Record Club CDs

[TSmithPage]

Years ago, I read an article (in Stereo Review maybe) that claimed in blind sound tests, you could tell a difference between record club CDs and official releases, with the record club releases supposedly inferior. This was allegedly true even using the same mastering source for both discs. Does anyone know of any follow-ups to this article or have any independent opinions on this topic. I know I am slightly biased against record club CDs because of this possibility, but don't know if it makes much sense. I could see it with vinyl pressings, but you'd think digital is digital...

[Sckott]

Possibly someone with ESP. You realize, it's rare that the record clubs use their own process, like they used to with vinyl. It's wholsaling they have to do without making costs for themselves.

Last I saw, both BMG and Sony weren't making their own discs. They had for a while in the early 90s. I still have a Bob Marley CD with DADC/Sony numbers on it.

Yes, digital is digital, and varying to an extent, you sould not tell the differences between issues unless you're taking a stock issue against a remaster or vice versa, but obviously someone should know that.

[Grant]

I read this several years ago in Stereophile. Seems the problem is with mastering formats and the dredded jitter.

[Jeffrey]

Originally posted by Grant
I read this several years ago in Stereophile. Seems the problem is with mastering formats and the dredded jitter.

Hi Grant,

Please give us some detail on the formats and jitter issues. Do you believe there is a sonic difference?

Thanks,
Jeffrey

[FabFourFan]

Originally posted by TSmithPage
Years ago, I read an article (in Stereo Review maybe) that claimed in blind sound tests,
you could tell a difference between record club CDs and official releases,
with the record club releases supposedly inferior.
This was allegedly true even using the same mastering source for both discs.IME, this is absolutely untrue nonsense, as far as CD quality and sound is concerned.

Decades ago, they said that record club VINYL was cheap and worse than 'regular' vinyl,
and that may have been the case, but that was for pressing VINYL.

Anyway, if you can find the text of the article, I'd love to see it!

[TSmithPage]

Originally posted by FabFourFan
IME, this is absolutely untrue nonsense, as far as CD quality and sound is concerned.

Decades ago, they said that record club VINYL was cheap and worse than 'regular' vinyl,
and that may have been the case, but that was for pressing VINYL.

Anyway, if you can find the text of the article, I'd love to see it!

As I recall, it was a fairly lengthy article, which focused upon a particular classical recording. Grant recalls it was in Stereophile. I read it at a relative's house, didn't retain the article, but maybe someone else knows how to locate it...

[TSmithPage]

Hey, I found the link!http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?55
Interesting reading, and does seem to focus on the issue of jitter... I still can't believe it, though.

[FabFourFan]

Originally posted by TSmithPage
Hey, I found the link!http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?55
Interesting reading, and does seem to focus on the issue of jitter...Yes, the author concluded (7 years ago!) that all the pressings WERE digitally identical,
and the apparent differences in sound were the result of different jitter characterisitics.
That's probably mostly the truth.

So, in practice, no two 'identical' cds sound exactly the same...
Isn't this about the third time we have reached that conclusion here in this forum? :eek:

My point is that this is not new news, it's old, old news.
All anyone has ever had to do is get two 'identical' cds and listen for yourself.

And it has nothing to do with evil record clubs.

[Michael]

First of all..Digital is Digital a CLONE. There are no differences between any pressings of CDs unless a different master was used. What makes a difference in the sound is the PLAYER. I have tested this theory. If the cd sounded different it was the PLAYER. NOT the CD. There are no grooves to cause variables. Pits are Pits 0s are 0s and 1s are 1s PERIOD! No VARIATIONS, Vinyl has a life of it's own. Each LP an individual. Digital is COLD DEAD PLASTIC with no direct contact other than a beam of light.

[Dave]

There is one possibility that hasn't been mentioned yet and could very well be the reason that different pressing plants, different sounds, and that is different burners, different burn programs.

Just a thought.

[jligon]

Originally posted by Michael
First of all..Digital is Digital a CLONE. There are no differences between any pressings of CDs unless a different master was used. What makes a difference in the sound is the PLAYER. I have tested this theory. If the cd sounded different it was the PLAYER. NOT the CD. There are no grooves to cause variables. Pits are Pits 0s are 0s and 1s are 1s PERIOD! No VARIATIONS, Vinyl has a life of it's own. Each LP an individual. Digital is COLD DEAD PLASTIC with no direct contact other than a beam of light.

I steer away from being emperical when it comes to my music and I advise others to do the same. I've been listening to arguments over the past thirty years as to why "this" is more scientifically "superior" to "that," etc... From tube equipment to solid state, from records to CDs.
Over the past 17 years or so, I've heard countless individuals explain their theory of digital music. It's 0s and 1s therefore it will always be 0s and 1s. All CDs sound the same. All CD players sound the same. All digital interconnects sound the same. There can be no scientific explanation as to why this would sound different than that.
But you know what? A lot of these arguments have turned out to be wrong! Most everyone now agrees that all CD players DO NOT sound the same. There was a time when it was believed, by many, that they did.
I've read, literally, thousands of arguments in favor of and against spending a lot of money on digital interconnects. Science would have me believe that it is a waste. 0s and 1s are still 0s and 1s, how can a cable have an effect on 0s and 1s? I don't know, but they can.
We have JVC pushing their XRCDs claiming that the care that they take in manufacturing their CDs makes a sonic difference. Although not everyone agrees, there is a very loyal following that claims to hear the difference.
I see no reason not to believe that CDs could possibly vary from disc to disc, nonetheless vary from plant to plant.
I'll keep an open mind and judge for myself.

[Grant]

I thought I read somewhere that even the mastering master had something to do with it, the U-matic, the DAT, the exbyte, CD-R...

There are those who say that CD-Rs burned at various speeds sound different. I haven't noticed a difference in that but I do know I have more problems with CD-Rs burned at 1x.

[Sckott]

Yes, folks - It's not a very big concern, but some brands and dyes on Cds don't have a very accurate "memory" sometimes. I've noticed that some CDs I've burned at 16X on cheaper media DO play great, but they don't re-copy very well. Always good to use good blanks and burn around 8X, if you want.

But results vary quite a bit, because of conditions and cirumstances. AFA gitter and digital clones via record clubs, as much I am curious, I don't buy it completely. making a record club issue to re-pressing catalog stock (Like Led Zeppelin IV) isn't going to be different. Vinyl, yes, and those differences do exist, but not for CDs, barely at all.

[Steven]

I have two copies of Tom Petty's Southern Accents.

One doesn't have any inserts, so I'm not sure if it's a club pressing, but there is an extra # on the disc (251551-2), leading me to believe it is from a club.

The club one is slightly louder. Also, all the songs from Side 2 start in the the pre-gap, so if you skip to one of those tracks, you lose the first second or so. I don't hear a difference in audio quality though.