Lynyrd Skynyrd (pronounced 'lĕh-'nérd 'skin-'nérd) MFSL SACD

If it is the same mastering and the only difference is resolution, there will be no volume difference.

 

Honestly, it's good they did this. You would literally ruin the sound of the record if you cut off the highs. They did this with the Weezer disc and to me it sounds awful.

I am very glad they left this recording bright. Honestly, after A/Bing against the very acceptable remaster from 2001 I think the MFSL is just a really well done piece of work here. You can tell they spent time on it. The guitar washes and the overall soundstage are amazng. From what I could hear this is a lot more innate detail into the guitars than on the remaster. Both are worth having though.

 

I was blasting Weezer's Blue Album (MFSL) in the car on the way to work this morning and it sounded great to me. I thought back to our conversation last month.

 

Checked, all costs are without shipping, and I have had too many bad experiences on discogs as for quality. The sellers are good, but I'm tired of having to send something back. I guess I'm out 40. Besides, Amazon replaced a Beatles Mono set for me so meh I'll give them this one. Grrrrr.

 

I just want to say this is wrong in so many ways. This post is basically asking for the record to not actually sound like the record they made. This house sound business RUINS records. They did this on crap like Weezer Blue, and made the whole thing sound ridiculous.

Why in god's name would you ruin the record if you care about it. It is warm enough. But the record itself is bright, and the sound of the band is bright. Why would you ever mess with this? For what gain? To produce a sound that is relaxing to some old dude with bad hearing? Please man. Be thankful that the people working with this recording cared more about its sound than you apparently would if you mastered it.

 

If that was all there was to it, there would be no debate.

Obviously it is different quality. You are aware that CD can produce any audio quality a bluray can right?

 

LOL yeah still not a fan of it. I was a bit worried about this one as well because I know the source is bright. The guy above me wanted the same thing that was done to Weezer, and thank GOD the person doing this master had some sense to leave it alone and concentrate on the extreme details of the record.

This one really sounds fantastic people.

 

How do you know what the master tape for the Weezer Blue Album sounds like? It could be the original mastering boosted the treble and they definitely digitally compressed it.

 

I had no idea this one was SO far OOP. Amazon really is a person's best bet for a copy now. Guess I'll go grab mine to play now.
Jeez.
.

 

So you compared the MFSL to the 2001 remaster? Yeah . . .

I would agree with you 100% on that.

But that is not the disc I was even talking about. If you actually read my post, you would have had no need to respond. There was a CD of this title that came out long before 2001.

 

The MCAD - 1685 was released in 1985. Lynyrd Skynyrd - (Pronounced 'Lĕh-'nérd 'Skin-'nérd)

 

Dude, the album has existed with the same sound, which is about as close to the normal Weezer live sound as you can get, in an old master, for what nearly two decades?

The drums are nearly buried in the mix, and the wall of sound is completely gone. It's like taking Oasis and applying an audiophile mastering. I don't think it's going to work. And the original has plenty of dynamic range anyway.

What they put on that CD is what they wanted. The MFSL drastically alters that sound. This kind of evidence supports my hypothesis a lot more than what you are trying to say IMO. The MFSL house sound is really apparent on this record, and it's something I don't enjoy with Weezer.

I don't think it's positively awful or anything. Like I said it has a couple things going for it, but it simply does not sound like Weezer, and there is pumping on the bottom end because the bass is too boomy. The mix is not clean. It's rolled off significantly. Just listen to the drum hits. They might be a tad harsh in the normal version, but they are positively missing in this version lol. Sounds like some kind of weak drummer. The cymbals are there, but there is a whole tone that seems out of whack.

This is like the exact opposite problem I had with the album we talk about here. It's hard to crank an album like Weezer when all the sound elements do not gel well. I will admit the original can get a touch harsh on the high end at high volumes, but for the most part I really enjoy it more.

I leave open the idea this could sound good on other systems, but in no way does it sound better than the original. It's much too warm and rolled off for me. There are songs like The World Has Turned.... that sound completely too soft. The distortion sharpness isn't there, and my attention starts plucking apart more separation between the instruments instead of the wall of guitar sound. It's not right for this album more often than not.

It's hard to describe, but I know what I am describing. There is a reason this album has sounded the way it does for so long.

I have come to kind of like the SACD in itself for a different perspective. But every time I find myself liking it, I think of how the guitar sound is missing its crunch and authority. The World Has Turned.... might be the best example of it.

It sounds good, so I shouldn't use hyperbole that might confuse people, but the guitars are sooooooo tame in it.

So let's put it this way, both releases are kind of weird at very high volumes. The original is about perfect at mid to high volumes. The MFSL seems tame but decent at lower to mid volumes.

 

I have though taken to applying EQ to the MFSL, and now I think I am really starting to like it. But this album takes a decent amount of EQ for me to get into it.

That isn't fair to the other album IMO. But I actually might pick this up again now that I started to EQ about everything from 1.2kHz and on in foobar. Not really sure as I have a perfectly fine rip, and I really don't like Weezer all that much. But in fact this basically proves my point. I do not like this album as is.

I am needing to put as much as a full dB of EQ on various frequencies to get it where I want it. Not that I have a problem with EQ or anything. But come on the sound is drastically different.

 

Well Miles Davis master was kinda screwed for a long time because of speed issues. Just saying. How long something stays wrong doesn't prove worth. The Halloween movie colors were wrong for decades until the original cinematographer got involved and fixed it. I think far too often people assume that how they heard it, is how it was supposed to always be.

Not saying your example is wrong or right.

 

I need to ask you guys a question please. I'm new here. I stumbled on to this forum when my benefit album grew legs and walked away. So i picked up a replacement benefit CD mixed by steve Wilson. I could immediately tell the difference. Since the early 80's I have collected MFSL vinyls and various "Half Speed" brands. Now on to Skynyrd. I was under the impression that MFSL was the best recording that money can buy. Now I see MFSL is producing a one step version of various artist at $100 a pop. If it had been Skynyrd instead of Santana I might of picked it up. I have read all your post and my head is spinning about the different quality of sounds that are available. In general if I have a MFSL vinyl am I 90% there when it comes to reproduction of music? Obviously subject to your playback equipment. I can appreciate a person wanting to have the very best. First i was buying vinyl..then cds..back to vinyl. thanks and enjoy reading everyones thoughts and opinions..I really do..

 

I have considerable experience with Weezer and their sound throughout their career including live. The fact I have to go in and tune nearly every frequency above 1000Hz 1-3dB tells me this entire record is basically just rolled off into oblivion.

I wouldn't mind if they had kept some semblance of the bright Weezer sound. But they didn't at all. It sounds like they are playing with a veil over the band, especially the guitars and percussion.

Yer acting like Weezer had much to do with this release at all. They didn't. Nor did the original producer. Your ideas relating to Miles Davis are basically not even in the same context whatsoever.

You are arguing against how Weezer has sounded on every single album, the remasters, for over two decades. And to what end: to protect the MFSL reputation lol. I swear some people on these forums have a REALLY hard time accepting anything critical about expensive music from the audiophile labels.

I'd like this master if it were good. With some EQ it can sound fairly decent, but that's a problem right there. I don't pay 20-30 dollars to EQ a CD myself unless it is really good.

I have in fact zeroed in on liking the tone if I EQ everything to the point I can hear the drums and guitar washes properly.

The fact is I have to add 1-2 dB at least to some frequencies to get this to sound even remotely like it should, which is the way the band wanted their sound on BOTH the original and the remaster. While the remaster is louder, the sound is essentially the same.

MFSL didn't somehow stumble their way into the true Weezer sound lol. What a totally preposterous insinuation.

And it doesn't seem like it has anything to do with dynamic range at all. It's the EQ that is the problem with this CD. For whatever reason he rolled it off big time and gave it the MFSL "house" sound. This sound in no way fits with Weezer at all.

Not all MFSL releases do this. Not every master by the same guy does this. So I'm not sure why the Blue album was given this treatment because it does nothing for it. It makes it a boring piece of rock music. All you have to do to see this is listen to the drums mid to high range, which are almost non-existent in places. And then you start realizing the guitar tone is so low in places that Cuomo is almost speaking over it at times when he should be buried in it.

It's a nice little remaster for people that want to fall asleep to Weezer I guess, which apparently is a good portion of the people posting here.

I guarantee if you matched waveforms this thing would have the balls cut off it on the top end. It's that bad that I reach for an EQ. I rarely do that on MFSL CDs, but it isn't the first time either.

If I have to tame the top end by .3dB on the original, I have to up the entire mid to high region 1-3dB on this one. Not really a good look if you ask me.

 

I think you are adding a lot of labels on to me without digesting what I said.

You enjoy a sound that you have experienced. The point is that the experience could be wrong. That is all. I see your point though, and I tend to agree with you.

What I am not doing is agreeing or disagreeing with MFSL at all. Much like the Criterion label for blurays...yes they do screw it up from time to time.

 

And now, we return to Lynyrd Skynyrd...

 

Haha, yeah it is excellent. It is the definitive version as far as I am concerned, and I will need no other copy in my lifetime.

 

Hi Roland,

You make a good point. On some tracks, the MFSL isn't bright at all, while others sound bright. I keep going back and forth from the old, original CD to the MFSL (redbook layer.) Each time I think the MFSL might be too bright, I go back to the original CD and then miss the detail of the MFSL.

 

Is it me or does the brightess on this MFSL depend on volume? The louder it gets, the brighter it seems to sound on my stereo.

 

Hi George,
I have the MCA Japan for US version and like it. I've been on the fence about taking the plunge and buying the MFSL SACD. Based on your observations regarding the redbook layer it sounds like I should hold off and save my money. The cost of the MFSL has also escalated and is quite a bit more than the original price. I do have an SACD player so I am still not 100% sure though.

 

Everything sounds brighter as you turn up volume. Frequency perception is not linear throughout the range of amplitudes.

 

That would explain why a number of my CDs sound better as I turn them up and why they sound somewhat dull at lower volumes.

 

Perhaps. See “Fletcher-Munson curve” (and more recent variants of it) for more info.