[~misfit~[_2_]]

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Martin "Schöön" wrote:
"~misfit~" writes:

I was just wondering, is there likely to be any difference in
quality / sound between them?

Re-mastered or not is the question.

If re-mastered by the wrong people it may something quite different
from what you are used to (mostly likely compressed dynamic range).

If not it should be the same as your old copy.

Thanks, and thanks to everyone else who posted constructively in this
thread.

I learned a lot about why more recent CDs often sound nasty and why, more
and more, I find myself reaching for my older CDs when I want to listen to
something (as opposed to having 'background music').

The reason I asked the question before even listening to the new CD is that
I see on some file-sharing sites that index lossless audio the uploader
usually states where the source CDs were pressed and where. (With CDs from
Japan seeming to be the 'gold standard'.)

I have now had a chance to listen to the new copy of Rickie Lee Jones and
it's noisy, nothing like the clear, punchy original. This leads me to the
conclusion that it has in fact nbeen re-mastered even though it's not
mentioned on the CD or liner notes (which are almost identical to the
original).

You may note that I mentioned two different uses for my music above;
background and what I call 'listening'. The former is handled by a dedicated
laptop I have that is hooked up to a stereo system in the centre of my
house. It plays a few thousand music files in mp3 format with a bit-rate of
320kbps (actually VBR, high quality) that I've ripped (using EAC and Lame)
and stored on the HDD. I play them using Winamp and a plug-in called 'Stereo
Tool' that actually compresses and normalises the tracks on the fly (but
doesn't change the source file).

The reason I use that tool (which I believe is used by some radio stations)
is to 'normalise' the sound levels of all the different tracks as I play
from my data base in random or shuffle mode. Without Stereo Tool I would
often get frustrated with the difference in volume level of the various
tracks and the need to keep adjusting the volume control, which of course
impacted on my productivity. Now the music is truly background and more
enjoyable as such.

However I wouldn't dream of using such a tool for when I'm 'listening' to an
album, or a track. shudder That would be anathema to me and unfortunately
appears to be what's been done to this new copy of an old favourite album. I
didn't really need another copy, I could have made one myself from my (still
pristine) original but figured that it wouldn't hurt to have one and buying
another might put a bit more m,oney in the pocket of the artist who has
given me so many years of enjoyable listening.

I have always assumed that, should something happen to a CD of mine I could
always buy another copy, even though it might not be easy. Now I realise
that I likely wouldn't be able to get a copy that sounds like the original
so have ordered a 2 TB HDD and will start the slow process of backing up my
CDs from the 70s and 80s, likely using EAC and FLAC (or just keeping wav.
files, I'll see how much space FLAC saves).

Thanks again for all the input on this subject, I really appreciate it.
--
Shaun.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a
monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also
into you." Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche