....?????????.... I can attest to the fact that the first pressing sounds fabulous, and later pressings do not. Tom pointed this out , and in this case he was quite correct.
Perhaps. My point is he's seldom correct and this would be the exception. Nevertheless, that'll be my last post on ol' TP, lest this thread devolves into another tangent. I'm much more interested in reading about the SQ of these releases anyway.
You make it sound like if something isn't from the master tape it automatically sounds like crap? Is this really what you mean?
In this specific case, I was told what I stated. And based on my listening tests, I could clearly hear a major difference etween the original white label pressings and the sky blue label pressings. And yes, it definitely sounded like the latter used later generation source material. And in general, yes, something sourced from the master "generally " sounds st better than something sourced from a second or third generation tape. Isn't that the whole point of companies like MFSL seeking out the original master?
I hear you. Not the thread for it. But I must say that although he charges insane prices, he offers a full refund. And the fact that he's still in business tells me he must be satisfying most of his clientele. If he were "seldom correct'" I can't imagine he would still be in business. He's not personable, and truth be told I don't deal with him because of his rudeness, but he is correct in his stance that many records of the same title sound different based on many factors.
it's not that big of a difference between a good copy of the master and the master. what matters more is the mastering itself.
Sometimes. Sometimes not. I'm thinking of the Doors self titled album. Doug Sax, one of the greatest mastering engineers from our generation, remastered it at 45 rpm for AP. They admitted they used a good copy of the master tape, which was no longer usable. The results are easily heard when comparing it to an original gold label first pressing. The clarity of Jim's voice on the original says it all. No contest. Great mastering, great equipment chain, but no original master. But you are also correct in that poor mastering can ruin a final product, even if the master is used. I guess, if possible, I like to have both. So far, the MFSL One Step releases has given that to the buyers.
Yes, and the latter one was mastered by one of the best, yet it was/ is sonically lacking. Why is that? Are you going to claim "poor mastering" by Doug Sax? I think not.
Maybe because you preferred the other mastering? I am not going to go round in circles. Obviously we are just going to have to agree to disagree here. Take care.
I'm just trying to help you understand why people like our host, for example, will always, if possible, seek out the original master tape for the best possible sound during a reissue project. There's a reason for that. It's not just my opinion. It's a fact.
It's not a secret that the master tape will always yield the best *source* from which to work. After that, the gear that is being used to master and the skills of the hired mastering engineer will make the best-sounding result possible with that material. It can be a never-ending debate as to which one of these 3 things will have the biggest impact backed with examples for each but the bottom line is that it rarely will translate into a breathtaking end result unless all 3 of these aforementioned attributes are top-notch.
I follow your point and agree about the importance of the original master. But in this example of the Doors S/T, you can't ignore the age & condition of the tape, those are two masterings likely both by Doug Sax yet done something like 45-50 years apart.
It will be interesting to know what the first side of Desperado One Step is like especially….inferior somehow? Defective? I’m hoping not….