You have to be careful what you pop into your basket these days. Anything can happen. The 2019 BM SHM seems to have gone down really well on here. I don’t think I’ve seen one negative comment. So you should definitely pick it up.
Thank you for your detailed comparison - it helps. Please consider sound presentation in 3 aspects (within capability of your system): 1. Airiness and separation between the instruments 2. 3-dementionality and soundstage 3. Overall clarity When the dynamics are almost the same (in this case), the openness of sound often depends on the tape condition. The openness of the sound (you mentioned) is very important factor, like dynamics, I would say. It may be more important than balance (mids a little dominate in DJM case). But first of all, it emphasizes vocals more than it should, which is not so bad. The same time, the more open sound leads to better clarity and vitality. It all depends on the degree to which sound is imperfect in every aspect. Please check it one more time, keeping in mind the overall clarity of sound. P.S. (Don’t forget to level the volume - every time). Dynamics is out of the table. Compare the bass performance (presence, tightness, speed, clarity) Trebles (brightness, taming, clarity) Mid-range and overall balance. That's all.
To be honest the DJM wins on 1 & 2 but it errs on the "thin" sounding side with the SHM having a fuller sound without going as far as the MFSL on the bass and that's why I prefer the SHM, I prefer it's overall tonality. Clarity to me is a tie, there is nothing missing on either but I guess some people mistakenly associate clarity with brightness - I don't. As I said, I don't think there is a bad mastering here and people's preferences will vary based on their setup and tastes.
Thank you, we are now closer to finalization. Now the question is for you and for everyone: Does Honky Chateau sound: 1. Significantly better than Tumbleweed Connection? 2. Slightly better than Tumbleweed? 3. At the same level with Tumbleweed?
Thanks a lot for this detailed report! Can I ask what your EQ settings are? I happen to be torn between the MFSL and DJM and was curious if you've compared them again since then, and if so, what were your findings?
I first started buying Elton CD's twelve years ago and became an obsessive fan shortly after. Sometime after I got heavily into anything non-remastered and have owned the old DJM's on and off for quite some time, while keeping two deluxe edition's; the self-titled and Tumbleweed. Following this topic I got very, very curious and picked up Captain Fantastic a few months ago and really, really dug it. I had the Metronome/DJM for a long time and kept telling myself it was the best one, but found myself equally disappointed each time I put it on. Flat, distant... Probably a haven in terms of dynamics, but owning merely an amp, a CD player and a pair of killer headphones really made it unnecessary for me to get into the as-non-remastered-as-possible phase; lately I have been getting more and more into (tasteful) remasters of all sorts of artists. I received the remainder of the new SHM CD's a few days ago and am digging my way through them... Chronologically of course... And am already floored. Currently on Madman. So much detail I never noticed before... Double bass on Indian Sunset, percussion fills on Burn Down the Mission etc... I am looking forward to chowing through these, songs and albums I have listened to endlessly and love to death but still can be surprised to listen to. Such a nice feeling. I wonder if this series will ever continue. I own pretty much any studio and live album Elton ever made and a slew of CD singles. The 2003 remasters (1979-84 period) still sound marvelous to me, I keep wondering if a similar treatment will benefit the 1978-89 era? To my ears they already sound quite good but some are in severe lack of bonus tracks - this is a well-established fact already. 2019 and still so much Elton only available on cruddy vinyl. Such a pity...
I put only a slight boost in the lower and highest frequencies (leaving everything else flat) to compensate for my 56 year old ears. I have not revisited either since my review but I don't think you could go wrong with either (though the DJM would save you some $).
Anyone else love that there are NO bonus tracks on these? It's so nice to listen to the original albums as they were released.
Further to my first thought on Honky Chateau - I have done a lot more listening since comparing the DJM & SHM, including quite a bit of background listening ie. not sitting in the primary listening position and listening while I'm doing things around my apartment, which is how I would usually listen to this particular album. I have to say that I am changing my initial impression and am now leaning more towards the more open sound of the DJM, as I do with Madman Across The Water. Sorry about the change of mind but I thought it best to 'fess up It's an (avatar) girl's prerogative (LOL) I still think the differences would be very much system dependent and the DJM could sound a touch bright or thin on some setups and the SHM could sound a touch dark on others, I think it's great that there are 3 decent options for this album and here are my current preferences where I have the SHMs to compare: Tumbleweed Connection - It's close but I prefer my MFSL over the SHM. Madman Across The Water - Close again but I think I prefer my usual MCAD-31190 over the SHM which sounds slightly darker. I would imagine that this one would be very system dependent. Honky Chateau - As per Madman, I prefer the DJM with it's openness over the SHM and the slightly goosed bass of the MFSL. Goodbye Yellow Brick Road - I prefer the SHM over the MFSL for most of the tracks. The fact that MoFi really screwed up the SQ on Danny Bailey & Social Disease seals the deal. Captain Fantastic - SHM over the DJM. Blues Moves - SHM easily over the original.
Agree, and as I have said many times before, not many artists of Elton's stature have extras tacked on to their original albums. What we need is the series of SHMs to continue and include Rare Masters as part of it. They've done a Japanese version of it before in the past so fingers crossed.
5ft 7 ½ (171.5 cm) I've enjoyed reading these impressions of the new Japanese CDs. Having been burned by the 95 remasters and after acquiring DJM, MCA and MFSL replacements, I think I'll wait a few years to see if a consensus emerges about these new ones. Whatever its faults, the MFSL GYBR is absolutely lovely and a pleasure to listen to.
That's the gamble. I think I've spent too much money replacing what I already already had with different versions in a fruitless quest with diminishing returns. It seems clear that they're not all winners.
Based on the comments in this thread, I've bought the whole bunch, in three batches from CD Japan. Don't regret it one bit! I had a long car trip back in October, and decided to go through the EJ discography in chronological order, using the new SHMs for those respective albums. What a treat! I made it up through A Single Man. I can't vouch for the accuracy of my "aural memory," but the SHMs took me back to the days when I was listening to these albums for the first time in the '70's, and that in itself was worth the price.
I have the MFSLs of Tumbleweed, Honky, Madman, and Goodbye. Still reeling over the fact that I prefer the new SHMs to all of these.
I am keeping all 4 of the MFSL Titles, as good to have variety. Also keeping the Titles I own on DJM West Germany CDs. Also, the Deluxe 2 CD Sets(from the early 2000s?) for the Bonus Songs, so basically the 2nd CD in those Sets. I have bought all of the New SHM CDs, except for Greatest Hits Volume 1(own 2 copies of the DCC CD Version, so the only reason to buy the SHM CD is for the packaging and completing the Collection, but doubt I would play it over the DCC mastered by Our Host and I own the DJM WG CD version), 'Rock of the Westies(own the KG Mastered Audio Fidelity Version) and Greatest Hits Volume 2(might buy it eventually, but had to justify it to pay $25 for just 3 Extra Songs not on the Albums I bought on the SHM CDs(and whatever is on 'Rock of the Westies' where I play the AF CD version).
Have finally gotten around to playing GYBR. It sounds great, but I’ve noticed Your Sister Can’t Dance seems to be somewhat quieter than the other tracks. You can clearly hear it if you play the intro against the other songs. I seem to recall the SHM SACD was like this too. Having tried the old 1995 Gus remaster this morning, YSCD is just as boomingly loud as the other tracks So which is correct? Was YSCD quieter on the vinyl/original CDs too?
I never noticed it being quieter. In fact, it ends on the beat, with a loud rush - then rolls right into Saturday Night's Alright (which seemed so slow tempo-wise by comparison). The only reason I could see it being lowered is that it gets pretty layered and full of sound as the organs come in in the instrumental section. I'll have to pull out the vinyl to hear for sure.
If you play the intro to Sister, it’s definitely quieter than the other tracks. As I said before, the 2010 SHM-SACD is the same.
Madman Across the Water 2019 Mini LP SHM-CD vs. 2004 Hybrid SACD (Stereo) Review “If a little more dynamic, it would be a contender.” (from the post # 3128) “Openness of the sound as much important as its dynamics.” (from the post # 3138) At first, I listened to the full SHM album a couple of times. It was obvious to me that Madman could not claim a position in SQ as a Tumbleweed, which I recently reviewed (post 3128, page 126), because of two things: lack of openness and poor bass performance. This fact gave a chance to SACD, which has its own problem with low dynamics. How did the SACD seize this chance? I began with SHM, the first song ‘Tiny Dancer’: the piano was excellent and vocal was very good, although there was tiny brightness, but nothing much to be worry about; the cymbals were very smooth and natural. When bass appeared, it was a well presented and clean bass. That has changed for worse further, but not so much. Overall, the sound was well balanced and clear. What about the lack of openness that I mentioned above? This was not noticeable in this song (and on the next 2 songs), at least without comparison. Only when I put SACD, I could determine that it sounded crispier with a sharper image. Although trebles were brighter and this affected not only the vocals, but also the cymbals. In quiet moments, like at the beginning of the song with a piano and voice, SACD sounded preferable to me. But these moments were short. As soon as the orchestra entered, abrasiveness in the mid-range showed up, and the bass lost clarity, not so badly, but SHM was better in that regard. I put SHM on again from 4:40 and at the pic power I cranked up the volume. SHM handled the orchestra without distortion; the bass was not perfect, but still good. Overall, SHM sound was better than SACD. So, on the ‘Tiny Dancer’, SHM against SACD ended up - Very Good vs. Good. The next song ‘Levon’ was the best sounding track for both discs. Thanks to tighter bass, SHM bordered the “Best” category. SACD also was better than on the first track (abrasiveness disappeared) and finished one grade lower than SHM: Best/Very Good vs. Very Good. Track No. 3, ‘Razor Face’ sounded similar to track No. 1. The situation began to change from the title track (No.4). Now I put SACD in the first place, and from the very beginning it sounded with the clear sound of an acoustic guitar and vocal. But soon I noticed that the cymbals did not sound very well, being too bright. Anyway, it was a normal sound for 2 minutes. Then, cellos... beautiful cellos at the pic power lost its clarity; the sound of the orchestra was congested at some places. I thought that with better dynamics, SHM would cope with harsh moments (for example, at 1:35 and 4:15) and the orchestra better than SACD, but this did not happen as much as I expected, just a bit. I must say that this is a great song, and the brilliant string arrangement of the British conductor and composer Paul Buckmaster is an important part of this greatness. I did not pay much attention to such a thing as a string arrangement in the 70s. I may not have been mature enough to appreciate this, but now I do, and it is unfortunate that we cannot enjoy this song in full force. SACD was performed pretty much evenly on the first 4 tracks, but the music on the title track became more challenging. SHM, on another hand, fell down (starting from the title track) due to the weak and clumsy bass performance. Despite the good dynamics and presence of the bass, it lost its punch and tightness. This affected the sound as a whole – the low mid was not clear enough, again beautiful cellos were suffering… (If you pay attention to the details, you will notice that the cellos in very important places used their lowest string settings, bordering the bass and creating a wonderful fullness of sound, covering all parts of the spectrum – kudos to Paul Buckmaster). It was a tie, but not the one I want to declare: both discs sounded equally good… No… Both discs sounded equally not so good. I’m not sure if there was still a tie on the Track No. 5 ‘Indian Sunset’, but with each next song SHM was losing to SACD in the low end and in the openness of sound. Half of the spectrum from low mid-range lost in clarity; the sound bordered the “Average” category on tracks 7 and 8, and barely reached “Good” section on track No. 9. This very short song called “Goodbye” (one of my favorite) was an example in this case. The orchestra did not play a big role here, except for the piano and vocals. Elton sang on SHM, as if he had not eaten for several days. This was the last round, and the SACD felt that if "he" added a little, he could win the whole fight. And this is what happened. From the first notes one could hear how emotional and enthusiastic Elton was. He jumped out of the speakers in the middle of the room with his piano. The speakers wanted to disappear, but a quiet string section held them back. Sound filled the entire room - it was a 3-dimensional, open and vital sound. I looked at the DR of this song ... yes, DR was 11, just like SHM. Before reaching any conclusion, I looked at the credit note, which said: “192kHz/24bit flat transfer from 1971 UK original analogue master tape at Abbey Road Studios, London” Then I gathered our comments on Madman: (from the Lovealego list) Madman Across the Water - SHM comes out ahead due to cleaning up the muddiness and wall of sound of the MFSL. (from the Brudr list) Madman Across the Water - TIE (Polydor/MCA & SHM-CD) (from the Scateaway list) Madman Across the Water - Close again but I think I prefer my usual MCAD-31190 over the SHM which sounds slightly darker. I would imagine that this one would be very system dependent. “I've compared the MFSL with the SHM-CD and to be honest, I wish I could have both merged into one. I find the bass on the SHM-CD Madman is just a bit too boomy with not as much clarity and definition as the others (except for Empty Sky). I prefer the bass on the MFSL. However, in the mids and highs there is really no contest. The sense of space and transient clarity on the SHM-CD really shows what modern AD converters combined good mastering can do. In A-Bing them recently, I found the cymbals in particular on the MFSL to have a grainy, non-distinct quality to them, whereas the cymbals on the SHM-CD Madman have an almost uncanny 3d clarity to them. Mind you my criticism of the MFSL is only in comparison to the SHM-CD. It sounds better than other redbook MATWs I've heard (DJM and 95 remaster). The Madman SACD (stereo SACD layer) would be good as well were it not for too much compression and a bit too much boost on the highs. I really just wish the SHM-CD didn't have too much bass as it would be darn near perfect, along the same lines as Caribou, Captain Fantastic and Blue Moves. I may try some EQ matching to make my own hybrid version with the MFSL bass curve applied to the SHM-CD.” Stefan, Sep 25, 2019 #2838 “I have bought my first SHM CD: Madman Across the Water The artwork is stunning, different but maybe even more exquisite than the WG DJM CD and definitely richer than the MFSL CD. But artwork is not essential. Talking about the sound, here is where I stood some 10 years ago: The MFSL CD sounded muffled, smooth with deep bass but not enough "life" for my taste, so I preferred the WG DJM CD. Now I compared the three side by side: SHM, MFSL and WG DJM, and must say that I don't enjoy the eq of the WG DJM CD anymore, it sounds a bit artificial and hyped compared to the over-smooth representation of the other two, especially vocals and piano. The SHM CD has a tiny bit of upper midrange added compared to the MFSL which helps, in my opinion, but far less than the WG DJM. If the MFSL CD is a flat transfer, then the SHM CD has maybe 10% of the eq from the WG DJM CD applied. My new favorite is the SHM CD, but the MFSL is almost equally as good.” Andreas, Sep 29, 2019 #2922 “I'm in agreement after listening to the MCAD 37200 DIDX 374 Madman Across the Water CD. The music comes across with a greater sense of authority on this CD than the new SHM-CD which is good in its own right but lacks a slight sense of cohesion/authority/guts, call it what you will in comparison to the original. I can easily understand folk preferring the new SHM-CD though as it's got loads of detail & a different tonality but for me the original wins out.” Musicisthebest, Sep 17, 2019 #2640 And I picked the DR of considered versions: DR 2019 Jpn SHM-CD: 12 12 13 12 12 13 13 12 11 DR 1989 MFSL: 12 12 13 13 12 13 13 12 11 DR 1992 Polydor: 12 13 13 13 14 14 14 12 11 DR 2004 SACD (Stereo): 08 08 10 08 08 10 08 08 11 Conclusion Madman Across the Water made it to the “Good” section due to the better sound of the first half of the album. Madman Across the Water – Good (Second after Polydor/MCA, tie with SACD, but better than MFSL) Original Master Tape continues to deteriorate. Hold your Madman SACD tight; it's not the best SACD, but it can still be the best digital version on at least half of the album.
I snagged a copy of Madman … (the Japan MCAD-31190) and it sounds really, really good, (definitely worth seeking out) but : Doesn't anybody notice that the first 1/4 second of "Tiny Dancer" is cut off? I still kind of prefer the SHM of Madman. YMMV
Bobby, from memory of the various versions of GYBR that I have listened to, I agree that "Your Sister …" is a bit less 'present' in comparison to "Saturday Night …". I always thought that was the point. YSCD was kind of a lead-up (or springboard) to SNAFF. Have you decided which version of GYBR is your favorite?
