[CaptBubba]

I have been wondering what the deal is with Gold cds. I've heard some people say that they sound better, but I'm inclined to believe that to be nonsense. Digital data is digital data, regardless of the media, right? Or are they ment ass collectables, I'm confused. Please show me my error.

 

[chych]

I'd think that they are just more reliable...

 

[thomas]

gold Cd's are remastered by audiophile companies, which can correct flaws in the original record. That usually explains why they sound better than normal alluminum cds.

As for the gold itself, i'm pretty sure it has very little effect on sound. Some people that paint their cd's green and freeze theirt cd's think the reflectivity of the material is very important and determines how well a cd sounds. I think that's BS, so i think the gold itself does not improve the sound. However, the discs are manufactured on better equipment, hopefully resulting in less jitter/bit errors, but i doubt that there is enough of a diference for an audiable difference.

When CDs first came out, there were problems with aluminum oxidation, and CDs could degrade within a few years. Gold is much more resistant to corrosion than aluminum, and should last longer. However, most manufacturing problems with aluminum cd's have been solved, and i think they will last around 50 years...

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

gold Cd's are remastered by audiophile companies, which can correct flaws in the original record

How can they correct flaws in the original record?
Do you mean the way the original CD was mastered?

 

[DanG]

I believe all digital re-masters, whether on a silver-backed CD or a gold-colored one, attempt to "correct" flaws in the original recording. In fact, those "flaws" are often ones that only show up in a record, which can deteriorate with time and also display artifacts during playback. I think "Gold" CDs are really meant to represent that they are of higher quality. Whether this is so, I'm not sure. However, I know that the little sign on the bottom of my one Chesky Gold CD (Brahms Symphony4, Reiner, Cond.) is rather silly. It reads: "128x Oversampling." Give me a break, for sound's sake.

There may be other "errors" they correct, but that's the only kind that comes to mind for me.

 

[morphsci]

The remasters are not correcting flaws in the recording. They do not change the master tapes. It is meant to correct flaws in how the recording was transferred from the master tape to the medium, in this case a CD. Hence, the term, remastering. There is nice article in TAS a few issues back. It is an interview with Steve Hoffman who does a lot of the remastering for DCC compact classics.

 

[Beagle]

Gold CD's are designed to suck in gullible audiophools who believe everything they read, see and hear. If it's different, it has to be better, right?

 

[morphsci]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beagle Gold CD's are designed to suck in gullible audiophools who believe everything they read, see and hear. If it's different, it has to be better, right?

So you contend that the remastered CD's such as those by DCC and Mobile Fidelity do not sound any different than the mass market released CD's of the same titles? Have you actually done or seen A/B comparisons? Since they spend vastly more time with the master tapes and much more care with the remastering process I do not mind spending more. In many ways a good mastering engineer is also an artist and can be as important to the quality of the final product as the musicians. That being said, not every remaster, gold, silver, purple or whathaveyou, is better than every original. Please search out the TAS interview with Steve Hoffman to get at least some feeling for both why remastering is so important and pehaps the reason Sony developed DSD for archival purposes.

 

[chych]

Quote:

So you contend that the remastered CD's such as those by DCC and Mobile Fidelity do not sound any different than the mass market released CD's of the same titles? Have you actually done or seen A/B comparisons? Since they spend vastly more time with the master tapes and much more care with the remastering process I do not mind spending more. In many ways a good mastering engineer is also an artist and can be as important to the quality of the final product as the musicians. That being said, not every remaster, gold, silver, purple or whathaveyou, is better than every original. Please search out the TAS interview with Steve Hoffman to get at least some feeling for both why remastering is so important and pehaps the reason Sony developed DSD for archival purposes.

I think he was referring to the actual cd.... not the remaster...

 

[morphsci]

Ah .. but the gold CD's from those companies are all remasters. How can you seperate the two. I would agree that there is little evidence of sonic improvement due to the gold. As someone previously stated, the gold itself is probably a marketing tool for identification and differentiation. However, just because they are gold does not mitigate against the benefits of the remastering. Those gold CDs are remastered. They do not use the same CD master as the previous transfers.

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

So you contend that the remastered CD's such as those by DCC and Mobile Fidelity do not sound any different than the mass market released CD's of the same titles? Have you actually done or seen A/B comparisons?

How am I inferring such a thing?

What I am talking about is gimmicks, and companies that charge $30-$40 for a CD with gold plating and a special jewel box that does not sound better than budget or standard price remasters from regular record labels. Why is it that the Warner Remasters or the Eagles remasters sound just as good, and at budget CD prices?

 

[morphsci]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beagle How am I inferring such a thing? What I am talking about is gimmicks, and companies that charge $30-$40 for a CD with gold plating and a special jewel box that does not sound better than budget or standard price remasters from regular record labels. Why is it that the Warner Remasters or the Eagles remasters sound just as good, and at budget CD prices?

You are inferring such because you never mentioned remastering in your first post. As far as all remasters sounding equivalent or even good, I beg to differ. The Sony remaster of Kind of Blue does not sound better to me than the original version. As far as the Warner remasters of the Eagle, I have all three copies (original, Warner remaster and DCC remaster) of Hotel California. The Warner remaster is marginally better, however it does not appear to be much more than a reequalization. The DCC remaster sounds much better in terms of tonal balance and depth. This is especially evident on The Last Resort, which has a fairly large dynamic range for a Rock/Pop song.

All remasters are not equal! It depends on the skill of the engineer and the amount of resources the company is willing to put into the project. In many cases the "Big Companies" are not willing to invest the time and money necessary to do a good job with the remaster. Again I urge you to read the TAS interview with Steve Hoffman to get an idea just how difficult a remastering project can be, especially with older master tapes. I am extremely satisfied with the price/quality ratio of all the DCC and MoFi remasters I own (especially The Wall and Dark Side of The Moon). If you think they are no better than any other remaster, you are entitled to your opinion, but it does not make it fact. IMHO.

 

[Beagle]

I have read three interviews with Steve Hoffman, in TAS, Stereophile and The Tracking Angle. Speaking of re-equalizing, the reason the original MoFi LP's sounded "better" is because they boosted the highs and lows. All of the LP's I have share this similarity. Some of these audiophile CDs may be also totally inaccurate. Unless you have heard the original master tape you do not know the way the recording is actually supposed to sound.

Quote:

The Sony remaster of Kind of Blue does not sound better to me than the original version

I sure hope you are not referring to the current Sony Legacy Series one. If you think that there is no difference between that one and the original CD issue, you are deaf.

 

[morphsci]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beagle I have read three interviews with Steve Hoffman, in TAS, Stereophile and The Tracking Angle. Speaking of re-equalizing, the reason the original MoFi LP's sounded "better" is because they boosted the highs and lows. All of the LP's I have share this similarity. Some of these audiophile CDs may be also totally inaccurate. Unless you have heard the original master tape you do not know the way the recording is actually supposed to sound. I sure hope you are not referring to the current Sony Legacy Series one. If you think that there is no difference between that one and the original CD issue, you are deaf.

It doesn't matter how it is "supposed to sound" it matters only that they sound different and one can then have the choice to determine which one they prefer. The requalizing of the direct-to-disc LP's as well as those that were half speed mastered is not necessarily the same way the CD's were remastered. If you do not prefer that then that is great. I applaud you. It does not diminish the fact that others may prefer them.

Also please argue intelligently and not by changing my statements and disparaging my physical attributes. Such tactics are evidence of weak arguements and a lack of facts. What I said was that the Sony remaster of Kind of Blue did not sound as good to me as the original. I never said there was no difference, in fact there is. Their attempt to "clean-up" the sound has diminished both the treble clarity and the bass extension. The remaster sounds cleaner in terms of background noise, but the music does not sound better to me. I am in fact not the only one to prefer the original to the remaster for that CD. Perhaps I should start a club for deaf Americans who do not have either the hearing acuity nor taste as yourself. BTW I would love to hear the SACD version of that disc for comparison. But alas I do not have an SACD player yet.

If you think the remaster is better, thats great, thats why multiple remasterings are good. But I would never claim that because you preferred one recording rather than another you were somehow inadequate. Again IMHO.

P.S. kindly indicate when your diatribes are opinions or preferences. Have nice day.

 

[victorle]

Gold CDs have a higher reflectivity and so
CD players can read the data on the disc
more accurately. In fact, no CD player can
read the data 100% correct, Gold CDs just
help to reduce error.