|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.148.149.146
In Reply to: RE: cd quality posted by rockanroller on August 05, 2015 at 17:13:12
Sadly, the problem of variable sound quality isn't new or unique to CDs. LPs suffer from it too, with the variations in pressing quality thrown in. If the original recording isn't good, or the mastering mediocre the disc you get will reflect it.
I do believe overall CD sound quality has improved over the years. The 2000 Dire Straits remasters and The Beatles 2009 remasters were big improvements over the original CDs, so much so I replaced my original CDs with them. But I've also heard remasters that didn't make any difference that I could hear. Hit or miss.
Best regards, Ralph
Follow Ups:
"The Beatles 2009 remasters were big improvements over the original CDs...."
I guess this is one thing I'll never agree on.... In my opinion, the 2009 remasters were the worst sounding of the Beatles CDs that I've experienced. Especially the Stereo Box Set. (The Mono set sounds better, but still not nearly as good as 1987.)
I've even done demos between the 1987 and 2009 versions.... Now that I have a camera that records nice audio, I might even post one on YouTube. ("Piggies" from the White Album is a great track for this.) Although it would likely be shut down quickly by the Copyright Police.
It was my understanding that all the early Beatles albums were recorded to be sold in mono, and that the stereo LPs were electronically generated.
Did they do actual remasters in stereo? I bought the mono box set for the reason that mono was the way Martin and the Beatles themselves had mixed the mono LPs with stereo being an after thought.
I just got a DAC with a usb input, and a laptop now loadedu with JRiver. I just ripped the entire mono box set. I really loved the attention to detail with the box set, but it was a pain in the ass to play one after another. So now I have the 1st album through "Revolver" as one Playlist and the rest of the set as a second playlist.
I also bought the stereo remasters of "Abbey Road" and "Let It Be".
I've never compared the "Abbey Road" LP from 1969[received for Christmas in'69]to the 1980 Mobile Fidelity LP release to the 2009 CD.
"It was my understanding that all the early Beatles albums were recorded to be sold in mono, and that the stereo LPs were electronically generated."
I don't know about the "electronically", but I think the stereo versions were from separating the mixing tracks. (I don't notice any artifacts from electronic separation from the already mixed mono recording, which I think would have sounded horrible.)
"Did they do actual remasters in stereo? I bought the mono box set for the reason that mono was the way Martin and the Beatles themselves had mixed the mono LPs with stereo being an after thought."
There were remasters of both the mono and stereo versions. Some of the Mono Box Set CDs had a "stereo" copy included, if two copies of the album fit on one CD. These stereo copies were sonically superior to the Stereo Box Set version. (But still not as good as the 1987/1988 versions on CD.)
"I just got a DAC with a usb input, and a laptop now loadedu with JRiver. I just ripped the entire mono box set. I really loved the attention to detail with the box set, but it was a pain in the ass to play one after another. So now I have the 1st album through 'Revolver' as one Playlist and the rest of the set as a second playlist."
I ripped a couple albums, mainly to upload tracks for comparison.
The comparison files were not nearly as dramatic in their differences as playing the actual CDs on one of the big systems. (One of the reasons why I selected "Piggies" for the original comparison was I thought the 1997 CD track was almost "demonstration" quality. But that entire 1997 release CD sounds great. I tell people I cannot get sound like that out of a computer.)
"I also bought the stereo remasters of 'Abbey Road' and 'Let It Be'.
"I've never compared the 'Abbey Road' LP from 1969[received for Christmas in'69]to the 1980 Mobile Fidelity LP release to the 2009 CD."
That would be my next project.... Beatles vinyl. I have multiple copies of most Beatles albums, but all are on CD.
For a long time, I thought the sound quality of Beatles music was mostly mediocre..... It was only ten years ago when I realized these recordings were greatly underrated. ("Abbey Road" is another well-recorded album.)
...I have all of the Beatles 2009 remasters in stereo and they are among the best recordings in my collection.
To me they sound the closest to master tape quality.
About six years ago, I uploaded three versions of "Piggies" from the White Album. These are all uncompressed WAV ripped from the respective CDs.....
I just wonder if maybe we're listening to different releases that somehow sound different...... (You might have to adjust the volume, the Box Set versions are louder than the 1987 version.)
Mono Box Set Version
Stereo Box Set Version
Parlophone 1987 Version
I don't have good enough speakers on my computer yet to judge properly (soon to be fixed!), but I have all the Mono Box set, the new stereo White Album (thrift store find) and the 1987 Parlophone White Album. I never got around to comparing "Piggies", but I will try to get around to it this weekend!
Mostly when I listen to music, I just want to get into it and not listen critically to the sound. Good sound is icing on the cake for me. I friend just gave me a Janis Joplin Box Set and I really have been enjoying it.
Dave
...I compared numerous cuts from the originals to the 2009 remasters and they aren't close.
I also compared a few cuts of the 2007 remasters (Beatles 1) and they are closer to the 2009s than the originals.
Try Eleanor Rigby from Revolver (my favorite - listen on the strings) or Drive My Car from Rubber Soul or Ticket to Ride from Help.
I posted the track links because some of the people who preferred the Box Sets thought differently with these particular samples. I was just curious on your take.
"Eleanor Rigby" is the second track I would have used..... A third maybe "Norwegian Wood" from "Rubber Soul"...... Maybe I'll upload samples of these as well.
Once again, three tracks in uncompressed WAV......
I would do a "pick-em", but it's too obvious..... (I could also "normalize", but I think that in itself degrades sound quality.)
Mono Box Set Version
Stereo Box Set Version
1987 Version
...even though While My Guitar Gently Weeps and Norwiegan Wood are my two favorite Beatles songs, they are not necessarily the best ones to show the differences.
I've only compared with CDs on my big system.
My go to is Dr Ebbetts ...2nd would be the English LPs on my shelf...3rd, the Mono Box
"Eleanor Rigby" Ebbetts Version!!I like this recording better than the Box Sets, but not as much as the 1987.
For what it's worth, my 1987 CD copy of "Revolver" was "Made in the UK"..... I know there are other flavors, but don't know anything beyond that.
Edits: 08/13/15
I've been listening to the 24bit remasters for a couple of weeks. The resolution is there, but they cranked up the dynamic compression on Revolver, and all the others. The Beatles of all bands needs a wide dynamic range to bring out the full magnificence. It's tragic really. I wouldn't be surprised if you like some of your old CDs. They loose on resolution though.
The one "audiophile moment" I had with the 24bit remasters was the transition from "You Never Give Me Your Money" to "Sun King." There is a lot more going on there than I've ever heard before on any medium, vinyl included. The DR on Abbey Road seems to be better than Revolver, but not much.
------------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
Personally, I'd prefer a 16 bit CD with the A/D straight from the original analog to 16 bit audio in a single conversion over a CD with the A/D from the original analog to 24 bits and then a second conversion to 16.
The roundabout point I was trying to make was that most pre 90s CDs even though they have many problems with the master used and primitive converters, still have superior DR, and are therefore worth keeping, and even listening to.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
Okay, makes sense.
I'll take the 24bit file with a 24bit player, or conversion to DSD. I'm enjoying hi res. If they would only ease up on the DR.
-------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
My experience was the opposite. Every comparison I made the 2009 release was better. The difference sometimes varied from song to song but it was consistent in the latter's favor. Even my wife, who rarely notices such things, thought it was better.
Best regards, Ralph
You have floating this opinion for a long time now and you are a minority of one. Everyone involved in the original Beatles recordings from George Martin on said the 87 CDs are literally like 3rd generation cassette dubs of the masters. The convertors used and the quality control for the 87 CDs are light years away from the 2009 production.Subjectively the 87 CDs sound good, but a direct comparison to the Limited Edition USB stick is like hearing the songs played behind a curtain and being in the room.
Edits: 08/09/15
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: