Have your say & ask the experts

Why do some cds of the same genre so sound great, and some pretty awful?

For example, I was listening to Guns and Roses' Appetite for Destruction, and it sounded pretty mediocre and somehwat 'muffled' with not very good bass or treble. I then decided put on AC/DC's Back in Black, and it sounded fantastic. Now for me this is odd, because the music type is pretty similar (Hard Rock). Is this due to the production of the actual CD or due to my kit. (Both of these CD's have been ripped in lossless format recently.)

If it is the cd then I'd be really interested to hear other peoples experiences with high profile albums that simplly did not cut the mustard when it comes to their recording / production.

Thanks,
James

I think this article will probably give you some clues!

I think this article will probably give you some clues!

Very interesting article that describes my listening expereiences exactly. It seems a shame that there is not a second type of cd available without all of this compression that are released.

So much is to do with how record companies choose to release albums, too: for example, the recent Beatles re-issues/mixes (ie Let it Be, Naked, and Love) sound far, far better than the original releases. The detail is there on the master tapes, if only they'd go back and remaster these things. Remaster them well, that is - the 'remastered' badge is no guarantee of a better sound.

Do also look around for any imports or earlier versions of albums, as sometimes these can be better quality than subsequent re-releases.

Greatest hits albums/compilations are typically lower quality than 'single' albums, too, as they're packing far more tracks onto the CD. But again, the reverse can be true if the company concerned has gone back to the master-tapes: the recent Elvis No1s album and 2nd to None follow-up being a case in point.

There are a whole host of reasons why one CD may sound better than another - I also abhor the "must make it sound loud" attitude of some mastering  that compresses all life out of what may otherwise have been something rather nice. It seems more common on the more commercial recordings or rock genres, where something like Madeleine Peyroux may escape a little.

Other reasons include talent/experience of the band themselves - you are comparing an established band in AC/DC who will have had longer to learn their craft and leave space for each other in their music with a bunch of new boys in GnR (at the time that is), Added to that is the skill of the recording/production staff. A for D was produced my Mike Clink at a very early stage in his career, where BtoB was Mutt Lange when his career was already established,

Hope that gives a point r two to ponder,

Paul.
 

This must drive U2 fans mad who want to listen to them on a half decent system!

[quote user="Clare Newsome"] So much is to do with how record companies choose to release albums, too: for example, the recent Beatles re-issues/mixes (ie Let it Be, Naked, and Love) sound far, far better than the original releases. [/quote]

I've actaully got the new Beatles Love album so I'll give it a try.

I guess the whole root of my original question was that is there a theoretical system setup that would make the GnR album I describe sound better than the AC/DC one, or as I suspected and pointed out by Paul above, the AC/DC album is simply better produced?

I find it kind of strange that people will spend a small fortune on hi fi equipment, and therefore quite rightly research via the likes of What Hi Fi, but there is nothing to give people a 'rating' of how well produced an album actually is? At the end of the day the cd is the ultimate source of the music (available to the consumer), and if this isn't very well put together, it's never going to sound good.

Anyway, enough of my ramblings!

Added to that is the skill of the recording/production staff. A for D was produced my Mike Clink at a very early stage in his career, where BtoB was Mutt Lange when his career was already established,

Hope that gives a point r two to ponder,

Paul.
 

Certainly an interesting set of replies above that have confirmed I'm not going going mad when listening to various albums!

but there is nothing to give people a 'rating' of how well produced an album actually is? [/quote]

One of the problems with that is that there is little choice. There is no point knowing that the production/mastering of a particular album is poor, because if you want that particular album, you have little choice. There (at least) used to be more of that revieing in the classical field, as if you want Holst's planets suite, there are many versions to pick from, but that does not apply in popular music the same.

HOWEVER - and this is a big however (hence shouty capitals). The music is always the most important part. Who cares if it's not a perfect recording if the music is great? It disturbs me that far too many hi-fi demos are done with perfectly mastered music that flatters the kit, but is nothing like the music you have an emotional connection to: that's why we both test with real-world discs of every genre, every month, and suggest you take the music YOU like to demo kit with.

Having said that, wouldn't it be great if all your favourite music was well-mastered so it wasn't an issue? And we didn't have to listen to any more of that abstract demo music at hi-fi shows....

[quote user="Clare Newsome"]Who cares if it's not a perfect recording if the music is great?[/quote]

Heh! You would not believe some of the gaffes I have on record! One track springs to mind where the drummer clearly thought that was a stop, but the rest of the band carried on. Give the drummer credit, he only missed the one beat<G>

Much of my music collection predates multitrack recording, and much of the emphasis in a recording was on feel. If the bass player hit a couple of bum notes, but the singer really got it right, that was the release, with no option to correct the bass fluffs.

True, but when I'm listening to my Guns and Roses mentioned above, which I know is a great album, I know it could sound even better!! You don't notice the problems so much on an iPod or similar.

Oh well! At least I've learnt something in this thread, and as I say it's not just me thinking the quality seems to vary!

[/quote] I recently upgraded my system and although most of what I've listened to has sounded great, U2's 'How to Disarm...' CD did sound terrible. I thought it was just me.

(Sorry, couldn't resist...!)

I also hear good things about the original copy (which you'd identify by the big box CD case) of Elton's Goodbye Yellow Brick Road. I nabbed a West German copy and it's remarkably good - not a Nimbus issue in this case, but enough to make me hang on to the notes in my bank account in preference to lashing out the near 30 quid some places want for the SACD remaster.

Sorry to wander off-topic, but what's the story with that? 30 quid, bar a pound or two for an album that's over 30 years old? Likewise the new Genesis releases - some places, not least one extremely well known retailer who's logo might just feature a dog called Nipper sitting by a gramophone (sod it, it's HMV) want £22 for each of the recent Nick Davis SACD remixes. Okay, they're all 2-disc sets with bonus material, but the most recent album came out in 1981 (Abacab) whilst the earliest in the set (A Trick of The Tail) dates back to 1975! The boxset (which includes a bonus disc of previously released B-sides) is going for £90-odd.

Gripe/moan aside, the recent Rhino Talking Heads releases saw virtually the same treatment - DVD-A 5.1 & CD stereo remixes, with bonus material on 2 discs. You can get these in some places for less than a tenner. Prior to Fopp closing down (still hurting over that one...) they were six quid in there.

What's that all about?! OK, that's the Sunday morning rant done with now...!