2. digital
  3. 1027627423

BMG CD's ARE worse

I have seen this question somewhere before so when I got Rush's "2112" on both BMG and not I compared the two.

Both CD's say "Anthem Records", "Mercury" and "Polygram" but the BMG version says "This compilation @1990 PolyGram" "mfd. for BMG Direct, 6550 East 30th St., Induanapolis, IN 46219" and the non-BMG CD just says 1976 Mercury Records.

The BMG version sounded much less dynamic. The sound was compressed and flat. To prove my ears were not imagining things I looked at the playback level meter on my CDR-500 and the non-BMG version was showing higher peaks. The BMG version was showing a virtually constant playback level on the same part of the opening track.

Note this is not just a recording at a lower playback level but the actual dynamic peaks are showing to be less on the BMG disc. BMG is cheaper, looks like you get what you pay for.
cdc
sugarbrie
3,854 posts
 
I agree that the club CD may been a poor remaster (because of the dates). They don't have the same digital information. Stereophile and some others have done very complete and detailed tests (technical and blind listening) of identical store bought CDs versus CD club CDs, and did not find any difference in any of the CDs tested. They even compared the two by reversing the polarity. If they are the same they will cancel each other out. If not, then sound will be heard or a signal will register on the test equipement. They all cancelled out each other perfectly.

Later when they did find small differences they think those differences could be from "jitter" differences from different production runs, but store CDs may just as likely be the worse ones.

Also when I got married, my wife and I had some duplicates (mine clubs, hers from the store), so I did my own test. I used a changer as a transport for the DAC and had her put the CDs in, so I would not know which was which. I could not tell either for the few I tried.

And finally, some CDs are just defective from production, even though the record companies claim it can't happen. I have returned CDs before because of defects (store and clubs both).


A copy of the Stereophile article is at:
http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?55

karls
332 posts
 
Many years ago I had two copies of Dire Straits' Brothers in Arms that were vastly different in sound quality, so much so that anyone could tell instantly, even on a poor quality system. I believe one of them was a BMG. So I agree too, something stinks here.
travis's avatar
travis
239 posts
 
Thanks, Sugarbrie, for your input. I've never heard any difference, either. If audiophiles can imagine a difference, then......is there?
turnaround's avatar
turnaround
52 posts
 
i don't hear a difference between the retail and BMG discs i've checked out.

aside from the BMG stamp where the UPC code goes, i've noticed that BMG sometimes shaves pages off pages in the booklet or may use a jewel cases instead of the digipak.

columbia house doesn't do this, but many of their discs have a line saying that they are for columbia house on the packaging. columbia house shares the facilities that press discs for retail sale.

cdc, i think that your bmg version is just the older version of the cd because of the different dates noted on the back; the rush catalogue was remastered a little while back. I am curious if you bought the cd recently and straight from BMG.
cdc OP
1,788 posts
 
The BMG version was 2112 in Rush's "Chronicles" (a 2 CD set) and apparently was compiled in 1990. No mention of remastering so I thought they were using the original master tapes.
The other version is the actual "2112" CD. It was not manufactured for BMG and looks to be mastered in 1976 by Mercury.
As I mentioned, the differences are not imagined. My CDR-500 display shows the compression I was hearing.
Buyer beware I guess.
More to discover