2. music
  3. 1281475271

How do you guys choose between CD releases?

This has been been bugging me for some time now and I'm wondering if any of you guys have a sensible way of choosing which release of a CD to buy. I buy the vast majority of my CDs on Amazon and too frequently have to choose between two releases of a CD e.g., 1990 or 2003. If there is a remaster I usually go with it, unless I'm warned off. That doesn't bother me, it's choosing between to releases with no more to go on than the year of release. You can't judge by sampling; you don't even know which release you're listening to, and Amazon reviews are seldom release specific. Should I just buy the newest, the cheapest or (gulp) most expensive? Any secrets? How do you guys decide?
phaelon
phaelon OP
1,049 posts
 
"Soon, there will be blu-ray versions of some cd's and those will, in most cases, sound much better then any of the cd releases."

I realize that given just how rapidly digital technology is changing, that this is probably a question more appropriately asked of Kreskin, but what will be the preferred digital source 5, 10 years from now? Are CDs doomed in the foreseeable future? Will a single format emerge to finally dominate (and by dominate I mean in terms of acceptance by both purists and the mainstream)? Should an audiophile with wisdom stop investing in CDs now? What do you guys think?
bgeofft-duplicate-0
174 posts
 
I have many K2HD CD's, SACD's, and regular old RBCD's that will knock the socks off. The superiority of vinyl? Had a HUGE record collection and just like with the CD disc format - some were great, some less so. Many variables on what makes a fine recording on disc, record, or download. I don't buy into the "vinyl is God, CD's suck, hard drive tunes sound less real." Internet forums abound with advice on which discs, records, and downloads are best in substance and sound.
wildoats
339 posts
 
If dynamics is all you want then generally the older versions are best. However, newer versions are usually more clear, detailed. The best, such as beatles,mono, have both. Some that are slightly compressed such as stereo beatles are still very good. overly compressed are usually almost unlistenable ( such as Dwight Yoacham best on Rhino) or many Fuel titles like Cosmic Blues Band. Check out review sites for comments on audio quality. Go with the majority.
gfroman's avatar
gfroman
142 posts
 
How can anyone say the new 2009 remasters of the Beatles are worse than the older versions?
They sound a heck of a lot better in all my audio systems!
oakleys
78 posts
 
what about the quality of the "reviewer?" and what if they are just listening to snidbits over their mp3 players. dont most reviewers just regurgitate whatever press comes with the new release, maybe not...but it sure seems to me most of the time its always just rereading the same thing over and over with different jokes or whatnot.

actually, where are the reviews about the sound quality of releases? would like to check some out.
More to discover