And no, I am not messing with you. This store sells all used CDs at $6@ or 4 for $20, except for boxed sets. But even those are reasonably priced. They have the Rush Sectors boxed sets for $20 each. So, as you go though the insanely large collection of used CDs, you'll see MOFI CDs mixed in. I tend to think that a small chunk of his business is people buying CDs and then selling them back a few days later after they ripped them. But I think people buying new CDs are doing the same thing. He had 2 copies of Adelle's "25" a week after release. I just use the place to get older copies of CDs, pre loudness wars. The one thing that amazes me about the place is how many foreign pressings they have. I bought Making Movies by Dire Straits that was pressed in 1984, pre loudness wars and remasters. When I looked up the catalog number on Discogs, it was a West German release that was only released in West Germany. I did get all the Moody Blues MFSL "Classic 7" releases there for $42. Quite a steal.
I just bought a used (pristine) Mofi "Queen - A Day at the Opera" CD (my current DAC can't handle SACD bit rates) and have listened to it a couple of times now. Some of those songs I have on other Queen CDs. The non-mofi CDs are fun but edgy and harsh. The mofi disk is warm and full, but seems rather mellow - it sounds as if some of the edge in the mids has been "rounded off" and it seems like it lacks some of the excitement/energy of the non-mofi discs. My DAC has two oversampling settings. The lower rate is what I usually prefer for rock - full bass, good mids, not as "shrieky" as bypassing the DAC. The higher setting works better for classical guitar and certain other music but can be too edgy or thin on some recordings. With this mofi Queen disc, the lower oversampling setting results in a very mellow midrange for Queen and a more laid-back performance and doesn't feel as fun as the non-mofi version of these cds. The higher setting brings the performance more into the room but gets edgy in places. I have listened to these cds on other equipment and can easily pick out which version (mofi vs. non-mofi) disc I'm listening to so it can't be (entirely) the fault of my DAC or my maggies. But I also have two Santana mofi discs and they share some of the fullness/warmth that the modfi Queen disc does, but the Santana mofi discs sound fantastic! I also have the mofi CD of Marc Cohn's "Walking in Memphis" and although it is a little more mellow-sounding than the non-mofi CD, the sound is more expansive and detailed. So I guess I'm puzzled. I had worshiped at the throne of MoFi as the ultimate in recording fidelity, but my recent acquisition causes me to question the "golden" status of MoFi now. For me it is no longer a given that any MoFi cd will sound better than any non-MoFi cd.
I look at this way. MoFi has put out some great product, definitive versions in some cases. But they are human and sometimes they blow it. It happens. So you have to listen to each release and judge according to your ears. If it makes you happy, it's a keeper. No, than put it up for sale in the classifieds here. Someone will gladly take it off your hands.
I'd add Supertramp's Breakfast in America to the list. I know some laud this CD but personally I find it unlistenable. MoFi did a good job in removing the excessive brightness of the original recording but in the process all the high end detail is gone too. Overall it is a dull sounding CD. I gave up on finding a good production of this album until another member sent me a sample of the SMH SACD. Although I wouldn't say the SACD is perfect it is the best sounding version I've heard to date. The SHM CD is not too bad either, even if a bit loud and compressed.
I totally agree. I disagree with most of Dave's list, and I think it was wrong to allow him to do this in the first place. Here's why it is wrong. If Dave were to do the same with a big list of AF titles or Dunhill Compact Classics titles, the thread would probably last about 10 seconds before it was gorted, and rightly so. It is a bit unfair to the people who mastered these great MFSL CDs. Not all of them are the best out there and its a very subjective topic, , but they should be at least given a fair hearing. And I remember one guy here had Innervisions as his second favorite MFSL Gold CD until AF brought out its own version. Suddenly he reviewed that the MFSL was in fact crap after all. And these guys reviews are listened to.. I don't know anymore.
Listing a shedload of MFSL titles and saying they are not recommended? I just think its unfair to do this. Just sayin'. Try doing the same thing with a sweeping list of non MFSL discs and see how long the thread lasts.
I disagree with some of Dave's choices, agree with some and am uncertain in most cases (because I have not heard all relevant releases). But I would always defend Dave's right to post his opinions. And if you want to post your list of non-recommended AF releases, go ahead. I for example would not recommend the AF Blood, Sweat & Tears, and people know why.
Bizarre they could flub it up that bad, I would say the tone is warmer on my 1982 Japan MFSL lp, but nothing that makes it sound veiled, very dynamic Comparable to the Japan for US Aja compact disc (tone wise)
There are too many variables, but one thing some of you might consider is positioning your speakers as Cardas recommends. I believe that's what Dave was doing way back when comparing mastering work. Anyhow, if you have a nice headphone system and imaging, for example, is obviously better, then you can improve your stereo set-up (if you have the flexibility).
Breakfast In America sounds bad? mmmm no, I dont think so. Sounds pretty close to the UK lp. Maybe you guys just dont like that sound.
Hi Steve. I am sorry to ask a question about comments that you made 10 years ago, but I am trying to better understand the art of mastering, and it goes without saying that you're a legend in this department. So here goes: If the goal in mastering is simply to pull off a flat transfer, doesn't that make mastering an incredibly simple process, regardless of the source tape? In other words, if the end goal is to simply produce a flat transfer, doesn't the quality of the mastering job just come down to "who has the best transfer equipment"? If the person doing the mastering just does nothing to alter the original tape, aren't they essentially just doing nothing? Wouldn't any novice mastering engineer be able to do an unaltered flat transfer with relative ease? And if no adjustments are made in the mastering process, doesn't that just put all of the control in the hands of the recording and mixing engineers? A flat transfer is great if the recording/mixing was done flawlessly. But what if, for instance, the source recording or mix is incredibly anemic in terms of bass. Wouldn't it be of benefit to fatten up the low end in the mastering process? I've been a musician involved in some professional recording sessions, and rarely does the musician make board adjustments, and rarely does the musician make choices about mic type and mic placement. So, the source tape primarily ends up in the hands of the recording engineers and mixing engineers. If they don't do the best job (which they often don't), and a mastering engineer can improve their shortcomings, shouldn't they do so? I always thought of recording, mixing and mastering as a 3 way collaboration. 1) The studio's recording engineers make the initial call in crafting the sound through mic choice, mic placement and instrument source level adjustments. 2) Mixing engineers take that and blend/EQ/effect the tracks together, adding their input into the sound. 3) Mastering engineers take the collaboration between the recording engineers and the mixing engineers, and polish that into the 2 track finished product. What am I missing here? Set me straight. Surely there is more to mastering than just doing a simple, flat transfer?
That's right, I don't think much of the bright original LP either. Btw, IMO I don't think the MFSL CD sounds like the early UK LPs at all, all the high end is gone on the MFSL CD with a dark, bland sound. If anything, the early CD I had sounds more like the LP with the exaggerated top end. The SHM SACD or CD is the best sounding to my ears, though still not perfect by any means.
I suppose it could be true that every member here has their stereo sorted out. I doubt it though. Sadly, the topic sends many into their safe spaces.
