Well, I guess. but this thread is evidence that we all hear differently. And how many "The List was wrong" threads might there be when someone buys a highly rated disc but finds it disappointing? Hey, but don't let me stop you ....knock yourself out. Do polls, pie charts, graphs, etch a sketch, by all means, go for it.
This will always be the case. But my comment was that if there is a general consensus that version "A" is the best, odds are it's a safe purchase for the potential buyer. It doesn't mean that the user will always be in agreement, but it should mean that MOST people who purchase based on this advice will be happy with their acquisition.
``` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ___________________________________________________--- thread capping >>....and so they preach!
Steve, is Thick As A Brick on MFSL close to what you remember it sounding when you did Original Masters? Thank you
Hey, I wish there was a sure fire way to do this, but all you need to do is search Elton John SACD and watch the fireworks. Too bright.....no you're wrong.....I think it's your system.....the MFSLSOBFU is better.......
Rob, if I understood you correctly, if you have two CD's which have basically the same/very similar mastering (tape source, EQ choices etc.) and the only difference is that one of them is mastered to a maximum peak level of -4.5 dB and the other one is mastered to -0.5 dB, and if you then listen to the lower volume level CD at a volume level you feel comfortable with, then change the CD to the one mastered at peak level -0.5 dB, that you instantly think the louder CD is compressed (or anything else bad done to it) just because it instantly is more than twice as loud? I think I have to whole-heartedly disagree with this. The curse of compression has nothing to do with the absolute volume level. Mastering a CD louder w/o compression is like changing the setting on your volume knob, it is not affecting the dynamics. If you were right about this it would mean that if I listen to one and the same CD and instantly turn up the volume by 4 dB that it would sound compressed??? Compression is like a curse. Once you trained yourself to hear it, you're doomed, simply because you will immediately hear it with any CD which is compressed, and it ruins the enjoyment of many CD's which would otherwise not be mastered so bad at all (regarding EQ choices, tape source, etc.). To me, compression is the worst of all bad mastering habits, with NR and bad EQ choices following closely. You are still right about that you have to adjust for volume differences when comparing different CD masterings. I agree with you on that one. Roland
thanks for the repair - I thought Steve Hoffman managed to get it back on the rails. just how did it come off again?
a meter showing peak levels to my eyes does not overrule what i hear with my ears. i really like the sound of the MFSL "wall", a lot. renny
Yes, I'm serious about the Lynyrd Skynyrd MFSL. I got rid of mine in favor of the remaster w/bonus tracks. The MFSL probably was a flat-transfer, granted, but I just liked the "live-in-the-studio-sounding" feeling of the remaster better. This thread just goes to show how so much of what we hear as "correct" is up to the individual....on some of these titles, we really seem to be splitting hairs. I guess there are some that are blatently obvious (i.e. what's good and what isn't)...but most of them, like the Lynyrd Skynyrd, seem to be, like I said, a personal choice thing...........Pretty fun and engaging thread, Dave!
That is a great idea! Some suggestions: All threads should use the same "syntax" in the thread title, so that they can be easily found. Before you add the poll to the respective thread, open it and let people post which CD pressings they would like to include in the poll, since in most cases, they are more different versions than you are aware of. There is one major problem: most people will not have heard all the various versions. It would be nice if there was a poll function where you could post relative comparisons regarding which version you like least and which best - and you leave out a relative grading for the versions you have not heard. I don't think this function is yet available, so a regular poll would be better than none. Roland
Bottom of this page....you asked http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=75294&page=8&pp=20
Tootull, I believe Steve said awhile back on somebody's thread (can't find it) that the MFSL "Thick as a Brick" was not from the original master, but a production copy. He also stated that only the DCC Gold Original Master's CD was the only digital version to ever use the original master tape (side 1 only). Regardless I still think the MFSL sounds good, but Steve's version on OM is definitely better. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
Dave, my sincere thanks for a great thread idea and this list. And also for taking so much time trying to answer all questions as best as possible. As others have said before, it is Dave's list and his recommendations. It's a free world (at least for most of us). C'mon people, I've been on this forum for a good year know, and we all know what Dave's preferences are when it comes to CD mastering, at least to some extent. If your taste is different, that is completely fine. Me personally. I had very good experiences with Dave's recommendations, but it was (and still is) a learning curve for me. I am in the planning stage for a thread regarding preferred regular CD versions (where there is no MFSL or DCC), since I feel I was able to find out a lot in the past, and I would think that it would be helpful information for some forum members. In my imaginary list, there is no recommendation for a remastered version (maybe one or two), so I'm pretty sure that many people would not agree with me on many of the titles. The reaction Dave got with this thread makes me think whether it really is a good idea to post such a list... Roland
