Vote

Yes! The goal is accurate sound reproduction. This sound starts in the source; even the best players can't produce music that's not in the offered record or CD. I've especially enjoyed the efforts of Mobile Fidelity to offer a wide range of outstanding releases over the years, often using them to introduce me to new artists as the "best" that artist can be displayed.

When I started buying gold CDs, they almost always sounded better than my previous copies. (Seems that I usually bought a normal edition before the new version came out.) Mastering techniques have improved over the years, and now I find that standard releases often sound as good as audiophile CDs. Nowadays, if it is one of my favorites, I usually buy the remastered version, regardless of who made the remaster.

Standard labels (DG, ECM, etc.) are doing it too.

I WANT IT TO BE AS CLOSE IF NOT IDENTICAL TO MASTER TAPES.

Depends on title. Geez, I didn't know MFSL had released "Inner Mounting Flame" on CD. If only they'd done that on vinyl, there would still be a demand for their LPs.

I haven't found too many recordings that I've been lusting after on Audiophile releases. Those which I have found haven't always impressed me.

thank you for asking

Yes. Audiophile labels are pretty important to me because good hardware needs good recordings to be realized. Besides, I can actually hear the difference, even between different audiophile-label versions of the same recording.

Especially LP, and sometimes gold CD

Helps to hear what is going on in the music.

For CDs, I like DCC and Reference Recordings. However, I really buy vinyl reissues, which are a godsend in terms of quality. I like DCC, MoFi, Classic, EMI, and Analogue Productions.

Obviously if your using CD and not LP you need an Audiophile quality recordings.

Actually, you Americans are lucky. The rest of the world has to deal with poorer-sounding pressings from Eastern Europe and other countries. Some are okay, but some are absolute sonic disasters.

So many of the CDs that are in the marketplace were made during the first 5 years of digital, give or take.. Unfortunetly their sound reflects that (i.e., digital glare, fractured and spitty high frequencies). I've purchased over a dozen in the past year (I'm a newcomer to the audiophile CD realm). These golden discs offer more musical information than their original counterparts! It is a good investment, however, it helps to have a high quality audio system to fully realize to true potential these discs have to offer.

This is assuming that the master is analog?

Almost alwais a really good recording, mastering and pressing of -many times- regular or bad music and/or performance.

Yes, I like audiophile pressings much better than normal pressings, although I don't think every recording that has been given the deluxe audiophile treatment was worth it. But I am sure that some of my most favorite albums wouldn't get a second look from you. (We music collectors are such a hot/cold, love-it-or-hate-it group.) I would have many more audiophile pressings than I do if the price wasn't so high. (I mean, three times the price—come on!) P.S. Can one of the audiophile re-releasing companies PLEASE do something with those god-awful-sounding Beatles CDs? I can

Of course it depends on a variety of factors like type of music and the quality of the non-audiophile version

I just feel that, most times, the "audiophile" edition is a little smoother to the ear.

It all depends on how much you like the music in question and how different it is from the standard issue. For example, MoFi's limited-edition gold CD of "Tommy" was essential, as it contained some alternate mixes. Then again, some of the DCC and MoFi LP/CDs offer only subtle improvements. Which means, I guess, that I would only buy depending on how big a fan I am of the particular selection. For example, for an album by the Beach Boys, I would be willing to fork over the extra money to squeeze every bit of sonics from the master tapes. For someone like Tom Petty, I would probably not be as inclined.

What's the point?

Of course it matters, otherwise audiophiles wouldn't search out labels like AudioQuest, Blue Note, Chesky, and others, but would just stick with buying jazz and classical on the discount list at Columbia House. Besides, I like to listen to certain tracks more than once without my ears bleeding from the harsh, edgy highs . . .

but i find these audiophile disks sound no better and often not as good as a well made decca or emi, etc.

...because I am such an anally-retentive git!

All this attention to sound but is the music relevant in terms of emotional content?

If it's audibly better than what was previously available, i'll buy it.

I have two main gripes about "audiophile" editions. One, they never redo the albums I really like. And two, they cost too much.

Unfortunately the performances available on audiophile discs do not equal those available elsewhere.

I would like to see more titles of "normal" music being transferred with high quality. I mean more "classic" rock (Beatles, Rolling Stones, Grand Funk, Carpenters, Marshall Tucker Band, etc.) and easy-to-listen-to jazz, not just audiophile stuff.

Was not blown away by MoFi's edition of Mahavishnu Orchestra's "Inner Mounting Flame." Does not live up to the hype, whereas some of their releases do. The MoFi of Jeff Beck's "Blow By Blow" is just different-sounding from the Sony Mastersound edition. The Sony has better highs and transients, the MoFi has more slam and better-defined mids.