Physical Media (CD & LP): the later the versions/releases, the worse the sonics!

CKKeung

Well-Known Member
Jun 17, 2011
3,053
3,172
1,410
Hong Kong
Just read this opinion written by Patrick Cleasby on Stereo.net.au https://www.stereo.net.au/opinion/opinion-the-lost-art-of-physical-media

Patrick talked about possible causes such as : " ... the use of sub-par masters, incorrect handling of Dolby A noise reduction, flaky attempts to breach the 74-minute barrier, decaying disc surfaces ... ".

I fully agree with him. In fact except for newly released albums, I always buy vintage CDs which are first presses/full-silver versions as far as possible.

Buying downloadable music files is more tricky. It's difficult to know what generation of master it is and whether it has been added watermarks or the dynamic range adjusted.

LP is even more serious. Most of my LP audiophile friends in Hong Kong avoid reissues and instead treasure vintage early presses, despite of their not uncommonly astronomical prices.

I recently listened to the popular Friday Night in San Francisco LPs in friends' homes.
This is a recent audiophile 45" reissue selling for nearly USD100 in HK.

IMG-20200129-WA0001-1.jpg

IMHO it seems to be another album!
It's because the three guitar masters have become so timid and slow and the sound become as mellow as honey.
Where have the fire and the fierce & spontaneous interplay gone?

In comparison this vintage half-speed LP is many many leagues superior!

R-2226356-1335461108.jpeg.jpg
 

Mike Lavigne

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 25, 2010
12,474
11,369
4,410
agree that you can never assume anything as far as re-issues. you have to listen. no broad brushes. of course, some re-issue enterprises are more reliable than others.

'Friday Night In San Francisco' also has a 45rpm re-issue by ORG, as well as the one you show from IMPEX. i only have the ORG....not heard the IMPEX.

and i have -2- 33rpm pressings, one an early Columbia and the other a Philips UK. don't have the MoFi.

i would rank these; Philips UK 33 < ORG 45 < Early Columbia 33.

the ORG 45 separates things better, quieter backgrounds, comes more forward in the stage. but the early Columbia has more energy, sparkle and flow. the ORG is good, the Columbia very good. the Philips is a bit tepid.

hard to say how the early Columbia and MoFi would compare. my money would be on the Columbia.

with digital the highest resolution you can find is typically pretty reliably the best. 5-10 years ago this was not as predicable as now since dacs were all over the board on how they up-sampled and manipulated the resolution. but the better current dacs can optimize any digital format so the highest rez version very predictably is better.

even 24/44 or 24/48 is reliably better than 16/44. it's rare that a CD is actually sourced from 16/44. not to say that an original CD might not predictably sound better than a re-issue CD. but find the better resolution source file and it's more likely better than either. this even goes for digital transfers from tape. the higher rez source files for the transfers are better than other digital versions.

this even pertains to re-issue tapes from normally reliable sources. i have cases where tape re-issue titles i expected to be exceptional, were easily bettered by my vinyl.

and as far as original pressings being predictably better, i would agree in general, but not 100%. my early classical RCA 45 rpm re-issues seem to easily better the Shaded Dog original pressings i have heard.

the only 100% cases i have found is direct to disc vinyl is always going to be the best you can hear a recording. the nature of the beast.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gds7368

treitz3

Super Moderator
Staff member
Dec 25, 2011
5,459
961
1,290
The tube lair in beautiful Rock Hill, SC
FWIW, I see no issues whatsoever with the ultraHD mastered by Sony. I know it's not vinyl but I like to keep my options open.

Tom
 

asiufy

Industry Expert/VIP Donor
Jul 8, 2011
3,711
723
1,200
San Diego, CA
almaaudio.com
This is particularly true with 60s/70s rock. With very few exceptions, those early 80s CDs (mostly japanese made) sound considerably better than the "remasters", which tend to add too much compression and loudness. Sometimes those "remasters" are taken from wholly different tapes, several generations removed from the original, so they end up sounding dull and lacking air/sparkle.
It is indeed a wild goose chase to find the best (digital) version of each favorite album, but as a rule of thumb, I tend now to stick to these old 80s CDs.
 

Lowrider75

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2019
152
65
113
I've been using Discogs to research the early rock CD issues.
Japanese pressings are certainly very good. The German releases from 1984, 85 are some of the best CDs I've heard in terms of SQ. These pressings have very organic sonics. Germany had CD pressing plants before the US so there are a plethora of major artists to be found, all with high quality sound.
 
  • Like
Reactions: asiufy and CKKeung

CKKeung

Well-Known Member
Jun 17, 2011
3,053
3,172
1,410
Hong Kong

spiritofmusic

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2013
14,609
5,415
1,278
E. England
I've always wondered what the provenance of masters for Tidal and Qobuz is. So many bands sound progessively worse and worse on cd remasters done in 2000s and early 2010s. Which ones are on streaming? Always the most recent?
 
  • Like
Reactions: microstrip

asiufy

Industry Expert/VIP Donor
Jul 8, 2011
3,711
723
1,200
San Diego, CA
almaaudio.com
Usually, yes. Sometimes there'll be two versions, the latest and an earlier (usually also "remastered"). Very rarely you'll get an original transfer on Qobuz/Tidal.
 

Lowrider75

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2019
152
65
113
The comments (mine included)
about the great quality of early CD's were all pertaining to rock releases.
When it comes to jazz, the latest remasters in most cases have the best SQ. Hirez versions of the jazz greats sound fantastic. Much more care goes into remastering jazz; the latest Blue Note releases are outstanding.
 

gds7368

VIP/Donor
Jan 9, 2015
214
190
420
The comments (mine included)
about the great quality of early CD's were all pertaining to rock releases.
When it comes to jazz, the latest remasters in most cases have the best SQ. Hirez versions of the jazz greats sound fantastic. Much more care goes into remastering jazz; the latest Blue Note releases are outstanding.
Generally are early rock releases better on vinyl? Or are they still compressed in the same way to the digital versions? Listened to first few Van Halen albums 24/192 last night, and not terrible sounding but even a good red book quality recording sounds better. For example, next I played A Perfect Circle “Thirteenth Step” which was 10x better at 16/44.
 

ddk

Well-Known Member
May 18, 2013
6,261
4,040
995
Utah
Agree with that observation and have written about many disappointing vinyl reissues here. Vinyl formulation seems to be part of the problem it’s become a lost art and the 180+ gram records are the pits, stopped buying them now no matter how badly I want the music.

I find 80’s CD transfers of many jazz and classical analog titles preferable over the so called remastered 20/24bit reissues of the same, and 24bit worse than the already inferior 20bit versions.

david
 

Tango

VIP/Donor
Mar 12, 2017
4,938
6,268
950
Bangkok
Just don't do the ddk approach in constructing a system. You will get too cranky, choosy buying vinyls and ultimately have to spend more money on better ones.
 

bonzo75

Member Sponsor
Feb 26, 2014
22,448
13,476
2,710
London
The more transparent the system the more pure and expensive the recordings get. To stream tidal, ideal to have some color and reduce a bit of resolution. The levels of resolution should be balanced through the component chain, then you can enjoy tweaked and lower res recordings, which is more practical to access a wider library of music, unless you are phenomenally wealthy
 
  • Like
Reactions: GSOphile

jazdoc

Member Sponsor
Aug 7, 2010
3,320
730
1,200
Bellevue
I have the definitive answer to this age old argument...it depends. Just spent my quarantine staycation going thru my vinyl collection, giving away duplicates and comparing many original pressing and reissues.

As a general rule, with pop/rock and classical, the original pressing typically wins out. But then I hear the recent 45 rpm of Fiona Apple's "Tidal" wipe the floor with the original CD.

More of a crap shoot with jazz. I'm in the minority, but I don't get the reverence for the sound of original Blue Notes. The Music Matters reissues are uniformly exceptional, as are the vast majority of the Analogue Productions reissues and at a fraction of the price of an original. Most of the Prestige and Verve reissues are also exceptional. Just got the IMPEX reissue of "Monk's Dream" in stereo which sounds very good. But then I compare to an original mono 2-eye pressing of the his next release "Criss-Cross" and the natural tone of the original wins out for me.

YMMV...
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing