With all due respect. I appreciate Dave's opinion and I like people who have an opinion and express it. I agree with Dave more than not. He's still wrong..
I learn more from mastering threads like this one (disagreement, argument) than from the civil )), cautious, threads where everyone tiptoes around.
I am still skeptical about MFSL Madman Across The Water, the one Elton John MFSL CD that I have not yet heard. I would love to hear a sample clip to compare it against my (admittedly wonderful sounding) DJM CD. In my opinion, MFSL nailed the other Elton John titles...I just can't believe that the MFSL would lose this comparison.
I haven't heard Madman-but Madman, American Pie, & Breakfast In America were called the worst MFSL's in local write-ups, when released.
IMO ... the MFSL is inferior to the made-in-Japan MCA CD I have. I don't like using the term, but it's one of the MFSLs for which I would resort to the "smiley-face EQ" description. Not that I would know for sure, but it could well be, as has been suggested, that the MFSL is a more accurate representation of the master and that other editions have been "fixed." But I prefer the MCA to the MFSL by a wide margin. The other Elton MFSLs are super, IMO.
I heartily agree. The discussion is entertaining except for the personal insults from self-anointed experts. It's easy to take potshots from the peanut gallery guys, but so far I don't see anybody other than Dave with the guts to put himself out there on a topic of immense interest to most forum members.
I'll step in and agree with Dave on the Heart S/T. Ron Nevison's extra bright production is not helped by the near 10-year time-span to the MFSL. They also used the re-mixed versions of 3 of the tracks that Capitol replaced soon after the initial run of the LP and CD (negating the whole "original master recording" issue). I have a first pressing U.K. Nimbus mastered Capitol CD that is much smoother sounding even though it's still too bright - but then, the first pressing LP was like that too. There's also an early Japanese black triangle version out there that I've not heard but I understand it is yet another mastering that is very nice sounding and still better than the MFSL. I wouldn't say that the MFSL is boosted in any way, though. The already boosted highs just sounds more distorted, kind'a broken up, or just grating at times. Whereas on the original CD it all stays together. The bass (what there is of it) on the MFSL just doesn't sound... well... right - again not boosted, but not smooth either compared to either the original CD or even the LP. Like everthing else here, this is just my opinion.
I've looked over Dave's "I DON'T LIKE THESE" MoFi list. I agree with Dave on a few of them like the later Moody Blues titles, Allman's "Brothers And Sisters", Bluesbreakers, etc. THESE TITLES HAVE A BOOSTED TOP END. That's why I don't like 'em. The old Polygram CD's of those Moody Blues titles and Brothers And Sisters do NOT and to me they sound natural and lifelike. Generally the last of the old MoFi CD's had a boosted top end that bugs me to death (like Getz/Gilberto). HOWEVER, the earlier MoFi CD's, before they started EQ'ing everything to me are the keepers of a lifetime. Even if some of them don't sound so hot, like "Madman Across The Water". Why do I like those? Because they are flat transfers. Yes, MADMAN tape does indeed sound just like the MoFi CD. The fact that it is not a good recording for me is beside the point. The MoFi version did the least damage to the fragile sound of the original tapes. The DJM version is boosted in several EQ areas. It sounds ok but I want to hear what the actual tapes sound like, not some mastering engineer's take on what they should sound like. Of course, that's just me; I'm fascinated by the real deal, even if the real deal sounds less than optimum. The last few years of the old MoFi had the mastering engineers trying to improve on the sound of the tapes by adding this "air" up at the tip top of the sound spectrum that bugs the crap out of me. The better my system, the worse these last MoFi CD's sound. But, Dave, buddy, UDCD 552 Santana Abraxas is one of the best sounding MoFi's of all; they spent months rejecting so-called master tapes sent to them from Sony until they got THE master mixes. The same with UDCD 568 Queen A Night at the Opera. Just because we think the recording is a little "off", well that is exactly the way the masters sound. I know; I've heard them. Same for UDCD 585 Derek & The Dominos Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs. This was done in the "good" MoFi era. The fact that they swooped down and grabbed this title away from DCC means nothing. It is a good representation of the actual (wacky) mixes. I'm GLAD that they didn't tamper with them or try to add fake top end. That only happened in the last few years of the old MoFi, yet right at the end a great sounding Simon & Garfunkel "Bookends" was released so go figure... Ramble is over, back to the thread. Watch the personal insults here, please. Thanks much.
This is a great distillation of the best lesson I've "learned" over the 4 years I've frequented this board: to accept and enjoy what a recording DOES sound like, and not obsess about how it SHOULD sound. "Letting go" of the endless cycle of chasing perfect versions of classic albums is a great relief, frankly. I'll pass this tip on to my wife..."Honey, we need to drop another $5,000 on the living room system if you want that LONG DISTANCE VOYAGER gold disk to sound better."
Earlier, up to what point? I don't imagine it was a clear line between releases, but can you tell me when they started doing this?
Clear up time: MFSL's like Stand-Up, Thick As A Brick, The Wall, & DSOtM, were they transfered at the wrong speed? EQ? I've read this? Is it true? Other problems?
I hear that. My audiophilia has followed a parabolic curve. Too much to life to get consumed by this stuff as far as I'm concerned. Obviously that'll vary from person to person and depend on when in life you ask them. Some folks might always be looking for the ultimate, and that's something for each person to decide. I've gotten to where, generally speaking, good is good enough. I can no longer relate to there being a best, and then everything else is crap. I can't rationalize that kind of intensity for myself, but I do still understand it. What a hobby.
From reading here in the past, there appears to be a demarcation line at the switchover from UD I to UD II. But, then again, what we like in sound is a personal choice... Bob
Absolutely! I will seek out a "better" version of my most favorite albums, but I try to no longer obsess over minutia or the seemingly endless search for a "holy grail." These days, I am much more apt to simply enjoy the listening aspect rather than the evaluating aspect. Makes me glad I obsessed about getting all my gold discs and first pressings when I did. I don't think I have the energy for that sort of thing these days.
And maybe when they started using that "Gain System"? They "gained" something in about the 8-14kHz range...
