Hearing the difference with Blue Train testing was a little challenging. I think if you gain matched the perceived volume to help with the lack of compression that would be helpful. I tried turning up and down the volume but that’s not really the same thing since I’m not measuring, just guessing. I have the DSOTM. I bought it on vinyl, regular CD, MFSL Ultradisc, the remastered CD, the SACD, and the recentl;y released BluRay version. I find the 192kHz stereo on the BluRay to be the ultimate version for me. Thanks for doing this video on 24k Gold Ultradisc though!
All uncompressed tracks are available for download in the video description to make personal measurements and tweaks! Yes, I did try to match them by the ear. Only Supertram was all normalized to the same perceived loudness.
Someone at a certain bookstore recently clearanced -- likely by mistake or ignorance or both -- an MFSL gold CD for $1. I was lucky to be there the day it happened and scooped it up and ended up selling it for $70. It was not an album that interested me musically so was happy to make the profit.
great test like always, love it Do you think there is a better version on Vinyl out there? I was not very lucky when it comes to Supertramp an Vinyl, always too much noice/pops over the entire album even I only buy NM. I guess Mint, orig US press might be a good joice but all those are very expensive these days
Don't know why but I have most stuff on CD, which all sound great. Only the 1999 Crime of the Century version by Speakers corner. I do have Breakfast in America but had the same problems...
I know, I have tried to find CDs with that type of nomination but it is almost impossible, now I am collecting 20-bit HDCDs and it is almost impossible to recognize them, in many cases you have to look for them by the bar codes of the disc manufacturer, it is a disaster, that's why I love it. Greetings.@@anadialog
@anadialog You probably don't remember back in the 80's on the CD boxes & cases they notated [DDD], [ADD], or [AAD]. Lemme know if you know what these mean! (I know! 😉👍🏻)
I think that's the only Sade album I don't have on CD. They were fantastic live during the Soldier Of Love Tour esp Adu's vocal performance. I will seek out a copy 👍🙂
I recently picked up an original CD pressing of Love Deluxe to complete my Sade collection. I'm amazed how damn good it sounds! I have the first three album on vinyl and they sound great as most people know, but I was very impressed how good Love Deluxe sounds on CD. I guess it dropped right before the loudness wars started.
I own two discs The Alan Parsons Project’s Tales of Mystery and Imagination AP, and Sting’s Nothing Like The Sun. Sting’s album sounds amazing, even I own the DVD DTS Audio of the same album and the Gold Edition sounds way better and has a pristine audio with a greater sound quality than the DTS. I’ve bought these albums more than 20 years from today and the audio still shines. Thanks for the video, love it!
The gold disc were not worth it when they released at the end of the 80's beginning of the 90's in fact they did not sell well then because the price was to high and they did not last longer the a well cared for cd. I was a Dj for 30 years and I have owned them all from 8mm to Vinyl, Cassette and Cd's as well as external hard drives
@@anadialogthanks I watched that some time ago. Some cassettes are phenomenal others should be burned. When I posted I was recalling a comment of Paul McGowan of PS audio. If my memory is correct Paul mentioned the cd layer on a hybrid SACD is often of higher quality than a standard CD. It prompted me to question this way: is the MFSL 24Kt gold CDs equivalent(sound quality) to the MFSL SACDs ( which can be found cheaper)
@@anadialog i couldn´t make that test, i only bought 6 or 7 pre-recorded cassettes in all my life(normally when i was in vacations and wanted to hear something released, they were expensive and sounded great but sometimes they at the end of some years would start to shed and was better to buy the vinyl version with the same amout,if not having a turntable ask a friend to record it into a reel ,later into a cassette like i did to so many friends that later when working could buy a complete system,some that had some money would hear myusic on a reel deck with amplification and speakers but have the album in question and have a lot of reels that say original master tape ,they do sound good but far from being a master tape with a reel for home use ,the tape section was a "BIT" smaller ,i think this was already a very well done recording and well produced ,the, problem is the price of a weak equipment today that will cost at leat 2500 to 3000 €´s, at the time with what today is 20€ one could buy much better, some families lived with what today is 100€ this a midle class family, so a hi-fi system woulçd be expensive anyway at the time, i only had the luck to be born on a family that had agriculture as the main source of income and also my older family were already into Muisc and hi-fi
I still have all my old Ultradiscs from back in the day. I bought them all right when they came out so fortunately I didn't pay an arm and a leg for them. For me The Wall has always been one of my favorites. The mastering and mixing sounds so much better than the original cd. It's still my favorite release of The Wall, and the best Ultradisc I own. Other ones the differences sounded marginal to me, but The Wall I could definitely hear the difference in.
Ive said this for years about CDs. They are incredibly underrated (assuming they are mastered properly). We are still in the golden of cd when you can buy used discs for pennies. Ive bought Cds for as little as £2 and they have been in perfect condition. Even MFSL discs a few years ago were only £10. Now they are a fortune.
Agreed. Thanks to the hipster surge in vinyl sales ($30-$40 for a new record...yikes!), I'm picking up used CDs for anywhere from $1 to $5...... Originals, remasters, deluxe editions....everything.
Old pressings are getting pricier, but hey, we're still in the good times, and you can get them for less than the cost of a pint in London. I quit smoking six years ago and decided to spend that money on CDs instead. Turns out, it was the best move I ever made.
there is so called local streaming, I have all my CDs and SACDs ripped to WAV and DSD files and I use Holo Red quality streamer connected to ladder dac via I2S and quality is insane you would have to spend lot of money on CD player to match that quality and yeah CD player is not immune to jitter also
Great vid! Personally, MFSL CDs are usually a hit or miss, specially their Ultradisc II releases where it has been pointed out many times how they've smile-shape Eqd a lot of albums and artificially boosted the bass like on "The Wall" MFSL CD. Some MFSL CDs I've heard which are really good and the best on CD are "Double Fantasy", "Nilsson Schmilsson", or the hybrid SACD for "Surrealistic Pillow". But, I recommend doing some research before purchasing MFSL CDs, and if that albums has a DCC or Audio Fidelity reissue, I'd go for those instead
@@anadialog The best digital version of DSOTM (or at least the most true to the original pressing) is the Black Triangle Toshiba CD from 1983. It’s a flat transfer or close to it. The DR database is exactly the same as the 1973 vinyl. The CD has pre-emphasis though so if you rip them you’ll need to de-emphasis the tracks. Careful buying it online because there are a lot of counterfeits. There’s also a Wish You Were Here & Abbey Road Black Triangle Toshiba which are as well too. Those too go for a lot and there’s a ton of counterfeit ones online. So if you buy them do your research beforehand!
The sound you hear from speakers from CD is analogue due to DAC, this should be highlighted a lot more. Quality of DAC is key to CD sounds along with mastering and mixing. Format type is seriously overrated , look at the mastering and mixing more.
Speaking as someone who started buying CDs in 1989 and bought his first Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab CD at about 1990, here are a few points: I think that history has to be recognized here. MFSL was in the audiophile game for LPs and tapes as far back as the 1970's, and got into CDs relatively early -- before the 'major' labels really made the jump -- at least so far as I understand. The original MFSL approach to CDs was two-pronged: 1. To release significant albums on CD that had not yet been properly released by other labels across many genres (the MFSL aluminum Original Master Recordings), and 2. To release the CD equivalent of their half speed mastered LPs for popular recordings with perceived audiophile appeal (the MFSL Ultradisc recordings). To this end, both of these sets of recordings had the following goals: 1. Leverage their existing expertise and mastering toolchain to create albums sourced from proper masters (except when they screwed it up), 2. Come with complete artwork and liner notes (where possible), 3. Use as little compression as possible to preserve dynamics and avoid distortion (except when they didn't), 4. Sometimes include additional liner notes or important commentary from the the original creators of the recordings (the essay by Tom Dowd on the Layla Ultradisc comes to mind.) The Ultradisc recordings had the added benefit of supposedly superior surface material (24k Gold) much as their later LPs used a superior mix of vinyl (that was eventually adopted to manufacture some quad LPs). it is important to remember that in the early and mid-1980's goals 1-4 were often not true. The selection of tapes to use as sources were inconsistent, and some were poorly mastered. The packaging that CDs included was incomplete -- being whatever art they had on hand. I can recall getting CDs that only had poor reproductions of the front and back artwork from the album jackets, and utterly missing anything that might be included on the gatefold of vinyl LPs. I can recall getting an early copy of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue that lacked the original cover art entirely. My original major label copy of the Band's "Rock Of Ages" did not include all the tracks on the LP double album to fit into the running time of a single CD. The goal was to get out titles and fill the market, not necessarily produce proper recordings. In the packaging especially, early CDs were a little closer to cassette tapes than they were to vinyl. So, the fact that MFSL was giving vinyl-level attention to the medium was important at that time. The blanket statement "the old, original CDs are better and cheaper" needs to be more carefully qualified. That became more true as the 1980's turned into the 1990s. The market matured and major bands and the labels began to see the value of better reissues. That helped them catch up. To illustrate this point: you compare the MFSL Ultradisc to the 1993 release of DSOTM. That's a band supervised remaster of the album. Go back further to the 1984 CD release. I originally had that one from Capitol/EMI in the US. When I got the MFSL Ultradisc, I did a head to head comparison on very modest equipment in 1992 or so. I remarked in e-mail to friends at that time that the differences were noticeable. How those two compare in the dynamic range metrics you seem to prefer, I do not know... because I don't know if anyone was thinking in those terms back then. Your point that there are more modern releases of the same recordings on CD that are substantially better than MFSL releases from those days is well taken, and is very likely true. I agree that there is often far better value for money to be found in the market place. Like so much of the vinyl produced today, MFSL 24k Gold CDs are a collectors market and are now priced accordingly. That said, MFSL releases were often unique. I have the MFSL OMR release of Steve Winwood's solo album after his time in Traffic. That was the only CD release of that album at that time. I have the MFSL 24k Gold release of Jethro Tull's Living In The Past, which included all the tracks available on both the European and US LP releases. Those weren't available in one package until significantly later, I believe. I also have a copy of Taj Mahal's "Happy Just To Be Like I Am" which features the songs as they appear on the original master tape, not the order imposed to meet the dynamic needs of LP playback. Finally, when you consider the OMR recordings, MFSL did include more than pop, rock, and contemporary albums. I've scanned a few pages of the 1991 MFSL catalog that I kept all these years. In it, you can see that the full label offerings included a range of genres, including jazz, classical, spoken word, and comedy. They are located on my music Instagram account here: instagram.com/p/C4J9jaRLmgZ
One problem is they sometimes didn’t have the original master, sometimes it was a second gen. A lot of labels wouldn’t let the masters out of their possession.
@@LanceFKarp Yes, point taken. I said 'screwed up' because there are cases (like the MFSL Beatles LP boxed sets) they got EMI original masters for some albums, but then got modified 2nd gen Capitol masters for others. It was evidently uneven and not well disclosed, even though they were supposed to be trying to get the originals. I recall the MFSL catalogs used to point out at length that they tracked down the original Who album masters by going finally going to Pete Townsend because even their British label had 2nd gen masters.
I have an SACD player and a few SACD’s. In all honesty, I just cannot tell the difference between an SACD and a good recording of a “Red Book” CD. Even with a very high bit rate MP3, I can’t really tell the difference. If there are differences, they are so imperceptible that the huge amount of extra money for the “superior” disc is simply not worth it to me. Maybe I’m just the odd man out. If I had my druthers, I’d prefer to have the “superior” discs………..just because. I can’t help but wonder if SACD’s, MOFI Gold discs, etc. were created just to take more money out of people’s wallets, even though the differences in audio are negligible at best. Great video. Thanks
@@Yoni1200 Unless you are a producer and you need to analyse music, who really cares? If you spend your time not actually listening to the music and nitpicking everything about it, you entirely miss the point of music. Just enjoy it.
its in the master isn't it? you could put that mfsl master on any cheap cd and it'll sound exactly the same. its digital. if the data is there it doesn't matter.@@Yoni1200
I will say this again and again MASTERING. IS. KEY! No matter the format, the price, the bit rate, or anything else, the mastering is where the magic happens. And these discs show it. In spite of all they have going for them, they all eventually boil down to the mastering
in my opinion mastering is the destruction of the original sound when released . In compact disc , to use more simple words ,a home equaliser still works very good with analog sources but the cd sound one can´t notice the changes imediatelly ,one has to wait till the next time one plays the cd to notice changes in it´s sound by using a equalizer, mostly in rock bands from blues rock till modern hard rock, the main problem having already recording more than a 100 albums from emerging bands it´s the still very used, amplifier distortion with know guitar models six string or bass as in 50´s to very early 70´s guitar models as the amplifiers, even in the most sold records from famous bands they still record their albums in analog only the cd is digital in the process but one already uses some digital and very handy tools even when saying the record was totally recorded in a analog studio, the first time i notice was in LP´s from the 50´s, 60´s, 70´s converted to cd in the 80´s ,90´s till today the track levels aren´t as it was supposed to be and vibration of the chords in guitars are cut down when converted to digital, but in reality the change is noticeable in all other captured sound no matter the number of tracks used in a recording, refering to each sound captured by microphones or directely conected to the main mixing board and sent to the analog recorder, reels but professional ones not like the section of tape used at home, were already transfered to be released after the producer work, as an example i had since early 70´s a radio show at weekends of two hours a day and received directelly from the main alternative labels compilations of the bands from each label ,singles or even albums i remenber when from Sub-Pop still nirvabnna released the in bloom single ,i found it very enjoyable ,but some years after when releasing their first LP from Geffen records by almost a year diference ,in the begining of 1991 the Nirvana song "smells like teenspirit " was released in maxi-single and cd single with extra live songs from other recording as their first Sub-Pop album , it sounded very good to me but in later that year the album was first released and i listened to the cd ,fastly i was tired of the songs and used to say to everyone that i had a very good sounding version of In bloom ,they were already in tour since early 91 with Sonic Youth and bands that were coming from the U.S. to in summer festivals play before Sonic-Youth when touring the LP "Goo", one can see it on the home tape video released by sonic-youth with the title, "The year that punk broke" and only in 2017 for the first time i heard the record version or vinyl as all call it today and the sound was incredible good this after hearing a 20 years or more release of the nevermind album with extra songs and between them was my favorite recording of In bloom but when playing the cd i didn´t notice the main diference from Geffen to Sub-pop , but has i played the record already from Geffen i said to myself ,What a sound,and there the in bloom version was also good, so the only problem i notice was the cd version sounding not that good but the vinyl version sounding as a new recording of all songs,and for the first time i enjoyed hearing the Nevermind album from Nirvanna, i think it´s simple to understand
@@AUXdrone you´re that generation who think´s the truth is what you think about not real matters as this publications that are made only to steal from the people , and maybe buy a decent cd player or turntable ,well ,a complete new sound system because it seems that you don´t know what music is about ,gold edition?well...i rest my case
@@RUfromthe40s as you said, “mastering is the destruction of the original sound when released.” Which clearly means that you do not understand the recording and production process, technology, techniques, anything. You’ll pontificate endlessly to appear as an sme when you’re a know nothing. You have no understanding of who you even talk to and feign superiority for some sad need of approval. You’re as transparent as the glass house you live in. Project more. Cope harder. That is unfortunate that i “don’t know what music is about,” considering that i worked as an audio engineer. Lol 🤡
Very interesting video I've been experimenting with CDs for so long I can't even remember sometimes you upgrade for the remastered version but I've never ever came across a remastered version that sounded better in fact worse than the original example (legend by Bob Marley and the remastered one complete rubbish) the funny thing is that i listen to this on a GGMM E2 MINI SPEAKER CLOSE 12 inchs away via bluetooth could have streamed via wi fi Im 64 and I can still differentiate between the tracks like this chap says. Many moons ago there used to be a green Marker you could buy to draw a round the CD outer and inner edge a lot cheaper I don't know if there is a TH-cam video demonstrating this. This video got me buzzing again so I listen to crime of the century album Supertramp on TH-cam music not as good as the gentlemans tracks but it didn't cost me anything.😂
I refuse to listen to the low DR and the compression in the modern (after '94) CDs, so I have only the original vinyls or, when necessary, the original CD. Regarding the MFSL, I have about 12 of the original older CDs, which all sound good, but I prefer the original vinyl records when possible. Discogs and eBay have been my friends, for obtaining original CDs. Continua cosi.
I own some MFSL CDs, such as "Dark Side Of The Moon," "The Wall," "The Unforgettable Fire," and "Blue Oyster Cult." I think that the gold layer is crucial for preventing disc rot, but there's no sonic advantage to it. Overall, their mastering is a bit lackluster; most of them abruptly cut off at the frequency range of 20kHz. The sound is kind of dull, lacking vibrancy. Although there's no clipping, the overall master sounds too soft and low to my ears. On the bright side, their SACDs sound excellent, showcasing an extended frequency range.
First I want to thank you for putting the effort and hard work into this video. It takes more time and effort than folks realize. So thank you! Im very analytical so please pardon me if some of this seems critical, it is not meant in tone to be. We all love music and that is why we care:) Strictly speaking cds here though my main listening is vinyl. I just dont think its fair most of the time to even place the best vinyl versions in the conversation concerning these titles. My “audiophile” journey began with MFSL gold cds. In the days of CD yor there use to be a place called “Tracks” which had rows and rows of cds. All those long boxes standing up proudly, ahh yes, those were the days. Or not. At 18-22$ a pop it wasnt exactly CD Warehouse prices that came later. Anyway, I went into Tracks one day to browse and ran across this odd looking item in this big longbox. Pink Floyd “The Wall” The banner said “Original Master Recording”. Except it was priced at $49.95! I passed. But got curious a few months later and started looking up what this Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab was all about. Later I went back to Tracks and it was still there. This time reduced to $39.95. I thought “Eh what the heck. Ill bite” and bought it. I think I had coupon also. A steal now right? And I still have the longbox and set. And thus my audiophile journey began.. I went on to collect (because I was initially a collector, not concerned necessarily with sound quality) all of the MFSL gold and silver cds. Conclusion after being more aware of sound quality and comparing many other versions such as originals, japanese, targets, west germans etc etc? My conclusion is it is a case by case basis. Some are very cool to have, such as the Elton John MFSL’s because they are basically flat transfers. Meaning I can adjust eq to my liking. Others are not so good. The Wall I would consider as ok for what it is, but a bit boosted on the bass and treble. For me, your original sounded more open as far as clarity of instruments. If you look closely at the peaks and vallies of the waveforms you provide, it is also visually evident that this is true. Which brings up another point. A point of contention I admit… The DR thing. DR is not a make it or break it reading. It is in fact only one aspect of sound. You mention a DR of 10 is not that good on the MFSL DSOTM. I would question that conclusion. And I think later on with the Supertramp title this is proven. A DR 10 is fine. What affects the sound more so is eq. And that is the issue I have with the DSOTM MFSL gold cd. The eq is odd. Kind of has this breathy quality to it compared to the best cd versions. I would pick the jpn Harvest blackface over it any day of the week. But not because the DR is 10 on the MFSL version. Of course if a DR is 4-5 or something ridiculous then it becomes a more overriding factor. But 8,9, 10 DRs? That is not an issue. For example, I think the Stones Hackney Diamonds is a silly 5 average. Which one can totally hear. But even more so is the eq sucking eggs on that album. A pity that the Stones arguably best album in decades is clamped down with compression and poor eq. Blue Train..MFSL vs the older original.. You can hear a difference in a DR of 12 and 13? Hmm ok. I think again, what you are hearing is more an eq difference, better convertors for the time and more care placed into the transfer. Coltranes tone is definitely more accurate, the cymbals shimmer properly and the overall openess is there with the MFSL as compared to the older cd. But I do not think that a DR of plus 1 is making that kind of a difference as much as other factors. Nirvana.. Im actually surprised by the MFSL. I have a bit of a beat up MFSL gold cd that a friend gave me when he went to streaming (how lucky there right?) and my train of thought was the MFSL was not highly regarded. Im not even sure I listened to it but maybe once? Hey it still plays so I am not complaining in condition when it was free! Listening to the samples, surprisingly, I have to say the MFSL sounds better to me than the original. Why? Listen to the guitar, cymbals and vocals. All three are much more open sounding on the MFSL. On the guitar you can here the picks engagement along with layers of tonality. The cymbals actually sound like cymbals not a compressed “tss tss tss” and again with Kurts vocals they have more body and sound characteristically like Kurt more. The only negative I can say is there is a bit of a more “airy” quality to the MFSL which is edging into the mastering. But not distracting. And not sure why you hear the vocals as louder in the original. I think perhaps Kurt’s vocal is not lower in the MFSL but it is due to the MFSL having more presence in the instrumentation. Again, listen to the cymbals. Tell me which sound more open and natural? MFSL 100%. The orginal is a bit heavy on the bottom end. You mention MFSL was done in 1991. Well, that makes sense. Those tapes were super fresh at that time. Thus also contributing to the great sound. Surprisingly, gotta go with the MFSL gold on that one. As far as the peaks, I don’t see anything missing on the MFSL. The original has some topped off dynamics though. But again very marginal. Either way DR 11 is anything but “squished”. My guess is that on the MFSL gold cd Nevermind we are hearing much more of what was on the tapes. Just wish that bit of house sound “air” was gone. But again, the trade off is worth it. “Is the price worth the MFSL?” is a question one has to ask themselves. I know which Ill be listening to however. Supertramp “Crime Of The Century”… Now here is where dynamics is playing a bigger part, no doubt. However, as you say, the DSOTM has a DR of 10 also, yet is not ear fatiguing..Do DR numbers play as big a part as we think?..you have to listen. Listening is the biggest part. Then confirm with soundwaves and technical visual info to make sure bias is not jumping in there. But yeah, the 2002 yuck. The MFSL gold cd on the COTC is obviously the winner as far as breathing room goes. But also remember that hiss is going to be louder as one turns it up also. Think of it as the equivalent of noise floor of a low volume mastered lp. Though the MFSL gold cd really doesnt get compromised with hiss in this way. Again, listen to the keyboard. The main instrument. Nearly takes ones ears off with bright eq on the 2002 and not much better on the older version either. When the horns come in the MFSL gold has a broader sense of soundstage also. The band is right there in front of you. This Supertramp COTC is one of the stars of the old MFSL. Man, now if we could only get a definitive AP UHQR of THIS title wouldnt that be special? Don’t overlook MFSL silver cd series… I humbly recommend the silver cds. Procal Harum-A Salty Dog, Al Stewart Time Passages, Spirit 12 Dreams, I Robot, Youngbloods Elephant Mountain, Sonny Rollins-Way Out West, Joe Walsh-Barnstorm, Dillard and Clark - The Fantastic Expedition of/Through the Morning. All fantastic, even tempered, even mastered versions. And ones that are mastered in a more flat manner. It is only as good as what goes in… In the end, what the recording is, is what it is. If the fidelity is marginal at best then do not expect MFSL or anyone else to create a great sounding recording from lesser fidelity. Mastering can only do so much. A couple of humble suggestions for future videos of this nature… Always volume match when doing comparisons. Especially in the hi-rez downloads. Otherwise there will be a built in bias. “People choose the loudest” as best phenomena. The idea to judge these with downloads that are not volume matched I dont really get. That is the entire thing with the lower volume old MFSL gold cds. Many of them sound better as you turn them up. Volume matching with the loudest reveals the strength or exposes the weakness. So I disagree with the idea of not volume matching to make the judgement. This should be done across the board. And… Please with the graphs, can you make the order the same as the samples? It gets a bit confusing. Sounds like picky/gripes but I really do appreciate what you have done here and my opinions are just that..opinions. The video is very good and beneficial. Thanks again for your hard work! It is appreciated 👍🏻👍🏻
Thanks for your detailed comment, from which I understand that you are new to channel. I always match the perceived loudness BUT in this case they were very similar and in fact I did that only for Supertramp because they were so different BUT again as I wrote in the video when you do that you immediately kill the differences that make a version much better than the other. That is why in this case I have choose to put the original recordings for download. You are always in time to match on your own, not the opposite. Of course DR is only one element of the equation, the mastering in general, which includes the eq, is what counts. But we have said this ad nauseam on this channel. In fact I did not hear a differenze on Blue Train for the DR but for the mastering. For the rest it is clearly up to taste. The Nirvana sound wave does clearly and objectively show compression and limiting, and in fact DR11 isn’t anything special just as DSOTM. Clearly compared to modern standards it’s huge!
Thank you for another great video on CD's. As always, I agree with you. The format is not the limit, the master is. I confess I have many gold CD's: MSFL, DCC, Audio Fidelity, and Sony Mastersound (their anniversary series from 1993). 🎶❤️💿
the master no one as access to it either than the people who worked on it ,everybody has to listen what is available to them, i have a lot of sources , it´s easier to say the formats i don´t have like the 8-track cartridge ,elcaset, dcc , others i have them all, and i think that those editions like the gold cds you refer don´t improve nothing of the sound quality in a regular cd, the only real limitation is our system at home, and seek what format will sound better with what we already have, i have thousands of cd´s and very good cd players but what amazes me always is hearing the vinil version on one of my old turntables, it seems to sound live, this one can use a early 70´s pioneer PL-12 with original cartridge ,normally the PC-11 with PN-11 stylus, it sounds better than any new turntable around 1.000€ and better built and being 52 or earlier years of use can sound a lot better than modern turntables, well only perfect not better or a bit diferent ,the word to use is perfect, if working properly it might look destroyd but if working correctelly most of them do, it´s a reliable source of sound , the cd as it is recorded perverts all the studio work so sound as ...anyone people think it should be listened by that person standarts who they most of the cases never knew or know what the person considers good sound ,because cd played in direct if in a regular system that people can afford would sound low-fi and horrible, that´s my point of view
I agree that MFSL is not that special or worth the hype. I never feel the need to buy those. While with analogue productions for example I do feel that need.
Thank you for the video. I have the same “Supertramp” CD by MFSL, made in Japan. The sound of this CD is simply fantastic. I also have the “Supertramp - Breakfast in America” CD by MFSL, and in my opinion, it also has a very good sound. In general, I prefer CDs from MFSL. In addition to dynamics, these discs have much less dirt at high frequencies than on original CDs, possibly this is related to more quality equipment and a more careful approach to digitization. But, of course, not all MFSL compact discs are as good as we would all like.
you should have heard the record when released ,already had a very interesting and good sounding production, so i don´t get what can be improved only changed which is bad ,like the cds editions i´ve heard not only from this album but other 3 that intrerest me ,being my favorite and only album that i hear after all this years the crime of the century a 76 LP (not sure) it still sounds perfect, it´s cd editions were a noticeable decrease of several characteristics of it´s original sound, some think it´s a improved sound but the reverse is the reality, some might never had heard any supertramp album as it was released and played in a low price but correctelly playing the released lp and because in the 70´s most of the known brands in their regular series have more powerfull or less with more or less inputs , but the sound quality is common to all devices sold integrated amplifiers or stereo receivers, this if working correctely doesn´t need to be restored but normally cleaned inside out depending in it´s condition, i can give an example of a receiver that for some reason it seemed no one liked it much but it´s the same sound as the called now blue series of 79 pioneer catalog, i´m refering to the SX-700L a good sounding receiver that i only bought one on ebay in 2016 because either than looking like new it was asked at the time 70€ including transport, it was sold at the time with a ct-200 cassette deck ,a PL-400 turntable with AT cartridge and a pair of speakers that had a bigb woofer but the box wasn´t deep but if well installed in a room can deliver a nice sound, in the same brochure was available the SX-408(looks incredible good as it sounds)with a PL-514X turntable and a pair of speakers ,two ways at 4 ohms ,it was a cheaper option also doesn´t came with a cassette deck, but i would like to refer that the CT-200 was a good recording deck as today my maxell cassettes type I recorded in a friends system like i described sound perfect in a more recent deck at the time i was using my fathers CT-F1250 and as option had also the CT-F1000 who in my opinion are still very good decks today if regular maintenance is done and Nakamichi could only dream to get near the play/record quality of any of these two pioneer decks who are flat recorders, so the coloured sound as some refer aren´t a real thing in this two decks or any other high-end decks from this brand ,i consider either than other brands very good decks the CT-93 from the 90´s one of the best ever released decks but it´s only one more there are lot´s of them with high quality of sound but nakamichi wish as well engeniered decks that i like to use to record cassettes but can´t say they are the best ,well more like far from it, i drifted from the main subject but it was related to what i´ve said in the first part of the coment
I find there are a bunch of these discs that are better than the original and bunch that are worse. Its 50/50 really. I find the new MoFi SACD's generally superior. That being said certain albums the old MoFi's are the best digital versions.
I wanted to comment on the new MoFi releases. Here is my surprising conclusion of a SACD vs a Cassette: th-cam.com/video/xtIdGDk4g0M/w-d-xo.htmlsi=UGlMv5U0Ws3V7Ec7
I have the Older/Upper CD version of George Michael. The entire CD is gold coloured, not sure if gold plated, but I bought it in 2001 and the colour hasn't faded. The sound quality though is brilliant.
I've had a few gold coloured CD's. I can't recall exactly which ones off the top of my head, and I'm not going to go through every CD just to look, but I recently ripped every CD I own to HD, and only about 5 failed out of hundreds (took forever, and thank goodness for EAC's database!). None of the gold coloured discs failed. But I really doubt they were the same thing featured in this video, as they were like from the 90's and not expensive.
I don't know about the dynamics range with gold... But your selection of titles for this comparison video, that's an hell of selection you got, loved it !!! See ya, blue skies 🤙🏻🍀🎶
I played a couple of Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab CDs in my life. There is an excellent Beach Boys MFSL CD „Surfin' USA / Surfer Girl“ from the 80s that’s fantastic. Another MFSL CD I like is the Bob Marley Catch A Fire CD. It’s very very good and sounds very similar to the MFSL Vinyl from the same year. I also use a high quality very recent Technics SACD Player. Other MFSL CDs that I thought werent that special were the Nirvana or Jean Michel Jarre CDs. they are OK. in general some CDs are worth the money but many are not.
I was lucky enough to get ahold of the Dark Side of the Moon MFSL CD at a record store in Hawaii for about $15. It sounds nice, but it's not as close as the early Harvest black-faced/Toshiba-EMI black triangle editions.
Yes! I had the same. Got it right when it came out. Quality was far superior to regular cd. Especially in the bass) sub bass region. My neighbors didn't care for me so much when I cranked that one up! 🤣👍
I was lucky enough to get my hands on the Harvest label Japan pressing at a CD show in 1984 in Pitsburgh. The sound is phenomenal. There's a video on TH-cam where every version on CD was compared and the Harvest pressing was tops.
When I got the gold disc of Roger waters - amused to death, I handed it to my girlfriend immediately, I turned around put on headphones and had her play random tracks from both versions to so if I could pick it out, and I could at least with that disc
Listening thru Sundara headphones, the original version of The Wall is clearer but almost at the cost of too much "crispiness". Mo-Fi's version sounds muddy in comparison. I have both but never A-B'd them before. The newer Blue Train was a bit more laid back (in a good way) and didn't cause my ears to cringe. The original was a bit harsh. Nevermind from MoFi sounds better. Finally, there must be something wrong with my ears because the second Supertramp file (MoFi?) was my least favorite. I have both the original vinyl and CD but I guess I'll pass on the MoFi version.
it's like the sound of the violin. It's not that nice to hear live. it's really harsh. a good sound engineer makes it softer. This is why many people like listening to a chamber concert more with old vinyl and for example the Grado than with a CD and more precise headphones.
Yes, yes and yes, really good review. I have always advocated to buy the original cd release if you can find them, I try the used or thrift shops where you can pick them up for a few euros. I generally agree with you that the new release or remastered versions are in most cases not as good and have to press the stop button within the 1st minute of playing. These so-called high end cd releases can stay in the wharehouses with lables on them displaying not fit for auditory perception.
I was never a mobile fidelity fan. Not for their vinyls and not for their CDs. Just a rip off as far as I’m concerned even though they do sound different to me anyway
Interestingly, the MFSL aluminum CD series of releases sound great to me. Since there aren't any releases in both the aluminum format and the gold format of the exact same album, it is nearly impossible to do a head to head comparison. I do, however, own the MFCD (Aluminum version) and the hybrid SACD version of The Grateful Dead album From The Mars Hotel. The MFCD version was released in 1985 and the hybrid SACD in 2019. To my ears, the old aluminum MFSL cd sounds much better than the SACD version. I have never seen any measurements comparing the two but would love to. Great video Guido!
One of the best sounding MFSL CDs. Rare, pricey but worth it: U2 - The Joshua Tree ! Off topic : two GREAT sounding Audio Fidelity CDs (SACD) : 1) Rage Against The Machine - Rage Against The Machine - 2) Vangelis - Blade Runner. The sound of both is "out of this world" ! Very good video ! Bravo !! ( Ps : maybe a video about DCC (Steve Hoffman) CD's) ? I think they are better than MFSL 😁
@@pfcompany885 these DCC CDs are absolutely stunning : The doors S/T and LA Woman; Eagles Hotel California; Nat King Cole Greatest Hits; "Elvis 24 Karat Hits!"; Joni Mitchell Blue; Sonny Rollins Saxophone Colossus ....
Interesting video. Experiment 1: yes they sound the same fidelity wise however on my system track 2 had a noticeably wider sound stage putting it head and shoulders over the first one. Experiment 2: identical, my preference was for the the normal CD but this is probably because it’s slightly louder. Experiment 3: track 2 is superior, first track is amazingly thin! Neither is great, but then these are not all analog. Experiment 4: track 2 blows track 1 away for detail. Experiment 5: track 2 has a beautiful EQ and a much thicker sound than 1. Track 3 was good too but sounded more brick walled. To sum up my preferences are just that, what I prefer. What is best? Nothing it’s just all subjective which is why selling anything as an “audiophile edition” is ridiculous. Music is emotional and you can’t sell a package based on that. For me 99% of the time I’d say analog is my preference and vinyl is the ultimate media…well apart from the master tape of course. I agree with your summing up
Digititus is a thing of the past, if your cd player is good enough. It was always the players for the most part; not the cds. Cd technogy has grown up & come of age. Michael Fremer said the Abraxas Mofi lp was absolutely the best sound he ever heard, and it turned out that it was an lp pressing from a digital copy, not the analog master tape.
Digital is always processing what is essential real natural sound ...........processing never makes something better than the original ............same with processing natiural food .. Digital technology is not sound or music it is a coding decoding and storage technology....... The best quality of digital comes only close to analog . The mindset of this era.............better than live .....but never equal to life ...
Great video! I have yet to try an MFSL cd. Usually, I prefer old AAD cds, but I think some remasters are great. The Ac/Dc-Back in black 1994 remaster is great. The AAD original cd is more audiophile sounding, very clean and detailed, but it sounds just a little bit "small" for a hard rock album. The 2003 remaster sounds huge, but it is very compressed and causes fatigue very fast. The 1994 version is a good middle ground. Dire Straits-Brothers in arms, a fully digital recording and mixing of course, is also better in the 1996 remaster than the original cd, I think. The original 80's cd was mastered in analog, then converted back to digital. Those early converters and doing it back and forth so much probably caused some loss. Sure, the dynamic range is huge, but it sounds very thin. The 1996 version still has plenty of dynamic range and also sounds a lot fuller. It all comes down to taste, of course 😃
sheffield lab CDs also go for quite a bit of $$$read online that the OG Blue note CDs mastered by ron mcmaster are the closest sounding to the master tapes in the digital domain
Hmm very eye opening. I have several Ultra Disc II CDs from Rush, U2 and Pink Floyd myself. Guess everyone falls for the Gold hype. Guess it only helps to prevent CD rot better but not really help the sounds. Oh well.
I have an number of these as well the the original MFSL black plasticky versions from away back when they were new and (relatively) inexpensive. Crime of the Century, in both formats, has always been my go-to reference for a dynamic recording well mastered. So many good recordings are ruined in the mastering process!
The only MFSL I have is the Marc Cohn self-titled debut album and I prefer the original one. For the Wall and Nevermind in your video I also preferred the originals its what I know and love. Thanks for the video
I'm at The Wall segment, and immediately after less than 10 seconds I notice the second disc is clearly inferior - sounds louder, compressed. Now will continue to discover which is which!
I’ve got hundreds of the things (including the DCC, Ryko, Sony and others) because I was rather silly in my allocation of resources as a college student. Better than wasting it on beer I guess.
I just heard an interview with Nivana's producer of In Utero in which he said that the gold remaster of In Utero was done from the original analog master and cut on equipment that was once reserved for orchestras and never used on pop/rock albums. Audiophile stuff that engineers thought was too good for pop music.
Great review video Guido, as always. I must say that I only noticed difference on the Nirvana and Coltrane CDs, and on both, the Mofi sounded better to me. This was my first A/B test and I did it using my PC connected to a Topping D90 DAC, Topping A90 headphone amp and Audio Technica ATH-M50X headphones. Great listening experience, thank you. Cheers!
Files for me. I downsample 192/96k to 48 or 64 depending on importance. Also, dithering of the 48k files to bring down to 20 bps. This keeps sizes at sane levels, but still (in theory, not audible) superior to redbook.
One thing that disappoints me in the MFSL editions is the cover size. The regular CD is already a small size cover of the albums, why do they have to make them even smaller on the MFSL editions? Why not just use that front MFSL cover as a "dust cover" for the regular CD booklet?
I've got a few Bowie 24k Gold CD's apart from being F*cking expensive not sure if they are worth it - they aren't that from Mofi they are from Ryko. they are Called AU20, 20 bit mastering from about 1990/91 so that was pretty good for back then maybe.
What remains to be said with the new socalled remastered versions is, that not only are they banged up and compressed. No, if you take a closer look at the waveform, it is actually clipped all over the place. Absolutely unacceptable. I've bought old original releases (or their clones released some years later) for about ten years now and haven't regretted it one tiny bit. They're also the best to transfer onto cassette tape if you want to do some recording. To me, CD's are still the new digital grammophone record discs and as it turns out, what a disaster it must be spending your money on streaming services, only for that stupid convenience. The Big Question: What masters are the streaming services actually selling access to ? Even though they may present themselves as 192KHz/24bit, they don't really deliver anything, if the masters are these God-awful pumped up loudness remasters, now do they ? No, of course not. Your only hope is to find the old original CD-releases and cut your connection to these services. I can with comfort and satisfaction say, that I haven't spend one dime on these services. Instead, yup....Spend my money buying old CD's. You should too. Cheers all.
Supertramp!!! My favorite album!!! Finally not just boring jazz-blues to test! 😊 I recently acquired the Alan Parsons Project - Eye In The Sky MoFi SACD and it is amazing!!! They used the analog master tapes and it is sooo cool. You should give it a try!
I have Supertramp Breakfast In America on Blu Ray Pure Audio a format which sadly never became mainstream. Along with Bob Marleys greatest hits & Lionel Riches Don't Slow down. All sound like artist is in the room with you on a 2 channel system. Awaiting the new anniversary No Parlez on blu ray audio that is being remastered exclusively through Super Deluxe Editions (SDE). Also just got new album Harmony Codex Steve Wilson. Peter Gabriel I O has been terribly compressed on CD to dymamic range of 6, The only way to buy that Blu ray is to buy it as a package with cds (about £2.50 more in UK) to get the 3rd alt surround mix which doesn't suffer that. Play it thro Blu Ray player & it will fold down to stereo attached to a 2 channel stereo amplifier. 🎶
I heard the John Mayal's Bluesbreakers album with Clapton was a terrible original transfer but the gold remaster/transfer is like a different record and reveals a lot more from the source recording. He said that the result is superior to the original.
The only two benefits of Gold plated CDs is: 1) They will last longer, since gold is chemically inert in most cases (unless you're going to put your dics collection into an acid, but why you could ever do that?), 2) Collectible value - these discs are usually printed in low quantities and rarely being reprinted. Othar than that Golden discs have no additional benefits over usual discs or even digital downloadable files. Moreover, since Gold have much lower reflectability these discs might have reading issues in some of players. It's a normal situation, it doesn't mean that your player is bad or faulty. Meanwhile, if you have a bitperfect copy of these Ultradiscs you can enjoy them with the same quality on any hardware player with any DAC you'd like to use. ^_^
It’s crazy how much better the Apple music versions of these tracks sound… these two versions of Lithium sound incredibly compressed when the first kick hits and when the chorus hits. It’s like the track closes up or clamps. By comparison, it feels constrained, like being in a box, listening to the CD versions. And yes, I’ve got the TH-cam resolution set to max. I’m genuinely surprised that the difference is so stark, but then again, that streaming service offers more resolution than a cd ever could, at least on these tracks. The wall is 24b/96khz, Coltrane is hi res and Dolby if you want it (meh), nirvana is 24b/44khz.. But those are just numbers. For me, hearing is believing. Trying to tell the MFSL vs regular cd apart is hard. Comparing them with hi-res lossless streaming is as obvious as day.
Being unpatiened and commenting before finishing the video the MFSL version of the Coltrane CD was clearly better in my opinion, recognized it when I played the files on foobar after secondes so ty for making me poorer I think iI have to purchase the MFSL version. 😃 The Ultradisc I and Ii were really very close, no need to pay extra money and I preferred the MFSL version in the other cases as well with oine exception but they were closer especially the Wall.
What I have found in my 40 plus years of buying and consuming audio is that no matter the format etc the original recording matters more than anything. I can play a great recording as an MP3 and a not so great one on vinyl, cd, sacd, dvd audio, blu ray audio etc including streaming at the highest bit depths but when played on the same equipment or more expensive equipment the better original always sounds better than the format. When I compare a great original to the same on different formats the differences are tiny. I have blown stupid money chasing the audio nirvana dragon sadly. I threw away hard earned money that would not have happened had I not bought into the bs. A decent eq will be much cheaper and give you much more satisfaction than wasting money on the supposed best equipment etc. A powered subwoofer and decent speakers with a high pass set on the amp will matter way more. Do you have allergies?
I was lucky to obtain a few Pink Floyd CDs (90s license releases made in Hungary) and these used the same old matrixes as 80s japaneese or US pressings. They sound fantastic.. they were sitting and collecting dust for like 20 years but now I enjoy their sound a lot! Meddle version is the most interesting, because Echoes is the first track, not the last as it is supposed to be.. other than that it is a very early AAD version.
Their SACD remasters for the first two RATM albums are the proof that a good remaster can surpass the original master with much improved dynamic range. Sad they had to close down...
One of the best sounding rock CDs I've ever heard is August and Everything After by Counting Crows.I own the CD and a 96/24 download. The mastering is incredibly good. So much detail, and the modern downloads possess excellent dynamic range.
I could tell the difference in the John Coltrane CD and the differences were subtle. The Mofi version had a greater sense of space and weight, a little more dynamic. But I'll stick to my well cared for vinyl, vintage turntable and tube amps. They sound a lot better than most CDs.
The best way to really test the differences between digital copies - rather than just look at the sound wave - is to phase invert one version and play them at the same time. If they cancel completely (null) then they are identical. This can also help you to hear what is exactly different. I do think there are differences between pressings, and the quality suffered a lot because of remastering as time progressed, mostly as you rightly say because the dynamic range is over compressed - early CD remasters of Bowie’s albums are almost unlistenable because of this. MFSL made some great transfers, but mostly on vinyl, though I do think the Ultradisc of the Wall is superbly done. Great video and very well put together.
Thanks, we said this in other comments, I obviously did a null test but it is impossible to do because the two recordings have different speeds due to the mastering on different tape recorders. A typical problem of reissues.
@@anadialog yes, but this at least proves its not some slop-copy of a digital master money grab, they did actually master it again. Of course, if its a good master is the question...
![ANA[DIA]LOG](http://yt3.ggpht.com/50CpmGNilS8aoMlarZVhI_GxRDoZdbj4ZgwCMZXg-Rq2PrEvCytlE6RVyLUrNY-rwE_sAlZ1Zw=s48-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj)
Streaming has reliability issues. And, ocassionally songs mysteriously get taken down off the web. I don't have to worry about that with a CD.
Bye bye Neil Young, for instance. Good thing I got the guy's records :D.
I think there is 7 albums by XTC that you can't stream. And I know of a lot of albums I own that are not on any streaming service.
@@rosssmith8481 That's what I discovered also - nevermind the single songs.
...or FLAC.
Or WAV@@Zedek
Hearing the difference with Blue Train testing was a little challenging. I think if you gain matched the perceived volume to help with the lack of compression that would be helpful. I tried turning up and down the volume but that’s not really the same thing since I’m not measuring, just guessing. I have the DSOTM. I bought it on vinyl, regular CD, MFSL Ultradisc, the remastered CD, the SACD, and the recentl;y released BluRay version. I find the 192kHz stereo on the BluRay to be the ultimate version for me. Thanks for doing this video on 24k Gold Ultradisc though!
All uncompressed tracks are available for download in the video description to make personal measurements and tweaks! Yes, I did try to match them by the ear. Only Supertram was all normalized to the same perceived loudness.
Someone at a certain bookstore recently clearanced -- likely by mistake or ignorance or both -- an MFSL gold CD for $1. I was lucky to be there the day it happened and scooped it up and ended up selling it for $70. It was not an album that interested me musically so was happy to make the profit.
great test like always, love it
Do you think there is a better version on Vinyl out there? I was not very lucky when it comes to Supertramp an Vinyl, always too much noice/pops over the entire album even I only buy NM.
I guess Mint, orig US press might be a good joice but all those are very expensive these days
Don't know why but I have most stuff on CD, which all sound great. Only the 1999 Crime of the Century version by Speakers corner. I do have Breakfast in America but had the same problems...
Hello, I bought like 1,200 CDs in the last 4 years. Also 300 cassettes and about 20 minidiscs.
The point is: they are GREAT.
more dinamic range in the old copy, that's why I start many years ago to buy original cd from early 90' late 80', my kind of music
this is the way
Yup, I have dealt with this in depth here (a combination of mastering and analog mixing): th-cam.com/video/x5MlbvTJZog/w-d-xo.htmlsi=B53AgqcnSJGCdm2r
I know, I have tried to find CDs with that type of nomination but it is almost impossible, now I am collecting 20-bit HDCDs and it is almost impossible to recognize them, in many cases you have to look for them by the bar codes of the disc manufacturer, it is a disaster, that's why I love it. Greetings.@@anadialog
Same for me, I buy used/old ones from my local record store for $5 each. They sound exactly the same as brand new.
@anadialog You probably don't remember back in the 80's on the CD boxes & cases they notated [DDD], [ADD], or [AAD]. Lemme know if you know what these mean! (I know! 😉👍🏻)
Sade -Love Deluxe. 1992 I think. I heard this and I thought I was there. The best sounding CD I ever heard.
I think that's the only Sade album I don't have on CD. They were fantastic live during the Soldier Of Love Tour esp Adu's vocal performance. I will seek out a copy 👍🙂
I recently picked up an original CD pressing of Love Deluxe to complete my Sade collection. I'm amazed how damn good it sounds! I have the first three album on vinyl and they sound great as most people know, but I was very impressed how good Love Deluxe sounds on CD. I guess it dropped right before the loudness wars started.
Sade's LPs sound nice, I was really surprised how good they sound comparing to CD version.
Sade..I have the Japanese Imports of her back catalog...very fine audio production all.
As good as Pearl Jam's "Ten" first pressing
I own two discs The Alan Parsons Project’s Tales of Mystery and Imagination AP, and Sting’s Nothing Like The Sun. Sting’s album sounds amazing, even I own the DVD DTS Audio of the same album and the Gold Edition sounds way better and has a pristine audio with a greater sound quality than the DTS. I’ve bought these albums more than 20 years from today and the audio still shines. Thanks for the video, love it!
The gold disc were not worth it when they released at the end of the 80's beginning of the 90's in fact they did not sell well then because the price was to high and they did not last longer the a well cared for cd. I was a Dj for 30 years and I have owned them all from 8mm to Vinyl, Cassette and Cd's as well as external hard drives
Would be interesting to hear how those gold CDs match up to the MFSL SACD's
Well, I did a confront with a cassette against the SACD of I Robot. Here are the results: th-cam.com/video/xtIdGDk4g0M/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ygriDQdT0PzYG5tK
@@anadialogthanks I watched that some time ago. Some cassettes are phenomenal others should be burned. When I posted I was recalling a comment of Paul McGowan of PS audio. If my memory is correct Paul mentioned the cd layer on a hybrid SACD is often of higher quality than a standard CD. It prompted me to question this way: is the MFSL 24Kt gold CDs equivalent(sound quality) to the MFSL SACDs ( which can be found cheaper)
@@anadialog i couldn´t make that test, i only bought 6 or 7 pre-recorded cassettes in all my life(normally when i was in vacations and wanted to hear something released, they were expensive and sounded great but sometimes they at the end of some years would start to shed and was better to buy the vinyl version with the same amout,if not having a turntable ask a friend to record it into a reel ,later into a cassette like i did to so many friends that later when working could buy a complete system,some that had some money would hear myusic on a reel deck with amplification and speakers but have the album in question and have a lot of reels that say original master tape ,they do sound good but far from being a master tape with a reel for home use ,the tape section was a "BIT" smaller ,i think this was already a very well done recording and well produced ,the, problem is the price of a weak equipment today that will cost at leat 2500 to 3000 €´s, at the time with what today is 20€ one could buy much better, some families lived with what today is 100€ this a midle class family, so a hi-fi system woulçd be expensive anyway at the time, i only had the luck to be born on a family that had agriculture as the main source of income and also my older family were already into Muisc and hi-fi
@@MrAustrokiwiRecycle your plastics please.
@@draregniknot6542Huh? sorry too cryptic for me... all my Sacds were purchased second hand.
I still have all my old Ultradiscs from back in the day. I bought them all right when they came out so fortunately I didn't pay an arm and a leg for them. For me The Wall has always been one of my favorites. The mastering and mixing sounds so much better than the original cd. It's still my favorite release of The Wall, and the best Ultradisc I own. Other ones the differences sounded marginal to me, but The Wall I could definitely hear the difference in.
Ive said this for years about CDs. They are incredibly underrated (assuming they are mastered properly). We are still in the golden of cd when you can buy used discs for pennies. Ive bought Cds for as little as £2 and they have been in perfect condition. Even MFSL discs a few years ago were only £10. Now they are a fortune.
Agreed. Thanks to the hipster surge in vinyl sales ($30-$40 for a new record...yikes!), I'm picking up used CDs for anywhere from $1 to $5...... Originals, remasters, deluxe editions....everything.
@@greyhoundude6112 Actually, the $30-40 cost we pay today is the equivalent of the $6-8 back in the 1970s.
Old pressings are getting pricier, but hey, we're still in the good times, and you can get them for less than the cost of a pint in London. I quit smoking six years ago and decided to spend that money on CDs instead. Turns out, it was the best move I ever made.
there is so called local streaming, I have all my CDs and SACDs ripped to WAV and DSD files and I use Holo Red quality streamer connected to ladder dac via I2S and quality is insane you would have to spend lot of money on CD player to match that quality and yeah CD player is not immune to jitter also
@@BradOlsonBemidji That's a good point. I forgot about that.
The Mofi Nirvana disc was better.
Great vid! Personally, MFSL CDs are usually a hit or miss, specially their Ultradisc II releases where it has been pointed out many times how they've smile-shape Eqd a lot of albums and artificially boosted the bass like on "The Wall" MFSL CD. Some MFSL CDs I've heard which are really good and the best on CD are "Double Fantasy", "Nilsson Schmilsson", or the hybrid SACD for "Surrealistic Pillow". But, I recommend doing some research before purchasing MFSL CDs, and if that albums has a DCC or Audio Fidelity reissue, I'd go for those instead
Definitely. If there is a DCC, it will be the best choice on CD.
You made me glad I haven’t got rid of my original 1st generation CD’s!
I wish I had not replaced so many of mine.
Indeed! We talked about this more in depth here: th-cam.com/video/x5MlbvTJZog/w-d-xo.htmlsi=jN6wrPR_DJ1Bobz2
@@anadialog The best digital version of DSOTM (or at least the most true to the original pressing) is the Black Triangle Toshiba CD from 1983. It’s a flat transfer or close to it. The DR database is exactly the same as the 1973 vinyl. The CD has pre-emphasis though so if you rip them you’ll need to de-emphasis the tracks. Careful buying it online because there are a lot of counterfeits. There’s also a Wish You Were Here & Abbey Road Black Triangle Toshiba which are as well too. Those too go for a lot and there’s a ton of counterfeit ones online. So if you buy them do your research beforehand!
The sound you hear from speakers from CD is analogue due to DAC, this should be highlighted a lot more. Quality of DAC is key to CD sounds along with mastering and mixing. Format type is seriously overrated , look at the mastering and mixing more.
I have a few of those gold CD's. Maybe I'm just getting older, but I can't really tell the difference between them and normal CD's.
Speaking as someone who started buying CDs in 1989 and bought his first Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab CD at about 1990, here are a few points:
I think that history has to be recognized here. MFSL was in the audiophile game for LPs and tapes as far back as the 1970's, and got into CDs relatively early -- before the 'major' labels really made the jump -- at least so far as I understand. The original MFSL approach to CDs was two-pronged:
1. To release significant albums on CD that had not yet been properly released by other labels across many genres (the MFSL aluminum Original Master Recordings), and
2. To release the CD equivalent of their half speed mastered LPs for popular recordings with perceived audiophile appeal (the MFSL Ultradisc recordings).
To this end, both of these sets of recordings had the following goals:
1. Leverage their existing expertise and mastering toolchain to create albums sourced from proper masters (except when they screwed it up),
2. Come with complete artwork and liner notes (where possible),
3. Use as little compression as possible to preserve dynamics and avoid distortion (except when they didn't),
4. Sometimes include additional liner notes or important commentary from the the original creators of the recordings (the essay by Tom Dowd on the Layla Ultradisc comes to mind.)
The Ultradisc recordings had the added benefit of supposedly superior surface material (24k Gold) much as their later LPs used a superior mix of vinyl (that was eventually adopted to manufacture some quad LPs).
it is important to remember that in the early and mid-1980's goals 1-4 were often not true. The selection of tapes to use as sources were inconsistent, and some were poorly mastered. The packaging that CDs included was incomplete -- being whatever art they had on hand. I can recall getting CDs that only had poor reproductions of the front and back artwork from the album jackets, and utterly missing anything that might be included on the gatefold of vinyl LPs. I can recall getting an early copy of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue that lacked the original cover art entirely. My original major label copy of the Band's "Rock Of Ages" did not include all the tracks on the LP double album to fit into the running time of a single CD. The goal was to get out titles and fill the market, not necessarily produce proper recordings. In the packaging especially, early CDs were a little closer to cassette tapes than they were to vinyl. So, the fact that MFSL was giving vinyl-level attention to the medium was important at that time.
The blanket statement "the old, original CDs are better and cheaper" needs to be more carefully qualified. That became more true as the 1980's turned into the 1990s. The market matured and major bands and the labels began to see the value of better reissues. That helped them catch up.
To illustrate this point: you compare the MFSL Ultradisc to the 1993 release of DSOTM. That's a band supervised remaster of the album. Go back further to the 1984 CD release. I originally had that one from Capitol/EMI in the US. When I got the MFSL Ultradisc, I did a head to head comparison on very modest equipment in 1992 or so. I remarked in e-mail to friends at that time that the differences were noticeable. How those two compare in the dynamic range metrics you seem to prefer, I do not know... because I don't know if anyone was thinking in those terms back then.
Your point that there are more modern releases of the same recordings on CD that are substantially better than MFSL releases from those days is well taken, and is very likely true. I agree that there is often far better value for money to be found in the market place. Like so much of the vinyl produced today, MFSL 24k Gold CDs are a collectors market and are now priced accordingly.
That said, MFSL releases were often unique. I have the MFSL OMR release of Steve Winwood's solo album after his time in Traffic. That was the only CD release of that album at that time. I have the MFSL 24k Gold release of Jethro Tull's Living In The Past, which included all the tracks available on both the European and US LP releases. Those weren't available in one package until significantly later, I believe. I also have a copy of Taj Mahal's "Happy Just To Be Like I Am" which features the songs as they appear on the original master tape, not the order imposed to meet the dynamic needs of LP playback.
Finally, when you consider the OMR recordings, MFSL did include more than pop, rock, and contemporary albums. I've scanned a few pages of the 1991 MFSL catalog that I kept all these years. In it, you can see that the full label offerings included a range of genres, including jazz, classical, spoken word, and comedy. They are located on my music Instagram account here:
instagram.com/p/C4J9jaRLmgZ
One problem is they sometimes didn’t have the original master, sometimes it was a second gen. A lot of labels wouldn’t let the masters out of their possession.
@@LanceFKarp Yes, point taken.
I said 'screwed up' because there are cases (like the MFSL Beatles LP boxed sets) they got EMI original masters for some albums, but then got modified 2nd gen Capitol masters for others. It was evidently uneven and not well disclosed, even though they were supposed to be trying to get the originals.
I recall the MFSL catalogs used to point out at length that they tracked down the original Who album masters by going finally going to Pete Townsend because even their British label had 2nd gen masters.
I have an SACD player and a few SACD’s. In all honesty, I just cannot tell the difference between an SACD and a good recording of a “Red Book” CD. Even with a very high bit rate MP3, I can’t really tell the difference. If there are differences, they are so imperceptible that the huge amount of extra money for the “superior” disc is simply not worth it to me. Maybe I’m just the odd man out.
If I had my druthers, I’d prefer to have the “superior” discs………..just because. I can’t help but wonder if SACD’s, MOFI Gold discs, etc. were created just to take more money out of people’s wallets, even though the differences in audio are negligible at best.
Great video. Thanks
Your hearing is not good if you cannot tell the difference
@@Yoni1200 Unless you are a producer and you need to analyse music, who really cares? If you spend your time not actually listening to the music and nitpicking everything about it, you entirely miss the point of music. Just enjoy it.
its in the master isn't it? you could put that mfsl master on any cheap cd and it'll sound exactly the same. its digital. if the data is there it doesn't matter.@@Yoni1200
I will say this again and again
MASTERING. IS. KEY!
No matter the format, the price, the bit rate, or anything else, the mastering is where the magic happens. And these discs show it. In spite of all they have going for them, they all eventually boil down to the mastering
in my opinion mastering is the destruction of the original sound when released . In compact disc , to use more simple words ,a home equaliser still works very good with analog sources but the cd sound one can´t notice the changes imediatelly ,one has to wait till the next time one plays the cd to notice changes in it´s sound by using a equalizer, mostly in rock bands from blues rock till modern hard rock, the main problem having already recording more than a 100 albums from emerging bands it´s the still very used, amplifier distortion with know guitar models six string or bass as in 50´s to very early 70´s guitar models as the amplifiers, even in the most sold records from famous bands they still record their albums in analog only the cd is digital in the process but one already uses some digital and very handy tools even when saying the record was totally recorded in a analog studio, the first time i notice was in LP´s from the 50´s, 60´s, 70´s converted to cd in the 80´s ,90´s till today the track levels aren´t as it was supposed to be and vibration of the chords in guitars are cut down when converted to digital, but in reality the change is noticeable in all other captured sound no matter the number of tracks used in a recording, refering to each sound captured by microphones or directely conected to the main mixing board and sent to the analog recorder, reels but professional ones not like the section of tape used at home, were already transfered to be released after the producer work, as an example i had since early 70´s a radio show at weekends of two hours a day and received directelly from the main alternative labels compilations of the bands from each label ,singles or even albums i remenber when from Sub-Pop still nirvabnna released the in bloom single ,i found it very enjoyable ,but some years after when releasing their first LP from Geffen records by almost a year diference ,in the begining of 1991 the Nirvana song "smells like teenspirit " was released in maxi-single and cd single with extra live songs from other recording as their first Sub-Pop album , it sounded very good to me but in later that year the album was first released and i listened to the cd ,fastly i was tired of the songs and used to say to everyone that i had a very good sounding version of In bloom ,they were already in tour since early 91 with Sonic Youth and bands that were coming from the U.S. to in summer festivals play before Sonic-Youth when touring the LP "Goo", one can see it on the home tape video released by sonic-youth with the title, "The year that punk broke" and only in 2017 for the first time i heard the record version or vinyl as all call it today and the sound was incredible good this after hearing a 20 years or more release of the nevermind album with extra songs and between them was my favorite recording of In bloom but when playing the cd i didn´t notice the main diference from Geffen to Sub-pop , but has i played the record already from Geffen i said to myself ,What a sound,and there the in bloom version was also good, so the only problem i notice was the cd version sounding not that good but the vinyl version sounding as a new recording of all songs,and for the first time i enjoyed hearing the Nevermind album from Nirvanna, i think it´s simple to understand
@@RUfromthe40stell me you have no idea what you’re talking about, without telling me you have no idea what you’re talking about.
@@AUXdrone you´re that generation who think´s the truth is what you think about not real matters as this publications that are made only to steal from the people , and maybe buy a decent cd player or turntable ,well ,a complete new sound system because it seems that you don´t know what music is about ,gold edition?well...i rest my case
@@RUfromthe40s as you said, “mastering is the destruction of the original sound when released.” Which clearly means that you do not understand the recording and production process, technology, techniques, anything. You’ll pontificate endlessly to appear as an sme when you’re a know nothing. You have no understanding of who you even talk to and feign superiority for some sad need of approval. You’re as transparent as the glass house you live in. Project more. Cope harder.
That is unfortunate that i “don’t know what music is about,” considering that i worked as an audio engineer. Lol 🤡
@@RUfromthe40s you’re an easy read, pal. Cope harder. Maybe somebody will buy it.
CDs is more hifi than streaming junk
Very interesting video I've been experimenting with CDs for so long I can't even remember sometimes you upgrade for the remastered version but I've never ever came across a remastered version that sounded better in fact worse than the original example (legend by Bob Marley and the remastered one complete rubbish) the funny thing is that i listen to this on a GGMM E2 MINI SPEAKER CLOSE 12 inchs away via bluetooth could have streamed via wi fi Im 64 and I can still differentiate between the tracks like this chap says.
Many moons ago there used to be a green Marker you could buy to draw a round the CD outer and inner edge a lot cheaper
I don't know if there is a TH-cam video demonstrating this.
This video got me buzzing again so I listen to crime of the century album Supertramp on TH-cam music not as good as the gentlemans tracks but it didn't cost me anything.😂
I refuse to listen to the low DR and the compression in the modern (after '94) CDs, so I have only the original vinyls or, when necessary, the original CD. Regarding the MFSL, I have about 12 of the original older CDs, which all sound good, but I prefer the original vinyl records when possible. Discogs and eBay have been my friends, for obtaining original CDs. Continua cosi.
@19:34 - something about the CD version @19:00 of The Wall was clearer - more pronounced bass but not louder , clearer rhythm guitar - ect.
I wish you had a soft cloth on top of that turntable lid to lay those cd's on ..... everytime you laid one on top, I screamed out "Noooo"
It's a custom made, standard quality top that serves the channel and to keep dust away. Not interested in having it shiny new ;-)
I own some MFSL CDs, such as "Dark Side Of The Moon," "The Wall," "The Unforgettable Fire," and "Blue Oyster Cult." I think that the gold layer is crucial for preventing disc rot, but there's no sonic advantage to it. Overall, their mastering is a bit lackluster; most of them abruptly cut off at the frequency range of 20kHz. The sound is kind of dull, lacking vibrancy. Although there's no clipping, the overall master sounds too soft and low to my ears. On the bright side, their SACDs sound excellent, showcasing an extended frequency range.
I read the same. These are designed for archival quality and improved readability. That alone is worth something.
First I want to thank you for putting the effort and hard work into this video. It takes more time and effort than folks realize. So thank you!
Im very analytical so please pardon me if some of this seems critical, it is not meant in tone to be. We all love music and that is why we care:)
Strictly speaking cds here though my main listening is vinyl. I just dont think its fair most of the time to even place the best vinyl versions in the conversation concerning these titles.
My “audiophile” journey began with MFSL gold cds. In the days of CD yor there use to be a place called “Tracks” which had rows and rows of cds. All those long boxes standing up proudly, ahh yes, those were the days. Or not. At 18-22$ a pop it wasnt exactly CD Warehouse prices that came later.
Anyway, I went into Tracks one day to browse and ran across this odd looking item in this big longbox. Pink Floyd “The Wall” The banner said “Original Master Recording”. Except it was priced at $49.95! I passed. But got curious a few months later and started looking up what this Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab was all about. Later I went back to Tracks and it was still there. This time reduced to $39.95. I thought “Eh what the heck. Ill bite” and bought it. I think I had coupon also. A steal now right? And I still have the longbox and set.
And thus my audiophile journey began..
I went on to collect (because I was initially a collector, not concerned necessarily with sound quality) all of the MFSL gold and silver cds.
Conclusion after being more aware of sound quality and comparing many other versions such as originals, japanese, targets, west germans etc etc?
My conclusion is it is a case by case basis.
Some are very cool to have, such as the Elton John MFSL’s because they are basically flat transfers. Meaning I can adjust eq to my liking. Others are not so good.
The Wall I would consider as ok for what it is, but a bit boosted on the bass and treble. For me, your original sounded more open as far as clarity of instruments. If you look closely at the peaks and vallies of the waveforms you provide, it is also visually evident that this is true.
Which brings up another point. A point of contention I admit…
The DR thing. DR is not a make it or break it reading. It is in fact only one aspect of sound. You mention a DR of 10 is not that good on the MFSL DSOTM. I would question that conclusion. And I think later on with the Supertramp title this is proven. A DR 10 is fine. What affects the sound more so is eq. And that is the issue I have with the DSOTM MFSL gold cd. The eq is odd. Kind of has this breathy quality to it compared to the best cd versions. I would pick the jpn Harvest blackface over it any day of the week. But not because the DR is 10 on the MFSL version. Of course if a DR is 4-5 or something ridiculous then it becomes a more overriding factor. But 8,9, 10 DRs? That is not an issue. For example, I think the Stones Hackney Diamonds is a silly 5 average. Which one can totally hear. But even more so is the eq sucking eggs on that album. A pity that the Stones arguably best album in decades is clamped down with compression and poor eq.
Blue Train..MFSL vs the older original..
You can hear a difference in a DR of 12 and 13? Hmm ok. I think again, what you are hearing is more an eq difference, better convertors for the time and more care placed into the transfer.
Coltranes tone is definitely more accurate, the cymbals shimmer properly and the overall openess is there with the MFSL as compared to the older cd. But I do not think that a DR of plus 1 is making that kind of a difference as much as other factors.
Nirvana..
Im actually surprised by the MFSL. I have a bit of a beat up MFSL gold cd that a friend gave me when he went to streaming (how lucky there right?) and my train of thought was the MFSL was not highly regarded. Im not even sure I listened to it but maybe once? Hey it still plays so I am not complaining in condition when it was free!
Listening to the samples, surprisingly, I have to say the MFSL sounds better to me than the original.
Why?
Listen to the guitar, cymbals and vocals. All three are much more open sounding on the MFSL. On the guitar you can here the picks engagement along with layers of tonality. The cymbals actually sound like cymbals not a compressed “tss tss tss” and again with Kurts vocals they have more body and sound characteristically like Kurt more. The only negative I can say is there is a bit of a more “airy” quality to the MFSL which is edging into the mastering. But not distracting. And not sure why you hear the vocals as louder in the original. I think perhaps Kurt’s vocal is not lower in the MFSL but it is due to the MFSL having more presence in the instrumentation. Again, listen to the cymbals. Tell me which sound more open and natural? MFSL 100%. The orginal is a bit heavy on the bottom end.
You mention MFSL was done in 1991. Well, that makes sense. Those tapes were super fresh at that time. Thus also contributing to the great sound. Surprisingly, gotta go with the MFSL gold on that one.
As far as the peaks, I don’t see anything missing on the MFSL. The original has some topped off dynamics though. But again very marginal. Either way DR 11 is anything but “squished”.
My guess is that on the MFSL gold cd Nevermind we are hearing much more of what was on the tapes. Just wish that bit of house sound “air” was gone. But again, the trade off is worth it. “Is the price worth the MFSL?” is a question one has to ask themselves. I know which Ill be listening to however.
Supertramp “Crime Of The Century”…
Now here is where dynamics is playing a bigger part, no doubt. However, as you say, the DSOTM has a DR of 10 also, yet is not ear fatiguing..Do DR numbers play as big a part as we think?..you have to listen. Listening is the biggest part. Then confirm with soundwaves and technical visual info to make sure bias is not jumping in there.
But yeah, the 2002 yuck.
The MFSL gold cd on the COTC is obviously the winner as far as breathing room goes. But also remember that hiss is going to be louder as one turns it up also. Think of it as the equivalent of noise floor of a low volume mastered lp. Though the MFSL gold cd really doesnt get compromised with hiss in this way.
Again, listen to the keyboard. The main instrument. Nearly takes ones ears off with bright eq on the 2002 and not much better on the older version either. When the horns come in the MFSL gold has a broader sense of soundstage also. The band is right there in front of you.
This Supertramp COTC is one of the stars of the old MFSL.
Man, now if we could only get a definitive AP UHQR of THIS title wouldnt that be special?
Don’t overlook MFSL silver cd series…
I humbly recommend the silver cds. Procal Harum-A Salty Dog, Al Stewart Time Passages, Spirit 12 Dreams, I Robot, Youngbloods Elephant Mountain, Sonny Rollins-Way Out West, Joe Walsh-Barnstorm, Dillard and Clark - The Fantastic Expedition of/Through the Morning. All fantastic, even tempered, even mastered versions. And ones that are mastered in a more flat manner.
It is only as good as what goes in…
In the end, what the recording is, is what it is. If the fidelity is marginal at best then do not expect MFSL or anyone else to create a great sounding recording from lesser fidelity. Mastering can only do so much.
A couple of humble suggestions for future videos of this nature…
Always volume match when doing comparisons. Especially in the hi-rez downloads. Otherwise there will be a built in bias. “People choose the loudest” as best phenomena. The idea to judge these with downloads that are not volume matched I dont really get. That is the entire thing with the lower volume old MFSL gold cds. Many of them sound better as you turn them up. Volume matching with the loudest reveals the strength or exposes the weakness. So I disagree with the idea of not volume matching to make the judgement. This should be done across the board.
And…
Please with the graphs, can you make the order the same as the samples? It gets a bit confusing.
Sounds like picky/gripes but I really do appreciate what you have done here and my opinions are just that..opinions. The video is very good and beneficial.
Thanks again for your hard work! It is appreciated 👍🏻👍🏻
Thanks for your detailed comment, from which I understand that you are new to channel. I always match the perceived loudness BUT in this case they were very similar and in fact I did that only for Supertramp because they were so different BUT again as I wrote in the video when you do that you immediately kill the differences that make a version much better than the other. That is why in this case I have choose to put the original recordings for download. You are always in time to match on your own, not the opposite. Of course DR is only one element of the equation, the mastering in general, which includes the eq, is what counts. But we have said this ad nauseam on this channel. In fact I did not hear a differenze on Blue Train for the DR but for the mastering. For the rest it is clearly up to taste. The Nirvana sound wave does clearly and objectively show compression and limiting, and in fact DR11 isn’t anything special just as DSOTM. Clearly compared to modern standards it’s huge!
@@anadialogUse your ears, and try to not believe at 100% to DR numbers because can mislead. Fake peaks make believe there are dynamics.
Thank you for another great video on CD's. As always, I agree with you. The format is not the limit, the master is. I confess I have many gold CD's: MSFL, DCC, Audio Fidelity, and Sony Mastersound (their anniversary series from 1993). 🎶❤️💿
the master no one as access to it either than the people who worked on it ,everybody has to listen what is available to them, i have a lot of sources , it´s easier to say the formats i don´t have like the 8-track cartridge ,elcaset, dcc , others i have them all, and i think that those editions like the gold cds you refer don´t improve nothing of the sound quality in a regular cd, the only real limitation is our system at home, and seek what format will sound better with what we already have, i have thousands of cd´s and very good cd players but what amazes me always is hearing the vinil version on one of my old turntables, it seems to sound live, this one can use a early 70´s pioneer PL-12 with original cartridge ,normally the PC-11 with PN-11 stylus, it sounds better than any new turntable around 1.000€ and better built and being 52 or earlier years of use can sound a lot better than modern turntables, well only perfect not better or a bit diferent ,the word to use is perfect, if working properly it might look destroyd but if working correctelly most of them do, it´s a reliable source of sound , the cd as it is recorded perverts all the studio work so sound as ...anyone people think it should be listened by that person standarts who they most of the cases never knew or know what the person considers good sound ,because cd played in direct if in a regular system that people can afford would sound low-fi and horrible, that´s my point of view
I agree that MFSL is not that special or worth the hype. I never feel the need to buy those. While with analogue productions for example I do feel that need.
Thank you for the video. I have the same “Supertramp” CD by MFSL, made in Japan. The sound of this CD is simply fantastic. I also have the “Supertramp - Breakfast in America” CD by MFSL, and in my opinion, it also has a very good sound. In general, I prefer CDs from MFSL. In addition to dynamics, these discs have much less dirt at high frequencies than on original CDs, possibly this is related to more quality equipment and a more careful approach to digitization. But, of course, not all MFSL compact discs are as good as we would all like.
you should have heard the record when released ,already had a very interesting and good sounding production, so i don´t get what can be improved only changed which is bad ,like the cds editions i´ve heard not only from this album but other 3 that intrerest me ,being my favorite and only album that i hear after all this years the crime of the century a 76 LP (not sure) it still sounds perfect, it´s cd editions were a noticeable decrease of several characteristics of it´s original sound, some think it´s a improved sound but the reverse is the reality, some might never had heard any supertramp album as it was released and played in a low price but correctelly playing the released lp and because in the 70´s most of the known brands in their regular series have more powerfull or less with more or less inputs , but the sound quality is common to all devices sold integrated amplifiers or stereo receivers, this if working correctely doesn´t need to be restored but normally cleaned inside out depending in it´s condition, i can give an example of a receiver that for some reason it seemed no one liked it much but it´s the same sound as the called now blue series of 79 pioneer catalog, i´m refering to the SX-700L a good sounding receiver that i only bought one on ebay in 2016 because either than looking like new it was asked at the time 70€ including transport, it was sold at the time with a ct-200 cassette deck ,a PL-400 turntable with AT cartridge and a pair of speakers that had a bigb woofer but the box wasn´t deep but if well installed in a room can deliver a nice sound, in the same brochure was available the SX-408(looks incredible good as it sounds)with a PL-514X turntable and a pair of speakers ,two ways at 4 ohms ,it was a cheaper option also doesn´t came with a cassette deck, but i would like to refer that the CT-200 was a good recording deck as today my maxell cassettes type I recorded in a friends system like i described sound perfect in a more recent deck at the time i was using my fathers CT-F1250 and as option had also the CT-F1000 who in my opinion are still very good decks today if regular maintenance is done and Nakamichi could only dream to get near the play/record quality of any of these two pioneer decks who are flat recorders, so the coloured sound as some refer aren´t a real thing in this two decks or any other high-end decks from this brand ,i consider either than other brands very good decks the CT-93 from the 90´s one of the best ever released decks but it´s only one more there are lot´s of them with high quality of sound but nakamichi wish as well engeniered decks that i like to use to record cassettes but can´t say they are the best ,well more like far from it, i drifted from the main subject but it was related to what i´ve said in the first part of the coment
I find there are a bunch of these discs that are better than the original and bunch that are worse. Its 50/50 really. I find the new MoFi SACD's generally superior. That being said certain albums the old MoFi's are the best digital versions.
I wanted to comment on the new MoFi releases. Here is my surprising conclusion of a SACD vs a Cassette: th-cam.com/video/xtIdGDk4g0M/w-d-xo.htmlsi=UGlMv5U0Ws3V7Ec7
The Manhattan Transfer - "Extensions" MFSL Ultradisc II 24k gold CD 📀
I have the Older/Upper CD version of George Michael. The entire CD is gold coloured, not sure if gold plated, but I bought it in 2001 and the colour hasn't faded. The sound quality though is brilliant.
well, hello!!! the gold tint don't do any difference in sound, only preserve the CD more years. Don't be fooled for the material of a CD.
I've had a few gold coloured CD's. I can't recall exactly which ones off the top of my head, and I'm not going to go through every CD just to look, but I recently ripped every CD I own to HD, and only about 5 failed out of hundreds (took forever, and thank goodness for EAC's database!). None of the gold coloured discs failed. But I really doubt they were the same thing featured in this video, as they were like from the 90's and not expensive.
The production values on that CD are amazing!
I don't know about the dynamics range with gold... But your selection of titles for this comparison video, that's an hell of selection you got, loved it !!! See ya, blue skies 🤙🏻🍀🎶
The first wall recording had more pronounced bass
Crime Of The Century il mio album da isola deserta, lo adoro. Concordo in pieno con la tua opinione. Saluti dalla Sicilia.-
I'm Sorry but Track One (Ultradisc 1)of Money had much better track separation.. crisper and cleaner sound..A tiny bit louder
I played a couple of Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab CDs in my life. There is an excellent Beach Boys MFSL CD „Surfin' USA / Surfer Girl“ from the 80s that’s fantastic. Another MFSL CD I like is the Bob Marley Catch A Fire CD. It’s very very good and sounds very similar to the MFSL Vinyl from the same year. I also use a high quality very recent Technics SACD Player. Other MFSL CDs that I thought werent that special were the Nirvana or Jean Michel Jarre CDs. they are OK. in general some CDs are worth the money but many are not.
Wasn't Neil Young behind this format too?
I was lucky enough to get ahold of the Dark Side of the Moon MFSL CD at a record store in Hawaii for about $15. It sounds nice, but it's not as close as the early Harvest black-faced/Toshiba-EMI black triangle editions.
There are not many record stores in Hawaii. Which record store were you referring to?
Yes! I had the same. Got it right when it came out. Quality was far superior to regular cd. Especially in the bass) sub bass region. My neighbors didn't care for me so much when I cranked that one up! 🤣👍
Black triangle is the best
I was lucky enough to get my hands on the Harvest label Japan pressing at a CD show in 1984 in Pitsburgh. The sound is phenomenal. There's a video on TH-cam where every version on CD was compared and the Harvest pressing was tops.
When I got the gold disc of Roger waters - amused to death, I handed it to my girlfriend immediately, I turned around put on headphones and had her play random tracks from both versions to so if I could pick it out, and I could at least with that disc
MFSL Gold discs are absolutely worth it. Some of my best discs (fidelity wise) are MoFi’s. They’re incredible.
Listening thru Sundara headphones, the original version of The Wall is clearer but almost at the cost of too much "crispiness". Mo-Fi's version sounds muddy in comparison. I have both but never A-B'd them before.
The newer Blue Train was a bit more laid back (in a good way) and didn't cause my ears to cringe. The original was a bit harsh.
Nevermind from MoFi sounds better.
Finally, there must be something wrong with my ears because the second Supertramp file (MoFi?) was my least favorite. I have both the original vinyl and CD but I guess I'll pass on the MoFi version.
it's like the sound of the violin. It's not that nice to hear live. it's really harsh. a good sound engineer makes it softer. This is why many people like listening to a chamber concert more with old vinyl and for example the Grado than with a CD and more precise headphones.
Yes, yes and yes, really good review. I have always advocated to buy the original cd release if you can find them, I try the used or thrift shops where you can pick them up for a few euros. I generally agree with you that the new release or remastered versions are in most cases not as good and have to press the stop button within the 1st minute of playing. These so-called high end cd releases can stay in the wharehouses with lables on them displaying not fit for auditory perception.
I thought track 1 on Nevermind sounded best and guessed mofi but no, it was the original.
Original sounded fantastic.
I was never a mobile fidelity fan. Not for their vinyls and not for their CDs. Just a rip off as far as I’m concerned even though they do sound different to me anyway
How different, Cheaper?
Do you have a comparison video on MoFi's SACD jazz releases relative to the original redbook versions? If so, please send the link.
Not really but something similar: th-cam.com/video/xtIdGDk4g0M/w-d-xo.htmlsi=qknXBeU0ytpVhPxX
For the nirvana comparison, the original had a much higher noise-floor, but overall it did sound better.
Interestingly, the MFSL aluminum CD series of releases sound great to me. Since there aren't any releases in both the aluminum format and the gold format of the exact same album, it is nearly impossible to do a head to head comparison. I do, however, own the MFCD (Aluminum version) and the hybrid SACD version of The Grateful Dead album From The Mars Hotel. The MFCD version was released in 1985 and the hybrid SACD in 2019. To my ears, the old aluminum MFSL cd sounds much better than the SACD version. I have never seen any measurements comparing the two but would love to. Great video Guido!
If you're going to spend that much cash, get SACDs or Blu-rays versions if avail. This format is only marginally different from regular CDs.
church bells. another brick in the wall cd1 sounds softer , more closer to the org. master. cd2 sounds higher from top to bottom, not wider.
One of the best sounding MFSL CDs. Rare, pricey but worth it: U2 - The Joshua Tree ! Off topic : two GREAT sounding Audio Fidelity CDs (SACD) : 1) Rage Against The Machine - Rage Against The Machine - 2) Vangelis - Blade Runner. The sound of both is "out of this world" !
Very good video ! Bravo !! ( Ps : maybe a video about DCC (Steve Hoffman) CD's) ? I think they are better than MFSL 😁
Not better, but they sound different. I've noticed AF has more bass/low end
@@pfcompany885 these DCC CDs are absolutely stunning : The doors S/T and LA Woman; Eagles Hotel California; Nat King Cole Greatest Hits; "Elvis 24 Karat Hits!"; Joni Mitchell Blue; Sonny Rollins Saxophone Colossus ....
Yes RATM unbelievable
Recording of master tape:
Master tape (Vinyl) or master tape pre-vinyl no EQ no compression?
It is the question
Sounds expensive... must be worth it.
if the price of cd is not at least 1000 euro I will not buy it 🤣
That is the logic unfortunately for which we all fall sooner or later...
Interesting video. Experiment 1: yes they sound the same fidelity wise however on my system track 2 had a noticeably wider sound stage putting it head and shoulders over the first one.
Experiment 2: identical, my preference was for the the normal CD but this is probably because it’s slightly louder.
Experiment 3: track 2 is superior, first track is amazingly thin! Neither is great, but then these are not all analog.
Experiment 4: track 2 blows track 1 away for detail.
Experiment 5: track 2 has a beautiful EQ and a much thicker sound than 1. Track 3 was good too but sounded more brick walled.
To sum up my preferences are just that, what I prefer. What is best? Nothing it’s just all subjective which is why selling anything as an “audiophile edition” is ridiculous. Music is emotional and you can’t sell a package based on that. For me 99% of the time I’d say analog is my preference and vinyl is the ultimate media…well apart from the master tape of course.
I agree with your summing up
First track sounds horrible............second is better ...............both sound digital with digitalitis and are very far from the vinyl/analog .
Digititus is a thing of the past, if your cd player is good enough. It was always the players for the most part; not the cds. Cd technogy has grown up & come of age. Michael Fremer said the Abraxas Mofi lp was absolutely the best sound he ever heard, and it turned out that it was an lp pressing from a digital copy, not the analog master tape.
@@sidesup8286I guess everyone forgot the "LOTUS" triple live Santana album? It was one of the very first direct-to-vinyl master recording.
Digital is always processing what is essential real natural sound ...........processing never makes something better than the original ............same with processing natiural food ..
Digital technology is not sound or music it is a coding decoding and storage technology.......
The best quality of digital comes only close to analog .
The mindset of this era.............better than live .....but never equal to life ...
Hmm, thanks for doing this! Seems like you're still better off getting a better cd player and older cd versions than getting these fancy ones ..
Great video! I have yet to try an MFSL cd. Usually, I prefer old AAD cds, but I think some remasters are great. The Ac/Dc-Back in black 1994 remaster is great.
The AAD original cd is more audiophile sounding, very clean and detailed, but it sounds just a little bit "small" for a hard rock album.
The 2003 remaster sounds huge, but it is very compressed and causes fatigue very fast. The 1994 version is a good middle ground.
Dire Straits-Brothers in arms, a fully digital recording and mixing of course, is also better in the 1996 remaster than the original cd, I think.
The original 80's cd was mastered in analog, then converted back to digital. Those early converters and doing it back and forth so much probably caused some loss. Sure, the dynamic range is huge, but it sounds very thin.
The 1996 version still has plenty of dynamic range and also sounds a lot fuller.
It all comes down to taste, of course 😃
MFSL: making small cover art even smaller and apply a smiley curve EQ ☹
😂
sheffield lab CDs also go for quite a bit of $$$read online that the OG Blue note CDs mastered by ron mcmaster are the closest sounding to the master tapes in the digital domain
Hmm very eye opening. I have several Ultra Disc II CDs from Rush, U2 and Pink Floyd myself. Guess everyone falls for the Gold hype. Guess it only helps to prevent CD rot better but not really help the sounds. Oh well.
One more amazing video! Thanks :)
Nice Video! Sam with DCC Cds by Steve Hoffmann?
Saturday Night Fever sounds good!
DR Numbers can fool. You can have 17 but extremely low volume and stupid treble boost.
I have an number of these as well the the original MFSL black plasticky versions from away back when they were new and (relatively) inexpensive. Crime of the Century, in both formats, has always been my go-to reference for a dynamic recording well mastered. So many good recordings are ruined in the mastering process!
Have you tried MoDi’s “Gain Series?” I recall those sounding the best.
I have, I tried one of their SACD (I, Robot) against a Cassette. Here are the results: th-cam.com/video/xtIdGDk4g0M/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ygriDQdT0PzYG5tK
Not Ultradisk: (There is one One Size Fits All too. These two have the better sound of the CDs, but also the warm sound from the LPs) Frank Zappa - Apostrophe (') - Label: Rykodisc - RCD 80519
Series: Au20
Format:
CD, Album, Limited Edition, Numbered, Reissue, Remastered, 24kt Gold Plated Disc
Country: US
Released: 1997
Genre: Jazz, Rock
Style: Fusion, Avantgarde, Prog Rock
Au20 is a select series of the "sonic bests" from the Rykodisc and Hannibal catalogues.
The Au20 trademark distinguishes audiophile editions of 20-bit digital masters, "noise shaped" from 20-bit to
16-bit, and replicated on 24k gold CDs. To insure the most accurate reproduction of the music, all analog to 20-bit digital conversion in the Au20 series is from the original analog master tapes.
Apostrophe C) Au20 Edition Number: XXXX
Technical Notes
Mastering
Transfer Engineers: David Dondorf, Spencer Chrislu • Mastering Engineer: Spencer Chrislu • Mastering Facility: The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
This Au20 CD was mastered from the original Dolby A master tapes. Playback was through a specially-enhanced Ampex ATR-102 using audio cards upgraded by John Musgrave and courtesy of The Complex recording studios. No equalization, compression, limiting or other 'enhancement" of any kind was added during the transfer.
The analog-to-digital conversion was done through a dB Technologies™ AD122 converter in the 20-bit mode, directly to the hard disk of the Sonic Solutions digital mastering workstation.
Once edited into the final form, the program was transferred through the Sony SuperBitmapping process integrated into the Sonic System. This "noise-shaping" process allows the music to be captured in 16-bits while maintaining the optimal signal-to-noise equivalent of 20-bits. This 16-btt "Super Bit Mapped" PCM 1630 master was then used in the production of the Au20 CD.
SBM™
Super Bit Mapping
In recent years, new research has led to the development of several technologies that dramatically improve digital recording. Among the most notable is the ability to record with 20-bit resolution which provides unprecedented dynamic range and clarity. But these 20-bit master recordings must still be transferred back to 16-bit in order to be used for producing Compact Discs.
During this transfer process, distortion can increase through the practice of cutting-off, or truncating the recording's four least significant bits. Or, in some cases engineers will add "white noise" (called redithering) during this stage, which impairs the music's signal-to-noise.
Super Bit Mapping (SBM) is a sophisticated psycho-acoustic-based system that redistributes transfer noise within the portion of the audio spectrum that is virtually inaudible. With SBM, audiophiles can appreciate the benefits of 20-bit sound on Compact Discs that retain full compatibility with all CD players.
(For more information on the Super Bit Mapping process, please write Sony Software, 711 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10022)
© 1996 Rykodisc
RCD 80519
Limited Numbered Edition Au20 20 Bit Master/24K Gold CD.
This is the US issue.
For the Japan issue see here: Frank Zappa - Apostrophe (')
P 1974 + 1995 Zappa Family Trust.
Printed In The USA. Manufactured In Canada.
Barcode: 0 14431 85192 6
Matrix / Runout (Mirrored): DADR 0RR32RCD80519
Mastering SID Code: IFPI L482
Mould SID Code: IFPI 8102
*****************************************************************************************
So, now you learned something you didn't know before.
The only MFSL I have is the Marc Cohn self-titled debut album and I prefer the original one. For the Wall and Nevermind in your video I also preferred the originals its what I know and love. Thanks for the video
CDs? That's simple: not worth it 😂
I'm at The Wall segment, and immediately after less than 10 seconds I notice the second disc is clearly inferior - sounds louder, compressed. Now will continue to discover which is which!
Nice. It'll go well with my outrageously expensive cables.
and cable lifters, of course 😂
My cables are Almost as expensive as my sunglasses
@@damirhlobik6488
I'm just thinking if can make lavitate, so no floor resonances would impact the flow of energy to my $5 capacitors ;)
I’ve got hundreds of the things (including the DCC, Ryko, Sony and others) because I was rather silly in my allocation of resources as a college student. Better than wasting it on beer I guess.
I just heard an interview with Nivana's producer of In Utero in which he said that the gold remaster of In Utero was done from the original analog master and cut on equipment that was once reserved for orchestras and never used on pop/rock albums. Audiophile stuff that engineers thought was too good for pop music.
I hate how it says “ORIGINAL MASTER RECORDING” twice on the cover.
If only they had just the one bar at the very top, these would be works of art.
Great review video Guido, as always. I must say that I only noticed difference on the Nirvana and Coltrane CDs, and on both, the Mofi sounded better to me. This was my first A/B test and I did it using my PC connected to a Topping D90 DAC, Topping A90 headphone amp and Audio Technica ATH-M50X headphones. Great listening experience, thank you. Cheers!
I have recently gotten into Vinyl but, I love the quality of CD's. Streaming sucks and you own none of the music.
Files for me. I downsample 192/96k to 48 or 64 depending on importance. Also, dithering of the 48k files to bring down to 20 bps. This keeps sizes at sane levels, but still (in theory, not audible) superior to redbook.
Me, an intellectual, buying overpriced deluxe editions to get the unreleased demos, concerts, etc, only to record them to casette tapes.
One thing that disappoints me in the MFSL editions is the cover size. The regular CD is already a small size cover of the albums, why do they have to make them even smaller on the MFSL editions? Why not just use that front MFSL cover as a "dust cover" for the regular CD booklet?
Totally agree about the Supertramp !!! Wish all cds sounded this good ....But true many of the gold disc's are essentially a money grab
I've got a few Bowie 24k Gold CD's apart from being F*cking expensive not sure if they are worth it - they aren't that from Mofi they are from Ryko. they are Called AU20, 20 bit mastering from about 1990/91 so that was pretty good for back then maybe.
What remains to be said with the new socalled remastered versions is, that not only are they banged up and compressed. No, if you take a closer look at the waveform, it is actually clipped all over the place. Absolutely unacceptable.
I've bought old original releases (or their clones released some years later) for about ten years now and haven't regretted it one tiny bit. They're also the best to transfer onto cassette tape if you want to do some recording.
To me, CD's are still the new digital grammophone record discs and as it turns out, what a disaster it must be spending your money on streaming services, only for that stupid convenience.
The Big Question: What masters are the streaming services actually selling access to ?
Even though they may present themselves as 192KHz/24bit, they don't really deliver anything, if the masters are these God-awful pumped up loudness remasters, now do they ?
No, of course not. Your only hope is to find the old original CD-releases and cut your connection to these services.
I can with comfort and satisfaction say, that I haven't spend one dime on these services.
Instead, yup....Spend my money buying old CD's. You should too.
Cheers all.
Supertramp!!! My favorite album!!! Finally not just boring jazz-blues to test! 😊
I recently acquired the Alan Parsons Project - Eye In The Sky MoFi SACD and it is amazing!!! They used the analog master tapes and it is sooo cool. You should give it a try!
I have Supertramp Breakfast In America on Blu Ray Pure Audio a format which sadly never became mainstream. Along with Bob Marleys greatest hits & Lionel Riches Don't Slow down. All sound like artist is in the room with you on a 2 channel system. Awaiting the new anniversary No Parlez on blu ray audio that is being remastered exclusively through Super Deluxe Editions (SDE). Also just got new album Harmony Codex Steve Wilson.
Peter Gabriel I O has been terribly compressed on CD to dymamic range of 6, The only way to buy that Blu ray is to buy it as a package with cds (about £2.50 more in UK) to get the 3rd alt surround mix which doesn't suffer that. Play it thro Blu Ray player & it will fold down to stereo attached to a 2 channel stereo amplifier. 🎶
@@andrewbrazier9664 I like i/o so much, but I have no Atmos system. Does it contain any other mix than Atmos but with higher DR as CD?
@@andrewbrazier9664 I did a video on those some time ago: th-cam.com/video/W8zfd52RtPk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=tOxIBKo6nvCxbWYO
I heard the John Mayal's Bluesbreakers album with Clapton was a terrible original transfer but the gold remaster/transfer is like a different record and reveals a lot more from the source recording. He said that the result is superior to the original.
The only two benefits of Gold plated CDs is: 1) They will last longer, since gold is chemically inert in most cases (unless you're going to put your dics collection into an acid, but why you could ever do that?), 2) Collectible value - these discs are usually printed in low quantities and rarely being reprinted. Othar than that Golden discs have no additional benefits over usual discs or even digital downloadable files.
Moreover, since Gold have much lower reflectability these discs might have reading issues in some of players. It's a normal situation, it doesn't mean that your player is bad or faulty.
Meanwhile, if you have a bitperfect copy of these Ultradiscs you can enjoy them with the same quality on any hardware player with any DAC you'd like to use. ^_^
The truth is out there... as the CD rips are.
nice watch
It’s crazy how much better the Apple music versions of these tracks sound… these two versions of Lithium sound incredibly compressed when the first kick hits and when the chorus hits. It’s like the track closes up or clamps. By comparison, it feels constrained, like being in a box, listening to the CD versions. And yes, I’ve got the TH-cam resolution set to max. I’m genuinely surprised that the difference is so stark, but then again, that streaming service offers more resolution than a cd ever could, at least on these tracks. The wall is 24b/96khz, Coltrane is hi res and Dolby if you want it (meh), nirvana is 24b/44khz.. But those are just numbers. For me, hearing is believing. Trying to tell the MFSL vs regular cd apart is hard. Comparing them with hi-res lossless streaming is as obvious as day.
Being unpatiened and commenting before finishing the video the MFSL version of the Coltrane CD was clearly better in my opinion, recognized it when I played the files on foobar after secondes so ty for making me poorer I think iI have to purchase the MFSL version. 😃 The Ultradisc I and Ii were really very close, no need to pay extra money and I preferred the MFSL version in the other cases as well with oine exception but they were closer especially the Wall.
What I have found in my 40 plus years of buying and consuming audio is that no matter the format etc the original recording matters more than anything. I can play a great recording as an MP3 and a not so great one on vinyl, cd, sacd, dvd audio, blu ray audio etc including streaming at the highest bit depths but when played on the same equipment or more expensive equipment the better original always sounds better than the format. When I compare a great original to the same on different formats the differences are tiny. I have blown stupid money chasing the audio nirvana dragon sadly. I threw away hard earned money that would not have happened had I not bought into the bs. A decent eq will be much cheaper and give you much more satisfaction than wasting money on the supposed best equipment etc. A powered subwoofer and decent speakers with a high pass set on the amp will matter way more. Do you have allergies?
And one more: the Rykodisc Gold David Bowie cds. Really anything by Ryko is good.
I was lucky to obtain a few Pink Floyd CDs (90s license releases made in Hungary) and these used the same old matrixes as 80s japaneese or US pressings. They sound fantastic.. they were sitting and collecting dust for like 20 years but now I enjoy their sound a lot! Meddle version is the most interesting, because Echoes is the first track, not the last as it is supposed to be.. other than that it is a very early AAD version.
Audio Fidelity were good quality as well.
Their SACD remasters for the first two RATM albums are the proof that a good remaster can surpass the original master with much improved dynamic range. Sad they had to close down...
Someone trash , become someone's treasure.150$ for Nivan..,I dispose one while doing moving .
I have the MoFi vinyl version of Crime of The Century. I bought it when they first released it. I always thought it was an excellent sounding album.
In the beginning, there was The Word. And The Word was (and still is)... Music...
Music is the soundtrack of Eternity.
One of the best sounding rock CDs I've ever heard is August and Everything After by Counting Crows.I own the CD and a 96/24 download. The mastering is incredibly good. So much detail, and the modern downloads possess excellent dynamic range.
Yes, listen to the first Candlebox album. Unbelievable.
I have Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, Atom Heart Mother and The Tubes • The Tubes on MFSL 24 Karat gold CDs.
I could tell the difference in the John Coltrane CD and the differences were subtle. The Mofi version had a greater sense of space and weight, a little more dynamic. But I'll stick to my well cared for vinyl, vintage turntable and tube amps. They sound a lot better than most CDs.
The best way to really test the differences between digital copies - rather than just look at the sound wave - is to phase invert one version and play them at the same time. If they cancel completely (null) then they are identical. This can also help you to hear what is exactly different. I do think there are differences between pressings, and the quality suffered a lot because of remastering as time progressed, mostly as you rightly say because the dynamic range is over compressed - early CD remasters of Bowie’s albums are almost unlistenable because of this. MFSL made some great transfers, but mostly on vinyl, though I do think the Ultradisc of the Wall is superbly done. Great video and very well put together.
Thanks, we said this in other comments, I obviously did a null test but it is impossible to do because the two recordings have different speeds due to the mastering on different tape recorders. A typical problem of reissues.
@@anadialog yes, but this at least proves its not some slop-copy of a digital master money grab, they did actually master it again. Of course, if its a good master is the question...