Mobile Fidelity Announces Bob Dylan and Miles Davis Titles

I just say the 200g disaster! Most of them do not sound better than the originals... sometimes even worse. From the early stuff... Listen to Aqualung or Cosmo's Factory... a smiley rollercoaster Eq... unlistenable for me. A few sound really good, like Ry Cooder's Jazz or Rickie Lee Jones ST album.

 

I like the new MOFI mono SACD and, even though a bit of an apples/oranges comparison, prefer it to the SICP10082 Japanese SACD which is stereo. For digital stereo, however, I like the old blue border CK40837. Strong bass and more impact on the drums on that one, for me. I've never heard an original mono LP. Bet it kills.

 

Michael Fremer liked the new MFSL LP of BD Freewheelin':
http://www.analogplanet.com/content/pan-demonium-breaks-out-mo-fi-issues-freewheelin-bob-dylan

The Gain 2 business I do not quite get - wasn't its predecessor designed by the very same Tim De Paravicini?

 

I had that one but sold it. Something didn't sound right, there was a kind of imbalance with the sound moving slightly to and fro between the centre and the right (or left, I don't remember exactly), even though it was mono - and no, it wasn't my system, as all other mono CDs sounded exactly as they should. Someone told me it might have been caused by tape drag when the mastering for the 32DP was done - or whatever it's called, I'm not an expert. You had to listen carefully to hear it, but once I had heard it I couldn't stand it anymore and got rid of the disc.

 

Are there any other CDs that are mono? I'm thinking if the later CSCS CD is mono, then it may have the same mastering as the 32DP disc.

 

When I said "all other mono CDs" I was referring to mono CDs other than Milestones in my collection.

 

With regard to the Sony stereo SACD I did a search on Amazon and found only the following link. Unfortunately Amazon (as much as I love them) are terribly bad when it comes to listing either catalog numbers or ISBNs. Their own catalog numbers (ASIN) aren't very useful when it comes to identifying various issues. Is there only one version of stereo SACD and thus would this most likely be it?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000VOON76/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00

Though I like the new mono MFSL SACD quite a bit, I've never heard any other hi-rez version and l like this title so much that I'd like to pick up the Sony SACD compare. Though again I'll ave to wait for my 2-channel SACD player to come back from the shop before doing any serious comparisons.

 

Here are the two previous SACD reissues (Mark Wilder stereo remix from the 3-track master tapes), with shopping links:

http://www.sa-cd.net/showtitle/839
http://www.sa-cd.net/showtitle/4865

The first has bonus tracks, the second doesn't. I think there was a sound comparison posted in this forum some time ago.

 

Thank you for providing those links. Interestingly enough when I clicked on the second link, it then brought up buying options, including (USA) Amazon. Then I clicked on Amazon's link and when taken to their page, it shows that this version (supposedly) has the bonus tracks too...probably just a listing mistake on Amazon's part (???) (This is the one I originally provided a link for above). As far as you know, aside from the presence or absence of bonus tracks, these are two different masterings, correct?

 

Any recording takes advantage from less conversion steps of any kind.

If the source is analog the additional conversion step to make it digital does not help at all, on the contrary, it will always add or subtract something to or from the original analog source, as no ADC is 100% perfect nor 100% transparent.

I'm not surprised that analog recordings can (and do IMO) sound better on analog playback media, even with the "same" mastering, because they bypass that conversion step...

 

Jitter is the enemy, but the war ain't over just yet.

 

Everything goes into the DA5ES in analog direct mode - so I am always using the D/A converters in the players (which I assume are superior to those in the DA5ES).

 

That's fine, but I am still wondering if there are other mono Milestones CDs besides the Japanese 32DP issue.

EDIT: I saw the Japanese CSCS 5342 CD on eBay tonight, and the obi strip says "STEREO/MONO". Interestingly, the cover has the purple border like the U.S. Columbia Jazz Masterpieces issue. I've never seen the purple border on a Japanese issue before. Maybe it has the same mastering as the U.S. Columbia Jazz Masterpieces disc. I'm surprised that the CSCS disc is a mix of mono and stereo. That seems strange.

Also, I saw the Japanese SRCS 9103 CD on eBay, and the obi strip is labeled mono.

 

That's what I figured. I doubt the DA5ES favors analog playback over digital playback. That is, I doubt that the phono pre-amp is better than the analog inputs circuitry.

 

Not sure if this matters, but last night I did some additional comparing of Milestones digital versions. My preference is:

Sony Single-Layer stereo SACD
MOFI hybrid Mono SACD
Sony CD from the Complete Columbia Album Box set
Columbia Original Jazz Masterpieces original CD (WAY DOWN ON THE LIST)

After reading about you mentioning the U.S. Columbia Jazz Masterpieces disc, I decided to do some comparison through headphones (it was late at night).

I still preferred the Sony JSACD from 2001, but the MOFI Mono sounded really nice and trumped the other non-SACD issues I had.

Although the Sony CD from the Complete Columbia Album Box set is the same mix and has the same bonus tracks as the JSACD, the CD was mastered way to hot - too loud and a bit harsh. The JSACD was excellent in comparison (and it was definitely the same mix - but obviously a different mastering job).

Then I listened to select cuts from the original Columbia Jazz Masterpieces CD - Wow - what crap. It states it was digitally remixed by Teo Macero and I'm not sure what he was thinking. Two cuts were in stereo, but vastly different mixes than the SACD or the 2001 remix. Weird stereo mixes I might have to say - a ton of reverb added to the mix, nothing sounded distinct - just awash in a strange cavernous sound. The channels were also reversed from the other stereo mixes (original CD had piano on the right and drums on the left, but as I said a very weird mix). The more perplexing thing was the last 4 cuts on the original CD were "mono" (but not really). It appeared as if the mono mix was pushed into the left side of the soundstage, and the right was used for some very weird slap-back echo/reverb. The mono mix in the left was also awash in a weird reverb that just ruined the music and made it sound very indistinct and wonky. What was Columbia and Teo thinking? It had been awhile since I ever listened to the original CD, and I can tell you I would NEVER listen to it again. Does anyone else have this CD and a newer version to compare and comment on what I heard?

After hearing the original CD, I switched to the Mono MOFI - what a breath of fresh air. It is mono done right - it did sound good, but as I mentioned I still preferred the more open and "real" sounding JSACD in stereo.

I kept switching back and forth between all four digital issues for the next hour and 1/2 just to confirm my preferences.

Anyway, I'm done comparing this album, and next time will just pick one and sit and listen (which is what I prefer to do instead of ruminating on which version is better than the next).

 

It's funny how perceptions and opinions can differ I've only listened to the Complete Columbia Albums Collection (CCAC) version of Milestones in recent years and don't find that one too hot or harsh; yes, it's a bit bright, but not too much, at least not on my system - and I'm allergic to hot and bright masterings, as I've said (too) often on this board. Your mileage clearly varies.

I intend to get the MoFi mono SACD if finances allow and the dollar is rising not too fast against the euro in the coming weeks, and compare the CD layer and the CCAC version - even though it's comparing apples and oranges.

 

Thanks for the detailed review. I won't be doing comparisons now, but I have the MFSL mono SACD in one of my changers and will listen to it today.

 

I'm listening to the MFSL SACD of The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan right now. Without grabbing the Sony SACD for comparison, it seems that the MFSL SACD could be warmer. Dylan's vocals are a bit edgy, as is the harmonica. Instrumentation is clear, but it's not a warm disc to my ears. Hiss is very evident.

Any other reviews of the SACD?

 

Have not heard yet, but that's surprising based on mofi's recent work...

 

Interesting that the Gram Parsons and Billy Joels rec'd (mostly) rave reviews but the Miles/Dylan seem to have issues compared to other editions.

 

Rave reviews of Billy Joel...???

I got Stranger, 52nd Street and Glass Houses... I only like The Stranger

 

I don't think the various early qualms and quibbles about the very first releases in the Miles/Dylan series have risen to the level of "issues." Not yet, anyway.

And of course, there's a big difference between artists like Billy Joel and Gram Parsons, who haven't been subject to a ton of high-end reissues, and Miles and Dylan, where there are mountains of competing releases in every format your can think of, including a bunch of "audiophile" versions. There's much more to obsess about and second-guess with the latter.

Like the current allegation that the new Mofi Music from Big Pink vinyl plays at an incorrect speed, at this points there's nowhere near the amount and quality of evidence to confidently say that there are real problems or shortcomings with these releases. Stay tuned.

 

Fair comment.

 

Yes...rave reviews from most. No offense but you obviously have a problem with Mofi as a company so when it comes to Mofi I think some bias bleeds into your reviews of their products.

 

My perception differs in only the fact that when comparing the JSACD of the same stereo mix and Mark Wilder remaster to the CCAC disc, it is evident there are differences. On it's own, and before doing the comparison, it is quite possible I would have found the CCAC version "perfect". It is the JSACD that brings out the differences in the CCAC version, so that my perception is based on something different than yours.