Moody Blues "Days of Future Passed" CD question

Interesting. Maybe I should sell off the MFSL cds? Lord knows I could use the bucks, although MB MFSL cds don't get that much attention on this forum.
The WG cds have always been my "go to" cd versions, anyway. Something about those MFSL cds make me want to keep them, however.

I still want the "A Question Of Balance" MFSL cd, though.

 

Ironic too, that the remix (done after Deramic Sound was long gone) reveals a particularly well-recorded set of tracks!

 

Thanks! That may be the one I have--I was lucky enough to have a really nice little CD shop near me at the time that tended to get a lot of titles as imports well before their domestic releases (so many of my Genesis CDs just happen to be the preferred early UK releases, for example). My DAYS CD definitely has the solid aluminum hub. I'm not sure what you mean by MCPS letters, but if the catalog number on the right is 820 006-2, there is nothing above that (and there is that "LC" symbol at the bottom, which usually indicates a disc meant for the European market, right?)

I just took a quick comparative listen to sections of "Dawn Is a Feeling" and "Another Morning" from both discs. Honestly, it's a little tough to pick a clear favorite--adjusting for volume, the main difference I hear seems to be more lower frequencies in the W. German version (not sure whether they would be classed as lower midrange or upper bass), which makes the vocals sound a little "chestier." In comparison, the MFSL sounds somewhat smoother and clearer in that regard--but the smoothness could also be interpreted as lacking in texture. I'd probably need to listen to each whole album, one after another, to know for sure which I preferred. But I suspect this kind of difference would be very system dependent--change a component and you might switch preference from one to the other. It seems to me that both are objectively "good" sounding (in that they both retain full dynamic range, neither uses noise reduction, and neither has the kind of excessive treble and/or bass that some of the other MFSL Moodies CDs do), so the differences come down to variations in midrange EQ. However, I would also acknowledge that your ears are probably better trained than mine, and you likely have better equipment!

 

That and Sgt Pepper were the first two albums that i had to have - in Stereo - to play on my new Sears Silvertone portable hi-fi stereo record player.

 

That W German pressing is a fine sounding cd...

 

Yes--and after a longer listening session last night, I'm coming around to Dave's thinking on this. The W. German CD indeed seems to have a better overall sound balance than the MFSL (although the latter sounds especially nice on "The Sun Set"). I think I may have liked the MFSL initially because of its novelty after having been regularly hearing the W. German version since high school in the mid-'80s.

 

Wow--did the original mix of the Moodies make you think something was wrong with your stereo? I imagine the sonic contrast between that and Sgt. Pepper's would have been quite striking--or did it not seem that way at the time?

 

Mine has the MCPS lettering and the solid aluminum hub and was made in West Germany. No mention of the USA anywhere.

 

I finally figured out what the "MCPS" letters are, as I discovered them on some other white-spine W.German Moodies CDs that I recently bought used. My original CD of DAYS doesn't have it, so I assume that's what Dave meant by the first pressing. It might be interesting to hear what differences he found between original and later pressings (using the same mastering, AFAIK).

 

.

 

Here are the EAC peaks of the DAYS OF FUTURE PASSED USA CD (Deram 820 006-2):

Track 1 - Peak level 58.3 %
Track 2 - Peak level 67.3 %
Track 3 - Peak level 63.5 %
Track 4 - Peak level 96.4 %
Track 5 - Peak level 96.5 %
Track 6 - Peak level 86.1 %
Track 7 - Peak level 77.9 %

Could someone please post the EAC peaks from the W. German? I have a feeling they're the same but I'd like to know for certain.

 

Nice to see that there are Moody fans,But I got the Original Import series,then latter
a much better set of Japanese Remasters came out ,Then years latter the SACD
which were best yet

Do you people think Pet Sounds sounds better on Original Mono Lp because the sterero
one is Different??? Is that the Main piont here ?"Sounds like Original"(for Moodies Too)



Yes the Mono Pet Sounds sounds Different ,but to me the sterero one sounds
so much Better,I don't bother with the Mono much,even if things like the end
tag on God Only Knows isn't complete

 

Here are the peak levels from my copy of the WG disc. Looks Like they're the same as the US pressing:
58.3 % / 67.3 % / 63.5 % / 96.4 % / 96.5 % / 86.1 % / 77.9 %

By the way, this is a first pressing, as described by Dave in post #48:

I just looked at my WG copies of the other Moody Blues CDs and see that some of them have MCPS above the catalog number, and some of them don't. What's the significance of those letters?

 

Thanks Jim! Good to see the numbers are identical.

 

I believe it's long been established that the masterings are exactly the same. But some people, including Dave (in this thread) and Barry Diament, have argued that they can hear distinct differences between different releases that use the same mastering. Presumably, such differences would be due to better (or at least different) manufacturing processes or conditions at different plants. I personally have never heard such a comparison, but I do trust the ears of these guys. Still, I think everyone would agree that differences between pressings of the same mastering are not going to be anywhere near the scale of differences between separate masterings.

 

I hear where you're coming from, but I think once you've been on the forum for a while (I've been lurking, if not posting, for several years), the frequent preferences for older masterings will make more sense, although you may or may not agree with the reasons. In the case of the Moodies, when I first heard the SACDs, I thought "Wow, these sound so much more warm and engaging than my old unremastered redbook CDs." Then I started reading all the complaints about the SACD, and wondered what was going on. So I listened to the discs really carefully, and here's what I found: at first, if I just listened to the first few seconds of each song, certain SACDs (NOT including the muffled LOST CHORD) did sound somehow more "full." But when I listened to the songs all the way through, something happened--on the old, unremastered cd, certain moments in the song would "pop out" and sound spectacular (like the instrumental break in "Evening (Time to Get Away)." On the SACD, the song would start off sounding "better," but then nothing would "pop out" later--it just kind of stayed the same. And while that may sound like an improvement (better the whole way through rather than just at peak moments), in practice the sound ceased to sound so good after a while, whereas the unremastered CD kept surprising me.

Anyway, the reasons for this are many (including EQ choices, the presence or absence of noise reduction, etc.), but most importantly it has to do with dynamic range--the SACDs stay at a more consistent volume level, whereas the older CDs have more movement between soft and loud passages. I never understood how crucial this was in making music sound good over long listening sessions until this forum made me aware of it. Now I cannot stand the sound of compressed modern masterings. So to answer your question, I don't think it is just a preference for historical accuracy, but for a certain "naturalness" of sound that is increasingly rare in modern (re)mastering techniques.

In the case of the mono Pet Sounds, I've never heard the stereo, but I'm pretty sure that most of the people who prefer the mono do so because they think the mix is clearer and more natural sounding. I myself listen to music mainly through headphones and don't especially like mono, but I don't believe that those who are enthusiastic about particular mono mixes are just historical purists--most really care passionately about sound !

Anyway, if any of this sounds condescending or is old news, I apologize--just trying to clear up a potential misunderstanding.

 

Yes, and - if you can hear differences between bit-identical CDs due to pressing differences - they disappear when those CDs are ripped to a hard drive.

Needles to say, I'm happy if the USA and W. German discs are bit identical as it means one less set of CDs I'll need to get

 

With a few possible exceptions.

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=4617023&postcount=43

 

I like the WG cd's and the MFSL cd's. They sound different but both are good. I got a deal on the Seventh Sojourn MFSL cd, as the artwork for the back/tray was missing. Everything else was there. I wish I knew where I could find a high res. scan of the tray artwork for the Seventh Sojourn MFSL cd. I'd print it on glossy paper and be done.

 

I uploaded the tray of the Seventh Sojourn MFSL for you that I found on the net:

http://rapidshare.com/files/260126970/Moody_Blues_Tray.png

Hope you like it!

 

So, is it generally agreed that the '70s remix of DOFP (as released on CD) is superior to the 1967 LP mix? That would definitely be an exception to the norm! I don't have a copy of the LP, but will buy the next one I come across. (Fortunately it's a common record.) My early Deram CD does sound very nice.

BTW, the photo on the back cover showing the pre-production meeting has always looked rather claustrophobic to me. Look how narrow that room is!

 

Thank you very much. That's perfect.

Now I have all I need Moody-wise. The WG cd's of the first 7, the MFSL's of the first 7 and the WG This The Moody Blues.

This Is The Moody Blues (to echo other sentiments) does sound like all songs have been remixed. So, those mixes of Tuesday Afternoon and Nights In White Satin/Late Lament are unique as well.

 

Not here it isn't! The main complaint from the pro-originalists is the vocal harmonies missing from "Evening", and a suggestion that the '67 mix rocks a bit more than the remix. I prefer the remix for its clarity and precision in timing/mix cues compared to the original.

I wouldn't be without the original, though; it has a sort of Midsummer Night's Dream vibe to it, a mysterious quality. The remix, a sunnier vibe. I still live in hope that the original mix might be included as a bonus on a future reissue on Blue Ray or something.

 

+1 on the clarity.

I'm not sure what you mean about the timing/mix cues, though...to me the orchestra is not in sync with the band when the orchestra comes in on the third verse of NIWS. But that's probably just because I was so used to the original mix by the time I heard the remix.

 

True. The orchestra is not quite a sixteenth-note behind the beat when it enters there. Most of my issues elsewhere in the '67 mix have to do with rough transitions, faders lurching up, etc. I think Clarke & Varnals had more time to do the later mix, it just sounds more seamless to me.