[golgi]

I recieved my copy of this today with much excitement.  I've been wanting to listen to this since it came out and I finally decided to just buy it.  It's actually priced very reasonably considering there are 27 tracks on it!
 
Now, the music is a no brainer for me.  As far as I'm concerned, Chuck Berry is the one and only king of rock and roll and all of his music is classic.  So I knew that I had nothing to lose as far as the music. 
 
I put the disc in and started listening.  The tracks start with decent recordings but by the time you get to track 15 you realize that the recordings are now amazing quality.  You can hear so much in these recordings.  There is ambience, transparency and weight in spades in these later recordings.  If you have speakers/headphones that can do midrange really well, you'll be especially impressed with these recordings.  Highly recommeneded!

 

[fatcat28037]

I agree, some of MFSL's remasters are a bit iffy, but this one is great.

 

[LFF]

Some of Chuck Berry's recordings sound like crap and I used to think most "oldies" music sounded like that. I eventually came to learn that what mattered was the source and the mastering.  This MFSL proves my point as there are few instances where some of these songs sound better.
 
Some of these oldies sound amazing due to the minimalist recording techniques used back then. Unfortunately many of these mono recordings have had echo added or fake stereo processing added. The early stereo releases suffer from poor transfers and eq work. One clear example are recordings by Dion & The Belmonts. Compare these two (both under a minute):
 
1. Retail
http://www.sendspace.com/file/lgkm2p
 
2. Proper Remaster
http://www.sendspace.com/file/tgi8bj
 
Sadly, a lot of these old recordings have yet to receive the proper treatment they deserve. I have had to track down many of my favorites to the original 45's or LP releases because what is on CD sucks. Sad.

 

[sgrossklass]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFF /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Compare these two (both under a minute):
 
1. Retail
http://www.sendspace.com/file/lgkm2p
 
2. Proper Remaster
http://www.sendspace.com/file/tgi8bj

Goodness, now that's a bit of a difference! (Anything wrong with FLAC though, or MP3 even?) The "retail" sample sounds like the proper remaster heard through a vintage car stereo...
 
I'd think that the EQing was intended to make LPs louder, people tended to pull all sorts of tricks after all. Apparently nobody bothered to undo that or dig out the original recordings during CD transfer.
 
Concerning the echo / fake stereo processing you mentioned, yep, I've been burned by that once - The Great Ink Spots (containing late-1930s recordings) is one of those CDs that are cheap for a reason. The fake stereo effect added in '93 makes things almost unlistenable over headphones.

 

[LFF]

Quote:

Goodness, now that's a bit of a difference! (Anything wrong with FLAC though, or MP3 even?) The "retail" sample sounds like the proper remaster heard through a vintage car stereo...
 
I'd think that the EQing was intended to make LPs louder, people tended to pull all sorts of tricks after all. Apparently nobody bothered to undo that or dig out the original recordings during CD transfer.
 
Concerning the echo / fake stereo processing you mentioned, yep, I've been burned by that once - The Great Ink Spots (containing late-1930s recordings) is one of those CDs that are cheap for a reason. The fake stereo effect added in '93 makes things almost unlistenable over headphones.

Yes, the retail sample sounds very thin, much like hearing it through a vintage radio.
 
EQ and other tricks were often used by mastering engineers to make the LP's louder but even those sound better than the majority of re-releases on CD. Few people have even bothered going back to the master tapes for proper transfers.
 
I don't know why, but very early music tends to get the majority of echo/fake stereo processing. I have a few recordings from the 1920's and 1930's and they ALL have bad processing done. Undoing that processing is pain in the butt too.

 

[golgi]

I listened to those samples and the difference is drastic.  Are there any other Chuck Berry recordings that you would recommend getting?  It doesn't matter to me if they are on cd or vinyl.  

 

[LFF]

Quote:

I listened to those samples and the difference is drastic.  Are there any other Chuck Berry recordings that you would recommend getting?  It doesn't matter to me if they are on cd or vinyl.  

Not really. The ones on the MFSL disc are great. Only about 3 of those have better versions but those are hard to find and expensive. They are only slightly better too. Thus, I would stick with the MFSL.
 

 

[golgi]

Good to know.  You just saved me the trouble and money of seeking out other recordings.  Not often I actually save money because of head-fi!

 

[LFF]

Quote:

Good to know.  You just saved me the trouble and money of seeking out other recordings.  Not often I actually save money because of head-fi!

I always try to get people to save money by avoiding craptacular recordings.