[chadbang]

I would guess. But it would be just a guess. I never remembered cd players having a de-emphasis switch, and I began selling them when they first came out.

 

[G-man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadbang /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would guess. But it would be just a guess. I never remembered cd players having a de-emphasis switch, and I began selling them when they first came out.

well, thanks for the info. jus got the black triangle releases, and everything seems ok without any of the pre emphasis stuff. it is marginally better than my other version, but i think my equipment may be the limiting factor (currently using 20 pounds heapdhones and onboard sound card, damn w1000 didnt come with mini connector, so have to buy a converter plug)

 

[j24]

thanks guys. With all these Japanese fakes floating around I wasn't sure how to spot them. I went ahead with the mobile fidelity version which I had heard before from a friend.

 

[j24]

well, I might as well ask about my next purchase: The Wall. What is the best cd version? The mobile fidelity or something else?

 

[markl]

Black Triangle Holy Grail DSOTM is nice but over-rated, IMO. For most people, the MoFi will do fine.



For the Wall, no one likes the MoFi. Cheapest, most readily available is the original CD issue on columbia with catalog # beginning "C2K..." It punchier and crisper than the MFSL, a lot of people like this one.

 

[j24]

thanks Markl, I was going to go the moFi for the Wall without hearing it but it's pretty expensive. I'll be saving some money for other cds.

 

[AudioDwebe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by omegaman /img/forum/go_quote.gif The fabled "Holy Grail", It's the Toshiba japan first pressing from 1983. It has a Black triangle on the CD and is allegedly the best issue around. Shame it is so rare.

So this is what I don't quite get: It's a pretty widely held opinion that CD's, when they were first introduced (early 80's) sounded pretty lousy. So why then would a CD made in 1983 be better than ones made much later when the whole CD manufacturing process came into being and sound quality improved?

I think darn near any recording of the DSOTM will sound pretty amazing. And, the only way to tell if you'll hear a difference is to try them all and compare. Unfortunately, that involves a lot of time and expense. Not only that, your equipment may not be able to distinguish much of a difference, if at all.

The best recording of the DSOTM is the one you have and enjoy, irregardless of the pressing.

 

[scompton]

There were probably some engineers back in the 80s who got things right. Maybe whoever mastered DSOTM in 83 was one of them. I started buying CDs in 86 and they sounded just as good as LPs out of my mid-fi system at the time. Most of the early ones I bought were albums that were CD only. I don't remember when I started buying CDs that duplicated LPs that I owned.

 

[chadbang]

I got the black triangle version. Can't be 100 percent sure it isn't a fake. However the person was very meticulous in his description (non-DO or "TO" version, which I've seen mentioned elsewhere). I've been giving my different versions a listen. In the end, it's all subjective and what sonic signature is "best" for you. The Black triangle verison is definitely a little crisper mastering, the high frequencies giving it a nice sense of air. However, I think I still prefer the MFSL mastering by Steve Hoffman (right?). It's got that nice smooth analogue feel with a tad more bass impact. I always like MFSL recordings, so maybe I'm a fan of the house sound. The vocals are darker, hence "smoother" on the MFSL version, so you lose a bit of detail. But I find them more pleasing to listen to.

 

[markl]

Quote:

So this is what I don't quite get: It's a pretty widely held opinion that CD's, when they were first introduced (early 80's) sounded pretty lousy.

This is how record companies get you to buy remasters. Now, people are seeing that most remasters are maximized and compressed and EQ-ed all to hell in order to "pop" on your mp3 player and apple ear buds. Lowest common denominator mastering.

It's a myth that all old CD sound bad; quite the contrary.

Quote:

the MFSL mastering by Steve Hoffman (right?).

Steve did the DCC gold CDs not MFSL.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadbang /img/forum/go_quote.gif You can't fairly compare two different formats.

Sure I can... and I did. I lined 'em up next to each other, and the SACD and the LP sounded pretty much the same, but the SACD had absolutely no surface noise.

See ya
Steve

 

[chadbang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sure I can... and I did. I lined 'em up next to each other, and the SACD and the LP sounded pretty much the same, but the SACD had absolutely no surface noise. See ya Steve

Shouldn't be audible surface noise with a good record and proper set up. That's what MFSL specially set out to eliminate -- Virgin japanese vinyl, half speed mastering. And that was taken to an extreme with the UHQR pressings. No, shouldn't be any surface noise with a UHQR pressing. Most like you had purchased a worn record. Second hand? Can't tell by looking at them, that's the problem. Guess you were using headphones, too. That can exacerbate any problems with a poor record or off-kilter set up.

 

[chadbang]

I never should have read this thread....


I;m going to add another listen to this listen. i got ahold of a rip of a MFSL UHQR and I think it's my favorite release of DSOM yet (still haven't heard the SACD). The UHQR (ultra high quality record) has the nicest presence on the acoustic instruments (the sax) as well as the vocals. A wonderfully rich sounding pressing. Only problem is the rip had some IM problems in places (intermodular distortion) from a worn album. Otherwise, this would have been my preferred DSOM journey so far!

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadbang /img/forum/go_quote.gif Shouldn't be audible surface noise with a good record and proper set up..

Perhaps on the moon. But in the real world, vinyl has an occasional tic or pop (yes, even MFSL). Not that the small amount of surface noise on a great LP pressing is a big deal, but it's still noise that doesn't exist on CDs. In a direct comparison, the SACD sounded for all intents and purposes just as good as the UHQR LP (which I bought new when it came out and babied), the LP just had an occasional tic due to the vagueries of the LP format. The CD layer of the SACD was slightly different than the SACD layer. It sounded a little more compressed... still not bad.

See ya
Steve

 

[chadbang]

Well, then I'm gonna have to check out the SACD. I was very happy with the UHQR's sound.