Does anyone have any of these? And do they sound better as compared to, say, the 1999 EMI remasters? (IIRC, the "Five Years" site says the Ziggy Stardust gold disk does sound the best of all the CD editions of that album.)

‘‘And I say, ‘What’s the matter with my psychopathic sex?’ ’’
—Avatar courtesy Nature_Boy

They are nicer to have, but I really can't tell the difference between them and normal Rykos ... only comparable like for like, as the differences between the different remasters extends to actual mixing never mind just sound quality. Generally the rykos can sound a little trebley? Not much mid range... the 1999 reissues have more detail in the lower end.

Or my stereo is fucked.

In reply to:

---

Does anyone have any of these?

---

Alas I do not but have seen some for sale on ebay at very expensive prices! what was the reason for making these I wonder? just as a special collectors item or for the sound?

I have a gold disc of Reality from Japan and the sound is magnificent, but this could be because of todays technology, Im not sure of the sound of the 1990? I presume discs.


London Bye Ta-Ta...

I can see the ultimate copy of Some Are(Low bonus track) being sought after.

bfp

I have one gold disc, and is the Low one. It sounds great, but so do the regular Rykos and the re-issues as far as I'm concerned. Or, I don't have very sophisticated ears.

zigbot

In reply to:

---

Or, I don't have very sophisticated ears.

---

On closer inspection Maria they look sound to me




London Bye Ta-Ta...

It's official: Claude's posting style can be transmitted through anal sex.

Look out, FastChanges.

TW ALIVE IN '05!!

Is this correct?

Ryko - 16bit
RykoAu - 20bit
1999 - 24bit

bfp

probably, but in real terms it doesn't mean anything. The differences in the actual remastering style and mixing overrides accurate comparisons... everyone will have their opinions about which issues FEEL better, some won't be bothered.

That's why me and many others like the RCA cds, because they have the original warm 'analogue' sound of the recordings as we remember them from back in the day... later remasters are just approximations of them and lose something even though they are technically better.

I purchased all these gold discs when they came out.... so I too would love to know if they are any better than the later versions released. I recently purchased a ROTEL CD player plus ROTEL Amp... and the sound is indeed incredible from them. They are a great asset in any collection plus each CD case somes with it's own unique number... I would love to know if anybody know hoe many of each were made and if anyone could put a current value on them... I have MAN WHO SOLD THE WORDLD, HUNKY DORY, ZIGGY STARDUST, YOUNG AMERICANS, STATION TO STATION, LOW and HEORES.... does any one know of any others??? Obsessed Irish Fan!!!

ChangesBowie.

Wearing The Downside Up

If I understood my geeky friend correctly, the 24 bit remasters of the 1999 ones mean nothing, because a normal CD is encoded in 20 bits, so the sound quality has to be decreased.

Project Michelangelo | LiveJournal

I guess the re-mastered 24 bit is not recorded from the 20 bit CD, but from the master tape or a copy thereof.

Thus the encoding of a CD should not matter - the encoding of the master tapes is what is important. And my guess is that the master tapes have at least 24 bits, so a 24 bit remastering should sound better than a 20 bit CD.

/Carsten

Well the master tapes would not have any 'bits' as they are analogue recordings. But in theory the higher resolution the transfer is made at, the wider the sound spectrum should be, thus better end sound result. Although I doubt the majority of sound systems could differentiate the difference, and the better the sound system, the better any cd would be.

Personally I cannot tell any discernable difference between any of the different versions from a sound quality point of view, although differences in the sound mix can be heard, especially if you take Stage to be an example. Sometimes this can be detrimental though, as the mix, as Russel has said before, is only an approximation of what the original mix was like. This can be even more true when you have a sound engineer doing the mix, rather than the original producer. Led Zeppelins back catalogue is a good example here as the original cds were poor whereas the remasters were done by Jimmy Page himself.




You should not underestimate people, not everybody is as thick as you.

Another question is whether you are listening through headphones or speakers.

16-bit CDs were invented because they use only the approx. high/low frequencies the human ear can interpret. Whereas, with speakers, your body interprets the higher/lower noises only held on 20+bit cd or other audiophile devices(including a quality record playerand system)

This is my general understanding of this tech-talk. people seemed to catch wind of this in the mid-90's.

bfp

Thanks for all the techy explanations, people.

Project Michelangelo | LiveJournal

What about this boxset Alan? 8 CD RYKODISC GOLD
BOX SET LIMITED EDITION

It makes me wish I could afford it.


London Bye Ta-Ta...

It is nice, but it's not like there is anything new in there.




You should not underestimate people, not everybody is as thick as you.

In reply to:

---

It is nice, but it's not like there is anything new in there.

---

Yeah I know Alan but I didn't even know this boxset had been released by Ryko, It's a lot of money and quite rare I would think? I particularly like the design of the box, lord knows how many were issued? but like the David Bowie silver boxset with 2000 worldwide release, It would be nice to own for it's collective value.


London Bye Ta-Ta...