Audiophile CDs
Posted by: Hot Rats on 28 April 2010
I have a friend who is a self confessed audiophile. He buys a lot of audiophile CDs from specialist labels such as Mobile Fidelity, Audio Fidelity,JVC XRCD etc.
We've spent many hours recently comparing his gold CDs against the standard, albeit remastered, versions that can be purchased online for around £5.99 an album. The results have been interesting to say the least.
Let's start with the positive side. The DCC discs that have been remastered by Steve Hoffman are good. Some are very good. The soundstage on his mixes is wide with plenty of separation between instruments. I was particularly impressed with 'Fresh Cream', 'Hotel California' and 'Band On The Run'. He has also succeeded in producing a digital version of 'Jackson Browne's 'Late For The Sky' that is listenable. I have found all previous versions of this album on CD to be very poor. It was interesting to compare Steve Hoffman's remasters of albums by The Doors with the latest incarnations featured in the 'Perception'. The CD versions of the 'Perception' remasters are very good whereas the Hoffman remasters are more faithful to the sound of the vinyl albums. It's a matter of personal choice. His re-working of Bob Dylan's 'Highway 61 Revisited' was something of a revelation. It was superior to the CD/SACD hybrid that I have (We only compared with the CD layer)
Steve Hoffman's work for Audio Fideltiy is equally impressive. We listened to Simon and Garfunkel's recent 'Parsley, Sage, Rosemary and Thyme' on thr Audio Fidelity label and I found that to be much less impressive. While the instrumentation sounded good, the vocals left a lot to be desired. Maybe it's the mastering but it could of course, be a poor quality master tape.
Simon and Garfunkel seemed to fare better on Mobile Fidelity. I really liked their version of 'Bookends'. It sounds like a different mix to the new remasters. I felt that in comparison with DCC discs, Mobile Fidelity remasteres were disappointing. Their remasters are very 'clean' but they seem to have taken the essence of the music away in many cases. I refer in particular to their remasters of albums by The Band. I much prefered the standard remasteres of 'Music From Big Pink' and 'Cahoots' to the MFSL/MoFi counterparts.
JVC XRCD discs were pretty good, with the exception of Dire Straits' 'Brothers In Arms' which I really didn't like. I'll take the CD layer of the hybrid disc any day.
One disc did however, impress above others. The XRCD remaster of 'Jazz At The Pawnshop'. It seemed to have a wonderful natural sound that even bore comparison with the vinyl version on Proprius.
Which audiophile CD would others recommend as the reference by which others might be judged.
Posted on: 28 April 2010 by BigH47
Cue Miles?
Posted on: 28 April 2010 by Joe Bibb
quote:
Which audiophile CD would others recommend as the reference by which others might be judged.
You have answered you own question. I'm afraid there is no such thing. I can think of labels like Stockfisch, Chesky, Linn and Naim of course where recording standards are high but the available music may be limited or not to your taste.
Regarding mainstream releases they are a mish-mash and somewhere like the Steve Hoffman forum is a useful place to get info from people (like Miles and Ewen here) who know their onions. Hoffman himself usually does a great job, but it will sometimes depend on the tapes he had to work on. I can think of some Hoffman discs that in my opinion are bettered elsewhere. Who's Next would be a good example.
Unfortunately there is no certainty. In some cases original issues are best, whether it's the in the mastering, pressing quality or tapes used. On other occasions remasters or special issues can be better. MOFI and the like is no gurantee and I can think of several that are bettered by either previous or subsequent versions. Often the best sounding version is in a bargain bin and many are available for peanuts on auction sites or Amazon marketplace.
Use the search on forums like the Hoffman site and you will get lots of information by artist or title. In some cases the differences in quality can be jaw-dropping in others, so close as to not be worth the bother and every shade in between.
It is interesting that so much effort goes into kit selection and set up, only to see an ear-bleeding remaster being cued up.
BTW, the DCC "Late For The Sky" is highly regarded. But the Japanese early release is also excellent. The remaster, as you say, is un-listenable.
I have many reference disc favs but this one would be up there....
Joe
Posted on: 29 April 2010 by MilesSmiles
quote:
Originally posted by BigH47:
Cue Miles?
I'm on the road right now but will contribute a list of labels and titles when I get back this weekend.
Posted on: 29 April 2010 by KeanoKing
quote:
Originally posted by MilesSmiles:
quote:
Originally posted by BigH47:
Cue Miles?
I'm on the road right now but will contribute a list of labels and titles when I get back this weekend.
I'm getting the words 'damage bank to balance! Maybe not in that order! Cheers Miles!
Posted on: 30 April 2010 by Hot Rats
We had another session of audiophile CDs this evening and the results were interesting to say the least.
I really enjoyed Steve Hoffman's remastering of 'Fly Like An Eagle' by the Steve Miller Band. It seems that the hallmark of his work is the superb separation and sound staging. This album was no exception.
I also got to hear the Muddy Waters 'Folk Singer' album on MFSL. Very nice indeed!
It seems that another characteristic of audiophile recordings is that several feature great recordings runined by playing that is to say the least, third rate. Let's be more positive ... Several of these discs seem to feature poor musicianship enhanced by great recording quality. This album fits the bill perfectly ...
This has to be one of the poorest piano trios I have ever had the misfortune to hear. The album opens with the trio murdering 'Misty'. For sure, the recording quality is great. So good in fact, that you can hear just how way out of tune the bass player is. It probably hasn't helped that I have listened to several Bill Evans albums over the past couple of days and his stellar talent is hard to follow. I am reliably informed that the Tsuyoshi Yamamoto Trio has recorded a live album and that the audio quality is equally impressive. If you listen carefully you might just be able to hear aggrieved punters demanding a refund from the venue manager or the sound of broken bones as more desperate members of the audience jump from the balcony! (LOL)
Posted on: 01 May 2010 by MilesSmiles
quote:
Originally posted by Doctor Jazz:
This has to be one of the poorest piano trios I have ever had the misfortune to hear.
I do agree with you that some audiophile recordings / labels pick at times mediocre artists and maximize the recording quality but still leave you with a listening experience that is lacking.
However, I couldn't disagree more with you on Yamamoto. An outstanding artist in my book who's below recording is nothing short of a masterpiece - track one is reference material.
Both the XRCD as well as the SACD are strongly recommended.
Posted on: 01 May 2010 by bazz
This is the other recommendable Yamamoto from the seventies. I've got all three on the original vinyl and CD, still among my favourites.
Posted on: 01 May 2010 by Blueknowz
Do the artists get more in royalties for these Audiophile CDs considering the price of some them?
Posted on: 03 May 2010 by Hot Rats
I've just listened to 'Midnight Sugar'. Although the audiophile aspect is not as strong, the performance makes it a better album.
I will provide some links for some piano trio music that I really like. I'm just making sure that I have the artist's permission to share it.
Posted on: 04 May 2010 by Sloop John B
This one just sounds so good and so much better than the standard issue.
The quality on this disc has awakened my interest in "audophile" recordings but I stick to recordings I want rather that pick up whatever is available in the format.
SJBPosted on: 04 May 2010 by ad10
I'm not quite sure what makes a CD 'Audiophile' but I would recommend the hybrid CD/SACD 'Monty meets Sly and Robbie' as an excellent example of a quality recording. It features Monty Alexander on piano with bass/percussion duo Robbie Shakespeare and Sly Dunbar. Not having an SACD player I've never heard that layer. But the CD layer sounds superb on my Naim system!
Posted on: 04 May 2010 by u5227470736789439
I'm not quite sure what makes a CD 'Audiophile' but ...
My guess is when you get bored with the music you start to listen to the quality of the recording! If the music, and music making is great the recording is virtually insignificant. The minumum quality of recording [and replay of it] required to enjoy a great performance of great music is not really that high, unless of course you interest resides somewhere other than the music ...
Just occasionally a great performance does get a truly pristine recording, but mostly the quality of the recording seems [in my experience] to be actually in inverse proportion to the interest generated by the performance and music.
What is quite nice is to more or less optimise the quality [or at least make it an untiring listen] from the recordings of one's favourite music ...
ATB from George
Posted on: 05 May 2010 by Sloop John B
quote:
Originally posted by GFFJ:
I'm not quite sure what makes a CD 'Audiophile' but ...
My guess is when you get bored with the music you start to listen to the quality of the recording! If the music, and music making is great the recording is virtually insignificant. The minumum quality of recording [and replay of it] required to enjoy a great performance of great music is not really that high, unless of course you interest resides somewhere other than the music ...
Just occasionally a great performance does get a truly pristine recording, but mostly the quality of the recording seems [in my experience] to be actually in inverse proportion to the interest generated by the performance and music.
What is quite nice is to more or less optimise the quality [or at least make it an untiring listen] from the recordings of one's favourite music ...
ATB from George
Now George, whilst there is a nugget of truth in what you say a better mastering of a good performance does enhance my enjoyment of that performance.
I'd don't think it's a sign that I'm bored with music when I search out the best masterings of albums I love.
This is a more general thing with me than merely going for Premier Crú masterings, I've recently done an EBay expedition to get the Toby Mountain 1991 remasterings of David Bowie's cds as I find the 1999 remasterings to be particularly nasty and some virtually unlistenable.
If the music doesn't appeal to me in the first place it doesn't matter how good it sounds (although undoubtedly I will appreciate the sound of a good recording the same way as I can appreciate the excellence of effort that goes into some art works that leave me aesthetically cold).
If the music appeals to me I will try and get the best sounding version (within reasonable limits)
Pixies - Doolittle is an excellent album, full stop. The MOFI version is an excellent remastering of an excellent album.
SJBPosted on: 05 May 2010 by u5227470736789439
Dear Sloop,
I agree that the best presentation of a recording - in a very fine remastering - and indeed in some cases the best issue can be the first issue - is nothing but spendid from the musical standpoint.
I was being somewhat grumpy about discussing sonics rather than what the sonics convey in the context of a Music Room thread! The place for threads where no music is to be discussed at all is no doubt in the Hifi Corner, where it is normal enough to discuss sound rather than music almost continuously, and when i have bucked that trend have occasionally been ribbed for mentioning anything so irrelivant as music in the Hifi part of the forum.
If the discussion of the different - as you called the Premiere Cru style remasterings - and if the posts is in the Music Room, then for those uninitiated in the music, it would be rather nice to read in what way the remastering enhances appreciation of the music rather than soft considerations about soundstage etc!
When I see the word "audiophile," I tend to read it as "audiofool!"
ATB from George
Posted on: 05 May 2010 by GraemeH
quote:
Originally posted by GFFJ:
I'm not quite sure what makes a CD 'Audiophile' but ...
My guess is when you get bored with the music you start to listen to the quality of the recording! If the music, and music making is great the recording is virtually insignificant. The minumum quality of recording [and replay of it] required to enjoy a great performance of great music is not really that high, unless of course you interest resides somewhere other than the music ...
Just occasionally a great performance does get a truly pristine recording, but mostly the quality of the recording seems [in my experience] to be actually in inverse proportion to the interest generated by the performance and music.
What is quite nice is to more or less optimise the quality [or at least make it an untiring listen] from the recordings of one's favourite music ...
ATB from George
Indeed and a good example is Decca's 1950's recording of Campoli playing the Tch. VC - masterly, thrilling and vital.....but not the best recording (not bad mind) compared to Nigel Kennedy's well recorded but somewhat lifeless rendition that no amount of engineering sorcery can amend.
G
Posted on: 05 May 2010 by fred simon
Music is sound. Absolutely, a great performance can transcend mediocre sound, and great sonic quality can never make a mediocre performance better, but the idea that great sonic quality is "virtually insignificant" is absurd.
Best,
Fred
Posted on: 05 May 2010 by u5227470736789439
quote:
Originally posted by fred simon:
Music is sound. Absolutely, a great performance can transcend mediocre sound, and great sonic quality can never make a mediocre performance better, but the idea that great sonic quality is "virtually insignificant" is absurd.
Best, Fred
I am not going to withdraw the comment that "sound quality is virtually insignificant," because beside the quality of the music making it is and has been for more than eighty years.
Even an iPod or a 78 gramophone - neither, the last word sonically - are completely capable of producing 100% connection with the music. With iPods you can see this every day just walking down the pavement/sidewalk.
The quality of the music making is the crucial element.
In my view there is almost no replay available today that is so poor as to spoil enjoying music!
So yes, by now, sound quality, is virtually insignificant for the absolute majority pf people.
Of course had you posted the "absurd" description as being in your humble opinion, or perhaps in your particular case, then I would not have posted this reply.
I do realise that there is a small number of people who cannot enjoy music at MP3 quality! I feel sorry for them.
ATB from George
Posted on: 05 May 2010 by Sloop John B
quote:
Originally posted by GFFJ:
quote:
Originally posted by fred simon:
Music is sound. Absolutely, a great performance can transcend mediocre sound, and great sonic quality can never make a mediocre performance better, but the idea that great sonic quality is "virtually insignificant" is absurd.
Best, Fred
I am not going to withdraw the comment that "sound quality is virtually insignificant," because beside the quality of the music making it is and has been for more than eighty years.
Even an iPod or a 78 gramophone - neither, the last word sonically - are completely capable of producing 100% connection with the music. With iPods you can see this every day just walking down the pavement/sidewalk.
The quality of the music making is the crucial element.
In my view there is almost no replay available today that is so poor as to spoil enjoying music!
So yes, by now, sound quality, is virtually insignificant for the absolute majority pf people.
Of course had you posted the "absurd" description as being in your humble opinion, or perhaps in your particular case, then I would not have posted this reply.
I do realise that there is a small number of people who cannot enjoy music at MP3 quality! I feel sorry for them.
ATB from George
George, stating an improvement in sound quality is "virtually insignificant" because it can be enjoyed without this improvement just doesn't cut mustard.
Because I can enjoy a picture of a great painting doesn't mean it is pointelss to go and see the real thing.
Beacuse I enjoy a Mc Doanld's doesn't mean any improvement is insignificant.
I know you're wary of this room getting some of the overblown characteristics of the Hi-Fi Room. I've seen one or two threads here lately that for me have certainly crossed this line.
However in this instance I think you're spot on when you state you're being grumpy <tongue in cheek smiley!>
SJBPosted on: 05 May 2010 by u5227470736789439
Dear Sloop,
It would depend whether the improvement was in terms of musical enjoyment.
As I noted concerning Fred Simon, it may be that it is a requirement of yours to have the superior replay to enjoy music. If not then all that comes from greater fidelity is a luxury improvement.
Perhaps you might care to think of it like this. One wants to make a journey from London to Birmingham. You can use a Skoda three cylinder car, or a Jaguar V8. The Jaguar is without question a better-appointed car, but its use is insignificant compared to the Skoda if the main purpose is to make the journey rather than enjoy the splendid Jaguar as a piece of great motoring engineering.
I maintain that it is very difficult to buy replay equipment that is so much less fine than the best that it should affect the enjoyment of music. Thus the difference is IMV insignificant if the intention is to enjoy music.
On the other hand there are any number of reasons to buy more expensive arrangements for replay, but for the absolute majority of people these reasons are also entirely insignificant!
I have no argument with people saying they want the best car, replay set, or whatever, but the significance of them is in their ownership rather than the outcome of their use! {:¬)
ATB from George
Posted on: 05 May 2010 by Sloop John B
quote:
Originally posted by GFFJ:
Dear Sloop,
It would depend whether the improvement was in terms of musical enjoyment.
As I noted concerning Fred Simon, it may be that it is a requirement of yours to have the superior replay to enjoy music. If not then all that comes from greater fidelity is a luxury improvement.
Perhaps you might care to think of it like this. One wants to make a journey from London to Birmingham. You can use a Skoda three cylinder car, or a Jaguar V8. The Jaguar is without question a better-appointed car, but its use is insignificant compared to the Skoda if the main purpose is to make the journey rather than enjoy the splendid Jaguar as a piece of great motoring engineering.
I maintain that it is very difficult to buy replay equipment that is so much less fine than the best that it should affect the enjoyment of music. Thus the difference is IMV insignificant if the intention is to enjoy music.
On the other hand there are any number of reasons to buy more expensive arrangements for replay, but for the absolute majority of people these reasons are also entirely insignificant!
I have no argument with people saying they want the best car, replay set, or whatever, but the significance of them is in their ownership rather than the outcome of their use! {:¬)
ATB from George
We may have to agree to differ on this one, I may get to Birmingham in the Skoda but I'd enjoy the journey much more in the Jag.
standard issue Doolittle even on an IPOD is a fantastic album and can be enjoyed as such, but for me (and a few otheres here) improvement on this is not virtually insignificant. By the very nature of the forum improvements in replay is signifiacnt. There's not many people on the Jag forum extolling the virtues of Skoda's ability to get you to Birmingham.
SJBPosted on: 05 May 2010 by u5227470736789439
Dear Sloop,
It is the difference between utility and luxury, and doing nothing.
Though enjoyable in practice the differences between utility and luxury are insignificant compared to using a utility method and not carrying on the activity at all!
To get to Birmingham in the Skoda will be no hardship, and you will be there just as fast [assuming sticking to speed limits], and you will still get there in the Jaguar! Even the seats in the Skoda are nowadays as fine as those in the Jag, at least ergonomically, if not to look at!
This is my point.
The difference in performance between modern utility items and modern luxury items is insignificant. The difference resides in the enjoying the ownership rather than the utility!
I have been up the Naim Hill and down again. It made no difference coming back down! The difference between two differently mastered CDs will be filtered out by the minds ear with immediate effect, unless you insist on listening to the sound rather than the music contained.
Nowadays I have no Naim connected up, and am listening to the same amount of music [possibly slightly more because iTunes encourages this compared to CDs], and yet I shall reconnect my Naim pieces this autumn. It is has absolutely nothing to do with enjoying the music! I just love the substantial quality of the Naim build! Love the solid feel of the volume control on the 72, but I do not kid myself that this involves greater enjoyment of the music replayed!
And if utility music replay is the iPod with MP3, then this clearly no object to enjoying music for millions ...
I don't think that many of us are such delicate flowers that our music love is so fragile that it requires the very most luxurious replay for us to carry on and 100% engage with the music!
ATB from George
PS: I have two more than 100 year old watches. I love them, and enjoy them, but they are not more accurate than a modern utility watch. I have a favourite old Carlton bike which is splendid fun, and I expend quite some energy on getting it on the top-line, but a £99 wonder from Halfords would effectively get me from A to B just as well! The fun is in the ownership, and not what these do in a ultilitarian sense at all!
Posted on: 05 May 2010 by Sloop John B
Indeed I agree that the standard Doolittle has a more significance over no Doolittle than the MODI Doolittle has over the standard one.
However Doolitlle (MOFI) sounds better on my old system in my bedroom, sounds better in the car system, sounds better on my IPOD.
I don't class it a luxury and the difference isn't insignificant.
I would think I listen to the music rather than the sound but maybe you know better.
SJB
Posted on: 06 May 2010 by u5227470736789439
Dear Sloop,
I have never met you. We have never discussed it. I don't know how you listen to music!
ATB from George
Posted on: 07 May 2010 by fred simon
quote:
Originally posted by GFFJ:
quote:
Originally posted by fred simon:
Music is sound. Absolutely, a great performance can transcend mediocre sound, and great sonic quality can never make a mediocre performance better, but the idea that great sonic quality is "virtually insignificant" is absurd.
The quality of the music making is the crucial element.
I agree.
quote:
In my view there is almost no replay available today that is so poor as to spoil enjoying music!
I agree.
quote:
So yes, by now, sound quality, is virtually insignificant for the absolute majority of people.
Ah, "virtually insignificant for the absolute majority of people" is
very different than "virtually insignificant" ... I agree with the former.
I also agree that
some who are well off enough to afford very high end gear are missing the forest for the trees, so to speak. But they would likely miss the forest no matter the quality of sound.
However, to the extent that music is sound, quality of reproduction can greatly enhance enjoyment and richness of a musical performance, and in its highest quality it can even become a sort of component of the musical performance ... I've heard this with my own ears, and so have many others. So certainly not "virtually insignificant" in and of itself.
Something else to consider: we all know that the quality of a musical instrument can greatly enhance the quality of a musical performance, both for performer and listener ... the Bach cello suites will forever remain a masterwork, and will be recognized as such even from a good performance on a mediocre instrument. But to hear them played on a superior instrument greatly enriches the music. It's very much the same for playback audio quality.
quote:
Of course had you posted the "absurd" description as being in your humble opinion, or perhaps in your particular case, then I would not have posted this reply.
My opinion is not so humble, but of course it's my opinion ... that's a given, internet acronym or not. I don't see why you should or shouldn't respond just because it's my opinion ... I assume that's what we're all doing here.
quote:
I do realise that there is a small number of people who cannot enjoy music at MP3 quality! I feel sorry for them.
I agree. But I also feel sorry for those who don't have the opportunity, or the ability, to hear superior audio reproduction ... it's a source of enormous pleasure.
Best,
Fred
Posted on: 07 May 2010 by fred simon
quote:
Originally posted by GFFJ:
I have no argument with people saying they want the best car, replay set, or whatever, but the significance of them is in their ownership rather than the outcome of their use!
For some the significance is only in the ownership, but that's certainly not a given. Nor does pride of ownership preclude favorable outcome of their use, ipso facto.
Fred
