Do import CD's offer superior audio quality?

Captain Humble · « **on:** 5 May 2005, 02:04 pm »

General Question:
Is there a difference, or should there be a difference in audio quality between a domestic and an import CD of the same title?

Tower Records offers two different imports for Silje Nergaard's, NIGHT WATCH.
http://www.towerrecords.com/Music/Default.aspx?search_in=music&oft=Silje%20Nergaard&urlid=cc1f6dfbb777ff0fd187&free_text=Silje%20Nergaard&

One shows a date of 2/28/05 and the other shows 11/17/03. I don't see any notes saying remastered or XRCD and they don't offer the track listings.

ONE:
02/28/2005 Universal
Compact Disc
List Price: $45.99
Your Price: $40.99
You save $5.00 (10%)
IMPORT
Special Order

TWO:
11/17/2003 Universal
Compact Disc
List Price: $23.99
Your Price: $21.99
You save $2.00 (8%)
IMPORT
In Stock

Should I expect the $45.99 version to offer superior audio quality?
Which one would you buy and why?

Thanks,
Jeff

Carlman · « **Reply #1 on:** 5 May 2005, 02:37 pm »

Why not buy both and find out... I'm not trying to be a smart ass but I'm sure a lot of people are interested....

If the mastering process was done anywhere other than NY or LA you have a good chance that it's done well or at least better. I've heard Tennessee mastering is good. However, I think my complaints are mainly in new music... Most of the cd's I pick up are so compressed and pumped-up that it's just unlistenable.

From Modest Mouse to Coldplay, I have no idea what these guys really sound like from their cd's. It sounds like someone put a Sears tape recorder up to a blaring Soundesign speaker and produced a cd from it.

I don't know about classical, opera, and other genres. It seems in the U.S. louder is better. But, I don't know what other countries consider better or even acceptable.

-C

PhilNYC · « **Reply #2 on:** 5 May 2005, 03:19 pm »

While there's no set rule, I agree with Carl that non-NY/LA masters tend to sound a little better. I looked up the CDs you are asking about, and it appears that ONE was remastered in Japan, and TWO was remastered in Europe...no info on who did the mastering. For me, I've found Japanese remasters to be more to my liking 9 out of 10 times...

Digi-G · « **Reply #3 on:** 10 May 2005, 02:13 pm »

I'll second the Japanese masters sounding better. Not sure why, but they seem to. Seems like it was the same way for vinyl back in the 70's. Why isn't the U.S. setting the bar for remastering quality?

chadh · « **Reply #4 on:** 10 May 2005, 03:28 pm »

Quote from: Digi-G

I'll second the Japanese masters sounding better. Not sure why, but they seem to. Seems like it was the same way for vinyl back in the 70's. Why isn't the U.S. setting the bar for remastering quality?

Probably because there isn't any financial incentive to do so. If everbody emailed the production companies and told them that we were prepared to pay much higher prices for remastered music of higher quality, then maybe you would see a difference. But maybe not.

Suppose I can produce excellent sounding recordings, and that everybody knows that I can. But this process is costly, so I will only produce excellent recordings if I can sell my output at a premium. I also know that any old firm can run off poor quality versions of the same music and that 90% of the population will be unable to tell the difference simply by looking at the package. What's more, if these competitors are smart, they can make the packaging look so similar that many of those in the final 10% couldn't tell. Ultimately, the only guaranteed way to tell would be to listen to two versions side-by-side, knowing for sure that one of them was the superior version. But, if you already have a verified superior version, why would you need to be trying this...?

If these things were true, few people if anybody would be prepared to pay the premium for the superior quality as it would be so difficult to verify the product's quality. So even if I could "set the bar", why would I ever bother if it was costly and I couldn't secure approporiate compensation?

I'm speculating about the industry of course, and may be way off. What's more, this story leaves the question of why Japanese firms (allegedly) are able profitably to produce better quality output. Perhaps Japanese intellectual property laws make it more difficult for low-priced competitors to masquerade as the high quality label. Perhaps it is more costly in Japan to establish the infrastructure to produce low quality versions of the music. Perhaps the Japanese market is sufficiently small that the low-priced competitors wouldn't find it profitable to enter the market and disguise their products as high quality merchandise. Maybe the relevant section of the Japanese market is better informed, and finds it easier to distinguish between the real McCoy and and it's cheap Chinese cousin.

Or maybe the Japanese market is simply more willing to pay for improved quality.

Chad

bubba966 · « **Reply #5 on:** 10 May 2005, 03:57 pm »

Quote from: chadh

Or maybe the Japanese market is simply more willing to pay for improved quality

That's exactly why they get better recordings/pressings/sets/gear. We're too cheap on the whole in the US to pay what the Japanese pay to get the quality level that they do.

PhilNYC · « **Reply #6 on:** 10 May 2005, 05:19 pm »

I don't think it's a matter of being more costly. Unless you are talking about the XRCD manufacturing process, it's pretty much the same...just a little more painstaking work by the mastering engineer. And a lot of these Japanese versions are produced by labels that have distribution in both Japan and the US (eg. Sony Music).

I think it's a matter of what consumers demand. In the US, it's about car audio, playing loud, surround sound, etc. But did you know that Japan is the second largest high end audio market in the world? Given that its population is so much smaller than the US, that's a pretty large proportion of Japanese people who are into high end audio. Just look at any Japanese audio magazine, and you'll see how into it the are. So in the end, I think it's just a matter of the Japanese music consumer caring more about the sound quality, and Japanese music studios trying to do a better job.

Carlman · « **Reply #7 on:** 10 May 2005, 06:10 pm »

Quote from: chadh

Probably because there isn't any financial incentive to do so...

I'd settle for average recordings over bad ones.

It costs the same to make the VU needles bounce solely in the red as it does to have them peak in the red.

Does louder sell? I mean, do people seek out recordings that are louder and purchase more of them? Are they like us, and consider what part of the country mastered the cd so they're sure to get a shitty one?

I guess I don't understand the financial incentive of what's being done today.

PhilNYC · « **Reply #8 on:** 10 May 2005, 09:13 pm »

Quote from: Carlman

I guess I don't understand the financial incentive of what's being done today.

I think it's obvious; audiophiles buy the US release, then buy the import version later because it sounds better. Twice the sales!

chadh · « **Reply #9 on:** 11 May 2005, 03:20 pm »

My sister the sound engineer has absolutely no hesitation in pointing out (a) the incompetence of most people in the profession; and (b) the large amounts of money earned by those free-lancing colleagues who are actually good.

It's like anything else: if you want the job done well, you have to pay for it.

Chad

Gordy · « **Reply #10 on:** 11 May 2005, 04:30 pm »

I'm of the suspicion that the vast majority of CD's are bought to be played in a car or boombox/big box stereo. The major record companies are, unfortunately, processing their CD's to sound "best" where they're played... as the Japanese are a mass transit society, their music is engineered for where it is played, the home!

PhilNYC · « **Reply #11 on:** 14 May 2005, 02:15 pm »

Btw - one of my favorite CDs is Jimmy Smith's "Root Down". I have the US-released Verve Remaster and have always felt the sonics were good. Recently had a chance to hear the Japanese release, and quite honestly it was awful (sound-quality-wise). So it's not a 100% certain thing...

Captain Humble · « **Reply #12 on:** 19 May 2005, 12:49 am »

Quote

Btw - one of my favorite CDs is Jimmy Smith's "Root Down". I have the US-released Verve Remaster and have always felt the sonics were good. Recently had a chance to hear the Japanese release, and quite honestly it was awful (sound-quality-wise). So it's not a 100% certain thing...

I've been out of town for the last week and just reviewed the thread again. Prior to PhilNYC's last post, it sounded like I should expect better sonics from the more expensive imports. Based on the quote above, I guess it's a crap shoot.

Thanks to all that responded.
Jeff

pfradale · « **Reply #13 on:** 20 Jun 2005, 12:40 pm »

Suppliers are the reason. Japan has a much more layered approach to distribution with many more middle-men, hence the higher prices. I live here and have to deal with it in many areas.

JefferyK · « **Reply #14 on:** 28 Jun 2005, 06:13 pm »

And keep in mind that the U.S. imposes a tariff on Japanese CDs, which pushes the prices up. It is almost always cheaper to order directly from Japan.

Jeffery