From: sore_n_happy@nospamyahoo.com.au   
      
   Somewhere on teh intarwebs Martin "Schöön" wrote:   
   > "~misfit~"  writes:   
   >>   
   >> I was just wondering, is there likely to be any difference in   
   >> quality / sound between them?   
   >   
   > Re-mastered or not is the question.   
   >   
   > If re-mastered by the wrong people it may something quite different   
   > from what you are used to (mostly likely compressed dynamic range).   
   >   
   > If not it should be the same as your old copy.   
      
   Thanks, and thanks to everyone else who posted constructively in this   
   thread.   
      
   I learned a lot about why more recent CDs often sound nasty and why, more   
   and more, I find myself reaching for my older CDs when I want to listen to   
   something (as opposed to having 'background music').   
      
   The reason I asked the question before even listening to the new CD is that   
   I see on some file-sharing sites that index lossless audio the uploader   
   usually states where the source CDs were pressed and where. (With CDs from   
   Japan seeming to be the 'gold standard'.)   
      
   I have now had a chance to listen to the new copy of Rickie Lee Jones and   
   it's noisy, nothing like the clear, punchy original. This leads me to the   
   conclusion that it has in fact nbeen re-mastered even though it's not   
   mentioned on the CD or liner notes (which are almost identical to the   
   original).   
      
   You may note that I mentioned two different uses for my music above;   
   background and what I call 'listening'. The former is handled by a dedicated   
   laptop I have that is hooked up to a stereo system in the centre of my   
   house. It plays a few thousand music files in mp3 format with a bit-rate of   
   320kbps (actually VBR, high quality) that I've ripped (using EAC and Lame)   
   and stored on the HDD. I play them using Winamp and a plug-in called 'Stereo   
   Tool' that actually compresses and normalises the tracks on the fly (but   
   doesn't change the source file).   
      
   The reason I use that tool (which I believe is used by some radio stations)   
   is to 'normalise' the sound levels of all the different tracks as I play   
   from my data base in random or shuffle mode. Without Stereo Tool I would   
   often get frustrated with the difference in volume level of the various   
   tracks and the need to keep adjusting the volume control, which of course   
   impacted on my productivity. Now the music is truly background and more   
   enjoyable as such.   
      
   However I wouldn't dream of using such a tool for when I'm 'listening' to an   
   album, or a track.  That would be anathema to me and unfortunately   
   appears to be what's been done to this new copy of an old favourite album. I   
   didn't really need another copy, I could have made one myself from my (still   
   pristine) original but figured that it wouldn't hurt to have one and buying   
   another might put a bit more m,oney in the pocket of the artist who has   
   given me so many years of enjoyable listening.   
      
   I have always assumed that, should something happen to a CD of mine I could   
   always buy another copy, even though it might not be easy. Now I realise   
   that I likely wouldn't be able to get a copy that sounds like the original   
   so have ordered a 2 TB HDD and will start the slow process of backing up my   
   CDs from the 70s and 80s, likely using EAC and FLAC (or just keeping wav.   
   files, I'll see how much space FLAC saves).   
      
   Thanks again for all the input on this subject, I really appreciate it.   
   --   
   Shaun.   
      
   "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a   
   monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also   
   into you." Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)