Why Original CDs Sound Different?

[admin_exported]

Hello Guys!

I fail to understand after upgrading my entire hifi range to latest equipments my CDs (all original) sound different? Some really packs a punch where as some like my Queen Greatest Hits sounds way below par! Am I getting this wrong or is it expected?

Please share your thoughts pundits!

Cheers
Mags

 

[RossTT]

Welcome to the hi-fi world of transparent sound. Not all cd's are mastered the same. Good equipment reveals that. Now make sure you don't start listening more to the sound than the music.

 

[the record spot]

Interesting that you mention the Queen originals which apparently were never all that good to begin with (according to some of the fans on the Steve Hoffman site - it might be worth you going over there too to check out masterings to look out for; be prepared to receive lots of advice telling you to buy virtually unobtainable Japanese releases that cost a fortune...!).

 

[Roby]

Hello,

Welcome the a world of compromise.

Upgrading a system come's usualy with more revealing. This means it's unforgiving for bad recordings, but good one's sound like heaven on the otherhand.

In my long search for upgrading first my amp I personaly noticed that only a few cd's are really well recorded. an this is also the reason I'm still hesitating to witch way I should upgrade (beside the money factor, wich now I'm kind of in peace with).

Any way somtime's I have the feeling the sound engineers have been smoking while recording or mixing some stuff.

What I can say is that now I look to the recording label some of theme are always good like "world records" used by ex. P. Gabriel or "Stock fish" used by Alan Taylor

(if there are 2 cd's I want in a shop an I can chose only 1 an 1 of theme is on a good lable I know will buy that one an the other later)

On the other don't be to alarmed, I don't know how long you have your system. But IM experience you have to give it a little time to get used to your new sound.

 

[chebby]

I bought Queen Greatest Hits I II & III (Platinum Collection) a couple of weeks ago. It is the 2011 remastered set. (I got rid of the card sleeve and gave away disc III.)

It sounds a lot better than the old Greatest Hits Volume I and II. (Have given them away too.)

 

[plastic penguin]

Yup, every CD (or most) is recorded differently. I find that some remastered versions are the worst culprits: They tend, in general, to be compressed hence the extra detail, but lose some the heft you get from the original.

Sadly, when you upgrade to a better quality kit it tends to reveal stuff the old one might of glossed over. Swings and roundabouts.

 

[kevinJ]

The better your system gets, the worse some cds will sound. But the good and great recordings will sound wonderful.

If you want some wonderfully mastered cds, have a look at www.sts-digitalshop.nl
They make demo cds for high end systems, magazines, ... and those can let you hear how good your system can sound.

 

[Roby]

I had this discussion recently with a dealer.

An apparently while the remaster or reisseu a record they thay do it mostly on a higher volume wich take a way the dead parts of the original recording an sadly all the dynamic an life.

An that why it sounds some time's so flat an almost metalic ( same issue as on some reisued 180g vinyls I own an I also have an original when I compare the old with the new even if the old one have some traces of use it just sound warmer an fuller)

Also but that is my personal believe don't know if it's true but now ( except some artists who are the exeptions) they degitalise everything so sound to me it's imposible to reproduce a analoge sound decently

Before it was recorded analogical an reprduced the same way...so provably normal ther is a difference

Altrough there are some artist who pay a lot of attention to this (Prince, Michael Jackson, Lenny Kravitz, Peter Gbriel.....)

 

[paradiziac]

Almost all my recordings sound better as I've upgraded my system, even poorly recorded ones.

Roby, check out Slash, the sheer tone and immense sound he gets is awesome. I read it was all recorded onto analogue tape by one of the few engineers who still works that way.

 

[Roby]

Slash from Gun's & Roses you mean?

 

[paradiziac]

Slash from Gun's & Roses you mean?

That's the guy.

I'm not a huge fan of the music, but I love the sound he gets.

Interesting read about the recording here:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul10/articles/it_0710.htm

 

[Roby]

Slash from Gun's & Roses you mean?

That's the guy.

I'm not a huge fan of the music, but I love the sound he gets.

Interesting read about the recording here:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul10/articles/it_0710.htm

Thanks verry intresting. I have to say I must I agree, it makes senssewith what I said before.

There shure a benefits og digital sound but I prefer the more laid back sound of analog (not shure laid back is a right choice of words)

I was a huge fan of the Guns arround '93 saw theme in concert here in Belgium an it's still in my souveneer one of the best I ve been to.

Now I will buy Slash solo album to check it out.

 

[MajorFubar]

Also worth noting that 'back in the day' when the studio recordings were made onto analogue tape, the sound-quality of a song could vary enormously depending on whether you were listening to it on the original album, a later studio compilation, a third-party compilation, and so on. Because CDs and downloads of the same albums are often made from the compilations' master, the SQ differences are sometimes still very evident.

To give an example (albet not a very mainsteam one), anyone who is a fan of the Vangelis songs 'Spiral', 'Ballad', 'Dervish D' and 'To The Unknown Man' would be wise to seek them out on the Greatest Hits compilation from the mid 80s (double vinyl album, also available on Spotify, possibly CD too). The sound quality of the same songs on the original 'Spiral' album is pretty dire, irrespective of wheher you buy that album on vinyl, CD or download. I have no idea why they are superior on the Greatest Hits compilation, but they unquestionably are.

 

[Anonymous]

Welcome to the hi-fi world of transparent sound. Not all cd's are mastered the same. Good equipment reveals that. Now make sure you don't start listening more to the sound than the music.

Nothing wrong with listening to the sound.

Some cds sound absolutely stunning on my set up whilst others are unlistenable. If that's the case they either get 'music magpied' or end up in the car.

I can imagine some folks aghast. How can you buy your music based on and around your system. My answer is easy. Iv never listened to so much stuff, seeking out labels and engineers of all genres. Iv increased my knowledge 100 fold and loving every minute.

If it ain't well recorded then it doesn't get a look in, not in the music room.

Does it limit my listening ? not a chance, it just broadens my horizons

 

[Anonymous]

its the curse of hifi the more you spend the poorer your best cd,s sound so the more you spend.try streaming i find it sounds better than most of my cd,s.buts its not stoped me spending a arm and a leg on a new cd player.but thats the curse for you

 

[whiskywheels]

Yeh, sadly, the trouble with hifi is that you don't always want to hear the thing exactly as it was recorded.

 

[MajorFubar]

If it ain't well recorded then it doesn't get a look in, not in the music room.

...which inevitably brings us to another variable: that of production. My gripe with a lot of modern music is not the recording quality, but the production techniques, specifically loudness-maximizing. I noticed recently that Coldply's latest album, Mylo wotsit, is now on Spotify. I attempted to give it a listen but gave up after about a minute (so about 20 seconds in to the second track). I'm afraid I found it unlistenable.

 

[the record spot]

I bought Queen Greatest Hits I II & III (Platinum Collection) a couple of weeks ago. It is the 2011 remastered set. (I got rid of the card sleeve and gave away disc III.)

It sounds a lot better than the old Greatest Hits Volume I and II. (Have given them away too.)

The 2011 Masters however, are excellent - as you've found. I picked up Queen II and was impressed. Restored my faith in remasters. Well, some of them anyway.

 

[alchemist 1]

Vinyl Anyone ? :bounce:

 

[the record spot]

Not anymore. Got rid of most of my vinyl last autumn, the P3 is going on Gumtree; digital has been my format of choice for some time now. Got the right masterings and most of the blow the black plastic counterpart away. Used to love vinyl but it became just so much faff to play (changing sides every twenty minutes became a pain), store (HUNDREDS of LPs - space issues), move house (HUNDREDS of LPs to shift - backpain issues). Nah, come in nos 33 & 45 (rpm). Your time was up!

 

[Anonymous]

So how is it possible that there are speakers that are detailed, very good quality and still forgiving to "bad" recordings?

Like Spendor.

 

[MajorFubar]

Vinyl Anyone ? :bounce:

I'm not sure vinyl is the answer. All it does is add even more variables, such as the cutting/pressing quality of the LP. That's before you even get into the replay side of things, which has a LOT more significant variables than digital-replay.

 

[alchemist 1]

Not anymore. Got rid of most of my vinyl last autumn, the P3 is going on Gumtree; digital has been my format of choice for some time now. Got the right masterings and most of the blow the black plastic counterpart away. Used to love vinyl but it became just so much faff to play (changing sides every twenty minutes became a pain), store (HUNDREDS of LPs - space issues), move house (HUNDREDS of LPs to shift - backpain issues). Nah, come in nos 33 & 45 (rpm). Your time was up!

With increased intrest in vinyl i would'nt think its time is up. ITS contribution to the nations health and exercise program is often underated and overlooked.

 

[paradiziac]

So how is it possible that there are speakers that are detailed, very good quality and still forgiving to "bad" recordings?

Low distortion.

If you over sharpen a digital photo, you'll see more detail. But in fact you're losing the information. If you want a truely more detailed photo, you need a better lens and sensor, not a bad lens, noisy sensor and Photoshop.

With an "over sharpened" musical presentation, the brain compensates for this, but over time the effect is fatiguing and makes you turn off the hi fi.

It's not just the speakers, you need a good "lens and sensor" as well i.e. a complete system that preserves the original detail on the recording without introducing unnecessary spurie or "enhancements" to make a piece of kit sound impressive. Which is where IMO, some kit falls down and leads to the seemingly widespread observation that better hifi kit often murders a poor recording.

Just my 10p

 

[the record spot]

It was for me. And "increased" is relative.

Compared to where vinyl once was and where (say) digital downloads are right now, vinyl is a niche format. All the moreso if some releases that are coming out are clocking in at over £20 for a single LP.