A Short Survey of Audiophile Record Labels (TAS 197)

 

 

The word “audiophile” has always struck me as one that carries two messages. One speaks of appreciation, connoisseurship, a passion for great sound and the equipment that delivers it, the closest thing indeed to the absolute sound of live music—while the other seems loaded with elitism, snobbery, a specialized club for the golden-eared only, a place where sound (form) trumps music (substance).

 

The latter description is often attached to audiophile record labels, which, usually lacking the budget and other means to attract top talent, often present mediocre music in stunningly great sound. But it would be a mistake, as well as simply unfair, to lump all audiophile labels into a single wobbly stack of LPs, CDs, and SACDs. To clarify, I’m not speaking about mainstream labels such as RCA, Mercury, Blue Note, etc., that spent years building superb sounding catalogs with some of the world’s leading music makers. While labels like these may have an audiophile aesthetic, they aren’t the small, mostly independent labels I’ll be covering here. That said, those great mainstream labels form a solid backbone for the audiophile labels they spawned, those that specialize in reissuing past classics. It should also be pointed out that reissue labels owe something of a debt to TAS-founder Harry Pearson. Without tooting our own, it’s a simple truth that HP’s longstanding “Super Disc” lists and championing of these labels turned those old, once relatively obscure LPs into collector’s items, which in turn paved the way for the reissue market.

It’s not uncommon for audiophile labels to be started by guys that also make high-end equipment. And while I can’t be certain that Bob Fulton started things—he was also a pioneer of specialty cables—I distinctly recall an early and very live sounding recording of a high school chorus singing, well, does it really matter? Back in the day, your local high-end shop would also have stocked LPs (no CDs yet) by early practitioners such as Sheffield Lab and Crystal Clear, both of which specialized in spectacular sounding and hard to make direct-to-disc recordings; Mark Levinson, who made recordings for use as reference tools with which to build his early gear; and from Japan, Denon, which made original classical recordings, along with King Analog, one of the first to reissue heralded classical recordings on vinyl.           

With apologies to any I’ve overlooked, and a few, like Cisco, which has just recently been resurrected, here’s a condensed view of the main players.

The music side of the equipment catalog and Web retailer Acoustic Sounds, Analogue Productions is the brainchild of a Louisiana-born music fanatic named Chad Kassem. The label records its own original blues releases in a converted church now called Blue Heaven Studios, but the majority of its catalog focuses on superb LP and hybrid SACD reissues from Fantasy Jazz, Blue Note, and Impulse among others. Double-LP 45rpms may be all the rage, but Acoustic Sounds and its mastering arm, AcousTech, must get credit for being the first to go there.

A labor of love for former high-end retailer and current Wilson Audio guru Peter McGrath, Audiofon Records specializes in creating near spooky “you-are-there” recordings of classical chamber and orchestral music. McGrath has a true ear for music, and frequently records some of the world’s finest instrumentalists, as well as the Florida Philharmonic. McGrath is also a pioneer of stunningly real-sounding multichannel recordings.

While it may be justly known for its specialty cables, AudioQuest has spent many years recording music. With releases on vinyl, CD, and SACD, and mostly engineered by Joe Harley, who is also associated with Groove Note and Music Matters, AudioQuest Music covers mainly small jazz, pop, and blues ensembles. 

Overseen by brothers David and Norman, Chesky Records began as a reissue house but quickly morphed into a producer of original recordings. Chesky releases run the gamut, but typically focus on the New York jazz scene as well as the excellent original compositions written by David Chesky.

Classic Records made its first big splash reissuing “golden age” RCAs. The company’s catalog has since broadened considerably to include Mercury and other classical labels, and a string of superb rock and jazz titles—all with impeccably reproduced cover art and extras. Classic has also championed 200-gram vinyl as well as special vinyl formulations (such as its new “Clarity Vinyl”), and offers pretty much all manner of standard and heavyweight vinyl, as well as a bevy of different digital formats. Its out-of-print catalog now includes many collectible reissues.  

Comments

bradc (not verified) -- Fri, 11/27/2009 - 12:05

Something that I have never seen addressed in print is why do the re-issues never sound as good as a mainstream pressing of the same record. Even though I greatly admire the various companies care in rereleasing past great records I have yet to hear one reissue that is not easy bettered by either an original pressing or a rerelease from the original label(I am sure they exist I just haven't heard one). Yes the beautiful quiet pressings and the lovely jackets are to be admired but if our goal is to sound like live music the reissues always seem to sound dead. Just for reference I have hundreds and hundreds of reissues from Classic, Analogue Productions, Cisco etc and yes the quiet surfaces are great but the music sounds like it is being performed by slightly dead musicians. For instance last night I was listing to Janos Starker Unaccompanied Bach on Speakers Corner it sounded nice but then I got the original Mercury out I was suddenly listening to a different performance. Is it because the mastertapes have lost that much energy and detail? I wonder because the Beatles cd reissues even though they sound different than the original lps don't seem to have the universal dead sound that almost all the other reissues seem to share. I have also noticed the better my system has become the worse the reissues sound by comparision.

I would to hear some others experiences.

Marty B (not verified) -- Fri, 11/27/2009 - 13:50

I think there are several reasons why the reissues don't necessarily sound as good:
1. Original analog master tapes have deteriorated: high-quality back coated tapes from the 1970s to at least 1986 from all four major tape manufacturers (Agfa, BASF, 3M and Ampex) have a severe binder problem where the oxide sheds off the tape due to moisture abosorption. In order to play these tapes, they have to be "baked", but in most cases, they can only be played once. So in many cases, the original analog masters no longer exist. In other cases, the original analog masters have been otherwise damaged or lost.

(Back in the late 70s, early 80s, I worked as a recording engineer for an educational publisher. We created recorded music compilations for music education that comprised of original recorded music, but also about 50% licensed music from the "special products" divisions of the major labels. If you licensed more than a certain amount of music from a given label, they would "force" you to use their manufacturing facility for at least part of the run of the resulting cassettes or vinyl. Because of that, they would hold our masters, but they would frequently lose them. So I would go to the master library and search around for our tapes and I would ask them, "do you lose [insert very famous artist here]'s tapes like you lose mine?" And the response was, "as a matter of fact, we do." And I am talking about a very major big-time label here. Throw rock-star and rock album producers into the mix and the combination of egos and eventual legal battles between group members and a lot of original master tapes have disappeared over the years.)

2. When the analog masters no longer exist, you're either dealing with a copy of the analog master or a digital copy.

3. If the digital master was made in the early days of digital recording (1980s), it probably is pretty bad. The A-D converters in those days not very good and many were not even full 16-bit. A lot of the legend of digital recording sounding "brittle" comes from those early days.

4. If it's new music, most (major) labels are no longer willing to fund a separate master for vinyl cutting. I attended the AES Convention in October and attended a session hosted by one of the world's pre-eminent mastering engineers (who shall go nameless here). He said that when the labels started insisting that he use the CD master as the vinyl master, he sold his cutting lathe.

5. When vinyl was pre-eminent, many engineers learned how to master and cut and there was a master/apprentice relationship at many studios. Because vinyl is now so niche, that doesn't exist anymore.

6. Creating good vinyl was always problematic. It's not that vinyl can't be good, it's that so many things can go wrong. I have a lot of old vinyl that was still in shrinkwrap and never played or in some cases, opened but played only once. I've been listening to many of those recently and while there are a few good ones, most have ticks, surface noise, cutter hum, vinyl defects, etc. and that's aside from the mastering issues. Before the advent of the CD, at least in the U.S., all we did was complain about poor vinyl quality. So it's kind of funny to me that audiophiles are reverting back to vinyl as the "ideal playback format."

bradc (not verified) -- Sat, 11/28/2009 - 11:33

MartyB,

Thanks for your comments. I have wondered why even with the current higher quality vinyl better lathes and attention to detail that this wouldn't have more than compensated for tape deteriation. I personally don't like noisy vinyl and some of the other distortions but the originals still sound more like real music. It is pitiful that so much of our recorded legacy has been so poorly cared for. I keep buying reissues to fill holes in my collection but as soon as I can I get an original in great condition.

CraigD (not verified) -- Tue, 12/15/2009 - 21:30

Below I touch on a few topics, all of which pertain to poor sonic vinyl reissues.

What is the point of a new, half-speed, 180 gram, virgin vinyl, original master, etc., release if the sonic quality is inferior to the original release? And in many cases inferior to the overall sonic quality of the CD release?

Would anyone buy a new TV whose picture quality is inferior to their current TV?

Do the studio engineers listen to the master tapes (or whatever source they are using) before committing to releasing a reissue? (I know that they play the master tapes, but do they listen to them?) Do they have playback equipment capable of letting them hear when the source is substandard? Do they have the ears or know what a quality recording should sound like (or at least what it should not sound like)? Are they so impressed with their expensive computer controlled, electronic, mixing equipment and all of the slick features that they lose sight that their main objective is to make a clean copy of the source? Or are they in the camp of those folks you see on late night infomercials swearing that their new kitchen countertop player sounds better than anything they have ever heard?

I am not trying to be a snob here, and I fall way short of the financial qualifications to be an audio snob. But what is the point of this exercise if the source material sucks? Shouldn’t the sonic quality of the source material be one of the deciding factors in the "go"/"no go" decision on whether or not to proceed with a new reissue?

In the late 80s, I used to work as a computer operator at Atlantic Records in midtown Manhattan. Virtually every office had JBL speakers. The big conference room had huge JBL speakers built into the wall. It looked great and sounded awful. The speakers were powered by Yamaha electronics (C-85 preamp, I believe, and associated stereo amp from that line) that were available anywhere Yamaha was sold. I am pointing this out because Executives at Atlantic Records used that room. Are they the ones that decide what sounds good? Bang for the buck, the Yamaha stuff was good. But paired up with JBL speakers that were poorly (at best) setup was a sonic disaster. I never got to visit the studio, so I do now know what they were using (headphones to make such an important decision?). I sure hope that the same folks that signed off on the conference room setup were not involved in the studio setup.

I am tired of wasting my hard earned money on some new super vinyl release that I play less than once (no need to play the whole album if the first few songs tell the story of the sonic quality of the disk). I recently discarded my brand new quiet copy of Deep Purple’s Machine Head in favor of listening to my old copy with background noise (I will search for a clean copy of the original album on eBay).

I asked earlier “What is the point of this exercise if the source material sucks?”
I suspect that the answer is the almighty dollar, and fools like me who will buy enough reissues to make the record companies rich before learning our lesson.

The record companies sue people for downloading (not paying) for some crummy MP3s. Yet, they release what they purport to be high quality releases that are anything but. Clearly they either have no idea what a quality recording should sound like (and this is their business) or do not care about ripping off the public with their sonically inferior reissues. So as much as not paying for illegally downloaded MP3s is absolutely wrong, I am smiling all the same that the public is sticking it to the immoral record companies. I say immoral because they should not release sonic crap.

Lastly, I think that all of us who read TAS and other such reputable publications know that when vinyl is done right, it is superior to digital in almost every respect. Yet the public at large still believes that digital is as good as it gets and that all CD players sound the same (they have to, it’s digital, right?). My point here is that when these inferior vinyl releases are played by those who believe that digital is sonically king, or by those who have not made up their mind, they are convinced that CDs sound better than vinyl -- and they would be correct when comparing a CD to some crummy new 200 gram blunder.

chazzo (not verified) -- Wed, 12/02/2009 - 10:38

I generally agree that original pressings are very hard to beat (there's a presence to my original Genesis LP's that Classic reissues, however quiet and bassy, can't provide), but that all changed when I heard the Rhino/Reprise reissue of James Taylor's Mud Slide and Sweet Baby James. One of the albums had some over-saturation going on on side one, but, other than that, amazing (I have what I believe is an original as well as a white-label promo (scratchy but better than the original)), and this reissue betters both.

ZZ Top and Van Morrison reissues (same label)are supposedly as impressive.