Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
OT(?) Which CD better?
My first post here, please be gentle....
I just saw one of my old favourite CDs (and an excellent yardstick for judging stereos or speakers) in a 'specials' bin. It's Rickie Lee Jones' eponymous album from 1979. I'm in New Zealand and my copy, which I bought in about 1980 and gets listened to at least weekly, was manufactured by Warner Music Australia. This copy that I just bought (even though my original is still in perfect condition I like it enough to buy a second copy) is made in Germany by Record Services GmbH, Alsdorf. I was just wondering, is there likely to be any difference in quality / sound between them? (My main system is limping while the main speaker's mids are getting re-coned and my back-up speakers are fine for HT but not for critical audio reviewing.) TYVMIA.... -- 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 |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
OT(?) Which CD better?
"~misfit~" wrote:
I just saw one of my old favourite CDs (and an excellent yardstick for judging stereos or speakers) in a 'specials' bin. It's Rickie Lee Jones' eponymous album from 1979. I'm in New Zealand and my copy, which I bought in about 1980 and gets listened to at least weekly, was manufactured by Warner Music Australia. This copy that I just bought (even though my original is still in perfect condition I like it enough to buy a second copy) is made in Germany by Record Services GmbH, Alsdorf. I was just wondering, is there likely to be any difference in quality / sound between them? (My main system is limping while the main speaker's mids are getting re-coned and my back-up speakers are fine for HT but not for critical audio reviewing.) If you spoke about an analog black disk pressing from Australia or New Zealand comparing it to a pressing of Germany I can promise you some differences in the quality of sound. But the digital CD pressing of New Sealand and Germany should sound identical. Sometimes marketing people like to do the loudness race, then the compressed CD will sound different; see and listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfBU8mG4csY Cheers Jens |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
OT(?) Which CD better?
"~misfit~" wrote in message ... My first post here, please be gentle.... I just saw one of my old favourite CDs (and an excellent yardstick for judging stereos or speakers) in a 'specials' bin. It's Rickie Lee Jones' eponymous album from 1979. I'm in New Zealand and my copy, which I bought in about 1980 and gets listened to at least weekly, was manufactured by Warner Music Australia. This copy that I just bought (even though my original is still in perfect condition I like it enough to buy a second copy) is made in Germany by Record Services GmbH, Alsdorf. I was just wondering, is there likely to be any difference in quality / sound between them? (My main system is limping while the main speaker's mids are getting re-coned and my back-up speakers are fine for HT but not for critical audio reviewing.) The answer to your question is something that you can determine for yourself with just an ordinary computer. Just download EAC or CDEX (freeware), and convert the CDs to digital files. Both products include digital file comparison utilities that will tell you whether or not they are identically the same. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
OT(?) Which CD better?
On 10/1/2010 5:56 AM Arny Krueger spake thus:
"~misfit~" wrote in message ... My first post here, please be gentle.... I just saw one of my old favourite CDs (and an excellent yardstick for judging stereos or speakers) in a 'specials' bin. It's Rickie Lee Jones' eponymous album from 1979. I'm in New Zealand and my copy, which I bought in about 1980 and gets listened to at least weekly, was manufactured by Warner Music Australia. This copy that I just bought (even though my original is still in perfect condition I like it enough to buy a second copy) is made in Germany by Record Services GmbH, Alsdorf. I was just wondering, is there likely to be any difference in quality / sound between them? (My main system is limping while the main speaker's mids are getting re-coned and my back-up speakers are fine for HT but not for critical audio reviewing.) The answer to your question is something that you can determine for yourself with just an ordinary computer. Just download EAC or CDEX (freeware), and convert the CDs to digital files. Both products include digital file comparison utilities that will tell you whether or not they are identically the same. Well, maybe. While the two discs should be *virtually* identical, it's likely they won't be *absolutely* identical--in other words, a byte-by-byte comparison of the two files will probably fail. I'm no expert on CD audio, but I know enough about the process to know that since CD-DA has a higher error tolerance than data CDs (CD-ROM, etc.)--a lower level of error detection and correction--it's possible for errors to make it through the drive into the bitstream. Small errors, but errors nonetheless. Still, Arny's right; the two files should be, let's say, something like 99.9% identical. Thus demolishing many myths about audible differences between CDs due to pressing locations, etc. -- The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring, with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags. - Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com) |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
OT(?) Which CD better?
"~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. /Martin |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
OT(?) Which CD better?
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com On 10/1/2010 5:56 AM Arny Krueger spake thus: "~misfit~" wrote in message ... My first post here, please be gentle.... I just saw one of my old favourite CDs (and an excellent yardstick for judging stereos or speakers) in a 'specials' bin. It's Rickie Lee Jones' eponymous album from 1979. I'm in New Zealand and my copy, which I bought in about 1980 and gets listened to at least weekly, was manufactured by Warner Music Australia. This copy that I just bought (even though my original is still in perfect condition I like it enough to buy a second copy) is made in Germany by Record Services GmbH, Alsdorf. I was just wondering, is there likely to be any difference in quality / sound between them? (My main system is limping while the main speaker's mids are getting re-coned and my back-up speakers are fine for HT but not for critical audio reviewing.) The answer to your question is something that you can determine for yourself with just an ordinary computer. Just download EAC or CDEX (freeware), and convert the CDs to digital files. Both products include digital file comparison utilities that will tell you whether or not they are identically the same. Well, maybe. While the two discs should be *virtually* identical, it's likely they won't be *absolutely* identical--in other words, a byte-by-byte comparison of the two files will probably fail. I've done this sort of thing many times. Please read the post by Jens Rodrigo. When CDs differ significantly, they are either vastly different, which is usually due to remastering. This fact bears on the OP's basic question. CDs often differ in the amount of zero padding at the beginning or end, which the EAC and CDEX file comparison utilities handle very nicely. If a CD reads with permanent errors, then data is either added (usually zeros), interpolated or lost. The EAC and CDEX file comparison utilities handle these situations very nicely, as well. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
OT(?) Which CD better?
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message .com... Just download EAC or CDEX (freeware), and convert the CDs to digital files. Both products include digital file comparison utilities that will tell you whether or not they are identically the same. Well, maybe. While the two discs should be *virtually* identical, it's likely they won't be *absolutely* identical--in other words, a byte-by-byte comparison of the two files will probably fail. Almost certainly. A few extra bytes of silence here and there will throw off a simple file comparison, and an inaudible change of volume level will thwart any simple attempt, even if you can ignore all gaps. I'm no expert on CD audio, but I know enough about the process to know that since CD-DA has a higher error tolerance than data CDs (CD-ROM, etc.)--a lower level of error detection and correction--it's possible for errors to make it through the drive into the bitstream. Small errors, but errors nonetheless. Still, Arny's right; the two files should be, let's say, something like 99.9% identical. Thus demolishing many myths about audible differences between CDs due to pressing locations, etc. Nope, CD's are remastered so often for different pressings that there is NO guarantee they will even be close, ESPECIALLY when the original was an analog recording. For the latest NEW release CD's, there will be NO difference in sound quality however, (regardless of whether you can actually make byte for byte identical extractions), since they are all sourced from the same digital file without further editing until the CD is re-released sometime later. Then all bets are off. MrT. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
OT(?) Which CD better?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... When CDs differ significantly, they are either vastly different, which is usually due to remastering. This fact bears on the OP's basic question. Right, but not always "vastly different", depending on your definition of that term of course. CDs often differ in the amount of zero padding at the beginning or end, which the EAC and CDEX file comparison utilities handle very nicely. Not when the source was analog and extra "silence" on any track may NOT necessarily be at zero byte level. EAC etc file comparisons cannot ignore that. Only IF the digital source files used for the pressing are identical will such comparisons work, however the *audible sound quality* may still be identical, even IF they don't. MrT. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
OT(?) Which CD better?
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... When CDs differ significantly, they are either vastly different, which is usually due to remastering. This fact bears on the OP's basic question. Right, but not always "vastly different", depending on your definition of that term of course. I offered that estimated quantification in the context of numberical comparison of the binary data in digital tracks. In that context, any difference at all due to common mastering techniques shows up as being vast. *Every* non-zero byte of the data will be different. CDs often differ in the amount of zero padding at the beginning or end, which the EAC and CDEX file comparison utilities handle very nicely. Not when the source was analog and extra "silence" on any track may NOT necessarily be at zero byte level. Of course not. I wasn't talking about that. EAC etc file comparisons cannot ignore that. Only IF the digital source files used for the pressing are identical will such comparisons work, however the *audible sound quality* may still be identical, even IF they don't. I wasn't talking about that. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
OT(?) Which CD better?
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 |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
OT(?) Which CD better?
Somewhere on teh intarwebs Jens Rodrigo wrote:
"~misfit~" wrote: I just saw one of my old favourite CDs (and an excellent yardstick for judging stereos or speakers) in a 'specials' bin. It's Rickie Lee Jones' eponymous album from 1979. I'm in New Zealand and my copy, which I bought in about 1980 and gets listened to at least weekly, was manufactured by Warner Music Australia. This copy that I just bought (even though my original is still in perfect condition I like it enough to buy a second copy) is made in Germany by Record Services GmbH, Alsdorf. I was just wondering, is there likely to be any difference in quality / sound between them? (My main system is limping while the main speaker's mids are getting re-coned and my back-up speakers are fine for HT but not for critical audio reviewing.) If you spoke about an analog black disk pressing from Australia or New Zealand comparing it to a pressing of Germany I can promise you some differences in the quality of sound. But the digital CD pressing of New Sealand and Germany should sound identical. Sometimes marketing people like to do the loudness race, then the compressed CD will sound different; see and listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfBU8mG4csY Thanks Jens. You were right, the new CD is compressed even though it doesn't state that it's been re-mastered anywhere on the CD or liner notes (and I had a very good look...). It is as much use to me as a coaster. I feel sorry for anyone who might have heard of this brilliantly mastered, produced and mixed album and how great it sounds and who buys a current copy. They would wonder what everyone was talking about (the album appears on many lists of 'the greatest-sounding albums of all time' on audiophile sites and blogs on teh intarwebs and often I listen to it as a medium to appreciate the fidelity of my stereo). As it stands my new purchase is only any good to me as a case and liner to put a copy of my original CD in while I put the original safely away. -- Rgds, 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 |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
OT(?) Which CD better?
~misfit~ said...
I feel sorry for anyone who might have heard of this brilliantly mastered, produced and mixed album and how great it sounds and who buys a current copy. They would wonder what everyone was talking about (the album appears on many lists of 'the greatest-sounding albums of all time' on audiophile sites and blogs on teh intarwebs and often I listen to it as a medium to appreciate the fidelity of my stereo). Which version is your new copy, My copy is also made by Record Service GMBH and has a label number of 7599-27389-2 while the number on the land round the hole is 256628 SRC-02 Discogs shows 3 different versions of the CD... http://goo.gl/X3jL I bought my copy as Steve Harris who reviews for Hi-Fi News was continually referring to it but he is using the original vinyl and I can't say I was blown away by the sound quality or the dynamics on the CD, is mine one of the ropy ones I wonder? -- Ken O'Meara http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/ |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
OT(?) Which CD better?
Somewhere on teh intarwebs UnsteadyKen wrote:
~misfit~ said... I feel sorry for anyone who might have heard of this brilliantly mastered, produced and mixed album and how great it sounds and who buys a current copy. They would wonder what everyone was talking about (the album appears on many lists of 'the greatest-sounding albums of all time' on audiophile sites and blogs on teh intarwebs and often I listen to it as a medium to appreciate the fidelity of my stereo). Which version is your new copy, My copy is also made by Record Service GMBH and has a label number of 7599-27389-2 while the number on the land round the hole is 256628 SRC-02 OK. My new German CD has the same number on the topside but around the hole it has: CD-759927389-2.2 V01. The older, Australian CD that sounds so much better simply has 032962 on the topside and around the hole has 256628 SRC-02. It would seem that yours is somewhere in between the two, having the same top number as my German one but the same number around the centre bottom as the great-sounding Australian one. Discogs shows 3 different versions of the CD... http://goo.gl/X3jL Thanks, I didn't know of that site. I see that the Australian version isn't mentioned there and none of the three have the same number on the topside of the CD. I bought my copy as Steve Harris who reviews for Hi-Fi News was continually referring to it but he is using the original vinyl and I can't say I was blown away by the sound quality or the dynamics on the CD, is mine one of the ropy ones I wonder? It could well be, in fact more than likely I'd say. I originally owned it on vinyl but, a year or so after CDs became the default media for album releases I went 'overseas' for nearly two years and left my extensive vinyl collection with a friend. (On my return to New Zealand I took some duty-free whisky around to his place to spend an evening re-acquainting myself with some of my old favourite albums. I was horrified to find most, if not all of them scratched to one degree or another, some to the extent that they were unplayable. I was a bit peeved (to say the least) and told him to keep them all, I really didn't want them back in that condition. I wished that I'd ignored his pleading and promises and just put them into storage as I'd planned. Anyway, when I re-started my audio collection I bought CDs, hundreds of which were copies of my old vinyl albums.) Anyway, I didn't notice much difference between the two recordings, likely partly due to my new CD-based stereo being better quality. (I also bought some audio equipment duty-free. In those days you could save a lot of money, or buy better equipment for the same money, if you bought duty-free.) The recording doesn't feature a lot of low bass other than the kick drum and that is brilliantly clean, the drumming is, IMO some of Steve Gadd's better work, and that's really saying something. (I wonder how much of that is down to the production / mixing though?) It's crystal-clear in the high bass, mids and treble and is great for assessing a sound system. For instance, I'm used to hearing it on silk dome tweeters and it sounds quite wrong to me on most metal diaphram tweets. Way too harsh. Likewise the mids and bass really sort out the good systems from the also-rans. The dynamics are great on my older CD. For instance Rickie goes "uhuh uhuh uhuh" in a very breathy whisper along with some of the bass at the start of 'Easy Money'. That's not apparent on this newer CD and if I didn't know it was there I wouldn't have heard it. May I suggest that you try to find an older copy in a second-hand record store? You might just get lucky, it's well worth it. -- Cheers, 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 |