Yup!! Dead. I seem to remember Steve having trouble giving it the Breath O' Life for the DCC vinyl issue. I think he had to borrow an old LP copy from Tom Port for reference or something like that.
Ok, I've done an actual louder volume comparison now. What I believe you are hearing is the actual original recording the way it was done. The MFSL while having better overall presence/definition still has that in the hollow tube sound to me which is dramatically different than Tyranny And Mutation. To take a wild guess here, it sounds like they tried to record the band together as a unit as opposed to the instruments being recorded at seperate times and then pieced together. The reason I say this is because there isn't the kind of instrument definition we are used to hearing, but then again I suppose it could be just a not so great recording. You know, it's not even that the S/T BOC on MFSL sounds that bad. It's that Tyranny And Mutation is the ear-bleeder and this standard Columbia pressing is better to my ears. A case of cut off your nose to spite your face. Does the S/T vinyl sound like this too?
Dave, I felt the the S/T part of the twofer sounded pretty good on MFSL (probably a flat transfer), but that Tyranny and Mutation sounded like it had a bad treble boost.
I remember reading, I think it was in Goldmine, an article on BOC where they describe the recording of the first album. Some tracks were recorded on a home teac 4-track, then transfered to multi-track in the studio, and overdubbed and souped up. They didn't want the label to know they were doing this. Anybody else remember reading this?
Stand Up was the slogan (not the song) for the "New" (22nd) Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper Stand Up, do you like the remaster? MFSL comparison?
Hi Bob, yes I do remember this now that you mention it about 4 years ago. Someone I believe either posted about it here or on the old DCC Forums or posted a link to the article.
Oh MAN! This forum costs me so much money! Thanks to this thread I just ordered the MFSL of both "Murmur" and "Reckoning" -- It'll be fun to hear them both! I don't have a decent LP setup right now -- how do these MFSL discs rate against mid-80s vinyl pressings or the original IRS CDs? I remember preferring the sound on the original LPs over that on the 1983/84 CDs.
Much, much better than any other digital versions I've heard. The only track I've heard come close to the MFSLs is "Radio Free Europe" on the Rhino box, LEFT OF THE DIAL. The gold discs sound more like what I heard on the rigs of friends who had decent turntables way back when the albums were new. The bass on the RECKONING disc can get boomy; my very uneducated guess is that it was originally left on the master tape under the assumption it would get reduced on the way to the LP.
I think they sound really great. My vinyl is in storage back in the states and it's been over 15 years since I listened to the LPs (First pressings for both LPs). From memory, I think the these MFSL discs sound better than the vinyl, but then again my old turntable wasn't very good back then (some B&O model that I bought from a pawnshop). The MFSL sound much better to my ears than the original CD releases, no comparison at all. Of course, your milage may vary.
Personally I really don't like any of the Tull remasters that I have heard. They are treble boosted and have NR on them. I would recommend the following for the best sounding digital Tull. This Was - Original UK CD Stand Up - MFSL Benefit - Original UK CD Aqualung - DCC Thick as a Brick - MFSL A Passion Play - MFSL Warchild - MFSL Minstrel in the Gallery - Original UK CD Too Old to Rock N' Roll - Original UK CD Songs from the Wood - MFSL Heavy Horses - Original US CD (I have not heard the original UK CD of this, so I do not know if the mastering is different or better, but I prefer the original US CD over the remaster)
Some of the better original CD's mentioned above. Heavy Horses and Too Old to - I prefer the remasters A Passion Play MFSL or Remaster ...and This Was - Not a fav. recording period - I now listen to this album because of the remaster. All Tull MFSL
Well, my MFSL CDs of Murmur and Reckoning arrived last night. I was hoping to hear solid presence in the 40 to 100 Hz range, and these discs had that. What I was absolutely NOT prepared for was how boosted the sub bass was. I always liked the mix of these albums, but (as it came across on my system) the MFSL disc mastering placed WAAAAY too much emphasis on the kick drum. It was positively overwhelming. I am a bass player, and in fact I used to play along to these albums all the time, and I can fake my way through a song on drums too, so I love hearing bass. But I'm not a fan of thump-thumping subwoofer beats in music, and all of a sudden that's how these albums sounded. I'll have to play these discs on some other systems, and as soon as I can buy a decent turntable/phono pre-amp, I'll compare to my IRS vinyl. I was happy to have the ending instrumental coda on Reckoning back in place. I thought it was sloppy of them to omit that from the standard CD. The kick drum was not quite so heavy on Reckoning. Still, it was a boost from the original redbook CD. All-in-all, I can understand why Dave put Murmur on this list, and I'm not sure what my final verdict on these CDs will be, but my initial reaction was not entirely favorable. Maybe I'm just used to the sound of the old CDs since that's what I've been listening to for the past 23 years.
Just wanted to point out that "boosted" is not the correct term here, since it implies that MFSL jacked up the bass. As I never tire of pointing out, the MFSL CD of Murmur is pretty much a flat master. That bass sound is what's on the master tape. It was cut down on all previous versions of the album, both LP and CD. People accuse MFSL of boosting the bass all the time, but this is one instance where that is not the case. If you don't like that sound, you certainly are entitled to your opinion, but it is what's on the master tape and it was not added by MFSL.
Yes -- I hear you loud and clear about the MFSLs being flat transfers. I did not mean "boosted" in the sense that it was a purposeful EQ decision on the part of the engineers at MFSL, I meant "boosted" only in relation to the db levels of the sub on the standard issue CD. It would be more correct to say that the standard CDs were tweaked. I'm glad I bought both of these MFSLs, and I think it's interesting to hear that R.E.M. considers them to sound "right". It's not that I don't like the sound, it's just a bit of a surprise to hear how much the dynamics differ on the MFSL. Again, as they play on my system, it's a big difference. Murmur and Reckoning are two of my favorite albums, and I always enjoy alternate masterings because I'm a geek. I'm surprised that the original recordings were engineered with so much sub-bass in the first place.
Hope I didn't seem like I was jumping on you. There are folks on this forum who have claimed they can tell whether a CD has been heavily EQ'ed in mastering just by listening to it, without having knowledge of what the master tape sounds like, but simply by whether they like the sound or not. If they like it, they pronounce it "flat", if they don't like it, they claim it's "boosted." It's like there is a need to proclaim the version they like best is the flat version. It's kind of a pet peeve of mine when people make those claims... I maintain that there's no way of knowing whether bass boosting was done unless you've heard the master tape or have firsthand information from someone who was involved in the mastering. Sorry if I seemed hypervigilant in picking apart your syntax.
I own the MFSL of Equinoxe and Oxygene... I don't think there are many digital versons of those albums out there. I own the rest of Jarre's catalogue on Dreyfus. To me, the MFSLs sound superb. Dave, are the Dreyfus versions of these albums better???
I have them, too; and I also have the French Original Dreyfus Oxygène, which - compared to the MFSL - sounds similarly good, though the MoFi MAY sound a bit softer. At first listen, it's hard for me to tell which one is better, but I really haven't compared them thoroughly - and even that was a long time ago.
I honestly don't know Javier. All I know is the MFSL's sound over equed in the top and bottom ends. I am tempted to try some earlier pressings though to see how they sound.
I never thought about them being "boosted"... I sometimes think they sound like the output of an AdLib sound card, though If anything, I think of them as thin, but not because of the album itself, merely because of the sound of the synths. They sound very similar to the rest of my Dreyfus discs, though, and I love the detail in them. Maybe I'll pick up a Dreyfus Oxygene - they are less than $10, IIRC, and I love the album to death, anyway...
Jason, thanks for writing again. I'm glad you questioned what I meant regarding my use of the word "boosted", as it gave me the chance to clarify. I'm a firm believer in the idea that meaningful communication cannot happen without a clear understanding of what is meant by the use of certain words. Syntax and context are everything! "Boosted" certainly implies a deliberate action, so you were right to question my use of the word. And anyway, this forum is working at its best when these threads become dialogues. I was hoping to have time to listen to these discs in their entirety last night, but did not have time. Tonight I'll give them both a complete spin.
This refers to the MFSL UDCD 532 - Every Picture Tells A Story Hello Dave, have you ever heard the early WG pressing on Mercury, mastered by Dennis Drake? I just compard the Dennis Drake mastering to the MFSL, and I do like the Dennis Drake better. It's not a huge margin, but substantial in my opinion. The MFSL sounds good on its own, but the old Mercury CD is just unbelievable. You should try to find one so you can do your own comparison. I wouldn't label the MFSL as "non-recommended", but I consider the Mercury DD to be better. Roland
That's Mercury 822 385-2, © 1984 PolyGram Records, Inc., isn't it? My copy has matrix number 822 385-2 05 +.
