I believe equipment plays a big part in how cds sound... equipment that does well on a test bench for accuracy can often sound sterile to me and speakers that are extremely true to the source or often ugly to look at. lol Give me life and colored sound any day if it accentuates the music in positive ways. That being said I love my MFSL's and they are anything but sterile and lifeless. I was surprised that a 2019 digital remaster came even remotely close to my MFSLs, much less edged them out in balance and musicality. The SHM's took the slight edginess that was present and tempered it just right and the big plus is we get the whole 1969-1976 studio catalog all presented uniformly mastered.
I read all Goodbye Yellow Brick Road new SHM vs. MFSL graphics-fact arguments. I have to say something related to our comparisons. This is very important because many are still receiving their orders. Yes, graphs and numbers, they are very useful. Don't we rely on the good DR numbers of the new release? These are facts, as well as frequency content graphs. But I want to point out other facts. In 1998, the industry adapted the 24-bit mastering process. It was a big breakthrough that brought us closer to analog sound. Finally, we get air, separation, and clarity. We get a soundstage that is lacking in the flat sound of 16-bit mastering discs. And we get a more natural-sounding instruments, eliminating metallic sound in a certain frequency range of old CDs. What is important here, because the improvement was in the mastering technology, all systems to varying degrees benefit from this. Someone said about the new converters... Oh yeah, 2019 is not 1997. Sometimes I listen to new recordings and wonder how they can achieve such good sound from REGULAR Red Book discs? And the better materials add to this more in the same field – sound presentation. The same graphs, the same frequencies but different sound. I have dedicated reference CDs and SACD. I always take them to Audio Show. Ones, I put my favorite against LPs in every room, which had SACD playback and I knocked them off, most of them. In the rooms with only CD playback, I knocked them off with red book layer too – no contest. Only in a few rooms with exceptional quality of turntables was a real fight in the SQ. Yes, digital is over-performing analog. It happens now, in a front of my eyes. Whatever great mastering engineer was, he couldn’t make his discs sound like this, back then. I confessed it before, but I want to repeat it now. Out of misery, I took all my DCC and MoFi CDs and sold them out on eBay in favor of new releases. Please guys forgive me for this. People fought for them (the price reached about $50-60 per disc in an auction). There is only one double Gold CD left – Mastersound Jesus Christ Superstar. There is no 24-bit alternative to it. Someone said it here: “If you like it flat.” So, the bottom line is that 1989 MFSL Goodbye Yellow Brick Road is 16-bit mastering release. If graphics will match or even a ted better, it will lose in the sound presentation. “Tumbleweed Connection - This one was also very very difficult. Elton's breathing before singing is clearly heard on the MFSL and kind of disappears on the SHM. Tonally these are the same, most details are on both as well. The drums seem easier to digest and better fidelity on the SHM. I don't know, this is another tie for me.” – lovealego If it’s tie, then SHM will win in the system capable to reveal the benefits of the better sound presentation. You can get great balanced and clear sound, but you cannot enjoy full blooded soundstage, filling my 17’ x 22’ listening room from wall to wall and creating Natural Surround Sound, when bass hitting me in my stomach and in my back at the same time, when I cranked up the volume testing my CDs - no 5.1 is required.
P.S. “…equipment that does well on a test bench for accuracy can often sound sterile” … What? Who said this BS? Typical self-illusion to make it easy on a pocket. In other words, equipment that does bad on a test banch for accuracy can often sound great. Would you buy it? Come on… Give up headphones, lovealego, listen to your system and breath from the vitality of the music.
I now feel so at peace after having received all 13 of these beauties. My mind, I mean, not my wallet.
@toilet_doctor, I find I actually have to do comparisons via headphones to be fair (my main rig is in my profile) with my assessments. I know that this eliminates any advantage the SHM material might have on playback, however I find (especially) that if I don't volume match sources, it is very, very difficult (for me), to truly discern differences. For example (I'll provide more in-depth feedback later), I was initially disappointed when I listened to the SHM-CD of Tumbleweed Connection compared to the MFSL. I thought the MFSL was clearly better. Once I volume matched them (and no, they aren't that far off volume wise), that difference narrowed considerably. Now I honestly haven't decided which one I prefer. It may actually go down to a song by song preference in the end for this title. One thing I can say (at least to these ears), I think I'm starting to detect a "house sound" with the MFSL versus the new SHMs on the ones I've compared. I know different people likely mastered the MFSLs over time (I was unable to find the info online). However, when I compare the MFSL CDs of "Madman" and "Tumbleweed" against their SHM counterparts, they are so very close. I honestly don't think one is "better" than the other, I just realize that the sound signature I detect with the SHMs is more to my taste. This is definitely the case with "Madman" and GYBR (the jury's still out on "Tumbleweed..." at this time). I lack the correct vocabulary to translate what I hear to an actual frequency response (thanks @lukpac for the education). With GYBR and "Madman", I hear more detail on the vocals and drums; they just "pop out at me more". On the MFSL everything is just a bit warmer (I can see how folks would call it "veiled" although it's not a descriptor I'd use). I guess I prefer my mastering to have a bit more snap or sparkle (whatever that means ). I would've thought that meant a bit more detail on the high end, but perhaps it's more detail in the mids after all. That's the best I can describe what I hear. Lastly, I'll say that one big motivator for me in taking a chance on these was the fact that a 2018 transfer, given advances in A to D converters, could yield improvements. I was willing to take a shot on a few of these for that reason alone. Of course, it's the age old debate; A to D converters have improved over time, but (still) not all masterings are created equal. Perhaps a bigger issue/problem is that there's always the chance that tapes this old might deteriorate from year to year. On that front, I think we're fortunate that these EJ tapes seem to still be in good shape. By contrast, David Bowie's camp doesn't seem to have taken as much care with his oldest tapes (e.g. "Hunky Dory" which has clearly had some tape damage over the years and is noticeably audible on the most recent mastering). Obviously taking a chance with these new EJs has paid off for me (I bought five more after digesting the first three). If I'd actual had physical digital copies of some of the other MFSL/AF versions of these titles, I don't know how I'd feel about the SHM counterparts. Some of them are that close to these ears. As it stands, I'm (mostly) overjoyed (S/T hasn't bowled me over sound wise compared to the other SHMs, but I need to spend a lot more time with it to make a definitive assessment).
Yep, that's what I meant to say! I, too, notice a "house sound" with MFSL on many of its current releases (No Secrets, Blood on the Tracks, etc.) and the GYBR one is similar.
MOFI definitely has a house sound. It works with some recordings better than others. Sometimes I find certain MFSL masterings to be a bit too polite or almost antiseptic sounding (if that makes any sense). For example, I have both Steve Hoffman's version of the Rickie Lee Jones S/T album and the MFSL (33rpm version). While both sound quite good, Steve's has a more natural sound that jumps out the speakers and pulls the listener into the performance. The MOFI just sounds very pleasant but there's no WOW factor like there is with Steve's. I've heard the Elton MFSLs and they're nice but they don't come as close to the original DJM red vinyl versions as these new SHM-CDs do. I recently scored a Shure V15V-MR on eBay and am doing a new needledrop of my DJM GYBR to do a bit of a shootout against the new Japanese release. It'll be interesting to compare them. Maybe I'll post some samples.
Funnily enough … "Indian Sunset" has always been in my top 17 of Elton's key tracks. I love it - Buckmaster's arranging/orchestration is superb. Mary Travers c0vered this beautiful piece on her Self-Titled solo debut. I love her version. - I love Elton's version. It's just a great song.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/iqe5pb8y76c81tb/AAB-bGLoiWDmjYEOKwLWh7O4a?dl=0 The less I say about this link, the better.
Big, long time EJ fan. Have been listening to these albums since the 70's, and was very excited to order a few of these. Just finished comparing the Dont Shoot Me SHM to my MCA CD, and I'm underwhelmed. I really don't hear much difference between them. They both sound very good, but I expected more. Will listen to Caribou next and report back.
Lot s of technical diskussions here that I actually don t understand much about What I do understand though is that these re-masters sounds very good to my ears. That s all that matters for me
jhm, please do it, song by song. The volume match is obligatory for the correct comparison. Not only I do song by song, but in difficult cases, I divide song into the parts, marking the time: 0-0:45 – piano solo, 0:45-2:15 - vocal, 2:15-3:30 instrumental, 3:30-4:30 – orchestra and A/B only those particular parts, putting some notes on the paper. Then, I print tracklist and give my verdict for each song and to entire album. Do in your system, do with your headphones and compare results. SHM / MFSL (headphones) 1. Ballad Of A Well-Known Gun – Good / Very Good 2. Come Down In Time – Best / Very Good 3. Country Comfort 4. Son Of Your Father 5. My Father's Gun 6. Where To Now St. Peter? 7. Love Song 8. Amoreena 9. Talking Old Soldiers 10. Burn Down The Mission 11. Into The Old Man's Shoes 12. Madman Across The Water (Original Version) SHM / MFSL (system) Look into the sonic aspects: 1. Openness of the Sound 2. Soundstage 3. Airiness and Separation (between the instruments) 4. Bass Performance 5. Dynamics 6. Trebles 7. Overall Clarity of the Sound You can do it…
I too like Indian Sunset. Elton's vocal on these 2 lines is my favourite piece of Elton singing and one of my favourite bits of singing. "I go to search for the yellow moon and the fathers of our sons Where the red sun sinks in the hills of gold and the healing waters run" As good as some of the great Frank Sinatra's beautiful and heartbreaking singing - eg "Here's That Rainy Day" from the excellent No One Cares album. "Funny That rainy day is here"
So from all the reviews I'm reading it sounds like most of you rate the 95 remaster "Classic Years" as worst or horrible . I've collected a lot of them over the years, it was my first time owning any of those albums, but they all sound fab to my ears. Not sure if they warrant to buy them all over again.
I've just listened with my KEF headphones to Daniel compared it to my 95 Don't Shoot Me Remaster and the Love Song CD (although I think they are both the same), don't hear a huge enough difference
I just listened to Rocket Man compared to the Honky Chateau 95 remaster, you guys are going to hate me but I prefer the 95 one, the vocals are a bit more out front, the SHM one sounds a bit flat to me, again, not a huge difference to me, not sure what everybody is hearing . Thanks for letting us sample a few songs much appreciated I don't find the 95 remasters brickwalled at all.
These really have to be turned up to appreciate. Like good vinyl. These would probably not sound great on headphones while on the subway, for example.
