Badly recorded albums needing upgrading


My new music system is in place, fairly well burnt in, and speaker placement and other tweaks are coming along. In the process I’ve been learning how much variation there is in the quality of both CD and vinyl recordings. This range in quality was not apparent on my old equipment.

For example, as I go through my old records, I’ve noticed a couple of favorites that are terribly recorded. A well known sub-par recording, Eric Clapton’s (Derek and the Dominoes) "Layla and Other Love Songs" is virtually not listenable. The Stones "Let It Bleed" I’ve had to replace with a Japaneses SACD as Jagger’s vocals sounded like he recorded them with a garbage can over his head. That SACD does sound considerably better, although the vocals on "Gimme Shelter still sound muffled. After some research on site and elsewhere, I just ordered another Japanese SACD of Layla out of the myriad available, which the reviewers said made Layla at least listenable.

Here’ the obvious problem. Both replacements were expensive as CD’a and records go, and I only want to spend that kind or resources on absolute favorite records. I am filling in the rock and roll and R&B portion of my record and CD collection of artists ranging from the Beatles up through the Sex Pistols. Are there any other well known albums like "Let It Bleed" or "Layla" I should avoid, or might already have, that will need to be purchased or bought again in upgraded formats. I’m not asking about obscure groups, but instead more well known artists like the Dead, Hendrix, Aretha Franklin, anything Motown, Janis Joplin, Dylan, Joni Mitchell, Bowie, Roxy Music, The Clash, Talking Heads, etc.

I’ve also been purchasing a lot of vintage jazz, from Ellington through the Weather Report and would like to avoid bad recordings there too. In the jazz realm I’ve been acquiring economical Redbook CD sets like Bill Evans’ 12 Classic Albums, and most recently Wayne Shorter’s entire Blue Note recordings made with RVG (Rudy Van Gelder ) remasters. What I’ve learned so far I to do when purchasing these sets it to avoid those that are made of re-recorded MP3 files. Those sets don’t advertise they are MP3 file based, so I dig around reviews by purchasers who after after getting bilked, expose these recordings labels on Amazon,com Music . If you’ve any of these classic jazz sets or albums or reissue labels I should be avoiding, please let me know.

For example, I’m currently looking to purchase economical multiple album sets of Billie Holiday’s Commodore, Verve, and Decca recordings and would like to know which sets to avoid or conversely which sets are well done.. I like among others Miles Davis, Coltrane, Lester Young, Mingus, Charlie Parker, John McLaughlin, Art Blakely, Chet Baker, Ella Fitgerald, Gerry Mulligan and the like. Again, not obscure recordings or artists. I’d really like to not get burned on substandard recordings too. Si Iif you could forewarn of any particular recordings, or any reissue labels to avoid, please do. Next year I might start to get more Classical Music recordings, but that’s another ball of wax for another day

Maybe this question is too broad or poorly defined but I’d appreciate any help you could provide to avoid disappointment or throw any more cash in the garbage. Thanks, and I’d be pleased to answer any questions to clarify this rambling post.

Mike
skyscraper

skyscraper


I hear you- this is the advantage/disadvantage of owning high end gear.

As you are learning, some of our fave albums were not engineered/recorded well. I do not mind a little tape-hiss though.


Happy Listening!

For Stones CDs the 2002 ABKCO DSD releases are wonderful and can be gobbled up on eBay readily. A good tool to screen out those wretched overly compressed CDs is the UNOFFICIAL Dynamic Range Database.
The OP is one of those audiophiles that listen to the sound of their system rather than the music. Sure, we wish all recordings were top notch and also would like there to be no stinkers in our collections. Sadly, that will never be so. A good system will certainly tell you the difference between the two, but at the same time it won’t render half your collection unlistenable. If it does, you have chosen poorly.

So accept the good with the not so good. I can listen to less than stellar examples of music that I like and enjoy them for what they are. Don’t be one of those guys with a 50k stereo and 50 “audiophile” recordings.

Oz

Some great advice posted so far. 

I would argue that the digital Sex Pistols back catalogue leaves a lot to be desired - especially The Great  Rock 'N' Roll Swindle. (Best comp might be Kiss This).

In fact a lot of music cut for vinyl often never made it into great digital form eg Kinks, Hollies, Herman's Hermits and though it pains me to say it - even the Beatles. Overuse of digital compression is a near constant bugbear.

Of course there are always differences in opinion as to what is the best.

Should it be an accurate (recording blemishes and all) representation of the original vinyl release? Preferably one made from the best source tapes available.

Or should it be a transcription of what someone now thinks the original artist may have wanted eg mono into stereo? Or even what some executive thinks might currently sell.

Or would you prefer a Giles Martin type of remix which is something different altogether?



In terms of jazz some of the best re-issues I've found are the K2 and RVG re-masterings. I also find the sound quality of MPS recordings to be outstanding. Also since the OP mentioned Let it Bleed, the Stones just released a 50th Anniversary edition that sounds great.