Will first pressing of a c.d. sound better?
- Thread starter Huck
- Start date
Which would mean that CD had every bit of the master tape so there for good?
Well not every bit, no matter how good the digital processing is it will always only be a snap shot of pieces of the analog signal. 
Poinzy
Super Member
Not if they remaster the source material for subsequent pressings and remove some of the original flaws.
Last edited:
Very often early press CDs are more dynamic. I prefer more dynamics. "Remaster" more often than not only means squashed dynamics to make the sound louder. I think the record companies said to themselves early on "what are we crazy? Giving out exact duplicates [aka flat transfers] of our master tapes?" As a result they started playing with dynamics to make imperfect product that could be sold and resold over and over. Fudge it this way today. Fudge it that way again in 5 years. I would much rather listen to the magic that Barry Diament worked with the safety copies of Led Zeppelin for the first run of CDs than the later brickwalled versions from the master tapes. Seeking out early pressings has become a favorite pastime for me recently. Do you like Genesis? Go seek out an early CD pressing of Trick of the Tail or Wind and Wuthering, the ones made in Japan for US distribution. Then listen to those absurd "Definitive Editions". lol!
Last edited:
sKiZo
Hates received: 92644 43.20°N 85.50°W
Worth mentioning, there was a big push to get older vinyl transferred to CD format and into the stores early on and mastering/quality suffered the consequences. In many cases, "remasters" are just the originals done right. Media and media production also improved over time.
Or the remastering peps putting their “fix” on it and jacking up what the original producers and engineers wanted you to hear.
Not saying there weren’t a lot of bad ones just like now there are lots of bad. But IMHO I have heard plenty-o original greats that where f’ed up to make it “better” or “fix” it. Guess my point is not everything needs remastered but that seems to be the norm.
And crappy or not they did have it right if that’s what they wanted you to hear from their project, just saying
Djcoolray
Addicted Member
The sound of a recording depends on which recording studio did what as they don’t do the same thing for the same reason. Then each recording studio does not even have the same recording equipment and the engineers that do the remastering are never the same person. With the distribution of millions of records there will be more than one recording studio producing an album.
So doing a review on a CD after you learn how they catalog each release by way of a numbered letter system will help you identify the best sounding CD.
So doing a review on a CD after you learn how they catalog each release by way of a numbered letter system will help you identify the best sounding CD.
ldatlof
We are all steak
No, but the 1994 CD of Zeppelin II has an album DR of 11 (10 min, 13 max) while the 1987 CD of the same album has an album DR of 11 (10 min, 12 max). I prefer the 1994 version without the hiss.
The 1970 Vinyl has a an album DR of 12 (10 min, 13 max).
IMO the first pressing of Led Zep II is not as good as the second. Most of the later pressings (remasters/reissues) have an album DR of 10 and are not as good.
KeninDC
Hazy Cosmic Jive
Original RCA Bowie CDs, in spite of their flaws (occasional dropouts), fetch big money because they sound better than the compressed current CDs and the Virgin CDs (which are not that bad).
Led Zep is a crapshoot. Sometimes the original CDs are great, other times it is the Marino CDs. Or the latest remasters. I like the latest remasters, but if you find a Japan for US HotH, it is bliss. But I prefer tape hiss to artificial NR techniques.
Led Zep is a crapshoot. Sometimes the original CDs are great, other times it is the Marino CDs. Or the latest remasters. I like the latest remasters, but if you find a Japan for US HotH, it is bliss. But I prefer tape hiss to artificial NR techniques.
Depends what is meant by "first pressing." Usually it's the mastering that is changed (notice I didn't say "improved") when there is a later CD release, but to me, "pressing" is the physical part...and like @Celt says above, if we're just talking CD masters like the stampers used to make LPs, there should be no difference.
Mastering and newer releases a whole other can of worms, and I've heard both good and bad remasters. Many remasters (especially from the mid 90s onward) got "brickwalled", had the bass and treble boosted way up, and applied horrible sounding digital noise reduction which, once you identify and hear the artifacts, is hard to unhear. Things in the past few years have seemed to change in the opposite direction and many remaster programs are now more faithful to the original two-track masters than in the last decade or two. There are some out there who are really into "first pressing" CDs and IMHO, some of those are real sonic turds. In many cases, it was a cash grab by the label--grab the first master tape they came across (which was often an LP cutting master, which had all the LP mastering EQ on it), ram it into digital, and slap it on a CD.
One cannot generalize though. Not all early CDs are bad; not all 90s CDs were bad either. It all has to be heard on an individual basis to determine which is the best sounding to our ears.
Mastering and newer releases a whole other can of worms, and I've heard both good and bad remasters. Many remasters (especially from the mid 90s onward) got "brickwalled", had the bass and treble boosted way up, and applied horrible sounding digital noise reduction which, once you identify and hear the artifacts, is hard to unhear. Things in the past few years have seemed to change in the opposite direction and many remaster programs are now more faithful to the original two-track masters than in the last decade or two. There are some out there who are really into "first pressing" CDs and IMHO, some of those are real sonic turds. In many cases, it was a cash grab by the label--grab the first master tape they came across (which was often an LP cutting master, which had all the LP mastering EQ on it), ram it into digital, and slap it on a CD.
One cannot generalize though. Not all early CDs are bad; not all 90s CDs were bad either. It all has to be heard on an individual basis to determine which is the best sounding to our ears.
No problemo! HuckHuck, sorry about remaster soap boxing in your thread!
olson_jr
Lunatic Member
I have always thought that the cymbals were much more up front and easier to hear on first pressings of CDs. Do you have any?
(sorry)
