air.
What constitutes an AUDIOPHILE recording
Lately when i browse thru vinyl at the music store or on the net I'm seeing the term Audiophile recording. Lately there has been a plethra of recordings that are 150,180 and 200 gram records that are being sold from 20 dollars to 40 dollars and they tell me there worth the price. For me if it isn't mastered or cut from the ORIGINAL MASTER it isn't an audiophile recording and are not worth the price. When I ask the person and they don't know I just move on. At the music store it says Audiophile pressing but nothing about it's source. Another question is if you have an original pressing of a recording I'm assuming it has been cut from the original master but lately I've been told by people that is not true because of volume and demand for certian artists constituted making stamps and used for mass production.The further the stamp was from the master the further the sound suffered. So my question is if it sounds good does this MAKE IT an audiophile recording?
- ...
- 14 posts total
In the case of vinyl there are a number of things which are usually done in the production of regular LPs (that must play on non-audiophile equipment) which can be omitted for "audiophile" recordings. Groove spacing can be wider so as to minimize "pre-echo". This reduces playing time. Mixing of LF signal to Mono can be minimized. The resulting vertical groove modulation may cause problems with non-audiophile pickups. Quality of the vinyl can be improved. Reduced surface noise permits greater dynamic range. Greater dynamic range is also possible by using higher peak stylus velocity which non-audiophile pickups can't track. The use of 45rpm instead of 33rpm avoids degraded sound near the end of the record where velocity of the vinyl past the stylus is too slow for a 33 rpm disc. There are various recording techniques that result in better master tapes. These improvements benefit both digital and analog products. |
Eldartford, wonderful clear list of what it takes for vinyl, thank you very much. I can truly relate to JGH and all those who as much as say that the word as applied to recordings may be appropriate, but when applied to music it groans. As for digital, I like what I find on this page, where I have not found the word "audiophile" : http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=fullscreen/pageadder_page_id=93/ It includes descriptions of the sound of great digital recordings with notes on how they were made that way. |
IMO it's a nebulous term used all too often as a marketing tool. All of Eldartford's points are well taken but there is no guarantee that the end product, for lack of a better description, "sounds good". I have some contemporary "audiophile" pressings that are quite mediocre. A good example is the 200 gram pressing of Peter Gabriel's "So". The original Geffen release smokes the "audiophile" version. There are many releases from the 60's and 70's that are far superior to their current audiophile counterparts. The first release A&M brown label pressings of Cat Stevens' "Tea for the Tillerman" and "Teaser and the Firecat" are without question superior to the current re-masters. Ultimately and again IMO, audiophile recordings are those special pieces of vinyl that play with clarity, transparency, depth, and minimal dynamic compression. |
- 14 posts total