In the old days, the joke was that an "audiophile recording" was one of an obscure orchestra playing and conducted wretchedly but recorded in the most glorious, natural sound that you ever heard. This was one of J. Gordon Holt's golden rules of audio--the better the sound, the worse the performance. Nowadays I think, in the case of records, it really only refers to the weight of the vinyl or if it is a 45 rpm version of a record normally distributed as a 33-1/3 rpm LP, and given the limited number of these records made, I don't think stampings are necessarily as much of an issue as they were in the golden age of stereo. It certainly does not refer to the use of master tapes in my view, although some companies, such as Classic Records, do make the effort to get the original masters rather than copies.
What constitutes an AUDIOPHILE recording
Lately when i browse thru vinyl at the music store or on the net I'm seeing the term Audiophile recording. Lately there has been a plethra of recordings that are 150,180 and 200 gram records that are being sold from 20 dollars to 40 dollars and they tell me there worth the price. For me if it isn't mastered or cut from the ORIGINAL MASTER it isn't an audiophile recording and are not worth the price. When I ask the person and they don't know I just move on. At the music store it says Audiophile pressing but nothing about it's source. Another question is if you have an original pressing of a recording I'm assuming it has been cut from the original master but lately I've been told by people that is not true because of volume and demand for certian artists constituted making stamps and used for mass production.The further the stamp was from the master the further the sound suffered. So my question is if it sounds good does this MAKE IT an audiophile recording?
- ...
- 14 posts total
- 14 posts total