Night at the Opera...part deux!

I own neither the MFSL or DCC version of this title. A friend of mine owns both and prefers the MFSL. Wondered if anyone else has compared these two? Steve - what inspired you to tackle this album after mobile's attempt?

 

I prefer the DCC version. It seems more natural.

 

I have both, and like both. The Mofi is more warm, thick, lush-sounding. On some tracks this makes it preferable to the DCC, on other tracks it makes it sound too muddy...

If you lean towards being a detail freak, you will definitely prefer the DCC. Either is light years ahead of the standard issue(s).

 

I have the MFSL version and personally I hate it. It seems to have several volume changes from song to song and is really irritating. I think the DVD-A is far better (especially the multichannel mix). I have not heard the DCC though unfortunately.

 

Carl,

It's really about preference. The DCC sounds more like the standard release in that it's brighter than the MFSL, but perfect.

Let me explain further. When I first got my DCC Elton Johns GH a non-audiophile friend of mine pointed out that my MFSL GBYBR sounded improper, too soft, too laid back. When I popped in the DCC he piped up yeah! That's how it should sound, and I had to agree with him.

Does this help ya?

 

I have both CDs and prefer the DCC vinyl over both digits. How-some-ever, to choose between the CDs, I like the MFSL UDCD 568 over the DCC. Part of my reasoning is that MFSL gave a portion of its proceeds in support of AIDS research. From the UDCD:
"[MFSL], in a testament to the talents and legacy of Freddie Mercury and Queen, will be donating proceeds from this and all future Queen titles released on Ultradisc II to the Mercury-Phoenix Trust in London, established in 1992 to assist in finding a cure for the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome."

I do like the heavier stock and diecut cover of the DCC, yet I do prefer the added photos of the band in the MFSL release. Of course the DCC reissue has a larger version of the original cover instead of the MFSL's postage stamp size cover and the DCC reissue does not possess the space-eating over redundant proclamation of "ORIGINAL MASTER RECORDING(TM)".


The CDs do possess different sound qualities to my ears. Both CDs are much better than the Hollywood issues. All Hollywood versions are too bright. There is nothing wrong with the DCC disk. I'll listen to both and see if my original judgment still holds up and if anyone is interested, I can give my most humble opinions.

 

I'd like the super-detailed anaylsis of "A Night At The Opera", please .

I am new to DCC Gold, and I bought "Best Of The Doobies" and "Night At The Opera". "Best Of The Doobies" sounds great, of course- but then, the Rhino "Doobies' Choice" sounds great to me too. (Ted Templeman was a great producer, wasn't he?) I don't know if it's because it actually isn't one of my favorite albums, but "Night At The Opera" on DCC isn't doin' it for me. (Please don't send me away....let me explain )

I am actually listening to it on my wife's shelf system now, and I hear a lot of distortion and other noise- I'm sure there's nothing that can be done about that. But my real stereo, although very modest compared to a lot of posters, still is very powerful and has always served me well. My receiver actually only has a bass and a treble knob and that's IT. "Night At The Opera" is just rather rough on it. I guess I prefer gold CD's where the remastering is more obvious (see: "Doobies") Maybe I should get a list of DCC's that sound great on "cheaper" systems.




nashreed

 

After listening to the DCC gold deesk and the MoFi gold deesk, I have to change my opinion and lean toward the DCC. I haven't listened to these since I got my MSB Tech Link and I was amazed in the differences while listening through an outboard D to A converter.

The DCC sounds cleaner and more transparent (?) than the MoFi. This sound quality is apparent in "Death on Two Legs". The roaming piano intro is so much more realistic on the DCC gold. The MoFi gold is slightly grungier on all tracks.

Both DCC and MoFi reissues are so much better than the Hollywood Records deesks. The premium CDs do not possess the steely brightness sound of the aluminum reissues.

As part of this, I noted the DCC gold is recorded at a slightly higher level than the MoFi, about 1 dB. I determined this by watching the VU meters on my tape deck. It could be the differences may be due to recording level, but after matching levels, the DCC is still better.

The DCC LP is still the best though IMMHO. How about a remaster of "A Day at the Races"?

 

I said it before, both me and my golden eared girlfriend prefer the DCC over the MFSL. The DCC was cleaner and had a better timbre while being played through my Krell 20i player. This is not a knock on MFSL which way better than the offerings on silver disc. I had the MFSL Honky Chateau and Tumble Weed Connection which were stolen. So I went out and bought the remasters of these two titles. After listening to these a couple of times I was longing for the MFSL discs. With luck these titles were still available at Music Direct.

 

After listening to the DCC version, I still think the new DVDA sonically blows away the older versions.
It is better than the recent Japanese 24 bit remaster that came out this past November.

You have to find someone who has a DVDA player to give you an audition.
Its worth it.

JohnG

 

The major drawback to the DVD-A is that it does not have a Dolby Digital 5.1 mix for non-DTS systems. While my DVD video player does have DTS, my receiver does not. From what I understand, I could access the remastered stereo portion, but what would the point be?

I have both the MoFi and box set (from 1998) versions - they sound fine to me. Though I'm sure Steve's remaster sounds great, I did not feel like buying this for the fifth time.

 

Just cracked open my DVD-A copy and WOW. This one's a winner. Now I do have the MFSL and DCC cd as well and have not compared them. It would seem that a comparriosn, while interesting wouldn't really be fair as the 5.1 remixed DVD-A is a different animal than the 2 channel gold cds. I was just planning on listening to "Death On Two Legs" but ended up listening to the whole album. I was really impressed and this was just using the DTS 5.1 mix as I don't have a DVD-A player. I've never been a big fan of 5.1 mixed music and preferred high quality 2 channel. This album makes a good case for 5.1 music. The multiple layers divided into the surround channels really make for a great experience. It's not really gimicky as a lot of these releases are, but really presents the layers in a thoughtful manner. The sound is crisp and clear and really rocks.

Highly recommended.

 

Can this DVD-A disk output to 96 kHz two-channel on a DVD-V player? I know very little of playing DVD-A software on Video players. If so, I meet be interested in getting it to give it a listen.

IMMHO, I find with the Classic Records DADs, the change from the default 48 kHz to 96 kHz output to a D to A converter makes a difference on some of their recordings such as Blue Trane and I Robot . The sound quality seems better defined/ less glassy at the higher rate.

This may be an apples to oranges comparison as the Classic DADs are not truly DVD-A. The standard for DVD-A is 192 kHz 24-bit and the Classic DADs are 96 kHz 24-bit.

 

I don't have the DCC...yet...but the MFSL is too muggy, too much bottom for me. Maybe things will change soon and I can sample it too.

 

Yes, the 96/24 PCM stereo mix can be output to a DVD-V player. So can the 5.1 DTS digital surround output (but you have to have a DTS decoder inline somewhere for that to play).

The 5.1 DVD-A version requires a DVD-A player, though.

 

I offer a ditto - the 96/24 PCM is accesible through a DVD-V player. As a matter of fact - it's the default track when using DVD-V, so you don't really have to turn on the TV (but do it at least once to check out the lyrics which "scroll" from page to page as the disc plays).

Interesting side note: my buddy Ralph who has a DVD-A player says that the DVD-A track is slightly lower in volume than the DTS track, but when matched there is no significant advantage to either. Just a hearsay opinion - maybe someone else can enlighten, but he swears the disc would have been just as good with the PCM and DTS tracks - DVD-A offers no audible advantage.

 

Howard Ferstler, who writes an audio column for the $ensible $ound, often reports hearing no difference between the DD 5.1 and DVD-A 5.1 tracks on DVD-As after level matching. (He uses a Yamaha DSP-1 receiver that allows bass management of DVD-A analog input)

 

That is true, I was one of the first people to get a copy of Queen and right away I noticed the DTS tracks were much louder than the DVDA tracks.

My wife also noticed the big difference and prefered the DTS tracks.

You have to increase the volume when playing the DVDA tracks. The DTS version has more surround info and much more bass, the DVDA version sounds cleaner and has less bass and surround info.

JohnG

 

unless you have some sort of bass management and time management for the
analog 6-ch inputs, your are comparing apples and oranges, sort of. It *could* explain the bass and surround differences you (and I) hear between the DTS and DVD-A tracks.