Why Original CDs Sound Different?

[Overdose]

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

Possibly one of the worst recordings I possess.

 

[alchemist 1]

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.

I understand what your saying rp, but how can a digital download compare too the style of say a michell gyro deck,for me it takes the fun out of the hobby we indulge in.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Vinyl Anyone ? :bounce:

The latest Foo Fighters album was recorded onto analogue tape, but the transfer to CD ended in compression, but according to someone on here, that compression isn't present on the vinyl. It's far from dead.

It's a good investment too. Copies of Boards Of Canada's Geogaddi are now going for £150-200. I think I paid £25-30. Not that I would sell them, because I feel vinyl still has properties that digital music can't match.

 

[Overdose]

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.

I understand what your saying rp, but how can a digital download compare too the style of say a michell gyro deck,for me it takes the fun out of the hobby we indulge in.

By compare, do you mean the ritual involved in playing vinyl to pressing a button or two, for digital playback, or do you mean sound quality?

Digital music is in every way as capable a format as vinyl regarding sound quality and again, quality variations are down to mastering/recording and not the format or its shortcomings.

 

[GSB]

Hi guys,has anyone got or listened to the new Pink floyd remasters...?

Are they an improvement over the original?

 

[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.

I understand what your saying rp, but how can a digital download compare too the style of say a michell gyro deck,for me it takes the fun out of the hobby we indulge in.

I get your point, in as much as the tactile experience and interaction you have with vinyl you just don't get with any other format. Nothing like it in fact. I mean, my online nickname's based round the format! So I've loved it for a long time and grew up with it from the late 60s onwards.

However, for sound quality, digital's been there and its better for a while now. My favourite albums best versions sit on CD. I seek out the best masterings and with a high quality digital source player you're sitting there with a highly capable entertainment system.

 

[the record spot]

Hi guys,has anyone got or listened to the new Pink floyd remasters...?

Are they an improvement over the original?

Not tired any yet, but the Floyd's original EMI (or if you come across them, the EMI Japanese "black label" editions) are very decent IMO. The Meddle Japanese version is excellent.

 

[MajorFubar]

Hi guys,has anyone got or listened to the new Pink floyd remasters...?

Are they an improvement over the original?

I only bought DSOTM. Seems the same as what I already owned but with slightly-tweaked EQ, more compression and fractionally-different track-splits. I have the 1994 remaster of The Wall, which was remastered before the engineers got all stupid with volume-maximizing. If you're a fan of that album and don't have that particular master, I can highly recommend it.

 

[matthewpiano]

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

Good post.

 

[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

Good post.

Glad it made sense to someone, I wasn't sure I explained myself very well.

I was just a bit surprized by all the comments in this thread from people saying that poor recordings sound worse on better systems than on less revealing systems.

As an example, I happened to listen to tracks from 2 Nirvana albums today. Nevermind is obviously better produced than Bleach. You know, you can pick out the instruments better, the soundstage is wider, all the audiophile blah blah. But Bleach still sounds good. And it sounds much better on my upgraded system than it did on my original system. The main effect of the upgrade is just that the difference between the 2 recordings is easier to hear.

When it comes to speakers, I'll admit to being a bit confused. I suppose a speaker with less detail, or a rolled off treble might be "forgiving", or a bright speaker will sound harsh and unforgiving on bright recordings. But IMO an accurate speaker in a suitable room should sound fine with almost all professionally recorded music.

I suspect it's more a case of a more detailed and accurate speaker revealing problems elsewhere in the system. These problems tend to appear when playing material that's less well recorded and closer to a particular "edge" e.g. brightness, sibilance etc. In contrast, your typical audiophile muzak actually sounds good even on bad systems...

So as someone said early on in the thread, keep listening to the music and not the hifi