Faith No More - Angel Dust - MFSL Mofi Gold CD and vinyl LP *

FYI - for anyone that might be interested in a direct comparison of the original Slash/Reprise CD vs. the MFSL, I've posted roughly a one-minute sample of both versions of MidLife Crisis over in my blog, along with other info and graphical representation.

 

I was told that the vinyl won't be out till Xmas...

Just listened to the MFSL CD yesterday - loud. You know how there are titles that are marginally better than the regular CDs and then there are those that just blow you away? MFSL's Angel Dust CD is definitely in the latter group. MUCH better than the regular CD.

Very highly recommended!

 

That is a very nice page and write up you've done there.

My MFSL copy came in a few days ago, and I finally had time for serious listening today. Like you, I truly love this album. In 1993, I would listen to it probably 10-20 times per week

Playing the original CD compared to the MFSL, you can tell the Mofi definitely allows more of the dynamics to come through. However, the MFSL seems a little "flat" to me in the midrange. The original Slash/Reprise disc has more of a "bite" in the midrange. Maybe some would describe the older CD as harsh? Since it is the only version I've ever listened to prior the MFSL, it just sounded right to me. I just wish they kept the midrange forwardness of the Slash/Reprise and combined it with the new-found dynamics of the MFSL. Just some slight midrange EQ tweaking is what this one needs to sound the best.

It's almost as though the MFSL sounds like one of those older 1983-84 "first press" CD masterings that were flat-sounding. And, the 1992 Slash/Reprise CD is the "new remaster", with more compression and a more upfront midrange.

Too bad there wasn't an opportunity for a 5.1 version. Many tracks, like "Caffeine" are just so dense sounding, they need a 5.1 mix to open up all the instruments.

 

Thanks for the props!

Having spent even more time with the MFSL as of late, I do kind of miss the "biting" mid-range in certain parts/songs. A few folks here have described the original CD as being quite harsh, but it doesn't bother me at all - perhaps it's due to my age and semi-virgin ears when I got my first cassette copy of AD (i.e. I've never known it any other way). Or, I'm used to the obliterated audio of modern-day that AD pails in direct comparison to. I'd wager that the ultimate version of AD for yours truly would be a combination of both the MFSL and the original release (certain songs from each).

AD is one of those few records though - in the genre of metal, alternative, or whatever you want to call/label it - that has enormous changes in tonality, style and dynamic range....it must have been quite a chore to mix! If I could ever pick his brain, I'd love to ask Matt Wallace some questions about the making/mixing of AD.

 

I'm really hoping they do The Real Thing soon, because after listening to the Angel Dust MFSL quite a lot I put my original The Real Thing CD on and it sounds pretty bad imo. I'm sure it would benefit quite a bit from a remastering. I think it's a better album, too.

 

right... Real Thing is musically much better as AD (IMO).

The MFSL is okay..... better than the original CD!!!

 

AD, was a great release!

 

Is this the MFSL? Can anyone check the UPC listed here against their disc? I think it is, but its weird that they list the label as "slash".

 

821797078764 is the UPC of my disc (No. 00736), so it looks like it is the MFSL!

 

Thanks, vomitgod. (love that name!)

I'm gonna order it. I'm only familiar with their hits from The Real Thing, so these songs will all be new to me.

 

I just picked up the MFSL of this disc myself, and I think the above mostly describes my feelings, with a few caveats. Basically, yes, the main problem with it is the vocals are pushed too far back. I'm actually surprised that this wasn't picked up on by the remastering crew, because it's rather obvious. The instruments overpower the vocals at times, which isn't how I remember the original disc. Going back and forth between the two, it doesn't seem like the difference with the vocals is due to inappropriate midrange boost on the original release, either (which would make the MFSL sound recessed in comparison). I like to think my ears are relatively attuned to that sort of thing at this point.

Unfortunately, in this poster's opinion, we're still without a definitive version of the disc. The original pressing has more pleasing midrange but is significantly more compressed, while the MFSL sounds wonderful... except for the recessed vocals. If you absolutely need the midrange punch, I suppose the original is for you, but if you want a more natural sounding recording with somewhat lacking midrange, then the MFSL is your best bet. It's too bad we couldn't have the best of both worlds.

 

I bought the vinyl edition. Haven't made my mind up about it. Definitely didn't bowl me over, but it's hard to tell, because the album was such a thick wall of sound to begin with. Not unhappy with it, but not exactly blown away either. Can only ask for so much from an album born in the digital age anyway, I guess.

 

I have to agree with previous posters. Just bought the vinyl version and though it is great sounding, the vocals are pushed too far back in the mix. The dynamic range and openness are far greater on the MFSL disc than the original, it is also more natural and more detailed, but in some parts the vocals are missing the bite and aggression they had, like previous posters noted.

I think it is very strange because Patton´s vocals play a big role in the music on this album, as on all FNM albums where he did vocal duties. The vocals should be more dominant in the mix than they are, IMO.

So a little disappointment regarding the vocals, but everything else on this MFSL version is improved over the original.

 

keep in mind MFSL doesnt really remix....

 

I would think the added compression the original release had would bring the vocals up a bit in the mix.

The album sounds like it was recorded analog to me. I don't hear the sharp edge that many all digital recordings seem to have. Compared to cds coming out now, the original cd isn't all that crushed in the mastering either.

 

it was analog, yeah. there was a making of spot on mtv before it's release. a shot of the tape machine looked like it was a 24 track. in one of the interviews, it was said a goal was to make a warmer sounding album that time around..

 

The new MFSL version sounds indeed very analog, open and detailed. In fact it sounds really great, the music is full and warm. It´s just that one thing with the vocals, and IMO it is a pretty big thing since my admiration for FNM has a lot to do with Patton´s vocals.

Do you guys think that this is the way it should have sounded in the first place if the original weren´t so compressed? Or is this a mastering decision made by MFSL mastering engineers?

 

I bought the Faith No More gold cd, I didn't like it much...mediocre:thumbsdn:

 

good question that i've wondered also. i would guess this is at least, closer to the way it should have sounded. with that, when it was mastered it sounds like it was eq'd and compressed to have a similar feel to 'The Real Thing'. if that's at all the case, then it defeated the process of making a more natural sounding record.

 

Exactly! Previous poster noted that they had intended to make a warmer sounding record with Angel Dust, meaning probably warmer than The Real Thing, which in itself should not have been hard since The Real Thing isn´t exactly a warm record, I think it is quite steely sounding and not very good sounding.

I still wonder about the vocals on AD though....

 

Uh, not to argue semantics, but there's a fine line between doesn't really and doesn't at all. It's my understanding that MFSL is strictly in the remastering business - not remixing? Mastering can, of course, make certain elements in a mix more/less prominent, but a remix it is certainly not.

At least in the case of Angel Dust, Wallace's mix stands as is.

 

Also - although I don't have it in front of me - the original CD bears the "AAD" logo (which I believe means analog recording, analog mixing, digital mastering).

 

I don't notice a big difference in the vocals being any more/less loud or prominent in the original/MFSL releases. I notice things overall have more bite in the original, but that's overall likely due to EQ and compression.

For the most part, I like where Patton's vocals sit in the mix throughout AD...his voice sounds more like an instrument, as opposed to overpowering everything else.

 

i have no reason at all to deserve a reply, but i contacted a guy who may be able to get some input from Matt Wallace regarding which one is more like it was intended. again, i don't expect one, but if there is, will post it here.

 

Nice! I'd be curious to know if Wallace was even approached about the MFSL release, and/or if he's even heard it and has comments.