MF Gold CD's [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : MF Gold CD's



Mr Peabody
05-30-2010, 09:40 PM
I find out a friend of mine has a couple Mobile Fidelity CD's. I wouldn't say he is the last person I'd expect to have them but I was, surprised. So I have him and his family over, and he happens to bring them to show me. Here I am the supposed audiophile and have none. He brings Def Leppard Pyromania and Hysteria along with copies of each in regular CD pressings. Honestly, I didn't expect to hear much difference when comparing the two, however, there was. Whether it was how MF remastered the albums or the gold, there was a noticeable improvement when listening to MF"s version. The MF recording was less harsh, bass was tighter with more punch, quieter background with more resolution. Then I remember I have the Pyromania LP. Unfortunately, I bought this new when the album was originally released so it had received more than a few spins. The LP wasn't in bad condition but it had pops between tracks. My friend's wife said she could hear tracking noise while music was playing but I could not. She had my sweet spot at the time though. Any way, we concluded that the LP was superior in midrange, the voices were more natural with more air or life to them while the MF CD had more defined tighter bass. The LP didn't have the upper hand in all midrange, there were some details that stood out better on CD. A choice between the two would be difficult as to which I preferred but if pushed, just based on sound quality, personally, I'd stay with the LP. I think I would give up the better bass for the more natural midrange.

Keep in mind this was just for fun and on, my, system. Depending on one's level and brand of gear you could have totally different results or perceptions.

poppachubby
05-31-2010, 02:37 AM
Those are great albums to have in an MF Remastered format. They are superbly performed and recorded.



A choice between the two would be difficult as to which I preferred but if pushed, just based on sound quality, personally, I'd stay with the LP. I think I would give up the better bass for the more natural midrange.


I agree with you and in general, I have gone this route. I have heard systems with overly bloated or aggressive bass, not for me. Unnatural IMO.


Keep in mind this was just for fun and on, my, system. Depending on one's level and brand of gear you could have totally different results or perceptions.

I think your deductions sound correct, and not because I favour LP. You're right, every system is situational but that doesn't make it accurate either.

Nice write up.

markw
05-31-2010, 03:02 AM
If you're comparing vinyl to CD. you must consider that a cartridge, being an electromechanical transducer, is euphonic by design. That invalidates a true comparison there. Add to that the remaster and remix and you've got a whole different animal.

It's an apples to oranges comparison.

As to a gold CD vs a standard CD, from my experiences comparing SACD to redbook, I've found excellent examples in both. I'd say the difference would again be due to the mastering and mixing as opposed to the media.

Remember, when Sony was initially pushing SACD, they remastered a bunch of existing music in order to impress the masses. It was only later that that became common knowledge.

If you want to hear stunning redbook, get hold of Mapleshade or Reference Recordings redbook CD's.

frenchmon
05-31-2010, 04:50 AM
In my limited listening to vinyl...and my extensive listening to Redbook, and SACD....you get basically 2 different sounds. Of course the SACD's sound is basically the same as the redbook but only better with greater detail and resolution. But I find a good vinyl pressing with even greater detail than sacd but different in that its more velvety and smooth. Vinyl listening gives great examples of what they mean by liquid. Vinyl seems to be more graceful with the same tunes I hear on SACD and CD....vinyl seems to be so smooth and free...unconsticted in sound compaired to CD. ITs almost like CD's are trying to hard to be perfect, while vinyl gives it to you effort-less with grace. Its hard to explain and put into words...but in my limited listening, vinyl has a certain warmth and magic to its sound that I don't find in CD or SACD....as silly as that may sound...to me vinyl seems to add certain cohesiveness to the overall experience of audio enjoyment. The only thing that vinyl does not bring to the experience that SACD and CD does is convenience of sitting back without getting up to turn the vinyl over. Of course this is all subjective as well...as this is my own experience that I have found from my own listening.

Mr Peabody
05-31-2010, 06:53 AM
The bass on the MF disc wasn't exaggerated or bloated, it was clean and tight but some how had more punch.

Definitely way too many variables to ever be considered a true comparison of LP to CD. The difference in sound quality between the original pressing and Mobile Fidelity would be worth the money no matter the reason behind the better sound though.

Frenchmon, thinking back to the listening I understand what you are saying about LP's.

poppachubby
05-31-2010, 09:48 AM
Sure, we could do the comparing in a labratory. Reality is most comparisons for an average person would be done as you have. Put the things in and play them, see how they sound.

As for my bass comment I was speaking in generalities, not about the MF disc. I prefer accurate and stunning mid range to bass extension. That said, some genres of music are mixed with room thumping bass. As for rock, I prefer it present but subtle.

Mr Peabody
05-31-2010, 05:28 PM
Now see, for Rock I like a hitting mid bass.

blackraven
05-31-2010, 06:26 PM
I like vinyl as much as the next guy but I don't get it when some people say or claim that vinyl is less restricted. I find it more compressed than well recorded CD's and especially SACD and the few XRCD's that I own. Just by nature, vinyl is more compressed.

Mr Peabody
05-31-2010, 06:36 PM
Not sure what to say to that BR accept dynamic range must not be everything. The midrange on the disc seems constrained when compared to the LP. The vocals on LP are more able to fool my brain that the performance is in the room, live. And, as already pointed out results will vary with gear. If you've never heard a "high end" table you've really never heard vinyl to it's potential. If I had never heard Rega or something comparable I'd be right there saying what in the world are you all talking about.

YBArcam
05-31-2010, 07:10 PM
I've got a handful of gold CDs. All the GN'R albums, Ravel's Bolero performed by the Minnesota Symphony or something like that (SACD), and the CBS Mastersound version of Toys in the Attic. I've listened to some of the Guns and some of Toys; frankly I didn't find them to be that big a step up from the regular versions. I may do another comparison soon. I think regardless though, the differences are subtle. More so for the GN'R discs. Toys did seem to offer a bigger improvement. Still not what I'd call night and day.

I also just bought The Sound of Silence from the Audio Fidelity label, also a gold disc taken from the original master. It's all for curiosity's sake, and that said after these few albums I don't think I'll purchase any more.

Mr Peabody
05-31-2010, 07:26 PM
I'd like to hear Toys In The Attic. I love that album and the original CD doesn't sound that great. The Yes album will be out 6.29. I wouldn't mind getting that and Fragile.

frenchmon
06-01-2010, 10:53 AM
I like vinyl as much as the next guy but I don't get it when some people say or claim that vinyl is less restricted. I find it more compressed than well recorded CD's and especially SACD and the few XRCD's that I own. Just by nature, vinyl is more compressed.

On those old LP's of course they where compressed...there was lot of "dumming down" of the music for the sake of taking what was on tape and putting it on vinyl. Stuff like bass turned down and such, treble turned up, compression of the dynamic range and so forth. I suspect this is why after I get done playing a CD or SACD and put on John Lee Hooker or Dexter Gordon on vinyl, I have to turn the volume up. But even in doing so, combined with a very good Cartridge....and good gear, you can really appreciate the beautify of vinyl for what it is. With a good outfit and a little turn of the volume control....some vinyl sounds as clear as CD and SACD. I have acquired some of the same albums that I had in the 80's. I had Maranatz separates and receivers back in the 80's with a Garrard TT and never did vinyl sound as good as it does now....infact back in the 80's I discarded my TT and sold all my albums because of the invention of CD's.


Notice what is said of vinyl.

"velvety and smooth"..."Vinyl listening gives great examples of what they mean by liquid."...Vinyl seems to be more graceful with the same tunes I hear on SACD and CD....vinyl seems to be so smooth and free...unconsticted in sound compaired to CD."...." vinyl gives it to you effort-less with grace."...vinyl has a certain warmth and magic to its sound that I don't find in CD or SACD"

Now no where did I say anything about CD being less compressed than vinyl. What I tried to do is describe the flow of the sound of vinyl in comparison to CD....analog sound compared to digital. Because of the manipulation of the tapes to fit as much of it on one side of an LP, maybe it gave to the warmth I hear and because of the tape to vinyl, maybe it adds to the smoothness I hear...and maybe because of the modern Cartridges it adds to the dynamic I hear....I really don't know. But its like when they tried to improve on the sound of vinyl with the invention of CD, the CD became perfect, while discarding the velvet-ness and the smoothness and the warmth and grace like effect.

PoppaC said brass would have a different effect on vinyl than it does on CD. He was spot on with that remark. But I find its not only with brass but with everything that has a solo part. This could maybe be because of the enhancement and manipulation of the vinyl by the engineer. But whatever the reason, vinyl seems to be just as clear if not clearer than CD and warmer than CD's with a smoother presentation than digital....but that really does not mean better. Its subjective at best.

Then it could be subjective with me because of having a vinyl set up in the 70's and 80's only to discard it and then return to it. Does this mean I will discard CD and SACD? No way...I still love CD and SACD...but I can hear the difference in the two and I will continue to purchase both formats of music.

I had friends from Africa over yesterday. they could not believe I had a turntable. They said "this is 2010 and you still have a turntable?" His wife said, "turntables and albums always have the fried egg sound...I cant believe you still have a tuntable." So I fired up some Dexter Gordon on vinyl and they where floord...they said it sounded like a CD.

Sorry if I upset you with my comments...that was never my intention BlackRaven.


Edit: BlackRaven...I am not saying that CD and SACD can not be warm and smooth and velvet-like...because they can be and are. I have experienced it my self. But the analog and the digital sound are two different sounds to the discerning listener. I heard it right off the bat once I figured out I had my MC switch on with a MM cartridge. The smoothness and warmed with the analog is a more natural presentation without being as subtle as with CD. WIth CD I first hear the clarity and detail...with Vinyl the first thing that stikes me is the velvet and smoothness. That velvet ...graceful like presentation is what I like and it gives me what I want. I feel my self being drawn more into the sound, especially the rhythm of the mid-section of the music. I know you probably think I am out there...so does my wife who bought me the table in the first place. (LOL) I cant wait to add a little tube sound with it.

Cheers!

poppachubby
06-01-2010, 12:05 PM
I suspect this is why after I get done playing a CD or SACD and put on John Lee Hooker or Dexter Gordon on vinyl, I have to turn the volume up. But even in doing so, combined with a very good Cartridge....and good gear, you can really appreciate the beautify of vinyl for what it is. With a good outfit and a little turn of the volume control....some vinyl sounds as clear as CD and SACD.


Frenchie, the more compressed a recording gets, the LESS you have to turn it up. Less dynamic range, in a nutshell, means that the recording becomes louder. People often confuse this for fidelity.

The need to turn up your TT, particularily compared to your CDP, is because the signal/output is not as great.

The best example of compression is when you're chillin on the sofa, watching a flick and begin to drift into sleep. Suddenly you're awoken by the commercial which is twice the level in volume.

frenchmon
06-01-2010, 01:55 PM
Thanks for saying what i was trying to say PoppaC. yes there was a lot of information compressed on albums to try and make as much as possible fit on one side. But there was also a dumming down of the some of the effect as well to make it fit. From what I have read on the subject, back them the groves where meant to be kept small, thus turning down bass on the vinyl was one way of achieving this. THere where also other ways to keep the groves small as well. Just what I have read on the subject...

Woochifer
06-01-2010, 10:27 PM
Thanks for saying what i was trying to say PoppaC. yes there was a lot of information compressed on albums to try and make as much as possible fit on one side. But there was also a dumming down of the some of the effect as well to make it fit. From what I have read on the subject, back them the groves where meant to be kept small, thus turning down bass on the vinyl was one way of achieving this. THere where also other ways to keep the groves small as well. Just what I have read on the subject...

Back in the day, there were a lot of techniques designed to get around this. Starting in the early-80s, Direct Metal Mastering did the master cut straight onto a metal foil, thus bypassing the lacquer-to-electroplating step. This allowed for a much narrower groove, while preserving bass and reducing the bleedthrough from the adjacent groove wall. Teldec also claimed that DMM raised the dynamic range by about 10 db. Some DMM-mastered LPs were 70+ minutes (Def Leppard's Hysteria was one of them). DMM though still couldn't get around the limitation of having to reduce the levels once the LP side went beyond a certain length.

If you want to check on whether an older LP used the DMM process, look in the blank space and see if "DMM" is etched into the pressing.

Nowadays, the trend is going more towards shorter sides with some 45 RPM multi-LP sets. I don't even think that any DMM lathes are used anymore.

Woochifer
06-01-2010, 11:44 PM
I find out a friend of mine has a couple Mobile Fidelity CD's. I wouldn't say he is the last person I'd expect to have them but I was, surprised. So I have him and his family over, and he happens to bring them to show me. Here I am the supposed audiophile and have none. He brings Def Leppard Pyromania and Hysteria along with copies of each in regular CD pressings. Honestly, I didn't expect to hear much difference when comparing the two, however, there was. Whether it was how MF remastered the albums or the gold, there was a noticeable improvement when listening to MF"s version. The MF recording was less harsh, bass was tighter with more punch, quieter background with more resolution. Then I remember I have the Pyromania LP. Unfortunately, I bought this new when the album was originally released so it had received more than a few spins. The LP wasn't in bad condition but it had pops between tracks. My friend's wife said she could hear tracking noise while music was playing but I could not. She had my sweet spot at the time though. Any way, we concluded that the LP was superior in midrange, the voices were more natural with more air or life to them while the MF CD had more defined tighter bass. The LP didn't have the upper hand in all midrange, there were some details that stood out better on CD. A choice between the two would be difficult as to which I preferred but if pushed, just based on sound quality, personally, I'd stay with the LP. I think I would give up the better bass for the more natural midrange.

Keep in mind this was just for fun and on, my, system. Depending on one's level and brand of gear you could have totally different results or perceptions.

The more accurate reference would have been one of MoFi's half-speed mastered LPs. As markw points out, there are so many variables in your comparison.

The thing to keep in mind is that MoFi does its own "editorializing" when it comes to remastering. This means that they tweak with the settings a lot, and don't use any original pressings or library copies as a reference. It's just whatever sounds good to their ears. Fortunately, Stan Ricker has a good ear and more often than not, MoFi's results do improve upon the original versions. They're not concerned about original intent, which is why their versions often sound way different from the original.

In that era (at least for Pyromania), the LP would have been the reference copy approved by the producer, band, and/or recording engineer. The trick there is to get a decent copy -- not easy with a multiplatinum release, where the major labels routinely overused the stampers and had highly variable press quality from copy to copy. An early LP copy has better odds of coming from an early generation stamper.

The early CDs were often transferred by the labels' hired guns without any involvement from the original production team. So, they very often sounded tinny and harsh, since they did not compensate for any LP-specific adjustments that might have added to the mix down tape.

My MoFi comparison set is the St. Louis Symphony's Gershwin recordings. I have both the Classic Records 96/24 PCM disc set and the MoFi multichannel SACD/CD hybrid. Both sound great. But, they are very different, even though both versions are high resolution digital transfers.

IMO, the key difference is with the mastering. Classic Records will look for a vault copy of the original LP pressing, and use that playback as the reference for the digital transfer. Basically, they try to match the 96/24 PCM transfer as closely as possible to how the original LP sounded. Whenever possible, Classic Records also brings in the original production team to help supervise the analog-to-digital tape transfer, like when Alan Parsons provided input for the 96/24 PCM transfer of I, Robot. Classic also tries to use tape machines of the same vintage as the original recordings. Their entire approach is built around preservation of the original sound intent.

Mobile Fidelity does not use a reference. They simply listen to the master tape and adjust the settings to what sounds best to their ears. To my ears, the MoFi transfer subjectively sounded better. And it's definitely not just the SACD resolution, because the CD layer from the MoFi version sounded much more similar to the SACD layer than the 96/24 PCM playback.

Comparisons with the LP are yet another set of variables to account for.

poppachubby
06-02-2010, 02:13 AM
Nowadays, the trend is going more towards shorter sides with some 45 RPM multi-LP sets. I don't even think that any DMM lathes are used anymore.

I read that there are only a couple lathes in existence. On AudioKarma, Ben Folds started a thread and was asking about DMM. I think it's just as much a curiosity as vinyl itself to someone on the production end.

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=301091

poppachubby
06-02-2010, 06:17 PM
Funny Peabody, I bought this today for $5. Mo-Fi Jimmy Raney-Two Jim's and Zoot. It's a half speed remaster. I'll let you know...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ZTJdfZr_T6s/SYlIyM_2Q-I/AAAAAAAAAZ8/_seZSh7RhOs/s320/jjjhthmb.jpg

Mr Peabody
06-02-2010, 06:36 PM
$5.00 is a deal. Most titles on Amazon used is still over $20.00.

poppachubby
06-03-2010, 12:38 PM
Wow. It sounds great, but I need a couple more spins to put my finger on it. I don't have any other copies of this album. The cop out would be to say that it sounds very analog, infact, it does.

dean_martin
06-03-2010, 01:47 PM
I have Velvet Underground and Nico on both standard disc and MoFi gold. The MoFi disc simply has more detail. Breaths before and between passages are heard with ease where I never noticed them with the standard cd. The music seems to be more fleshed out. I filed the standard cd away. On this one at least, the mofi was preferable to me.

poppachubby
06-03-2010, 05:55 PM
I have Velvet Underground and Nico on both standard disc and MoFi gold. The MoFi disc simply has more detail. Breaths before and between passages are heard with ease where I never noticed them with the standard cd. The music seems to be more fleshed out. I filed the standard cd away. On this one at least, the mofi was preferable to me.

Well put Dean, I would agree with your take.

Hey have you guys tried many Telarc discs? I grabbed a handful tonight...Brubeck, Brecker, Chestnut, Peterson...good stuff.

Mr Peabody
06-03-2010, 06:57 PM
I have a few Telarc and they have all been excellent. If you find any Sheffield Labs they have some good recordings as well.

markw
06-04-2010, 02:20 AM
"In the case of the Original Master Recording™ (OMR) LP, the use of the master tape is combined with a unique procedure known as "half-speed" mastering, which literally slows down the cutting system involved in mastering vinyl so that musical information can be transferred from the source tape to the lacquer with greater precision."

Linky... (http://www.mofi.com/store/pc/viewcontent.asp?idpage=14)

poppachubby
06-04-2010, 02:30 AM
Thanks Mark, I was reading the wrong section in the sleeve. I would love to hear some other titles. I am a huge Curtis Mayfield fan, I wonder how much better those would be.

frenchmon
06-06-2010, 03:32 PM
Well put Dean, I would agree with your take.

Hey have you guys tried many Telarc discs? I grabbed a handful tonight...Brubeck, Brecker, Chestnut, Peterson...good stuff.

I have a few Telarc and wont be buying any more...I hate the fact that you have to turn it up to get sound out. I know they have a special way of recording but I hate you have to turn it up more than other disc.

poppachubby
06-06-2010, 03:42 PM
I have a few Telarc and wont be buying any more...I hate the fact that you have to turn it up to get sound out. I know they have a special way of recording but I hate you have to turn it up more than other disc.

So funny you mention that. I haven't found the Telarc stuff too bad. Infact one of the Oscar Peterson discs is quite loud.

The MO-FI on the other hand is similar to an LP or my NOS DAC. You have to crank it. Not a party disc. However the fidelity is second to none. Most evident is the acoustic bass which can be heard clearly. Each pluck and percussive sound are audible. So right away I can say the levels and seperation are indeed enhanced. For the most part I have enjoyed it.

However at 25/30 bucks a pop is another story. I bought mine used for $5 and clearly they missed the fact that it's MO-FI at the shop.

The whole experience has got me more curious about SACD.

frenchmon
06-06-2010, 03:52 PM
So funny you mention that. I haven't found the Telarc stuff too bad. Infact one of the Oscar Peterson discs is quite loud.

The MO-FI on the other hand is similar to an LP or my NOS DAC. You have to crank it. Not a party disc. However the fidelity is second to none. Most evident is the acoustic bass which can be heard clearly. Each pluck and percussive sound are audible. So right away I can say the levels and seperation are indeed enhanced. For the most part I have enjoyed it.

However at 25/30 bucks a pop is another story. I bought mine used for $5 and clearly they missed the fact that it's MO-FI at the shop.

The whole experience has got me more curious about SACD.

Are your Telarc's SACD? Mine are. They give you a detailed explanation of how they recorded it in a church because of the sound. They tell you they use one mike to record, They say they center the mike out front of the musicians. They tell you, because of this one mike, you must turn up the volume.

poppachubby
06-06-2010, 04:05 PM
Are your Telarc's SACD? Mine are. They give you a detailed explanation of how they recorded it in a church because of the sound. They tell you they use one mike to record, They say they center the mike out front of the musicians. They tell you, because of this one mike, you must turn up the volume.

No Redbook. I don't own an SACD player. Yes I am familiar with those mics, and that technique. The Cowboy Junkies used this style on Trinity Sessions and it has a quiet air about it.

It would seem almost a rule, more dynamics means a quieter recording. As compared to some of the obnoxious compressed recordings, I'll take it.

frenchmon
06-06-2010, 04:26 PM
No Redbook. I don't own an SACD player. Yes I am familiar with those mics, and that technique. The Cowboy Junkies used this style on Trinity Sessions and it has a quiet air about it.

It would seem almost a rule, more dynamics means a quieter recording. As compared to some of the obnoxious compressed recordings, I'll take it.

Well they are transparent recordings especially through my SACD player. Its just a nag of mine...to have to turn it up.

dean_martin
06-07-2010, 09:49 AM
So funny you mention that. I haven't found the Telarc stuff too bad. Infact one of the Oscar Peterson discs is quite loud.

The MO-FI on the other hand is similar to an LP or my NOS DAC. You have to crank it. Not a party disc. However the fidelity is second to none. Most evident is the acoustic bass which can be heard clearly. Each pluck and percussive sound are audible. So right away I can say the levels and seperation are indeed enhanced. For the most part I have enjoyed it.

However at 25/30 bucks a pop is another story. I bought mine used for $5 and clearly they missed the fact that it's MO-FI at the shop.

The whole experience has got me more curious about SACD.

Glad you mentioned the mofi play back levels. This is most notable on my mofi vinyl copy of Sonic Youth's "Goo". I have to turn this one up to high noon, but the music is smooth as silk. I haven't really noticed lower levels on LPs Murmur and Nevermind or on cds VU and Honky Chateau. My theory regarding "Goo" was that mofi crammed a lot of music on one LP and this may have required some tinkering with levels to get the right sound. Of course it's only an unverified, unconfirmed theory.

Mr Peabody
06-07-2010, 03:48 PM
Seriously, though, who other than Frenchmon would really care whether your volume is at 7 or 9, that's why we have remotes. And, in this day where CD levels are so high and compressed to sometimes distortion I personally welcome the lower levels. It's a more proper level or Mo Fi wouldn't do it that way.

frenchmon
06-07-2010, 04:41 PM
Seriously, though, who other than Frenchmon would really care whether your volume is at 7 or 9, that's why we have remotes. And, in this day where CD levels are so high and compressed to sometimes distortion I personally welcome the lower levels. It's a more proper level or Mo Fi wouldn't do it that way.

What!!!!! Hey Peabody...I remember when I was in your two channel room how you almost blew my ear drums....remember, you had me read your sound meters and they where off the charts. lol.... I know why you like remotes.:prrr:

Mr Peabody
06-07-2010, 05:43 PM
Good job, JM

Woochifer
06-14-2010, 08:10 PM
I have a few Telarc and they have all been excellent. If you find any Sheffield Labs they have some good recordings as well.

Gotta be careful with the Sheffield CDs because of lot of them were made with two-track tapes that had a lot of background noise -- and this was intentional. Back in the day, Sheffield Labs specialized in direct-to-disc LPs, which were performed live in studio with the board feed going directly to the cutting lathe. Sound quality on the LPs was extraordinary because everything was done with no tape intermediary and no mixdown stage. An entire LP side had to be recorded in one take.

While the session played and the LP got cut, a backup tape was simultaneously recorded. This backup tape is the source for the CDs, and Sheffield was very indifferent about how the backup feed sounded, using noisy tape stock and no noise reduction. As a company, Sheffield was vehemently anti-digital, and their CD releases seemed almost purposely doctored to further that agenda.

People who hear them without a reference might think the Sheffield releases sound good, but their CD releases are a noticeable step down from their direct-to-disc LPs.

emaidel
06-15-2010, 03:51 AM
I still have several Sheffield direct to disc recordings that I initially purchased in the 70's. Two standouts are Dave Grusin's "Discovered Again," and Thelma Houston's "Pressure Cooker." Both were all but played to death at trade and consumer shows throughout the late 70's, but to this day are knockout demo recordings.

MoFi has released three discs within the past few years that are also stellar examples of how to make a "classic" sound terrific: First, both "Slowhand" and "461 Ocean Boulevard" by Clapton have been released on stunning sounding SACD's. "Slowhand" sounded pretty good to begin with, but "461..." was a pretty awful sounding LP. I found it absolutely amazing how much better the MoFi remastered disc sounds.

Last year, MoFi released a gold CD of Santana's "Abraxas." Anyone who purchased the original CD of that work knows how really, really awful a CD can sound. The gold CD remaster is nothing short of amazing, and well worth the $30 price tag. I suspect that had MoFi relased it as an SACD it would have sounded even better, but I've certainly got no complaints with the CD!

Mr Peabody
06-15-2010, 04:00 PM
I only have a few Sheffield Labs CD's but they are very good. One is sort of a various artist thing called Spies which we used as a demo disc. Another is James newton Howard & Friends which tracks from that CD were used in IASCA car audio contests. It's hard to imagine a company with a reputation for high quality recordings putting out something inferior on purpose.

I bought Abraxas remastered but it's not gold. I'll have to look for the Slow Hand, is the Mo Fi also a redbook?

Woochifer
06-15-2010, 09:42 PM
I only have a few Sheffield Labs CD's but they are very good. One is sort of a various artist thing called Spies which we used as a demo disc. Another is James newton Howard & Friends which tracks from that CD were used in IASCA car audio contests. It's hard to imagine a company with a reputation for high quality recordings putting out something inferior on purpose.

Like I said, without a reference they will likely sound fine. But, you have to know that Sheffield had a very clearly stated anti-digital agenda. Listening to an A-B comparison of the LP vs the CD copy, the flaws become very apparent. I have a direct-to-disc copy of the James Newton Howard LP, and have A-B'd it against the original CD release -- it's no contest as to which one sounds better. The LP itself is reference quality, and the CD sounds good if you don't have the LP for comparison.

It's not hard to imagine that Sheffield would purposely stack the deck against its own CD releases if you recall just how fanatically devoted to the LP format Sheffield was during their direct-to-disc heyday. They were not just anti-CD, they were zealots against all forms of digital audio, period. The audiophile press at that time was also engaged in a holy war against the CD format, and the guys in charge of Sheffield were very closely aligned with those views, often writing editorials attacking the CD format in publications like The Absolute Sound. Sheffield's CD releases provided the smoking gun for those looking for evidence of the CD format's inferiority.

During that time, Sheffield's LPs were practically required listening in high end audio circles, and it shocked people when they heard the CD versions for the first time. Sheffield kept claiming that the compromised sound quality merely indicated the CD format's inferiority, but others accused Sheffield of purposely releasing shoddy CD transfers in order to further their pro-LP agenda.

My understanding is that latter "remastered" versions of Sheffield's CD releases were much improved, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of those original CD copies are still out there. So, it's buyer beware.

Mr Peabody
06-16-2010, 06:39 PM
I'd love to hear that LP version. I bet it would command a price. Isn't it Sheffield that does the drum track CD, it is. You know that disc is really expensive. You know what's bad if Sheffield's CD quality is not on par, it is still better than most new CD's of today by a good margin.

Woochifer
06-16-2010, 07:59 PM
I'd love to hear that LP version. I bet it would command a price. Isn't it Sheffield that does the drum track CD, it is. You know that disc is really expensive. You know what's bad if Sheffield's CD quality is not on par, it is still better than most new CD's of today by a good margin.

Believe me, the sound quality on the JN Howard LP is astounding. It's the first LP I reach for anytime I tweak with my turntable settings. I'm familiar enough with the playback that it will reveal any issues with my turntable setup.

All of Sheffield's direct-to-disc LPs now fetch a pretty penny because they're all out of print and not that many of copies of each title were pressed to begin with. Even with more LP titles coming out, direct-to-disc recording remains very rare because it's so hard to do.

The musicians have to do the entire session in two takes (one for each side), and if anyone makes a single mistake, they have to start all over. Imagine with a five-song album side, if someone flubs the fade out on the fifth song, that ENTIRE recording session gets thrown out. In addition, the board feed, the levels, the entire studio setup has to be done right -- nothing can be corrected later on during the mixing stage since there isn't one.

That Sheffield's CD sound good is just testament to how amazing a direct-to-two-track process can sound. Like I said, it's not that the Sheffield CDs I've heard sound bad, it's that they're don't sound nearly as good as the LPs and (at least for the first editions) seemingly intended to be that way.

Other direct-to-two-track recordings are out there. Obviously, recordings done before the advent of multitracking were done this way. I also recall several smooth jazz albums were recorded that way back in the mid-80s -- examples include Dave Grusin's Mountain Dance, Lee Ritenour's On The Line, David Benoit's This Side Up, and Bill Meyers' Images. I'm not sure if any of these albums are even in print anymore, but they were very popular for demoing non-classical music because they use amplified instruments. That Bill Meyers album is a particularly ambitious and elaborate effort with about 30 studio musicians in session.