MFSL Blind Faith – Ultradisc vs. Ultradisc 2

I know that the difference in sound quality between UD1 and UD2 MFSL has been discussed on this forum many times, and I did read up on the respective threads.

My understanding is, that there is some small subtle difference (depending on the title) which can be heard by some people and not heard by others.

I, for myself, was always wondering how big the difference really is and if I could even hear it on my average system.

Well, I do have both versions of Blind Faith’s MFSL CD, the Ultradisc and the Ultradisc II right here at home (the Ultradisc II is my friend’s and I just bought the Ultradisc on eBay).

The difference was previously described as a very light veil on the Ultradisc II vs. the Ultradisc. I was trying to listen very carefully and to detect the difference, and at times I vaguely “imagined” I heard a difference (I wanted to hear it), but to be quite honest, the difference is so minor that I cannot really hear it with this specific recording.

Now, I have a couple of questions to all the forum members who are able to hear the differences:

1) I heard that the differences vary from title to title. Is the Blind Faith recording a title where the differences are barely there or non existent or would it count as a title where the differences are well to hear by the trained ear on a very good system?

2) How are these differences for the Allman Brothers Band At Fillmore East compared to the Blind Faith CD?

If the Blind Faith CD is a good sample to hear the differences between UD1 and UD2, then I am relieved since I don’t have to worry about that difference anymore, because for me personally, the difference between the two Blind Faith versions are so minor or not audible to me that I wouldn’t worry about not having a UD1 version with any other titles.

Your answers and comments are greatly appreciated.

Roland

 

My understanding is that all UD1's and II's are the same but some posters here hear differences where there are none.

 

My advice is if you cannot hear a difference don't worry about it and enjoy the music!!

 

Well, I don't think they are the same. In my Windows Media Player, the two discs weren't recognized as the same disc. And some people consistently hear a difference in any blind test, so I am not debating whether there is a difference, I am wondering whether the difference of this specific title (Blind Faith) is pretty representative of what to expect between UD1 and UD2.

Just because I cannot hear the difference (at the moment, on my system) does not mean that that there isn't a difference. My eyes aren't as good as some other's, so from a certain distance two different letters would be indistuingishable (sp?) for me but clearly different for someone with better eyes.

I am trying to find out whether I - for myself - should worry about this difference or not with other titles (I am not too worried about the difference of the Blind Faith CD since I cannot really hear it).

Roland

 

Some would say even if there is a difference you shouldn't *worry* about it.

Of course, that's up to you...

 

What eelkiller said. I have both, don't worry about UDI or UDII. Both sound just fine.

 

The UD1's were produced first, and in lower quantity in many cases, so some obsessive collectors have convinced themselves there is a difference. There isn't. Exact same mastering in every case, just a repressing at a different plant with a slightly different disc formulation.

anyone who hears digfferences between the two or even bothers to try to hear differences wins the 'way too much time on their hands, needs to start listening to music instead of disc formulations' award.

Huge waste of time.

 

Could you check if they are digitally identical?

 

UD1's were pressed in Japan, UD2's in the U.S., so it's very possible there's a sonic difference on some titles.

Since I don't have the UD1 and UD2 copies of any title, I've never been able to do an a/b test myself.

 

What convinced you there are none?

Robert, this is in bad taste any way you slice it.

Roland, I don't know regarding Blind Faith, but as has been noted the differences can be subtle on some titles and this might be one.

On The Allman Bros. there is a noticeable difference on my system. There is just better definition in both the extreme top and bottom ends.

Exactly and well said Barry.

 

Dave, thank you for the info. I know you are (one of) the UD1 expert(s).

Now I AM worried about the ABB Fillmore East. I do have the UD2 and also the original 2-CD Dennis Drake WG Polyder edition, and I can't make up my mind which one sounds better to my ears. The UD2 is a little warmer sounding and has better low end, but I like the top end better on the original 2-CD mastered by Dennis Drake. The UD2 just sounds a little muffled in the top end, and I was wondering if the UD1 would be better in this regard.

I take it that when you say a "noticeable difference" on your system, that this would be something I could also hear (just an assumption on my part, but in the past I was usually able to follow your comments you had made on various occasions). Just for comparison regarding differences I can easily hear, the Steve Hoffman mastered Ray Charles "Uh Huh" (tube mastered) and "His Greatest Hits Vol. 1 & 2" (solid state mastered) are an example where I can hear a significant difference. Not sure if this is a good example in terms of "to be expected magnitude of difference".

Another example: A well made CD-R copy on high quality medium (Hi-Space gold or alike) sounds pretty much identical to my ears compared to the original version. I can hear very slight differences but I wouldn't be able to tell which one I like better. If I use a low quality medium I can hear the difference and I always like the original better. So, I am able to hear differences between various CD-R media, but this would be my maximum "listening resolution".

Dave, would a good CD-R copy of the UD1 still sound better than the original UD2 to your ears (I am talking about the ABB Fillmore East)?

Roland

 

Hi Roland,

In answer to your first question, yes. I find the resolution on the top end of some (in this case The Allman Bros. LATF) is better on the UD1's.

I'm not familiar with your system so I can't honestly answer. The tube/SS difference between the DCC Ray Charles CDs is easier to notice on my system than the UD1/UD2 differences with some exceptions like Pink Floyd DSOTM.

Personally, I've never heard a CD-R version that is as good as the original, but it's possible I suppose. It's honestly very system dependent and on a per album basis only.

Hope that helps somewhat Roland.

 

2 reasons:

1) All UDI's and UDII's I've compared sound exactly the same.

2) The "null" test has shown that many of the more popular titles are digitically identical. If a disc passes the null test they have the same data and therefore will sound the same. This is not subjective at all. It's math. If the discs have the same 1's and 0's they will sound the same regardless of one's system.

IMO there is no way MFSL would master and issue a title and then turn around 1 or 2 years later and ask for the tapes again so they can do it all over again. I can't see that happening.

I really hate to see forum members paying crazy $$ for UD1's on ebay when the much cheaper UDII's sound exactly the same.

I certainly haven't compared ALL MFSL titles that exist as both UD1's and II's. I guess it's possible that a handful of titles may have been mastered again for the UDII series but I doubt even that.

Chris

 

Visit this page WinABX and download free small program called WinABX which allows to determine if there is any difference in two wav-files or not.

It drives me mad too. However I will give immediately for every UDI item you have it's UDII
counterpart (and add some bonus for your time and shipping )

Andrew

 

surely if you have to download software to see differences .. then you cant hear any differences right?

and i bet if you download the software to see differences and there were some...you would convince yourself that you could hear them, or force yourself to listen out for them....ruining the listening experience altogether..... (i definately dont listen to music to pick holes in a recording....unless you are talking about completely different mastering and mixing)

 

There are Who's Next and Meaty Beaty Big & Bouncy CDs (all mastered by Steve) that are not digitally identical at all. The software will report differences, but I doubt that you can hear them.

Only the reverse is true: If two CD are digitally identical, then they will sound the same, with the possible exception of jitter affecting the sound on some CD players.

 

1) Perhaps a different system would yield different results for you. All I know for certain is that I and others hear the differences.

2) If the discs have the same 1's and 0's they will sound the same regardless of one's system maybe the case from the exact same plant/facilty, but two different mastering plants can, and most of the time do, produce slight to moderate noticeable sounding differences. This has been proven many times over with multiple labels. I'm certain this is what I'm hearing.

Curiously, can you tell me Chris if this "null test" can detect that a single frequecy has been added or reduced by 0.5DB? Reason I ask is because "technically" it will still be present, but altered only by a miniscule amount. Enough for the human ear , but...

 

If the difference is on the CD, then it will be caught by the null test.
If the difference is not on the CD, then there is no difference.

 

Thanks, you are entitled to believe what you like.

 

And you are entitled to call facts "beliefs".

 

Hello Chris,

I wouldn't be so sure about point 2). Wouldn't a perfect CD-R copy (given that there are no read-out mistakes at all etc.) be digitally identical in terms of 0's and 1's but they can still sound different?

I think there is more to the sound of a CD than 0's and 1's. Aren't there special things you can do to your CD (like adding some dots or paints or whatsoever) to improve the sound, e.g. by reducing reflection etc.?

Wouldn't the same data pressed on a gold CD with a smother surface sound slightly different compared to an aluminum CD with its rougher surface, using the same mastering?

Wouldn't it matter if the clear plastic layer of a CD would turn "milky"?

I don't think anybody ever stated that MFSL went back to the original master tapes to remaster a UD2 title they already released as an UD1.

The differences we are talking about are related to CD production variations, not differences in mastering.

I believe their can be differences between the same CD production depending if the glass master (?) used to press the CD is still quite new or at the end of its lifetime.

Many people here on this forum cannot hear any differences between UD1 and UD2 on their system with their ears, but this doesn't mean that the differences aren't there. Some people on this forum can hear the difference.

The digital world behaves pretty analog. The type of power chord you use can have a big influence on the overall sound reproduction, but this subject belongs in the hardware section...

Dave, thank you for your specific reply. This is very helpful. I will try to track down a UD1 of ABB LAFE and then judge for myself. I just want to know for myself.

Roland

 

There are some who claim that CDR copies can sound different, despite being perfect transcriptions of 1s and 0s.

...hey, wait! I can think of someone who claims this! I remember that WhiteFang used to say that his CDR copies of various Who reissues sounded different...that they tamed the treble, or added some bass, or something.

Of course, WhiteFang also claimed that there were differences between the Polydor and MCA Who reissues (there aren't). He claimed the Polydor Odds and Sods original CD was better than the MCA (they're the same). He claimed that the Japanese Who reissues had "value-added bass" (they're the same). He claimed the Polydor Odds and Sods reissue sounded better on the new tracks, with the MCA sounding better on the old, and the Japanese having the most even sound (they're the same).

So yes, there are those that claim one can hear a difference if one copies to CDR. And y'know what? I accept that in certain cases, this certainly could conceivably happen. It isn't entirely out of the realm of possibility. If your CD player really HATES a certain CDR, it might expend more voltage and dampen outputs or something like that. It would be terrifically unlikely, but it could happen. Would the difference be quantifiable (i.e. a "narrower soundstage?")? Probably not.

So yes, there are those who claim to hear a difference. At least some are demonstrably wrong on many other issues. You will forgive me if I deny them the benefit of the doubt.

Well, then, sorry; you're wrong. The sound on a CD is all 1s and 0s. Things come between those 1s and 0s and your ears: speakers, DAC, etc. But that initial stage? It's all 1s and 0s.

There are people who sell such things who enjoy money, yes, and who have convinced a lot of people that "greening" CDs reduces reflections. The science simply isn't there, but then again, science doesn't know a lot of things, right?

No.

Sure, it would matter. It might make the information hard to read. Guess what happens if you managed to clean it, though? Or if you made a CDR copy (hard to read doesn't mean it can't be read exactly, given enough time)? Same data, same sound.

I accept that the age of a digital master can introduce variations into the process. Different glass masters may very well have been made from the digital master tapes, which would account for petty differences like index/timing variations. And there are certainly pressings and formulations that are more prone to errors than others.

But this doesn't matter as long as the errors are correctable, in which case the same bitstream goes to the DAC and the same audio comes out.

You are misconstruing the issue. It isn't about hearing a difference. It's about showing that there is no difference.

Think of it this way. You have a JPG lying around on your hard drive. You burn it on two CDRs, one cheap, one expensive. You give them to a guy. He looks at them both, and declares that the one on the more expensive CDR is better. The colors are more vivid; the detail more pronounced; the JPG artifacting, while present on both, is more muted on the better CDR. He acknowledges that the differences are subtle, but his system is SO REVEALING--his eyes SO GOLDEN--that he can see them even if you can't.

You know the file is EXACTLY the same on both discs. Heck, you can show it! You can pull the file off each disc, runs checksums, use the FC utility...everything. They're exactly the same.

That's what's going on here. We've demonstrated that the data on the discs is the same. Our measurement is objective.

OK, are you trolling? If not...

The digital world DOES NOT behave "pretty analog." That's the entire problem here. You have people attempting to apply analog "reasoning" to a digital environment, obsessive over the material of the medium, etc. Digital doesn't behave like this! Cleaning your DVD with SPECIAL LIQUIDS will not make your picture more vivid.

"WHAT IS TRUE FOR YOU is what you have observed yourself."

-L Ron Hubbard

 

Hey now, there's people who would disagree with you!

Truthfully, this gets into "blind test" theory, which does have its tendancy to, in this forum, spiral out control sometimes. If I rub my Cds with a blue cloth that came from a buddist's blessing.... that kinda thing. If you believe that a "DVD Rewinder" will work for you, all the power to ya. It's literally what floats your boats.

I own the UDII and I've owned the UDI for a short time. When I put them both in the player, I could NOT tell the difference in playing "Had To Cry Today" or "Sea Of Joy". I seriously think there might be a difference between SOME MFSLs, but in this case, I'm convinced personally there is not any difference this human and his ears can tell.

On eBay, they command different prices of course, and maybe that's your difference? What people believe?

I say, listen to the music..... We have only a short time on this planet besides.

 

Right, and I don't really want to go through this again. IT's been beaten to a pulp. That said, we've established that many UDIs and UDIIs are the same. This bears repeating, as I find it curious that the rarer and more-Japanese of the two tends to be heralded as better.

 

What a bunch of suckers you guys are. Can't you see the UD1 guys really think the UDII's are better?

They're trying to deflate the UDII market until they can get good and stocked up. When they do (since they have you eating out of their hands), they'll pull the old switcheroo and watch the money roll in as they turn eBay into their own personal money tree.

You guys are so gullible.