I'll be happy to drop my impressions of the SHM-SACD versus the new MFSL SACD when I get a chance to compare them. All I know at the moment is that I was not impressed with the MFSL. That is, it sounded pretty good, but the sound of this album (thin and brittle) in places really needs help. I wondered, as I listened, if I still prefer the original MFSL. I guess I'll have to compare everything at some point.
And you think the SHM-SACD sounds better? I prefer the original MoFi over the SHM-SACD, which I feel brings nothing to the party but a wet blanket.
1-MFSL Japan manufactured for US LP-1982 2-MFSL 2017/18- SACD 3-US 1979 'Trumpet' LP 4-US DIDX 26 Compact Disc Think it's time for lunch before I get burned out on this title
I played the Mo-Fi SACD earlier. I'll just say this, it will make all previous incarnations obsolete. It's that great!
For what its worth, really is there much more to say? A difficult to master album in the first place. Its almost a choose your poison option. You can have a bit more detail, yet lose a bit in the soundstage. Or you can have more lush yet lose a some of the highs apparently. Its a very good album, but I dont think there is ever going to be a best version.
Anyone want to throw up samples of the new mfsl, old mfsl, shm-sacd and the original cd? That makes things real at least.
It was a statement out of frustration on the recent deterioration of this thread. I think the new MoFi SACD sounds great, it has some color to it which is just what the doctor ordered and typical of the MoFi SACD’s. On the other hand the various aforementioned versions also have their merits. If I had to pick my definitive version it woukd be the SHM-SACD, but I’ll reiterate, I enjoy them all equally with each having unique sound qualities. There isn’t a bad version in the lot. Wheels on fire . . .
Like I said, I haven’t compared them yet. I listened to the SHM several weeks before the MoFi. I want to say I was less impressed with the MoFi on first listen, but I wouldn’t put much stock in that. I really need to do more of a side-by-side.
Dang it. Ive been told that twice now. These 45's have me brain washed I like 33 1/3 better. Maybe there will be some sort of improvement over the other versions.
Okay, I was able to sit down for a bit this morning and compare four different versions: 1. Original USA, A&M CD-3708 (DADC pressing) 2. First MFSL gold Ultradisc, UDCD 534 (made in Japan) 3. SHM-SACD, UIGY-15006 (Japan) 4. MFSL hybrid SACD, UDSACD 2189 I concentrated on tracks 2, 3 and 4. I listened to CD 1 (the original CD) first and it actually sounded okay to me. Once I got to the other three, though, I didn't have the heart to go back to it. For the rest, I decided (for the moment, ha) that I prefer 4 (the new MFSL). It seems very close to 2 in its EQ profile, but by comparison seems a bit more detailed and open. It might actually be slightly brighter, but it wasn't a problem for me. The SHM sounded nice, all things considered, but I found its EQ distracting. It was more bass-heavy, which gave it a murkier feel and made it harder for me to resolve instruments and detail. For example, the horns in "Breakfast In America" sounded great in 4 -- balanced in the mix and easier to resolve. With 3, they got a little lost. For me, this album's music and vocals need its upper mids, so I'll always prefer that when it's balanced (and when the ultra-crispy highs are kept in check). I am pretty sure the difference between 3 and 4 is going to come down to one's system and preferences. If I had to rank them best-to-worst based on what I just heard, I'd say 4, 2, 3, 1. If you're trying to decide between the SHM and the new MFSL, this probably doesn't help, although I do think that if you like the original MFSL you will might like the new one a bit more. It's also nice that you get a rebook later with it.
I can't speak for others here, but I personally was not looking to see a definitive review which states "this is the best ever" or "this is the worst ever". I was simply looking for some comparisons as to how it sounds relative to other releases. Brighter, Darker, Wider, narrower, less/more compressed, etc. than version X which was used as a reference. That is all I'm really looking for. But I get your point. However I still find it to be very that on this forum, where one can hardly get people to refrain from offering their opinions on so many things, that so few people are commenting about the sound of such a highly anticipated release.
Sheesh, let's try that again: I do think that if you like the original MFSL you might like the new one a bit more. It's also nice that you get a redbook layer with it.
Exactly. The SHM-SACD definitely sounds murkier and much less transparent. In a real life situation, horns and voices, non-amplified, DO NOT sound murky.