• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

CD Quality??

neal98

Active Member
I'm sure that this has been discusses previously at some point, but it's my understanding that some of the older CDs were better than the new CDs. Is it better to get one that was made in the 80s or early 90s or to get a new "remastered" CD? I recently acquired a Pioneer PD-D6 SACD player and got a couple of SACDs. Quite frankly, I don't think they're any better than some of my older CDs and maybe even possibly worse. Should this be the case? Or, is it just my imagination? If there is truth to the older CDs being better, is there something in particular I should be looking for (i.e. dates, etc.)? Any info would be much appreciated. I guess I need a crash course in CD quality!
 
Register to hide this ad
I may be wrong, but I think what people are saying is that a lot of the newer music releases especially pop and rock is being compressed to sound louder over the radio. Older music on CD's was not so compressed. I have found that older discs that have been remastered "usually" sound better than the original CD's releases because the technology is better now.
 
When comparing old versions with newer remastered versions of the same CD, it is impossible to make a blanket statement as to which is better. It obviously would depend on the CD.

But as a general statement, I agree with Stillone. Technology does tend to advance. And there is something they say about hindsight...
 
I may be wrong, but I think what people are saying is that a lot of the newer music releases especially pop and rock is being compressed to sound louder over the radio. Older music on CD's was not so compressed. I have found that older discs that have been remastered "usually" sound better than the original CD's releases because the technology is better now.


I agree with this statement.
 
For a true taste of what a good sacd can sound like, buy an analogue productions sacd of any Steve Hoffman mastered Creedence Clearwater Revival. I tend to avoid remasters the last 10 yrs or so because of too much messing with the sound, thats not to say they all sound bad..just most of them :P Before you buy search sites like this for opionions it usually pays off.
 
I may be wrong, but I think what people are saying is that a lot of the newer music releases especially pop and rock is being compressed to sound louder over the radio. Older music on CD's was not so compressed. I have found that older discs that have been remastered "usually" sound better than the original CD's releases because the technology is better now.

I agree with this statement as well. Somewhat akin to older DVD's and remastered ones. When CD's first hit the market there was a lot of room for improvement - Neil Young was right when he said something to the effect that they sounded cold and lifeless. When the Beatles CDs first hit the stands they left a lot to be desired.
 
the general consensus is that alot of older cd's like targets sound better than alot of what's coming out today as well as remasters. but they're also collectable now and there's a hefty premium to get ahold of them, unless you find them used for cheap.
 
I may be wrong, but I think what people are saying is that a lot of the newer music releases especially pop and rock is being compressed to sound louder over the radio. Older music on CD's was not so compressed. I have found that older discs that have been remastered "usually" sound better than the original CD's releases because the technology is better now.

In general I agree with this statement. Let me add that with classical and jazz the recordings just keep getting better. Pick up some of the latest ECM, Chandos, Naxos and Hyperion discs. Fantastic.
 
Brick-walled, over-compression (digital, NOT analog) aside, some new is bad. David Bowie on Virgin has been no-noised to where it is lifeless. That being said, the RCA Bowie CDs are not as good as folks make them out to be. The remastered Ryko Bowie's are pretty darn good and easy to find.

Some old CDs are amazing. The Toshiba/EMI DSotM is a sonic wonder. Stones DSD remasters are generally better than the old Stones CDs. There are exceptions like Aftermath on a WG London.

I like the old AC/DC CDs as well as old Zep CDs, but that's just me. Sometimes I find newer CDs a bit heavy on the treble. Both RVG and Jimmy Page are guilty of this.

I always advise that folks ask here for opinions if they are looking for the "best" sounding CD of an artist. As always, "best" is, for the most part, subjective.

Ken
 
Like Ken said, I have CD's from the early days that are fantastic and some that are horrid in comparison to newer releases of the same title. It's a crap shoot.
 
I once did a test between the "normal" CD of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, and the more expensive 24k gold-plated Ultradisc version from Mobile Fidelity Sounds Labs (it says "original master recording" on it). The Ultradisc was noticably better.
 
I may be wrong, but I think what people are saying is that a lot of the newer music releases especially pop and rock is being compressed to sound louder over the radio. Older music on CD's was not so compressed. I have found that older discs that have been remastered "usually" sound better than the original CD's releases because the technology is better now.

I agree with this, a lot of newer releases are so compressed they just sound like garbage, no dynamic range whatsoever. As for the quality of the material the CDs are manufactured from, that's probably a lot less important, if that's what the OP was referring to.
 
Brick-walled, over-compression (digital, NOT analog) aside, some new is bad. David Bowie on Virgin has been no-noised to where it is lifeless. That being said, the RCA Bowie CDs are not as good as folks make them out to be. The remastered Ryko Bowie's are pretty darn good and easy to find.

I agree 100% with the bowie , the new one's are total crap & the Ryko one's are the best i've heard without heading to vinyl .

I think when it comes to remasters is who actually did it , a lot of record labels go cheap & just run them through a computer compress the hell out of them & boost the level .
when a real good mastering engineer is involved as long as the Label let's them do it right , your probably gonna get something good , steve hoffman is a great example as mentioned .
I have sure bought my share of garbage in remasters .....

Billy joel - the stranger remaster they did a really nice job on , some of the Jimi hendrix stuff eddie kramer did is cool .
I like a lot of the Rudy van gelder jazz stuff , it also seems to sound better when they reamster at 20 - 24 bit & drop it back .

I hate the Pink floyd cd remasters they are just awfull as are some of the Ac Dc one's , you gotta listen for yourself & see what you like , but cd's now are just going south with sound quality .
 
I like a lot of the Rudy van gelder jazz stuff , it also seems to sound better when they reamster at 20 - 24 bit & drop it back .

I hate the Pink floyd cd remasters they are just awful...

This is a great example of the subjective nature of "best" sound. I think the post 1994, Doug Sax, Floyd remasters are some of the best CDs out there and the new, RVGs are hit or miss.

It is rare to find any consensus - except for the Virgin Bowie CDs.:D
 
Thanks everybody that responded! It seems that much of cd quality is a crap shoot as to what you get... Is there any one that you could be assured to get a good recording (Ryko, Steve Hoffman)?? What about there "gold" CD's I see around? Any chance of getting a list together on the recordings that are known to be of high quality? It would save a lot of folks from buying the same CD a couple times before finding a "good" one!
 
just a theory - how about this - when cd's first came out, real 'hifi' systems were more prevalent and the people they were trying to win over to the new format were the gearheads - people who were sitting down and comparing the cd's to their other sources - so in order to be king of the hill and knock that r2r off the mountain - much more attention was paid to detail, mixing etc.
As the time goes by, the market is now mainly people with their portable cd player and in ear headphones - people plopping down the money for some serious hifi gear is not a big enough market for them to really concern themselves with any more.
Why pay so much attention to detail and have the added cost of producing the CD when it is going to be played in a RCA portable cd player (mixing)
Then mp3 players, nano players etc - how many people do you know who have serious audio gear? (this forum does not count obviously)
so as most everything else in our new global economy - bottom line rules and the bottom line does not mean I am going to waste any extra money producing a high quality cd - besides - who listens to those anyway?

Now this is just a theory of mine - but just another long line of new technologies that , in the end, drift us farther and farther away from what good music actually sounds like.

Comes down to the basic marketing question - do I want to sell a million of these for x amount of profit, or do I want to sell 10,000 at x amount of profit - todays economy dictates the million.

Is why now when you talk high end audio gear, it is from smaller companies that the majority of people have never heard of. They saw a demand for high end equipment and either had a love of music or did not want to become a global conglomerate to begin with - It is just much more profitable to sell sub $1,000.00 units then high end gear.
Even in the more expensive gear sold by many "big" manufacturers, the emphasis is on surround sound - making my movies come alive, less wires and smaller foot print the better.
I know for where i live, I do not even know where to go to look at an integrated amp - sure they sell them somewhere in Nashville, I think.

So most important aspect on a cd - profit profit profit - who is going to know the difference anyway.
Few months ago, I sure wouldn't have after listening to decades of mp3's. Had not played a CD in years and years. Only cd's I listened to were my oh so great (I thought at the time) mp3 cd's I burned myself.
Actually thinking about it now, the only requirement I even had in a cd player/dvd player was it could play mp3 cd's.......
Anyway - just me theory of why most cd's do not sound as good.
I even read an article a few years ago, an interview with Bob Dylan, where he was complaining about the format.
 
Couldn't disagree more. It depends on what you listen to. New jazz and classical recordings have never sounded better.

Bang on. The quality of new rock recordings these days has driven me into the arms of jazz and electronic music, and I couldn't be happier. I listen to new rock on the (ugh) car radio - where it still sounds passable.

These hi-res systems that we AK'ers assemble need to be well fed. You really come to appreciate separation and space and jazz and classical recordings have buckets full of both. That said, some rock remasters are well worth having. The 24 bit remaster of Dire Strait's Brothers In Arms is superb and the new remaster of Pearl Jam's Ten is supposed to sound great. The Rush remasters from a decade ago were well done, compelling me to buy the very same albums for a third time (vinyl>>CD>>remaster). :yes:
 
Back
Top Bottom