Vote

Only if the mix is substancially better. If its from the same master as the regular release, I'll bt the (cheaper) regular release, as the bits are all the same. Gold CD's are BS.

Most defintely an improvement on a higher resolution system! The sound is usually far superior, although sometimes when the "commercial" CD is remastered, it sounds better than the "audiophile" version for which I paid more than double. More often than not, though, they don't remaster the albums I like. The one disappointing audiophile CD I bought was the XRCD of Tina Turner's Private Dancer, but probably because the record itself wasn't produced well.

If they are not far more expensive than the 'standard' version.

I find I get the most satisfaction from well recorded music and don't mind paying for it . With a anologe front-end of over four grand, I want the best new recordings I can find!

Absolutely! I was definitely a mid-fi kinda guy until I heard Rebecca Pidgeon's "The Raven" from Chesky. It set me down a road $15k poorer, but what a delight.

The unending desire for perfection is what it is all about.

I always prefer the best sonic quality possible and I am willing to pay extra for it. When you consider how much is invested in hardware to get the best possible sound, it would be sensless not to invest in the best-quality software.

Only if the remastering is better than the original CD release - no bonus songs and original LP artwork.

Absolutely; there are a lot of standard CDs that the recording engineers need to get some real hardware to listen to their masters on. Plain bad, and/or they equalize, fiddle, and tune for boomboxes.

A good transfer from a master tape to a cd is very important to me because when if i put a poor recorded CD into my system, composed of 150k worth of Meridian products, all imperfections in the recording are obvious. When i put in a well recorded CD or DTS encoded disc the listening experience is breathtaking. The best equipment in the world won't make a poorly recorded CD sound good, but a well recorded CD played in a hi-fi stereo can change the way you feel about music.

Some audiophile releases are better than others, but in my experience they all sound better than the general releases. The only problem is I now own, for instance, 3 copies of "Kind of Blue": The original LP I got at a yard sale (which is still the best-sounding), the cheesy Columbia reissue from some time back on CD, and the new 20-bit reissue. And now I find out that I need the Classic Records 2-LP reissue. Oh well . . .

CD copies of Reference Recordings always sound good. MSFL CDs usually sound too bright to me. LPs are where the big differences are. Take most MFSLs, Sheffields,Telarcs, etc.; they blow away standard LPs. Besides, I like having something the masses do not have.

The best effort I've seen is the reissue Raw Power did of the Iron Maiden catalog. Legacy did a good job with Carlos Santana.

No comments

I would never want to limit my music listening to the artists available on audiophile labels, but if something I like is on an audiophile label, I do buy it. I would buy many more if more varied selections were available. In fact, I spend a great deal of time buying MFSL LPs on Internet auctions.

It don't mean a thing...you know the rest

a waste of money

Music is the matter, sound comes in second place.

I don't believe in "gold", but I do buy recordings that are mastered with more care, and the two tend to go together. Having heard 24/96, I am very much looking forward to the next generation of digital discs. Computer chip technology has advanced to a point that playback *software* can make an important contribution to improving sound quality (as DCS products have shown). For that reason, I will prefer "straight" 24/96 to a doctored format that plays games with bits. The mantra of computer-savvy audiophiles should be "just the bits please!"

Isn't this what our hobby is all about?

it doesnt matter the final product should be the best it can be no matter who its for

its worth it!!! plain fact.