Differences between MFSL UDCD 1 and UDCD 2?

[KLM]

OK, I've seen some of you trash the UDCD 2's as compared to the 1's. My question is for those of you that have compared the same title of a UDCD 1 to a UDCD 2 to describe what you hear. What do you think is the difference in sound qualities.

Furthermore, does anyone have an explanation as to why these should sound any different. I'm assuming the same master was used for both releases and the only difference was the pressing plant and some new "improved" technology used in the UDCD 2 releases. I know the 1's are more collectable as they were produced in lower quantities and were pressed in Japan (and the 2's in the U.S.). Also, doesn't the 2's use the "GAIN" system. If this wasn't an improvement, why would MFSL go to the cost to implement it?

Thanks for your thoughts. I am currently looking at a copy of Stevie Wonder's Innervisions and don't know if it makes a difference to get the UDCD1 or 2 version as both may be available (but at a cost difference).

[joachim.ritter]

Originally posted by KLM
I know the 1's are more collectable as they were produced in lower quantities and were pressed in Japan (and the 2's in the U.S.).

According to my experience there seem to be at least some exceptions: "Huey Lewis - Sports" and "Jethro Tull - Stand Up" are very hard to find as UD II copies. And at least here in Germany many titles are much more frequent as UD I copies than as UD II copies.

BTW, I'm looking for (mint or sealed) UD II copies of:
Huey Lewis - Sports
Jethro Tull - Stand Up
Earl Klugh - Finger Paintings
The Who - Quadrophenia
Roy Orbison - Mystery Girl
Allman Brothers - Live At Fillmore East.

So, if any of you wants to upgrade to UD I copies or just wants to get rid of them, please let me know!

Joachim

[John Carsell]

Looking over some of my old catalogues and flyers from Mo-fi I still have layin' around, It seems as tho Huey Lewis and the News Sports and Jethro Tulls Stand Up went out of print right around the same time the UD 2's made their debut.

These would be very IMO if they exist as UD 2's at all.

[joachim.ritter]

Originally posted by John Carsell

These would be very IMO if they exist as UD 2's at all.

I'm sure that they exist as UD II copies ...

There are a couple of UD I copies as well which seem to be very difficult to find:

Robert Cray - Strong Persuader
Tom Petty - Hard Promises
John Lee Hooker - The Healer

Those were among the last titles released as UD I versions.

Joachim

[Kym]

Originally posted by KLM
I am currently looking at a copy of Stevie Wonder's Innervisions and don't know if it makes a difference to get the UDCD1 or 2 version as both may be available (but at a cost difference).

I'm not sure if there is a UD2 version of Innervisions, but my UD1 is probably one of the best-sounding CDs in my collection, period.

I, too, am curious as to why the UD2s should sound any different from the UD1s of the same title. It makes no sense.

[joachim.ritter]

Originally posted by Kym in Hawaii
I'm not sure if there is a UD2 version of Innervisions, but my UD1 is probably one of the best-sounding CDs in my collection, period.

I, too, am curious as to why the UD2s should sound any different from the UD1s of the same title. It makes no sense.

Yes, "Innervisions" was released as UD I and UD II.

You can find all necessary information on John Harp's website: http://www.aurealm.com/zinc.htm

Regarding the UD I vs. UD II discussion: Where is Dave?! ;)

Joachim

[Carl Hoffmann]

Yeah, Dave is a HUGE proponent of the UDI.

[Mike]

Here's what Gary said regarding the "smiley face EQ", which has me curious.

Originally posted by Gary
I *believe* it's also a reference to the 'standard' MFSL EQ settings that were used on a lot of their discs. It seems that more of the UD2's were EQ'd, making the UD1's the ones to get. Generally speaking.

[Ben]

Hey, group...

I generally agree that UD1's have the upper hand as it were, however, there are some fantastic sounding UD2's out there as well...some that come to mind....

Joni Mitchell "Wild Things Run Fast"

Joe Jackson "Night & Day"

"Blood Sweat & Tears"

As far as "Innvervisions" is concerned...I have both the UD1 and the UD2...they are practically identical, and they're damn good!

So....you kinda have to listen and listen...for yourself - it's more subjective than a lot of these discussions would lead you to believe...


Ben

[KLM]

Ben,
Thanks for your reply regarding Innervisions. I would think that titles released both on UDCD 1 and UDCD 2 would sound identical because even if UDCD 2 titles used more EQ (as suggested by a post by Gary), MFSL wouldn't remaster the same title but simply press fresh cds.

I'm surprised more folks haven't chimed in on this as I have seen many replys on various posts that elude to the superiority of UDCD1's. I'm not sure if I'm convinced.

[btomarra]

KLM,

I think your questions regarding the sonic differences between UDI's and II's are justified. DSOTM was one such release where the UDI was preferred over the II. And yet, there is a current post where a few agree thet the UDI of this same release has muddy vocals on track 4. In other words this superior UDI apparently isn't so superior to some.

Also, some were stating on an earlier thread about the MOFI Child Is Father to The Man by BS&T being eq'ed to the max and heavily compressed. Steve responded to my questions on that thread by heartily recommending this MOFI CD as being a flat transfer from the analog tapes.

In other words, all have different opinions about the way CDS sound to them. Some may like the way a CD sounds, others justifiably may not.

There could be some valid reasons fro the preferences of UDI's to UDII's. I, too, am anxious to learn. I'm still a novice as an audiophile.

All comments are welcome and always respected by me!!

Brian

:)

[Patrick M]

[This is not an original idea by me, I'm just paraphrasing an old post by someone who will remain nameless. Ahem.]

What if MoFi issued a title on CD (UD1) and cassette, and a different master was prepared for each.

Then the CD digital master went to Japan for making the CDs. At some point, the CD manufacturing facility went out of business, and the digital master went into the dumpster.

Then UD2s were manufactured in the US, and the digital master for the cassette was subbed for the trashed CD master for American manufacturing.

[Metralla]

These two masters would be identical would they not? It's not as if we are talking about a master for the LP.

Regards,
Metralla

[FabFourFan]

Originally posted by KLM
I would think that titles released both on UDCD 1 and UDCD 2 would sound identical because even if UDCD 2 titles used more EQ (as suggested by a post by Gary), MFSL wouldn't remaster the same title but simply press fresh cds.I wish that Dave would speak up on UD vs UDII, but he must be busy with something else. Darn it!!!

Anyway, tonight I compared the Tommy UD with the Tommy UDII, and they sound entirely different.
The UD sounds smooth and dynamic, and it's a real pleasure.
The UDII is compressed and processed and who-knows-what, and sounds just plain bad compared to the UD.
So, in this case, at least, the UD is, indeed, the 'good' one,
while the UDII was deliberately remastered to have a 'snappy' but poorer sound.

But remember, all this needs to be put in perspective:
I checked the 1996 remix, and it sounds like hell compared to either the UD or the UDII.
It has a completely changed dynamic which seems to have nothing to do with
the original musical sounds known as 'Tommy' - if you get my drift. :eek:

So, until Dave gets back with more information,
my suggestion would be to keep your UD,
sell your UDII on eBay to get a UD,
and/or throw away the remix CD and get a UD! :)


As always, this is MHO and YMMV. :)

[Gary]

Hi, all!

Dave has ISP problems this weekend so he has his problems and priorities. Lets see - at my work they are called opportinities and learning to prioritize excercises. I'm sure he will enlighten us in the near future!

I've noticed significant differences between DSOTM UD1 and UD2. Like FabFourFan's comparison of Tommy. The UD2 was very compressed while the UD1 was not. Dave did more comparisons of other MFSL's and came away with the conclusion that *most* UD1's are superior. It's sorta hard to compare them all, right?

The theory is this: UD's were manufactured in a high quality control manuf. plant in Japan. Or a "fairy dust" plant. The Japanese can be fanatics about quality control.

MFSL changed presidents and the manufacturing was brought to the USA. These were then called UD2's. The same master tapes were used (someone emailed me about this a long time ago - he had contacted MFSL when the manufacturing was brought to the USA), but the sound seems to be "goosed" to give it more oomph (so they could sound better?). This caused the compression - or it was compressed to achieve this. Steve once said that a manufacturing facility could do a bit of EQ before making the CD from the tape. Perhaps this happened too. They were manufactured at a facility that was not as good or as anal (did I just say a bad word?) as the Japanese facility. To save costs?

MFSL probably reconized this and developed the Gain System. These were better than the UD2's - Ultradisc 2 with the Gain System.

Later they developed Ultradisc 2 Gain 2 - with DSD. I believe DSD is Direct Stream Digital. Again, this was an improvement over the UD2 with the Gain System.

So in order of preference from best to worse we have:

1) UD (or referred to as UD1)
2) UD2 / Gain 2 / DSD
3) UD2 / Gain System
4) UD2

So where do the MFSL silver discs fit in? Along with the UD1's for the most part. I have the silver disc of Rick Wakeman: Journey to... and the gold disc UD2 of the same title. The silver disc is sooooo much more open it just blows away the gold UD2. On the other hand, I also have the silver disc of Grateful Dead: Mars Hotel. It's sad. Sounds like a normal CD.

So there is no "right" answer - just generalizations.

BTW, MOFI's BS&T, Child Is Father to The Man is an Ultradisc 2 / Gain 2 / DSD release. A #2 in the list.

For an excellent smiley faced EQ example, play Tull's Songs From The Woods, title track, on the MFSL disc. You'll be suitably impressed. Then play DCC's Songs From The Woods off the Original Masters CD. It'll blow you away. It will just blow-you-away! This comparison makes it very easy to hear MFSL's EQ'ing and the superiority of the DCC version. And it's a great way to astound your friends. I know!

And again, like FabFourFan says, UD2's would still blow away most remasters.

Please note that new releases and remasters are coming out all the time. Someone previoulsy posted - a long time ago - that the Spirit - 12 Dreams... remaster was quite good. No need for spending the big bucks on the MFSL. Not sure if that's true or not. Someday - I hope - all MFSL's will pale in comparison to glorious remastered CDs. 'Scuse me. Time for my medication.

;)

[Patrick M]

Originally posted by Metralla
These two masters would be identical would they not?

Don't think so! ;)

Where is a MoFi historian when we need one? Someone with the inside information? Will someone step up?

[Dob]

Just got done comparing the DCC/MFSL "Songs From The Wood".
While I would say that the DCC is the better of the two, due to the MFSL having more sizzle, it didn't blow-me-away. They are pretty close. And the extra sizzle on the MFSL wasn't noticeable all the time, just during certain intervals. There were long stretches that I had a hard time discerning which was which.

As for the "smiley face" EQ, I didn't notice any bass heaviness on the MFSL. Both CDs had a well balanced bass sound.

[Angel]

Funny, we did an A/B of those two titles and the DCC version is so far the clear winner that the MoFi went on Ebay that night.

[Ben]

The thing is....

The DCC version is just one song on a Tull "Greatest Hits " package....the MOFI is the entire album of "Songs From The Wood."

And it's pretty damn good....in fact I like it better than the DCC CD. I like the DCC vinyl of "Original Masters" much more than its Gold CD counterpart...

And as far as collectible value goes....I'd hang on to the MOFI CD.

Best,

Ben

[Gary]

Interesting, Angel. I'm keeping my MOFI Songs From The Wood because it's the best available on CD. But it breaks my heart to realize how much better it *could* have been.

:(

I find that with a lot of MFSLs.

[btomarra]

Thank you for all your input an insights. That is tremendously helpful. Wish I had known about this board before I bought that UDII of Tommy.

Thanks again!

Brian

:D

[Gary]

Brian, look at the bright side: They are easily resellable because they are a collectors item!

[Dave]

Gary has pretty much nailed it!

Different studios, different equipment, heck even different cables.

I personally have done over 25 UD/UD2 comparisons and everytime the UD version's better. Not always extremely, BS&T: ST, and sometimes just huge Pink Floyd: DSOTM& Rick Wakeman: JTTCOTE.

Not every UD2 version sucks totally. Traffic comes to my mind immediately. You sort of have to rely on someones opinion or do like I did, learn the hard way.

UD1/UD2= Same masters, different studios, different engineers= different product.

Sigh, it's good to be home again.:D

[Steve Hoffman]

Point of information, the original MoFi Gold CD's were done at Superior Disc in Japan. Same place that DCC Gold CD's were made.

The greatest CD pressing plant in the World IMO, now sadly, gone.

[lukpac]

Originally posted by Dave
UD1/UD2= Same masters, different studios, different engineers= different product.

Well...they still used the same digital masters though, didn't they? It's not as if they were remastered all over again.

Of course, another bunch of discs that sound different are some of the Who remixes. The MCA, German Polydor, and Japanese Polydor discs all sound somewhat different. And, they all use the same digital masters. Go figure.