Vote

Every time I go into a record shop, I always look for the latest audiophile recordings. It's a shame, too—sometimes I won't even buy what I want if I think it is recorded poorly. Ha. I got it bad!

Rarely do the audiophile labels get it right. Most of the time they simply soften the sound and make the recording sound more "tubey" and euphonic. Every once in a while they will truly clean up the sound and preserve the naturalness of the recording. I own many, but regret purchasing 90% of the audiophile remasters. The best editions are usually made with supervision from the original band.

They don't have the music I listen to available in 'special edition' formats. The closest I have seen is HDCD in some recordings I like but that is a normal feature not a special edition in my book, though HDCD encoded disks sound a bit better than others.

I have bought MANY audiophile discs, including XRCD, Mobile Fidelity, DCC, Chesky (gold), DMP, Columbia/Legacy (gold), and Classic Gold CDs, etc. Although they are very good, often I don't find the price difference is justified compared to the new 20-bit and 24-bit technology being used to make "regular" CDs. A great example is the Rudy Van Gelder Blue Note reissues. I am using an all Ed Meitner digital front-end, Spectral electronics, and all-Yamamura-5000 cables, so my system provides pretty high resolution. I discovered years ago that the differences between "regular" CDs and "audiophile" CDs is better heard on high-resolution systems. That said, if the prices of the audiophile discs were reduced, I would be more willing to purchase them.

It is extremely important to have a good recording of a favorite performance. If the recording is poor, the very highest resolution system will merely reproduce that poor recording faithfully. As my audio system improves, the superiority of audiophile recordings over the standard major label releases of the same performances becomes more apparent. The only unfortunate thing about the whole situation is that the audiophile labels have a habit of picking obscure artists, or lesser-acclaimed performances by better-known artists.

The proposition is not true.

While "audiophile labels" and their reissuing efforts are often sonically stunning, I find the selection (with a very few exceptions) leaves a lot to be desired. Maybe that's because the "audiophile" market is quite conservative musically. I'm not asking for MoFi/Classic/AP/DCC to reissue Megadeath or N.W.A., but the audiophile's concept of jazz, for example, is severely limited to the "midnight" cookin' sessions, staid big-band re-creations, or the "gentler side of . . . " sides. Give me Trompeta Toccata before Quiet Kenny, Cecil Taylor before Oscar Peterson; the list goes on and on . . .

Most of my comparisons reveal significant improvements in DCC Gold and MoFi UDCD releases vs. the standard. We are talking about music here, and saving a few bucks isn't worth it. On the other hand, sometimes improvements in the mainstream surpass the special audiophile releases. Example, I have a Mastersound gold CD of Miles' "Kind of Blue" that is blown away by the current Sony (cheap) release. Maybe the problem is that the Mastersound series wasn't that great to start with. Bottom line? If I want a CD enough to buy it, I will get the best-quality version I can.

I have not heard MoFi's new Gain 2 system, but look forward to trying it. Unfortunately, not many of the discs that they have transferred are discs that I would pay extra for.

good recording skill could lead to great sound quality

some are outstanding and head and shoulders better ,some are barely better.it seems to depend on whether or not the master tape is in good shape.

They tend to be fantastic, but the cost is obscene and prevents me from purchasing more of them. I mean—explain to me how a reissue of a CD in which the artist and estate have already been paid, together with studio fees and the like, with only remastering fees and production fees left, can cost double the price of the original. We are being taken for a ride, but somehow the music tends to be so much better that it's worth it. I have found this in particular with older recordings that were transferred to CD in the early '80s and now are being redone using modern technology. What a difference! But the cost! Come on now!??!

Every time someone hears one of my Sheffield or Three Blind Mice recordings, they are amazed.

Having returned to vinyl as my primary listening source after a 10-year hiatus (which I consider tantamount to rediscovering sunshine after hibernating in a cave), I can appreciate the difference that well-done remasters/transfers mean in terms of quietness . . . and the difference is much more noticeable on LP than on CD.

Many recording companies don't know what the hell they are doing when it comes to making even a decent recording. Jewel's last CD, for example, sounds like *#@$!

When I'm shopping for CD reissues of back-catalog classical recordings, I look for the best available transfer from the master tape. The major companies, especially Mercury and RCA, have been taking pains with their transfers lately, and it shows in the sound quality. I have never bought a gold CD. The ones that I've heard offer little or no sonic improvement for the extra money.

The first one I ever purchased was Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" on Mobile Fidelity LP. I heard it at my local audio shop and it was stunning. When I played it through my system I could not believe I was listening to my stereo. I had no idea how good an LP or my stereo could sound. I was hooked, and purchase them when I see something I like. I have sometimes been surprised but rarely disappointed.

I've never run across an audiophile label. I buy the music I want; if it sounds good and I can afford it, I don't care who makes it.

This is a tough call. Some reference material is always needed for evaluation of specific aspects of a system. It is certainly nice to get something you like too!

A well recorded session is certainly nicer than an average recording but it's the music that gets me going. I'll take an average recording with great music over a great recording of average music anytime.

When I can sit back and really enjoy a piece of great music you bet it makes a huge difference that someone paid attention to what they were doing. Just the fact that a good engineer loves what he is doing instead of just doing his job can make all the difference in the world.

Although audiophile-quality recordings tend to be better, there are cases where they have disappointed. I think it's a good thing but I will never buy a recording just because it is audiophile remastered -- it also needs to be recommended by a friend or fellow audiophile.

Audiophile recordings are a mixed bag: Mainstream outfits—MoFi—take master tapes of pop artists and cut records with more care. Problem is that the original recording was not necessarily of audiophile quality. Boutique "true" audiophile micro-labels make great products, but the artists are not necessarily what I want to hear. However, Virgil Thompson's recording on Chad Kassem's label is to kill for. Of course, every so often the majors will conspire with the minors to release killer stuff, such as the Decca and Classic reissues. And Blue Note for jazz.

I think some of the labels (like Reference) who take the recording of music seriously have better results than those who take whatever comes out of the mix. Special masters of old recordings can be noticeably better, but the begining-to-end attention to sonics wins hands down.

Almost all of the music that I have/listen to is not available from audiophile lables. The lables tend to be exclusively jazz, classical, or old reissues - types of music that I don't listen too!

Jean Michel Jarre's "Equinox" sounds amazing on gold CD.

Of all the thousands of LPs and CDs I now have, not one of them is one of these audiophile discs. I guess I have simply never given them a chance over the past 15 years. I see them second-hand all the time as well. Maybe it's that I've never really cared for most of the titles.

I have some LP's and CD's and the diference lies on the carefully made transfers from the master tapes, the sound quality and and the details of the soundstage. I love them!

Price and availability are important factors to this enthusiast. But I've never been "stung" with an audiophile label, something I cannot say about some other recordings. So even though I have less than a true audiophile system, I find audiophile labels attractive.

Hardly ever buy "audiophile" recordings, BUT there are definitely noticeable differences between good and not-so-good recordings! Most important is the interpretation, the "soul" of the music—who wants to hear a first-class recording of a second-class artist playing third-class music? What we want is first-class recordings of first-class artists playing first-class music. :-)