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
nearsota
46 posts
 
I agree that BMG's CD's are inferior to regular House Brand CD's.I have a few and find them very dry sounding.Like lack of air and soundsage!

Do not have 2 to do a comparision ,but I alway's thought there was something missing in their Manfacturing process!

I just bought Missing Person's at Amazon and it sounds shrill!I will keep a watch on what is there to purchase!It was the only one out of about 100 that I had recieved that was BMG and I noticed the lack of sound right away!
turnaround's avatar
turnaround
52 posts
 
Good grief. I give up on this board.
travis's avatar
travis
239 posts
 
Yeah,lawrencegrac, why do a real comparison of say, 10 company CDs and 10 BMGs to get some kind of definitive conclusion when you can buy 1 BMG and notice the "lack of sound"? Hell, if ANY CD I bought from Amazon had "lack of sound", that sucker is going back! Solution: Get Amazon to email you back which CDs are BMG and which are not. Then you'll avoid the heartbreak.
nearsota
46 posts
 
I'll keep the sucker and watch out for the jinx of BMG cd's!
Thanx for the concern though!
More to discover