how to pick audiophile mastered cd's and LP's

besides buying from audiophile stores and sites, what does one look for when buying a cd or lp to know its been recorded well?

ex. is there different mastered versions of Pink Floyd "Dark Side of the Moon"?

what names should one look for?

what should names should i look out to avoid?

There are those here who consider themselves to be audiophiles. I'm not one of them, but I love well-recorded, good sound.

Over time I have come across great sound on many different labels, but no label that consistently knocks me out of my chair. For example, the Dave Brubeck Quartet at Carnegie Hall 2-disc CD, which was recorded in 1963 or 1964 on Columbia is amazing. But I would not characterize all, or even many, Columbia recordings that way. Ry Cooter's recordings made in Cuba, including Buena Vista Social Club, a couple of Ruben Gonzalez, Ibrahim Ferrer (sp?), etc., are great. Deutche Grammophone has many classical albums of excellent quality. I could go on....

The point is, every recording depends on the skill of the guys/gals who placed the mics, monitored what was going onto the tape, and then mixed the audio. It also depends on the place the music was played.

The bottom line is that within labels you will find enormous variation in sound quality. So your ear and the ears of people you know and trust have to be the judge of what is good sound.

just curious, as an audiophile does one just look for quality recordings on quality labels, or does one listen to all music good and bad recordings on all different labels?

is there sometimes different masters of the same cd like "dark side of the moon"?
how does one know which one to choose?

I also do not consider myself an audiophile, although I enjoy good music. In addition to the quality of the actual recording and production, one has to consider the audience the label intends to sell their music to. If the intended audience is listening to the music on boom boxes, tiny compact music systems, and average car radios, the mix is probably going to be different than if the audience will be listening with upscale equipment. My opinion is that music destined for this crowd will not be optimum on a hi-fi setup irregardless the quality of the label. I personally think this is what plagues many mainstream rock and pop recordings.

I really doubt there are different masters for a given recording, although the same masters can be remixed differently for different recorded media, and there's also the quality of transferring the data from the master to the final retail media. A former colleague of mine who considered himself an audiophile was a huge fan of Telarc. I have several selections from this label and have been happy with all of them. My musical taste tends toward artists who record their own masters and distribute through less well known labels. I've been very happy with all the music I've acquired from smaller companies. They seem to take care in the production process, and they're likely also aiming at an audience of more sophisticated listeners with above average equipment.

The bottom line, though, is usually who your favorite artists have contracted with to produce their music. It's quite unlikely to find a group or artist on more than one label at any given time. In that case, if you want music from a particular band, symphony, or artist, you'll have to settle for the quality of the recording label they have contracted with.

Happy listening,
Bill

Oddly enough, Most of my favorite recordings take place before the year 2000. They all have one thing in common. That is: lack of modern digital overproduction. There is simply too much of the protools at work now and fidelity suffers. I have some mono recordings (for example guitarist John Williams) that have far superior detail and realism to almost anything put out in the past 10-15 years. Look for acoustic instrumental music or that stuff which was made with fewer mics. Two-track analog like DSOTM tend to be very good, no matter if it's LP, half-speed or CD. An off the wall example might be comparing a bands recording from the 80's vs now. I had Rush on vinyl and CD. There was something much more vivid (and raw) about albums like Permanent waves and Moving pictures made 79-80 vs vapor trails from 2000's. World music, jazz, acoustic, indie and classical all tend to be less complex recordings and more fidelity.

Hey,

I'm really late on this, but I tend to like a lot of MFSL/MoFi (Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs) and Classic Record pressings. Also many times japanese pressed LPs will be of audiophile quality (but not always)....if you like the Beatles and want to hear some great mono recordings...you cant go wrong with the '82 mono red wax pressings...just have your wallet ready cause those babies can get pricey (but well worth it!). Sgt. Pepper has never sounded better in mono.

Classic Records reissued the Led Zeppelin catalog...they sound amazing...also they did some Jimi Hendrix pressings...the mono Axix: Bold as love is a good one to test out too...or if you like Blues check out the Classic Records pressing of Jimi Hendrix: Blues. This was pressed before the recently issued "Blues" that came out a couple of months ago.

Anyways...thats my two cents...oh...it sounds like you are looking for some Pink Floyd DSOTM....for this I recommend the MFSL pressing or the original solid blue triangle UK pressing...again...this won't be cheap if you want a solid EX pressing...but again...well worth it... (at least to me : )

Here are some audiophiles choices http://www.enjoythemusic.com/recommendedvinyl.htm
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/recommendedcd.htm
http://www.stereophile.com/category/records-die

I find 95% of these lists arent for me. I cant listen to music I dont like just cuz audiophiles say its soundy enough. I love music first, quality sound second. I find most "audiophile" music taste sucks IMO, but then if we all like the same thing life would be awful boring.

I don't know if it's good or bad that we all have different tastes , but that just the way it is. There are many musical genres that don't intrest me at all , no mater how well they are reproduced,while I'll tolerate very low fidelity on others for a performance that I particularly enjoy.

I agree!!! All I have ever heard is that MP3s are the worst medium ever for sound. I have CD, DVD, SACDs and vinyl and the sound is as good as the original recordings. I will admit some of the originals for all of the media just plain suck. A lot of my vinyl is as compressed as anything I have ever heard on CD. There are also some artists who suffer greatly from the mass marketing. Bruce Springsteen comes to mind in that he has released some of the most compressed dead sounding music I have ever heard. Some of it was obviously just meant to meet some clause in a record contract. If you compare one media to the other for the same recording you will be hard pressed to tell a difference. You have to compare the same recordings from the same masters though or its not apples to apples.

I've got some Rubinstein Chopin recordings, some Casals Beethoven sonatas, Some Art Tatum and some old female jazz vocals that I still listen to pretty regularly even though the sonics are terrible on all of them. I guess this is a case of " the music isn't as bad as it sounds".

Well said, I have old Grateful Dead tapes that sound horrible but are some of the best music ever.