MFSL Gold Discs

[middlecreekguy]

Has anyone done a side by side sound comparison between these and the regular release of the same disc? Is there really any difference? They are damn pretty, but......

[JohnA]

I'm not sure I can detect a difference between MFSL's gold "Blow by Blow", Jeff Beck, and the commercial CD. I have 4 versions of that recording, 2 on vinyl and 2 on CD.

[WMcD]

My understanding is that the engineers had concern that the alumium used to make regular CD would deteriorate. Gold was a better alterative. But, that might only come into play if there is, in fact, a deterioration of the media. Of course today we listen to CD-R which have neither.

On the other hand, it is my understanding that MFSL did some very good things in getting the best source material of music to put down on its CDs. These were items recorded before digital.

I have a MFSL of the Who's "Tommy". Evidently they got access to Townsend's version of the final mix. This is a bit different than what got to vinyl. "The Acid Queen" is certainly different. The rest sounds the same (same source) from memories of college vinyl days. I love it, BTW.

I've had some other CD's of classic rock. Again, certainly gold versus aluminum is not the issue. Rather, there is some "remixing". The latter term covers a lot of ground.

In the early days of CD there were allegations that the CD duplications of previously released material was poorly done. E.g. vinyl has the RIAA pre emphasis. Where that occured in the vinyl making process and archiving is poorly described. E.g. the CD engineer might obtain a tape from the record company. Its pedigree is not well documented. What is the best balance of sound?

Overall, I'm very intregued by the different mixes and quality. E.g. there is an article in this month's Sound and Vision about the original Dark Side of the Moon, Parson's remix for Quad, and the most recent multichannel mix for SACD by PF's engineer. They're all a bit different. Which is better? No one can really say.

Gil

[middlecreekguy]

Deterioration and mix are the factors I know of that are different and a positive difference. But the over all sound quality concerning the gold disc, not the remix, is at the core of what I am getting at. Perhaps the remix is the big factor. With records, the quality of the vinyl played a huge role in the final product. With discs, it`s only the longevity that is affected as far as quality disc material.

[formica]

----------------

On 5/30/2003 10:15:42 PM middlecreekguy wrote:

Perhaps the remix is the big factor.

----------------

That is basically what I would say...

As far as I know, a regular CD player was originally optimised to read off of the reflective aluminium surface and I don't see an optical benefit of a gold surface. If we pull out our notes on how music is embedded onto a CD, it's basically a bunch of little dash indentations on the top surface of a disk followed by the reflective layer (aluminium, gold, whatever) and finally the label. The red book CD player aims a laser from the bottom surface up to the reflective surface and back down... converting the different reflections into 1 and 0's and then it's off to the DAC.

A gold surface actually does not reflect all frequencies of light equally (hence it's yellowish colour) and in theory could even reduce the contrast of the reflected lasers... but given that optical-pickup is only looking for primitive "on or- off" is the reason gold can be used.

Just some food for thought...

Rob

[WMcD]

Okay, I don't know the answer, but let us pose the question properly.

The concern seems to be whether the pick up of the digital information is better when the media uses gold or alumium.

It is my understanding that the pits and lands are cast in plastic. The metal is put on top of it.

So we're talking about the error reading which might, or might not, be solved by a metal reflecting coating.

One thing which is interesting is that the digital code is not put down consecuitively. Rather, there is the Reed-Soloman interleave. (Which I know little of.)

The other is that, evidently, CD players will accept some error and then interpolate the missing value. This probably arises from scratches in the plastic, rather than the coating.

A fair reading of the issue would be resolved if the user had some indication from the CD player that it has not read a field of data and is therefore patching up data. That way, we'd be able to determine that one CD-ROM or another is more correct in data.

Overall, I think value of the the gold thing is overstated. Perhaps someone will give some comment.

My reasoning is that we buy Windows 2000, or anything else on aluminum CD ROM. There are megabites of code there. Any error would be fatal to the operation of our computers. Perhaps there is a robust error correction and redundency in the system. Still. It seems to work without flaw.

My conclusion is that plain old aluminium is doing the job of storing the bits.

Gil

[formica]

I'm not familiar with the error correction used with red-book CD either, but i entirely agree with the

----------------

My reasoning is that we buy Windows 2000, or anything else on aluminum CD ROM. There are megabites of code there. Any error would be fatal to the operation of our computers. Perhaps there is a robust error correction and redundency in the system. Still. It seems to work without flaw.

----------------

Based on the same theory, I've also questionned the effects of "digital cables" ... as we are told that we need an exotic cable to get 1.2Mbps over 2ft while we can get 100Mbps over 100feet with std Cat5 in the PC world ?? **

Your insights have directed me to an interesting series of articles at One Bit at the Time articles in which they describe Reed-Soloman method in article #3 . I wasn't aware of the non-linear method of data storage. I haven't read them yet but i have bookmarked them, as this may clarify some hi-fi tweeks of questionable nature.

Thanks for your insights as usual Gil...

Rob

PS: ** I been explained by "digital-cable" guys that I'm ignoring critical time alignment and inferior error correction in the audio world... i will read up on it, but i still have my doubts

[sunnysal]

IMHO the only audible difference of the MFSL disks is due to the re-mastering process not to the 24k gold plating, looks neat though huh?...regards, tony

[WMcD]

Interesting articles which will take some time to digest.

A few other thoughts.

- - - - -

The pits and lands on the CD are so closely packed that they create diffraction effects. This is the rainbow effect we see under white light. This necessitates the use of a monochromatic (one color) source which creates a one color rainbow. That means it is only a narrow, non- spread, reflection.

For these reasons, a laser is used. In CD players this is infrared.

The bottom line is that with gold or aluminum, or "anything else", it only has to reflect at the infrared wavelenght/frequency/quantum level. What color it may seem to our wider range eyes does not matter.

I believe there is some effects ganging up. The source is monochromatic and the reflector and sensor only have to reflect and sense one wavelength. It is like when we look at things under a sodium vapor lamp. Remember its spectral emission of sodium is two very closed lines in the rainbow (This was the best source of monochromatic light prior to the laser.) On the other hand we know our clothes otherwise are reflecting multicolors, and our eyes detect them.

It any event, everything viewed under such street lights look black and yellow, only. So the technical merits of the reflector and pick up are limited to the infra red.

The "anything else" I'm thinking of is the surface of a CD-Rom R, or RW. They appear to us as a pretty blue, others are black. None the less, the patterns must be visible to the infra red playback system.

- - - - -

I'm also very suspicious of the super cable theory for speakers or digital links. I'm a long time, though mostly inactive ham. But I contemplate the broader range of radio frequency transmission. For example we push weak r.f. though twinlead 300 ohm TV wire at frequencies up to 500 megahertz. That is what is going on with UHF T.V. reception from a rooftop antenna on a run of 200 feet to the TV (that is how it was done in the old days). It works well. The twinlead is an alternate form of zip cord.

Despite this, people suspect that zip cord can't get 15 kHz across the room to a speaker. This is nonsense.

- - - - -

In the same vein, Com Ed here in Chicago seems to get megawatts of bass frequencies (60 Hz) transmitted using plain old copper wire with screw down connections.

Again, people say there is better wire and connections for better bass. It just can't be.

- - - - -

Similarly, cable T.V. companies send the same sort of frequencies (and some sort of digital information, often) for miles on off the shelf coaxial cable, the equivalent of which you can buy at RS (same manufacturer). There are no gold plated connectors, only the ordinary plated stuff.

Despite this, somehow people say you need some (purportedly) exotic wire and connectors to get digital signals or line level signals over a lenght of two feet from one audio component to the other. This is nonsense too. They all do the same job the same way. The difference is price and hype.

- - - - - -

There are people who claim that when a duplicate of an audio type CD is made on a duplicating machine, like we have in our computers, there are errors. And because of the errors, the duplicate sounds different. (Legal with copyrighted music if you buy the recordable CD-R with the license fee.)

That doesn't make sense either. When I make a back up copy of an operating system (data) using the same duplication system on the computer, the software loads and runs properly. So why do we believe the duplication of audio data is flawed? Maybe there is a more redundent recording of data with the Windows disk, but it gives one pause.

- - - - -

This sort of thing is why engineers can only grin-and-bear-it when the conversation turns to super-wire.

- - - - -

My diatribe for the night.

Gil

[sunnysal]

I like my super wire, it is thick and silvery and has little blue LEDs on the end that glow when the active shield is protecting my signal...LOL...liked the diatribe William as well, very well put and many valid points....BUT I still like my super cables, and they sound better than my super coat hangers. warm regards, Tony

[horonzak]

I still use RAZER WIRE every thing sounds sharper. AND its the cutting edge of technology.

[Strabo]

I read somewhere that MFSL initially used gold because it poured/spread more evenly creating less chances of pits in the reflective surface, therefore making them easier to read than the aluminum discs. But this was all early on in Mofi's production. CeeDee manufacturing got better later on and Mofi decided to stick with the gold as a neat benifit for a stand out version.

As far as the sound, it's all in the mastering. The Mofi's were mastered (allegedly) to with little to no tinkering with the eq, and no use of extra compression beyond what was put on the original tapes. They also limited the volume output on the ceedees to avoid clipping, which has become a standard practice with todays recordings.

This no clipping/quiet recording has caused some people to not like them because they seem too soft. I say, "what's your volume knob for?".

P.S. This goes for DCC's as well.

[artto]

MSFL CD

I have MFSL gold plated CDs of Muddy Waters "Folk Singer", Pink Floyd "DSOTM", The Who "Who Are You" and Rush "Moving Pictures".

Let me assure you that all of these are superior to the original CDs and their analogue LP counterparts. There are simply things, sounds, details, that are not audible on the CDs, or original, or re-issued audiophile LPs.

IMO the CD releases always (including MSFL) seemed to lack the fullness & impact, especially on the low end, that analogue LP produced.

I have a the SACD version of DSOTM. I havent had access to 5.1 yet, but the stereo track is more analogue-like than any CD version ever was. It has the fullness & bass balance of the LP versions.

Indeed, as Gil indicated above, many of these releases (especially from MFSL) used different "takes" or versions than the original release. As the story goes, MSFL went thru the archives & listened to all versions of the original masters & apparently decided for various reasons, such as noise or sound quality, tape deterioration, etc, to use a different version than the original.

The MFSL "ultradisc" as they called it had several "features". The 24 Karat gold was intended to resist environmental "stresses". It supposedly reflects better than aluminum. The black ink used to coat the back is supposed to help reflectivity by reducing stray reflections of light. They came in a special jewel case that lifted the CD out of the case & released it from the spindle to reduce flexing of the disc.

[artto]

Not sure what went wrong on that last post......but..........

I have MFSL gold plated CDs of Muddy Waters Folk Singer, Pink Floyd DSOTM, The Who Who Are You and Rush Moving Pictures.

Let me assure you that all of these are superior to the original CDs and their analogue LP counterparts. There are simply things, sounds, details, that are not audible on the CDs, or original, or re-issued audiophile LPs.

IMO the CD releases always (including MSFL) seemed to lack the fullness & impact, especially on the low end, that analogue LP produced.

I have a the SACD version of DSOTM. I havent had access to 5.1 yet, but the stereo track is more analogue-like than any CD version ever was. It has the fullness & bass balance of the LP versions.

Indeed, as Gil indicated above, many of these releases (especially from MFSL) used different takes or versions than the original release. As the story goes, MSFL went thru the archives & listened to all versions of the original masters & apparently decided for various reasons, such as noise or sound quality, tape deterioration, etc, to use a different version than the original.

The MFSL ultradisc as they called it had several features. The 24 Karat gold was intended to resist environmental stresses. It supposedly reflects better than aluminum. The black ink used to coat the back is supposed to help reflectivity by reducing stray reflections of light. They came in a special jewel case that lifted the CD out of the case & released it from the spindle to reduce flexing of the disc.

[artto]

Not sure whats going on.........BUT.......

I have MFSL gold plated CDs of Muddy Waters Folk Singer, Pink Floyd DSOTM, The Who Who Are You and Rush Moving Pictures.

Let me assure you that all of these are superior to the original CDs and their analogue LP counterparts. There are simply things, sounds, details, that are not audible on the CDs, or original, or re-issued audiophile LPs.

IMO the CD releases always (including MSFL) seemed to lack the fullness & impact, especially on the low end, that analogue LP produced.

I have a the SACD version of DSOTM. I havent had access to 5.1 yet, but the stereo track is more analogue-like than any CD version ever was. It has the fullness & bass balance of the LP versions.

Indeed, as Gil indicated above, many of these releases (especially from MFSL) used different takes or versions than the original release. As the story goes, MSFL went thru the archives & listened to all versions of the original masters & apparently decided for various reasons, such as noise or sound quality, tape deterioration, etc, to use a different version than the original.

The MFSL ultradisc as they called it had several features. The 24 Karat gold was intended to resist environmental stresses. It supposedly reflects better than aluminum. The black ink used to coat the back is supposed to help reflectivity by reducing stray reflections of light. They came in a special jewel case that lifted the CD out of the case & released it from the spindle to reduce flexing of the disc.

[WMcD]

I bought a special edition of Moving Pictures, maybe it was MFSL.

I thought bass was lacking compared to the ordinary CD.

I'm not going to get into an LP versus CD argument. My turntable is gone.

Gil

[Strabo]

----------------

On 6/5/2003 7:29:29 PM William F. Gil McDermott wrote:

I bought a special edition of Moving Pictures, maybe it was MFSL.

I thought bass was lacking compared to the ordinary CD.

I'm not going to get into an LP versus CD argument. My turntable is gone.

Gil

----------------

Agreed, but if you think the CD's are nice check out the Mofi and Dcc lp's.

Either way, your wallet will be lighter.

I have over 150 of these things and to me they are worth it.

A completist friend of mine had all of the Mofi golds and most of the aluminum and cassettes at one time. When he finished his gold collection I asked, what next? Bad idea, he then went for all the UDI vs. UDII's. He has since sold off or traded a bunch of them.

This hobby can be as expensive as you want to make it with both software and hardware.

[WMcD]

Yeah, well, my problem is that I'm mostly in the market for new recordings, rather than improved prints of what I've got. Naturally there are a few exceptions.

As alluded to above, the master tapes for some stuff is probably not going to be recovered, due to deterioration of the surviving copy. On the other hand. Did you hear the new release of Yellow Submarine? I could hear the effect of the remix from the multi channel orginal on the cheapo headphones at Virgin. On the horns, it is terrific. If that can be done with Sgt. Pepper, I'll be first in line with a $100 bill. Shows my age!

OTOH, the MFSL of Tommy is going to be difficult to surpass.

The gold versus aluminum issue triggered some memories particularly in view of some recent work at the office.

There was an article some years ago, perhaps in the late Audio Magazine. It examined where there is reason to believe that aluminum CD's are likely to deteriorate. That relies a bit on accelerated aging testing. So how do you accelerate aging?

This relies on a principle of chemistry that reactions double in rapidity for every 10 degrees centegrade. Someone can give us the name. Therefore, cooking a CD simulates aging at normal temperatures. Cyclic cooking simulates the CD being left in an automobile through the seasons. Evidently aluminum held up pretty well. It is a matter of accelerating oxidation from components of the plastic. Gold would be more immutable, naturally.

The problem is that damage to CDs, at least for me, is scratches on either side. I listen in the garage, the car, the office, and don't take proper care. I figure that there is little reason to "go for gold" when I'll mishandle them and scratch them far sooner than compromise of the aluminum. This is why my license to own LP's was revoked by the RIAA and the Bronx County and Cook County dormatory association.

The aging thing came into play when working on litigation involving cosmetics. To establish projected shelf life, the industry simulates aging by subjecting the item to high temperatures.

In view of the above, I sleep with the air conditioner on. Deterioration of myself might be avoided. Still there are these scratches and pitting on the surface of the dermus over time.

Gil

[Strabo]

----------------

On 5/30/2003 6:53:14 PM middlecreekguy wrote:

Has anyone done a side by side sound comparison between these and the regular release of the same disc? Is there really any difference? They are damn pretty, but......

----------------

I've learned more about all things musical at this site (see link) in the last year than I have in the previous 5 years.

Things like, how to test your mid's to see if they are working properly, not just playing. Take Creedence Fortunate Son on DCC or Audio Fidelity and the opening drums should echo way back like a connon shot. That's the effect the band was going for when it was originally mastered (anti-war song). If they don't, your mid's are doing something wrong.

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/

For those that don't know, Steve Hoffman was the man behind the mastering console for DCC and can be found posting there daily. It's nice to be able to hear the details straight from the horses mouth.

Try their search function (it actually works) on UD1 vs UD2 for starters.

[efzauner]

Guys

I just spent some time on the mofi web site reading up on what they do, and on the http://www.cdrinfo.com/ web site reading up on cd writing and reading quality. This site tells you everything you need to know about CD quality, the encoding, read/write process, and errors.

Here is my take:

Mofi pays a great deal of attention to analog equipment quality and the remix process. They also use the SACD DSD (Direct Stream Digital) process both the SACD and the CD version of the tracks. These 2 factors probably make up 90% of the difference in what you hear.

There is no mention to the CD mastering (actually burning the master CD) and the mass stamping process. Does that mean that there is nothing special? I would suspect that if they did something special, they would surely mention it!

From the cdrinfo web site, I learnt that there are several things that can affect CD quality and therefore the errors: from the way the CD is burned to the mechanical quality of the CD (surface quality, coating quality, balance, stability etc), not to mention the quality of the CD player.

As you all know, there is considerable error detection and correction on CDs, and CD players also vary in the way they can read and correct errors, and vary widely in the D/A and analog reproduction quality. However, apart from gross errors like total dropouts that are very audible, it is unclear to me how the correction of small errors affects the quality of the sound. Most errors are corrected perfectly (that is why it is called error CORRECTION), but the larger errors that cannot be corrected are removed by interpolation and substitution. This obviously affects the sound, but I dont think that we can clearly state that a certain type of error makes the sound less airy, or the image more stable, or the bass more solid. In other words, from a scientific point of view we do not understand the relationship, if there is one, between specific kind of errors and the sound we perceive. I will try to study this issue more.