[jet_dee]

I've read a few reviews of albums on this board, and the question occured to me:

How do buyers know how "good" a cd is? Not different person's tastes in music, but the quality of production, and the quality of recording?
I recently borrowed a Frank Sinatra box set, "Anthology" from my library, and it sounds as though someone held a microphone up to a 1920's radio and recorded the broadcasted songs... absolutely terrible, for an album released in 1993.

I know certain audiophile magazines (HiFi+ here in England) will review a number of albums each month and rate them on both the quality of the recording, then the reviewer's personal opinion of the music, but is there a list or site on the internet that does the same? I cannot afford to order backissues of every audiophile cd review magazine in the hope that they may have reviewed a cd i'm interested in buying.

 

[PSmith08]

Often times, the CD will be made from old broadcast airchecks, inferior recording techniques, or simply old source material. This does not always sound crystal clear and sparkling with the glory of digital technology.

For example, the Naxos release of Karl Muck's non-Parsifal Wagner output sounds not-good. Mark Obert-Thorn does a good job remastering the source, but the source has its limits.

If you are into classical, Classics Today and Gramophone both have online databases of recordings and recording quality is always discussed. Amazon reviewers will occasionally comment on such matters. However, I am at a loss for modern/jazz/rock type music.

 

[Doc Sarvis]

I'm guessing the Sinatra set sounded bad because the recordings themselves were old - probably from the 1940s. His later stuff sounded much better by the way.

I'm not aware of a website that lists pop/rock CDs by sound quality, except audiophile publications as you mention. Classical is a different story - sonics are always part of the discussion.

The problem is that most popular music fans don't give a care for sound quality. MP3s and other compressed formats have made the problem worse. Hi-fi sites like this one are a good resource for information.

Congratulations - as Obi-Wan said, you've taken your first step into a larger world.

 

[jet_dee]

If that's your sig, then I still like it

. As for the Sinatra, well, I thought so too, but two other discs I borrowed, Dean Martin and Nat King Cole, sound beautiful, and they were the same era (the Anthology album is 60 of Sinatra's hits from his entire life, so some would have definitely been made after the 40's). I think I'll go to a Virgin Megastore and listen on their systems to various Sinatra albums to find the best sounding.

And PSmith08, thanks for the heads up on those two sites, I'll check them out right away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Sarvis I'm guessing the Sinatra set sounded bad because the recordings themselves were old - probably from the 1940s. His later stuff sounded much better by the way. I'm not aware of a website that lists pop/rock CDs by sound quality, except audiophile publications as you mention. Classical is a different story - sonics are always part of the discussion. The problem is that most popular music fans don't give a care for sound quality. MP3s and other compressed formats have made the problem worse. Hi-fi sites like this one are a good resource for information. Congratulations - as Obi-Wan said, you've taken your first step into a larger world.

 

[viator122]

You should also check out the discussion boards at www.stevehoffman.tv