MF Gold CD's

[Mr Peabody]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Now see, for Rock I like a hitting mid bass.

[blackraven]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/sho...d.php?t=301091

[poppachubby]

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...

[Mr Peabody]

$5.00 is a deal. Most titles on Amazon used is still over $20.00.

[poppachubby]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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...

[poppachubby]

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.