?'s about quality of audiophile recordings


I have a fairly "hi-end" resolving system comprised of Maggie 1.6, McCormack amp, etc., and I often do NOT hear the benefits of Mo-Fi, AcousTech, and such remastered reissued recordings. I am talking both LP and CD. My source components are Jolida Cd player and Well Tempered turntable. Preamps are EAR 834p and a hot rodded passive.

I recently purchased some of these audiophile remasters and compared them to my stock recordings. Call me crazy, but the stock recording sounds better. Typically the audiophile remasters sound thin, recessed, and veiled.

Any thoughts to the why? Have I fallen victim to marketing hype, the always "New and improved"?

R.
red2

Showing 1 response by rushton

Viridian has this exactly correct, imo. The best of the reissues I've heard have been well recorded and simply miked acoustic LPs: jazz, blues, folk or classical. Many of the rock reissues (from all sources) have been problematical because the poor quality of source material or the boom/sizzle equilization that was applied in the remastering. On the other hand, the work of Hoffman and Gray from AcousTech (e.g., the Fantasy reissue series by Analogue Productions, the Cisco reissues of Doc Watson and Joan Baez) is superb, particularly the 45 rpm series. So is the work of Stan Ricker on the reissues from Pure Audiophile. And the work Willem Makkee is doing on the reissues of the Mercury classical catalog, and Tony Hawkins on the Decca catalog, from Speakers Corner.

Are these reissues better than the originals? Hmmm, I don't know that there is an across the board answer, and for many individual LPs the answer will depend on one's listening priorities. But one answer I AM sure of is that they are readily available, in superbly quiet pressings and, at least with respect ot the ones I've mentioned, are in incredibly excellent sound quality.