MFSL Blind Faith – Ultradisc vs. Ultradisc 2

Heres my two cents. If digital audio files (.wavs) are identical, they will sound identical. There will be NO differences, period. Hence the word: IDENTICAL. This is not a theory, it is an absolute fact.

This is a good analogy: Right click on any file on your computer and select copy. Now right click and select Paste. You now have a digital replica of the file you copied. It is identical, period.

Extracting digital audio from a compact disc is essentially the same thing except it is a lot more subjective and complicated. Encoding the same files to a blank disc is again subjective and complicated compared to the copy paste analogy.

If you take any mainstream, mass marketed, rip and burn programs you are not going to get digital replicas of the files on an audio disc. Take either one of the two best selling rip and burn programs and try this test. Extract an audio track and burn a CDR. Extract the audio track from the CDR and compare it with the original. I guarantee the files will not be the same. Go back to the original disc and rip the same track again and compare it to the first original file, NOT the same. The programs were not designed to decode audio files in this manner, the differences are slight but still different.

EAC will NOT decode and encode digital replicas "out of the box". There are painstaking measures that MUST be done to ensure that you are geting a digital replica of the original disc. There are a lot of subtle differnces that can affect the end product: Timings, Disc layout, pre gaps. etc, etc, etc, test, test and then verify.

If someone says that they here a difference on a CDR copy of a disc, I'll bet you that they DO. The reason being is simple. THE DATA ON THE DISC IS NOT IDENTICAL!!! UGHHHH.

However, IF the disc is identical it will sound identical. If it is a DIGITAL copy it will be exactly that. It will be VERIFIABLE, UNEQUIVOCAL, and ABSOLUTE.

Sorry for the rant.

 

I don't think much
I am enjoying my UDI Dark Side, Meddle, Wall and Quadrophenia.
As about difference - yes I could tell 7 times from 10 which version I played - I had to plug into comp Fostex headphones though. And I do prefer UDI's and Japanese CD's in general. My collection of King Crimson albums is all Japanese (does anybody have a spare copy of Great Deceiver?)

 

This is what I have in my plans - to rip a track, burn it to CD-R, rip the copy, burn it to CD-R, rip the second copy etc (goal is 20 copies). Actually I already have 8 copies of one tracks (and 8 copies of total silence too). If anybody wants to put them to any tests - checksums or something PM me to arrange the files transfer.
I checked spectrum of two copies briefly - they are not the same! Stay tuned more results will follow.
Sorry for OT

 

I am afraid I have to completely disagree to this. I created images of CD's before on my hard drive and used the same image/program/computer/CD-burner/etc. to create copies of this CD on various CD-R media, and depending on the media there are very clear differences easily to identify by people with somewhat trained ears (and I am not a specialist in this).

All the math in the world cannot convince me since I already HEARD that difference. If you don't hear it or ignore that it is there, it must be based on your experience with CD-R media, computers, audio hardware etc.

I don't have any of the "bad" CD-R media anymore, otherwise I would offer to send you two CD-R's with the identical data but different sound.

Roland

 

You're conflating a few issues here, although you are generally correct.

The "art versus science" problem of DAE comes from the way in which CDs deliver audio, i.e. lack of file containers, streamed delivery, etc. This can make the re-assembly of the audio data into a standard file container somewhat problematic.

The key here is "somewhat." It was *very* problematic in the early days of DAE, which I actually do recall--the DOS program CDDA, and the like. It quickly became less problematic as time went on, however. Complicating this is what you mean by "the same." Thanks to things like offsets (both read and write varieties), the same disc ripped by two people on two drives may not produce identical files...but it generally will produce files with the same relevant data (one might have an extra few samples of silence at the end, which means that the two files are not "identical," but the audio data is in fact the same). On the aforementioned web site, the files are by no means the same, but the audio data is.

There's also your "mass market CD ripping app" contention, which simply isn't true. I offer the following as an example. Several years ago, before I went to college, I spent two days ripping as much music as I could in a short period. As EAC didn't work with my drive at the time, I used Audiocatalyst on buffered burst mode to retrieve the audio, a fact which would no doubt give any long-term EAC advocate a major MI. Worse, the drive I was ripping the audio on was a total piece of crap, a bottom-of-the-barrel no-name CDRom that later in its life began doing delightful things to extracted audio. By all rights, such a dubious process should've produced CDs that, while not necessarily full of clicks and pops, were at least subtly different from the source discs.

In the interest of SCIENCE and APPLE PIE and AMERICA, then, I performed a while ago a simple test. I ripped an image of one of them hideous discs, and ripped one of the source discs I had used ages ago. Obviously, offsets were different, but when these were matched up TOTAL digital silence was produced. In other words: same data.

EAC is not necessary by any means for exact digital copies, nor has it been throughout its life. It provides peace of mind and an alert when things go wrong, but that's pretty much it. I use it so I don't have to worry (and because it's a pretty damn well designed program).

But pregaps, etc., don't have anything to do with audio data. They DO have to do with indexes, but not with audio data.

Besides, the pursuit of an "absolute copy" of an original disc is mostly fruitless. You will never have the exact same bytes written in the exact same order in the exact same sector positions. You can have a 99% approximation--which, most times, is a 100% approximation of stuff anybody actually cares about--but you can NEVER generate an exact copy.

This test has been done before. Hell, I did it. 10 generations of copying, on CDRws no less. The end files were exactly the same. I have no idea what could be screwing around with your specturm data (IIRC, though, the spectral data of your Floyd samples differed also, perhaps due to the slightly different timings of each track), but...

"Very clear differences easily to identify by people with somewhat trained ears."

In other words, "people who have convinced themselves that they can hear things other people can't--SPECIAL!--can and will impose pre-existing biases on this test, asserting that they can discern differences that don't exist."

Then why bother asking questions? If all of the world is inherently subjective and not even the fact that two discs contain the same data means they sound the same, why accept anybody's answer at all? Clearly, any statement of fact given to you can be disproven by the "special people hear special things" concept. I hear the super-first-pressing Beatles CDs sound better because the digital masters were fresher. Doesn't matter that all Beatles discs have been shown to be digitally identical...one clearly sounds "warmer," and if you don't hear it you must just be ignoring it or not a trailed golden-ears specialist.

 

That is your opinion. Others may find that your opinion is suspect when you say "The "Breath Of Life" is all happening in this one." and "the version that I have is definitely Steve's signature" when in fact the cd was not mastered by Steve Hoffman. The reader can decide whether your opinions have any credibility or not.

 

I don't want to put down the 555Es, or any of your other equipment. It is very good equipment. I PERSONALLY own a 555Es, it is a great player, and I use it for most of my non-critical listening due to the multi-disc capability. However, I ALSO own an AX777Es, and I assure you that compared to the AX777Es, the 555Es comes up short. Not by an order of magnitude, perhaps, or I wouldn't be so enamored with the 555Es, even for non-critical listening sessions, but the AX777Es reveals details that the 555 doesn't, and can never hope to. I base this comparison on having run the two players through the same preamp/amp/speaker combo, using identical cables, for over two years. (I posted a detailed comparison of the 275, 555, and AX777 in the equipment section a long time ago. If I was an expert searcher as some here are, I'd post the link.) Is the difference between a 555 and an AX777 significant in this instance? I don't know.


*********************************************************************
*********************************************************************


I don't know from personal experience if all or any UDIs or UDIIs sound identical or different. I own 30+ UDIs and no UDIIs (of the titles issued as both) so I have no way to make the comparison. However, I purchased my first component system in 1968, and have been somewhat of an audiophile ever since. I've owned a LOT of components, and heard NUMEROUS high-end and ULTRA high-end systems, and I can assure you that (1) No two systems sound identical (2) The SAME system can sound different on different days. (Whether this difference is due to changes in hearing from day to day, changes in psychology from day to day, changes in the atmosphere from day to day, or a combination of the three I can't say - I'm not a scientist and don't really CARE, but I suspect it is the combination of different factors.)

I can also assure you that (1) All systems are colored in some way (2) Endless tweaking reduces listening enjoyment (I've been there) and (3) When I discuss what I hear in a particular recording or disc on MY system vs. what you hear on YOUR system, we're discussing apples and oranges.

If I want to tell you what I hear in a particular recording or disc there are only TWO statements I can make with ANY accuracy:

(1) On my particular system, on such and such a day, I heard thus and so.
(2) On my particular system, over a period of X days, I TEND to hear this and that.

Any other statement is BS, and I CERTAINLY can't say what YOU hear on YOUR system. And the only way you and I can ever REALLY argue ANYTHING related to what we DO hear is for me to come listen to YOUR system for a couple of days (or weeks preferably), and for you to come listento MY system for a couple of days (or weeks preferably), and for both of us to have extensive hearing tests to determine what we as individuals are each even CAPABLE of hearing. Barring all that, we aren't even STARTING to talk the same language. I can't say what YOU here, YOU can't say what I hear, and NEITHER of us can say what DAVE, or ANYONE ELSE hears.

In many ways this entire UDI vs. UDII argument is absurd, and I was hoping it had finally gone the way of cable arguments and blind listening discussions.

The bottom line is this: There is a lot we still don't know about digital sound, so whether or not some computer program comparing 1s and 0s can truly determine if two discs are 100% identical is a debatable point that really isn't WORTH debating at this point, because there isn't enough definitive evidence to support either side. All I really know about the subject is CDs didn't deliver "perfect sound forever" and that people in the recording industry who would seem to have a vested interest in having discs pressed as conveniently and cheaply as possible HAVE heard differences in "identical" product from different plants, and have, at times, ordered that their product be pressed at a specific plant because of that perceived difference. Not having had a chance to have made one of these comparisons myself on the same equipment THEY used, I can't say conclusively that these people weren't all deluded, but it would seem that if they HAD been deluded, it would have been to come down on the side of bits is bits, from a psychological and financial point of view. Based on that, I assert that there IS a possibility that a UDI and UDII could sound different.

But maybe all these people that here differences in pressings and ultradiscs etc. are really imagining things. Always a possibility. Based on that, I assert that there IS a possibility that a UDI and UDII could sound identical, even though a lot of people whose opinions I respect have heard differences.

I want UDIs for the collectibility, and since NO ONE claims the UDIIs are better, I have little to worry about, and little reason to get involved in the UDI vs.UDII comparison.

If I did, REGARDLESS of whether or no I MYSELF heard a difference, there is only ONE statement I could make with ANY accuracy:

On MY system, I consistently [do / do not] hear a difference in UDIs and UDII on such and such titles.

I COULD NOT make any statement about what you do or do not hear on YOUR system.

I COULD NOT make any statement about whether or not what I THINK I hear or what YOU THINK you hear resembles reality in any way.

If we disagreed, the disagreement would be meaningless unless we both had identical hearing and listened to the same disc on the same system for the same period of time.

Barring that, any statement I COULD make would be 100% OPINION, regardless of how many listening sessions or scientific studies I could point to, and as the say, opinions are like aardvarks...


Therefore, I suggest that any argument about what different individuals do or do not hear is counter-productive, fosters discord, and accomplishes exactly NOTHING.

Let those who believe there is a difference between UDIs and UDIIs discuss those differences if they choose to do so. They MAY be correct.

Let those who believe there is NO difference between UDIs and UDIIs start their own thread. They MAY be correct also, so let those who believe there IS a difference between UDIs and UDIIs keep out of that thread.

Let those who want to argue the merits of double-blind listening vs. prolonged listening, etc. do so over on Audio Asylum. I think THEY put up with that garbage. SH.TV does not. See the rules.

And let those who just want to foster unrest and discuss the relative sanity or insanity of other forum members go elsewhere.

 

I never used any specifics about apps...If this method worked for you I would hardly generalize it as basis of measurement. In fact, I personally would classify it as an anamoly. If I had to bet, I would put money on the fact that "Nero" on three different machines ripping audio from the same disc would get three different results. I can use "another" app and get the exact same identical files.

Maybe my point became convoluted so I'll re-phrase it and stand by it:

People that hear differences in CDR "copies" of discs probably do hear differences due to the method of extraction and encoding and the lack of quality controls.

It is possible to make a digital copy of an audio track/disc and there be NO difference from the original, especially using "frequency" as a benchmark.

 

Thank you dwmann, I agree with you 100%. Very well said.

Roland

 

pardon my ignorance, but can someone explain a very brief history (perhaps according to MoFi's history/marketing/record keeping) of why MoFi issued UD1's and UD2's? did MoFi "claim" the UD2's to be better sonically than the UD1's?

i don't believe i've ever seen an UD1 - all the MoFi's i have say they are Ultradisc II's - and i am just curious why MoFi would re-issue a UD1 album under the UD2 banner, rather than just keep that album as a UD1 and repress the disc as a UD1 - i'm assuming that MoFi would have claimed that they updated the discs w/ better sound and/or this was also a typical marketing ploy to get people to buy the albums again, or if they missed them the first time around - just curious, and sorry if this sounds confusing - thanks!

 

http://members.aol.com/boardwalk7/mofi/mofi.html


This article answers some of your questions.

 

thanks, Russ - am hopping over there now to take a look.

 

to quote from the webpage that Russ had kindly provided:

"And the ULTRADISC was born. In September 1992, Mobile Fidelity improved on their product by creating the ULTRADISC II, a compact disc with an advanced bonding process and a thicker gold sputtering. Along with the ULTRADISC II came a new proprietary mastering technique, the GAIN System (Greater Ambient Information Network), which allowed CD's to have more bass, more treble, more psychoacoustics than ever before. "

...ok, so i understand that the UD2's are where MoFi introduced the GAIN System - is this the system that may reproduce the infamous "smiley face EQ" that so many people discuss on here?

""We worked with them and we gave them some funding, and they actually developed this whole retrieval system. After a year and a half, at the January 1987 CES show, we launched the Ultradisc. Which was a gold substrated compact disc. At the time, we couldn't actually say whether or not it made the thing sound better. We thought it did, primarily because the block error rate was so much lower, you were getting more pure information without interpolation. We now know that gold sputtering yields a more stable image in the soundstage. We also made the label side a matte black, and it acted as a dampener. And more of the laser bounced back for the decoder to read."

...and the above quote, refering to the very first issued UD1's, it would seem that the UD1's did not have much - if, at all - any such "processing" sonically, as in the GAIN System (UD2's), hence they may be more of a "flat transfer" of the original mastertape...

...and i'm assuming this may be how many on here who prefer the UD1's feel?

 

I think you are misreading it slightly. I am reading that the GAIN system was introduced round about the same time as the UDII, but not that the two technologies always went together.

UDII refers to a method of manufacturing the actual disc.

GAIN refers to a new technique they started employing in MASTERING - for new titles. Old titles were repressed as UDII's, but not necesserily remastered using GAIN.

The fact that an UD DSOTM is digitally identical to it's UDII counterpart proves that the exact same mastering was used.

 

hi Phil - ah, that makes a bit more sense, thanks for the clarification.

so then, we can pretty much assume that any UD1 that was repressed as an UD2 employing the GAIN System to be a totally different mastered (and sounding CD) than the original, UD1 pressing - correct?

 

hi Phil - ah, that makes a bit more sense, thanks for the clarification.

so then, we can pretty much assume that any UD1 that was repressed as an UD2 employing the GAIN System to be a totally different mastered (and sounding CD) than the original, UD1 pressing - correct?

 

I concur...this is how I understand it.

 

That would be MOFI's intention, yes.

 

People,

please read what David Goodwin has written. He is entirely correct.

I agree. People hear differences even when their is objectively no difference at all, as seen in this thread. Therefore we should not take into account anymore what individuals hear or not hear.

 

so, in the case of the title(s) of this thread, is the UD2 of the Blind Faith disc processed using the GAIN System? that should make it a differently mastered and sounding beast, given that MoFi didn't accidentally forget to turn the GAIN System switch on!

it would be interesting if there was a thread and/or list detailing all the UD1 discs, the UD2 discs, and all the MoFi discs that used the GAIN System (which should all be UD2's).

(or, perhaps this already exists?)

 

http://www.aurealm.com/orange.htm

 

great, thanks!

 

A short (alternate) history:

(1) MFSL began by producing vinyl, which was primarily available from establishments that sold audiophile-style equipment. They were labeled "Original Master Recording" and were pressed on premium virgin vinyl (as opposed to the recycled vinyl the US majors had begun using) to close manufacturing tolerances. Many of these releases were excellent, but many employed "dubious" EQ choices and sound terrible, or at least worse than the standard release minus the surface noise. Later, they would release thicker vinyl versions and boxed sets.

(2) With the advent of CD, MFSL began by producing SILVER CDS at a premium price. They were well-mastered flat transfers from the original master tapes. No tweaking. Most sound like they used minimal electronics and many sound like they used TUBES. They are uniformly excellent, and in most cases, the best available versions of these titles.

(3) Silver MFSLs did not catch on, and suffered from limited availability. (It took me 2 years to find a copy of Mars Hotel by The Dead.) In some cases, the same title was available from the original manufacturer at a cheaper price. Since the general public had no knowledge of the concept of MASTERING and had bought into "perfect sound forever," there was little demand for the silver MFSLs. Most of these titles ended up at SAMS and other bargain outlets at giveaway prices with the advent of the ULTRADISC.

(4) The Ultradisc was a gold CD, which MFSL claimed had higher longevity and a lower error rate. Many felt the gold disc was simply a marketing ploy, but they caught on, and at a much higher list price than the silver discs had had (which proves SOMETHING, anyway). The original discs were pressed in Japan and were labeled "ULTRADISC." Most were flat transfers, or had minimal EQ. Most sound like they used TUBES. Most are excellent, and in some cases, the best available versions of these titles. People could TELL they sounded better than the crappy originals from LP EQ'd masters and started buying them. Most attributed the improved sound to the gold, not the mastering. Little did we know.

(5) At some point MFSL developed a proprietary mastering system they called "The Gain System" and began manufacturing the discs in the USA. Some say that "The Gain System" part of this was just another marketing ploy, and that "the Gain System" was used for ALL the gold discs, but not advertised as such until manufacturing moved to the USA. Regardless, discs manufactured in the USA were labeled "UltradiscII" and MFSL began a MAJOR "Gain System" marketing campaign, which extended their brand recognition and resulted in the availability of the UltradiscIIs in Best Buy, Circuit City, etc. Some of these titles were excellent and remain the best versions available. Others suffered from dubious EQ.

What exactly happened regarding the original ULTRADISC releases is unknown. MFSL claimed at various times that (a) these titles remained the same and (b) these titles were remastered using UltradiscII technology. What actually happened is unclear, but rumors indicated that MFSL may have stiffed their Japanese partners when they moved manufacturing to the US and that some or all of the original glass masters and perhaps the digital masters for some or all of the early titles were lost. If this is true they would have HAD to produce new glass masters from the backups for any title where the masters were lost (as Steve speculated in an earlier post). They MAY have run some of these titles through the GAIN system. Either of which could explain what some hear as differences in some titles between the UDI and UDII versions.

(6) Near the end MFSL began marketing UltradiscIIs with "Gain2 Technology" - a tweaked version of the GAIN system. This technology wasn't around long, and has no relation to the UDI vs, UDII debate.

(7) Although what EXACTLY happened remains unclear, the MFSL distributor tanked the same time the Warehouse chain declared bankruptcy. MFSL got stiffed on a huge amount of product and went under, while the Wearhouse chain continued to sell opened, new MFSLs in the used bins for years.

 

Who you gonna believe, a limited computer program or the human ear? You stand off computer program types will argue believing the computer is right until you actually do the listening comparisons and even then you still might not get it. As to why I don't know because I and others do. Either all of us that do hear the differences are out and out liars or the computer programs are fallible. No other possibles, you decide. The only real way to decide is when you've done the work of listening and that's my best suggestion.

Mike, you have yet to establish any audio listening credibility in regards to masterings the near 4 years you have been here publicly as far as I recall. To criticize someone who has done the learning, with mistakes along the way, is ridiculous because you should know if you know anything about me at all. If I'm wrong I will be the first one to say so and that's where my credibility is. Based on this do you have any clue as to how many successful suggestions I've made for CD pressings? The few mistakes I've made in the learning process are nothing compared to someone who criticizes these few mistakes in comparison to the hundreds of successes with limited or no knowledge of them.

The sooner the computer program crowd backs off with these "I know I'm right based on bits and files" reasoning that has been proven by many to not hold water which I keep reading time and time again projected as the Gospel truth, I'll back down. Otherwise members will not have a fair chance to know believing only one side to this story unless someone, apparently me, speaks up.

David Goodwin, despite us not agreeing on this particular issue I do have respect for a lot of your opinions being correct and fact as I have done my homework on them just as I had for former member Dob and others. Therefore, I do not challenge them. This isn't as personal issue as I believe you are making it to be and we'll never agree apparently. If I'm wrong please speak up, just not on the UD1/UD2 issue.

dwmann, when will you be running for office? You are a star in my books sir.

 

I have close to two hundred MFSL CDs and have been buying them since day one. I haven't posted in this thread because I bought most of my discs as they came out. I don't have multiple copies so I have never had a chance to compare a UD(I) to a UD II. I don't have a UD II version of anything that came out first as a UD(I).


dwmann's post is as close to the MFSL story as I know it.