Quality CD recordings

[AbyssalLoris]

This is going to sound like a pretty dumb question, but anyway...

I have gone through zillions of posts about speakers and other audio equipment and the issue of recording quality is always mentioned. It is obvious that even if you have an excellent system, your ultimate shortcoming will be the quality of your source.

So how do I go about getting good recordings? Keep in mind I have no turntables and I'm not talking about Vinyl. This is strictly with reference to CDs. There are all kinds of CDs available and I may not know which recording is a good one and which one is mediocre. So what do you do? If I want album X by band Y, is any CD of X/Y the same as the others? For example, how do I know my copy of PF's DSOTM is a good recording? If not, how would I better it?

Am I making any sense?

 

[MDS]

There are plenty of good recordings and CDs that were mastered well without excessive compression. In general, older versions have a much lower average level while newer 'remasters' are often compressed quite a bit. The newer ones are not ALL bad.

 

[j_garcia]

The better your system, the more obvious a poor recording can be.

 

[Hawkeye]

AbyssalLoris, you may want to head over to the Music Corner over at the Steve Hoffman site - http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/ - where they obsess to the nth degree over the best pressing, mastering, etc. of any and every recording ever made. A fair amount of professional audio folks do hang there, as well as your standard music lovers. It's a very active site with dozens of threads being responded to in a matter of minutes.

 

[skizzerflake]

Check out some of the audio publications at the newstand. As weird and over the top some are, they people that write those obsess about audio quality. Sensible Sound and Stereophile come to mind. Also the "Acoustic Sound catalog has lots of very helpful advice on good vinyl, SACD and CDs.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

If I am looking for a particular CD by a particular artist, I only occasionally find more than one version to choose from. When there is more than one version, I usually go for the most recent remaster. (I will sometimes go for an earlier remaster if it was overseen by someone involved with the original recording, particularly a band member.)
Some new releases, particularly in jazz and new age, sound so good that not even the best older CDs (remastered or not) can hold a candle to them.

 

[annunaki]

The better your system, the more obvious a poor recording can be.

Are you serious??

 

[AbyssalLoris]

Well all sound replies, but I'm still not sure what to do. I mean, I know that different recordings are of different quality (compression and what not). I know that a good system will reveal poor masterings. None of this tells me how I should go about buying a given CD.

Now, I don't have some absolute reference level system that I may just pop in a CD and tell if it is good or not. Chances are, if I felt that the sound coming out was not up to scratch, I wouldn't be able to tell if the problem was the source or the AVR or the speaker (or well, the room). In fact, since I don't have an absolutely perfect setup and source to compare to, I might not even know if the sound coming out was as good as it got, or otherwise.

So what I'm saying, all things considered, is that I'd just like to get what is known to be a great mastering so that I may forget about the source part. Especially, as even a very good CD can be had for a lot less than very good speakers. Besides, your CD collection is something you'll keep (no need to upgrade ); so might as well get the best you can and only worry about your other components when you want to get better output. That sums it up.

I will visit the Hoffman forums (fora?) and look into the Acoustic catalog thing. Don't think I'll bother with Stereophool, oops.. where are my manners? Except when I want entertainment, or when I feel like reading poetry . So what is this Acoustic catalog and how do I get my hands on it?

 

[MDS]

There is no way to identify a CD as being a high quality recording other than by recommendations from others or personal experience with different labels and/or mastering engineers.

For example, I can tell you that pretty much every disc I have bought where the label is Rhino or Flashback (division of Rhino) is done well. They don't compress the crap out of the songs and they use the original studio masters.

Now me telling you that they sound good is fairly meaningless, just like any recommendations you may get from some enthusiast list. But without regard for how *I* think they sound I can say that they are mastered conservatively and are far different than many others I have with the same songs. I know that because I have seen thousands of waveforms as I rip my CDs with Sound Forge.

Keep in mind also that that is not the whole story either. Example: I have a remastered version of Eagles - Desperado. It is also fairly conservatively mastered in the sense that it is not as hot as many modern CDs (although still hotter than the earliest release before the remaster). BUT...I don't particularly like how the song Outlaw Man was mixed. The cymbals are too forward and somewhat drown out the chorus if that makes sense - the voice is somewhat 'recessed'.

Mixing, Mastering, how it was recorded in the first place, all effect the sound. So long story short - it is a crapshoot. Just go out and buy a CD you like. If and only if you think there is something you don't really like about it should you look for another version on a different label or mastered by someone else.

 

[AbyssalLoris]

Mmm.. got it. As with all other things in the audiophile world, this is just another ridiculous jumble. So I guess I'll just have to ask for recommendations for any CD I want to get. No way I'm going to buy and keep multiple labels of the same album. Don't got that kinda dough.

As for recommendations themselves, you say one person's opinion will differ from anothers. That's ok. But I'm sure many will agree on what recording is known to be bad. I mean, compressed or universally-agreed-upon bad recordings do exist. At least, I'd get to know what to avoid. Is there some sort of a compilation of good/bad recordings anyone can point me to?

I will just ask for specific suggestions on the Hoffman forums for some CDs I'd like to get.

 

[j_garcia]

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.

 

[rnatalli]

The better your system, the more obvious a poor recording can be.

Isn't that the truth!

 

[zhimbo]

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.

That's true enough usually, but sometimes the mastering is so awful it's distracting, or sucks the life out of the music, and renders it unlistenable. I find this is especially true with a lot of old jazz recordings, which may be out in multiple versions from different labels, and have gone through numerous reissues.

The first time I listened to Louis Armstrong's Hot Fives and Sevens, I recognized the quality of the music in an intellectual way, but I couldn't stand listening too it. It was an older Columbia reissue series that took an extreme view towards removing static/noise, and the result was a muddy, flat, awful mess. I can't properly convey how bad with words alone. I later bought the JSP version, which sounds GREAT, and I love.

They're still primitive 1920's recordings with plenty of SQ issues, but they're mastered with care rather than reckless disregard for what the end product actually sounds like.

So, if you like 78-era jazz, the JSP label is a reliable source - I have Armstrong, Django Reinhardt, and Jelly Roll Morton sets from them.

 

[Hawkeye]

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.

 

[zumbo]

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.

You bet. Most of my favorite music has poor SQ. But, I can say this. All but one of my Primus cd's sound fantastic(Frizzle-Fry). And thanks to the Hallucino-Genetics dvd, that has been done one better. The whole album was done live with superior 5.1 SQ.

 

[AbyssalLoris]

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.

Sure, that is true. I won't stop listening to my favorite music simply because the mastering is not stellar. But that doesn't mean I can't get a better version if it exists. I mean, I might not even know that a better recording version is out there if I only listen to the one I've heard before, right? Think of the increased pleasure you can get from a better CD (if it exists for that album).

I'm not that much into Jazz, but I don't mind it sometimes (for Zhimbo).

 

[zumbo]

Sure, that is true. I won't stop listening to my favorite music simply because the mastering is not stellar. But that doesn't mean I can't get a better version if it exists. I mean, I might not even know that a better recording version is out there if I only listen to the one I've heard before, right? Think of the increased pleasure you can get from a better CD (if it exists for that album).

I'm not that much into Jazz, but I don't mind it sometimes (for Zhimbo).

As far as I know, unless it's a remaster, dvd-a and sacd is the only option.

 

[AbyssalLoris]

Forgive my ignorance man, but are all sacds (and dvd-as) good?

 

[j_garcia]

Forgive my ignorance man, but are all sacds (and dvd-as) good?

I haven't heard one that was worse than a CD, but I own a few that aren't better than a CD either. In general though, SACDs and DVD-As are usually remastered and offer an improvement that is sometimes considerable. A few SACDs I have are of music I would not normally have purchased but because the recordings were so good, I ended up giving them a shot an I became a fan.

I have some discs that I used to love and listen to a lot. Then I upgraded my system over the years and when I hear some of these, the poor quality is a glaring sore thumb...

If you want to hear a very well recorded disc, pick up Jazz at the Pawnshop. I like Jazz, but it isn't the most frequent in my rotation list... This disc simply floored me, approaching SACD quality levels (it is also available on SACD)

 

[davidtwotrees]

Great posts, all. When I recently introduced my Canton L800s into my system I was amazed at the SQ improvement. I decided to play some Rock and Roll and put in Led Zep's Physical Graffiti. OMG, the SQ was so bad I recoiled in horror! It is a pretty old disc, and I listened to it a few months back on my Mordaunt Short 500s and didn't notice anything unusual........

I have also bought music I normall wouldn't have because of the format or SQ. I am still trying to get into classical........my god the library of hi res music in the classical genre is amazing......
I also use Stereophile reccomended music as a guide for recording quality.