I have been reading a lot about the lack of quality of cds. So, how does one go about figuring out the quality of a given cd before purchasing?

Related to this, are audiophile cd releases that much better. For instance, given the choice between picking up the standard release of Yes' Fragile and the audiophile release, is there really that much difference?

Fred

There has been some talk of this but it has been my experience that it is very few cds that have this bad trait. Out of around 750 cds I have one, that's right one, cd that sound bad enough for me to avoid.

I have found the ratio to be much higher.

Unfortunately I find that "poor" mastering exists on almost all non-jazz and classical releases from the last several years. I first became aware of this about five years ago when I would rip a track into an audio editing program and find that there was essentially no dynamic range to it. I've also seen that some "remastered" discs are just "remastered" with more compression (apparent loudness) than the originals, not a better mix or cleaner mastering.

I'm finding it ironic that as I start to experiment with vinyl in the coming week, I'm likely to find the higher dynamic range on the "inferior"(read: Lower S/N) medium because the higher available dynamic range of CDs is not being utilized by the final engineers.

Hey Fred, Check out this article . It explains a lot about why some newer CDs sound bad. It's very real, and is happening with remasters a lot too. So, the difference in an audiophile recording is that the mix is usually not 'loud', meaning they let the soft spots remain low in the mix. You will pay more for an audiophile recording for a variety of reasons, but mainly because it costs more to hire someone who won't destroy the integrity of the original recording. This whole thing is really sad as it makes people just not want to listen to music as much because it actually hurts their ears.

Zoë

Does this mean that older releases are more likely to be of better quality?

I guess I am wondering how I would find out what the quality of a given cd is. For instance, it seems most people here know that anything produced by Mark Knopfler is of high quality. Are there any compiled lists of better quality releases?

Fred

Hey Fred,

Here is the organization that is helping to educate about the loudness wars. I'm sure there are lists out there. I'll post them if I find them myself. I'd like to have some sense of which remasters were turned up, for instance. I bought a non-remastered copy of George Harrison's All Things Must Pass on CD in hopes of not having the loudness turned up. But after listening to it I wondered who mastered it for CD in the first place. It wasn't as dynamic as the original vinyl (which I also own). I feel like it's a catch 22 on that level. I guess if you love music that was made pre-CD, you should buy it on vinyl or cassette even. But I want to be able to listen to Elton John's Madman Across the Water in my iPod and know that it wasn't remastered to death.

Of newer CDs, I'm also with you about wanting to know. I guess there are ways of importing the music into computer music programs which will show the dynamics. That Rolling Stone article I posted has some amazing examples of 'loud' recordings. The U2 examples are incredible. Original song has texture, peaks and valleys, but the remaster is loud, loud, loud! Crappy since they are a band I love and have most of their CDs. I don't only listen to jazz and classical, or Steely Dan/Donald Fagen, which means I want to know about the loudness factor too. You can hear it too, on the really awful ones, like Red Hot Chili Peppers' Californication.

Hope this helps. I'll post more links if I find them.

Zoë

These links have a lot of further info. It's a starting place:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/dynamicrange.htm
http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/dynamicdeath.htm
http://www.turnmeup.org/press.shtml

ZG, thanks for the links.