Correct at least nothing empirical and "I say it's so, so it's so" wreaks of zero credibility. CD's/Redbook are 50% redundant data. The people who designed/invented the tech knew errors would be an issue and compensated for it. A transport is always and continuously correcting errors. A few more or less in the din has lower relevance than the effect of a single half droplet of water in the Pacific Ocean evaporating due to direct sunlight. There are those who do not understand and are unwilling to learn the actual tech thus will make illogical (ofttimes inane) statements rooted in their lack or knowledge or worse in agenda'$ . Error's in CD playback that are not correctable or during an "overload" result rather noticeably in the form of Silence, Skipping (silence then not silence) or occasionally various degrees of digi-noise. Certainly not "pinched sound" or "lack of focused bass" or "reduced sound-stage" or "increased brightness" or ". Mathematically those type of results are impossible. Bottom line believe what you want and whom you want to believe, I for one however prefer the truth. Hoping you do as well P.S. Sadly falsehoods, half-truth's, snake-oil quests, and Egos, in audio are the industry's and merchant's bread n' butter.
Yeah, I well aware of the redundant data (it helps overcome scratches). Truthfully, I'm just trying to understand why people might hear differences. I never heard any myself, even when I knew there was a very small, but measurable difference between two discs. The only disc I found bizarre was an early DADC copy of Brothers in Arms, which was meant to be the same mastering as the WG versions. Only my disc didn't sound anything like the WG disc.
Hi - there are multiple WG BIA masterings, some match the Dent attributed ala the early DADC, some are the Ludwig. Without having some evidence of the 2 discs in question, ozzcum's razor dictates they sound different because they are different. You can easily obtain the peaks from each of the discs and see. BTW Peaks do not show differences in pitch although that is not the case with BIA but figured I'm mention that. Lastly - learn the tech and you will realize that if the CRC32's are the same they are the same. After many of the same questions I had similar to yours. 12 year ago I started to slowly obtain the knowledge and learn the math, in addition I also sought out information from 2 Audiologist's on how human perception of sound changes from moment to moment usually sinus related. If I had this knowledge 12-14 years ago I would have not been conned by a tiny faction of sellers and would have purchased a lot of Netflix stock P.S. only do compares on fully warm equipment. Sound on cold gear varies widely compared to when at full operating temp. I wait 15-20 minutes depending if winter or summer.
So far, listening to Redbook layers on headphones, I'm sorry to say that, on the whole, the MoFi's don't compare favourably to the SHMs for me. They excel and win on certain aspects, like imaging, but fail on others. But I reserve my final judgement until I compare them on speakers!
You prefer the SHM DS to the MoFi for all the DS titles? I have read very positive comments mostly for the SHM ST, LOG, and VIA but less so for the others.
So far I'm not decided, they both have pros and cons, it's almost a track-by-track basis. For Making Movies, I compared the SHM to the original Vertigo CD mastering and prefered the latter. So I'm comparing this one, the Vertigo blue/red swirl to the MoFi.
I have two Dire Straits Love Over Gold Vertigo red swirls: 800088 2 01 M U ZY. Matrix number itself is "800088 2 01". The "M" and "U" are etched next to the matrix number, but spaced apart from each other. The "ZY" is at 6 'o clock of the matrix number, and the "Z" is actually mirrored. 800 088-2 03 # UH KA. Matrix number itself is "800 088-2 03 #", note the space (between 800 and 088) and the minus (between 088 and 2) as different from the one above. "UH" is etched next to the matrix, "KA" is etched at six 'o clock of the matrix number. When ripped and analysed they are *exactly* the same. When playing the rips those sound the same. But… playing the actual discs in the Arcam player in my main system results in a clear difference in tonality: with the 800088 2 01 disc sounding a bit clearer (with more "presence" or "sparkle"), and the 800 088-2 03 sounding a bit darker (more bass). Of course human hearing is weird, what you hear "more" on one disc can just be the "lack of" something else. But there is a clear difference (as also confirmed by my son, who was the blind listening guinea pig and didn't know why he was listening and what he should be hearing). It was weird finding this out. But it happened.
Ok I did a brief level-matched comparison listen in foobar of the redbook MFSLs (I'm including the older Brothers in Arms MFSL) to my collection: Dire Straits [Warner Bros. Records – 3266-2 JAP-US Target 1983] Communiqué [Warner Bros. Records – 3330-2 JAP-US Target 1983] Making Movies [Warner Bros. Records – 3480-2 JAP-US 1985] Love over Gold [Warner Bros. Records – 9 23728-2 JAP-US Target 1984] Brothers in Arms [Warner Bros. Records – 9 25264-2 JAP-US (Matsushita) 1985] and I gotta say only the Dire Straits MFSL is a significant improvement to what I've got, I find the rest to have a bit too much bass and the mids get lost. The worst offender is definitely the Communiqué MFSL, which is just flat-out muddy to my ears The rest are pretty much good, but I find the ones I listed to be a bit better (and I think I can say that without much bias because I'm not really that into Dire Straits tbh so it's not like I'm so used to hearing a particular version that I just can't seem to accept a different sounding version) TL;DR the first MFSL is a gold, the rest are good, but Communiqué is a pass
Either all the gear (transport, pre-amp [if applicable] amp, powered sub [if applicable] etc) in the chain was not at full/MAX operational temperature when playing both discs which will cause hardware to produce different results pretty much like you said or sounds like a timing chip/clock issue. If so playing even the same disc twice will yield different results. BTW if you had compared these discs and found no difference on other systems, why did you continue? Your post and mine are OT for this thread please start a new thread or PM me for response as it would be wrong for this conversation to continue and cause this thread to be shuttered.
Apologies if this has been asked already; Does Making Movies MFSL contain the full length version of Skateaway? If yes, please post the run time. Thanks. The reason I ask if it if does have the full original 6:40 version I will purchase the MFSL solely for that reason.
So, my plan is to compare the MoFi discs with my SHM-SACD discs, but have not gotten around to that part yet, but I do remember the sound of some of the SHM-versions. I have been listening to the MoFi discs for some time now, and have a couple of initial thoughts, which for me usually is the correct evaluation. S/T: Significantly less "background hiss" and noise on the MoFi disc compared to the SHM-SACD. There is also quite a bit less "digitalis". The MoFi version simply is a lot more analogue sounding. The sound is more coherent and "easy flowing" so to say. Easily my favourite album both music- and sound-wise. Communique: I really like the dynamics of the MoFi disc. I do not remember the sound of the SHM-SACD, so cannot make a comparison at this time. It is overall a really good presentation of that album. Making Movies: A little more "so-so" than the two above, but still very good. LoG: My least favourite of the bunch. To me is seems like the tracks have different masters and resulting levels. The sound is less refined and coherent on this record compared to the other MoFi albums. I do not remember having the same thoughts about the SHM-SACD version, but a comparison will soon reveal that.
Yes, please. Looking forward to the comparisons, no matter what the outcome. I have all of the SHM-SACDs & won’t be buying the MoFi’s only because I don’t really play these albums that much to warrant spending the money.
@audiomixer : The S/T is a definite upgrade soundwise compared to the SHM-SACD. Even if you only listen to it rarely, the MoFi version should be in your collection. I will get back to the other 3 later, but S/T is the one that stands out to me the clearest.
it is worth mentionning that the 2010 SHM-SACD of the s/t was "redone" in 2013 as a SHM-CD (Platinum or no) with a better tape and was superior to the SHM-SACD.
Agreed. The 2013 Platinum SHM-CD is excellent perhaps reference, the 2010 SHM-SACD is an inferior mastering that I do not like. I believe there is an identical non Platinum 2013, for those that have transports which have issues or do not read CD-R's the non-Plat is a better bet. The reason is the Plats are much less reflective.
Yeah a shame that mastering never came out on SACD. Note I have not compared it to anything else including any Mofi.
@Plan9 : This is news to me. Thanks for the info. My version of the SHM-SACD S/T album is the gatefold UIGY-9032. Is the current SHM-SACD version being sold (UIGY-9634) from the same sub-optimal master?
Unfortunately....yes. Both use the same sub par master........"Uses the 2010 DSD master based on Japanese original analog tape" The good one's are these two........... Dire Straits [Cardboard Sleeve (mini LP)] [Platinum SHM-CD] [Limited Release] Dire Straits CD Album "HR cutting from the DSD master which was newly flat transferred from UK original analogue master tapes in 2013" Dire Straits [Cardboard Sleeve (mini LP)] [SHM-CD] [Limited Release] Dire Straits CD Album "HR cutting from the DSD master which was newly flat transferred from UK original analogue master tapes in 2013" Hopefully the new MFSL beats them!!!!...........still waiting for mine....
