology available to any recordist, almost anybody who uses care can make a decent recording.