Recently, I decided to completely start over with big home HiFi and build a new (to me) high-end home audio system to be truly proud of and enjoy for many years to come (and not have to constantly repair and keep up like with past vintage-focused systems of mine). Truth be told, I am entering into the busiest time of my life, and over-paying for vintage 70's-80's TOTL components just for me to have to do a mountain of work to them so I can enjoy them is simply not worth it anymore for me. I could also go on and on about how vintage audio 'gatekeeping' YouTubers (Just Audio, SkiFi) have turned the once small and pure retro audio hobby into a luxury goods business for hipsters, but I'll refrain from that this time. So, I knew I wanted all modern components and the good ol' American rock sound (being as classic rock is the main genre I listen to), so I decided to go with modern McIntosh for all of the electronics as I really loved the sound I was hearing from my research. Making my music (especially digital) sound more warm and toned was a top priority for me going into my purchase. I had more nuanced requirements too, like a single remote to control and automate all functions of each component, killer lossless streaming support, and most importantly, a reliable CD player that doesn't skip and act temperamental (like most of my old ones do). McIntosh offered all of what I was looking for... Audiophile streaming, full one touch integration, warm bodied sound, and rock solid reliability (CD and otherwise)... but since this post is about SACD, I'm going to leave my full system tour and findings for another time. CD time. Enter the McIntosh MCT500. I bought this beast initially so that I could just enjoy my large and growing regular CD collection with ease of use/system integration, and with the best sound quality possible... and in combination with my mostly thrifted collection of used CDs, it's hands down the best experience I've ever had. It's quick to read discs, simple to operate, and it's heavy and very well-built with a metal transport and disc tray... in fact, most all of this player is made of metal (steel, sourced from right here in the US). As for that seamless one-remote integration I crave, It pairs with my integrated amp (McIntosh MA5300) with only a single DIN cable called 'MCT', and with a serial cable, the amp's own remote controls it perfectly. It auto-powers with the rest of the system too, so I literally never touch the front panel, except to put discs in and out. One thing to note with this unit, it is only a transport, so it cannot output an analog signal directly, and for SACDs, you MUST use a McIntosh DAC with the aforementioned DIN MCT connector onboard. McIntosh will sell you the MCD350 for $500 more, which is literally just this player but with a DAC built in, and USB Hi-Res file playback removed... odd choice. Speaking of SACDs, it was at this point that I decided to try SACDs. I have never owned a proper SACD player until now, and as such, I never had any SACDs to listen to. I knew very little about them going into this, and I honestly didn't know where to find them for sale (except for used on eBay for a small king's ransom each). After a little bit of research, I stumbled upon Mofi, a company that offers modern re-issues of older music on Vinyl and CD, plus they also sell some very hyped hipster-looking audio gear. I was very pleased with the prices and selection they had on offer ($35 each, for classic rock and pop albums on Hybrid SACD). Now, $35 an album may seem like a lot, but when you look at what SACDs sell for elsewhere (including Mofi SACDs), it seems like a right down bargain... that is if everything was perfect with them sound wise. It's also great that they are Hybrid SACDs, so even if you find yourself stranded without an SACD player in the future, these CDs will still play pretty much anywhere in any CD player. Okay, now for the juicy bits... the sound quality and insights. I ordered all of the albums shown above and they all arrived on the same day for testing and listening. Some of these albums I know incredibly well, and some I was not as familiar with and looking forward to exploring in greater detail. First off, I was really impressed with 'Thriller' by Michael Jackson. The detail and soundstage is much increased and enhanced when compared with my FLAC copy or vintage CD copy. I just sat with my eyes closed listening to each track on the album, and I couldn't have been happier with what I was hearing... and again, this is an album I know really well. It's actually a dramatic difference, and not in a jarring or bad way... just crystal clear sound with a lower noise floor, greater separation, and detailed instruments/vocals. 'The Girl Is Mine" and "Human Nature" were real stand outs here. Some tracks were a tad 'punchier' than with older releases, but I welcomed this as I personally believed some of the Thriller tracks were originally just a touch light on low-end anyways. Now I wish I could say these positive observations applied to every title I picked up, but they simply did not. For instance, 'Heartbeat City' by The Cars was an album I tested that I was a tad less satisfied with. Yes, the sound had that greater separation and lower noise floor as before with 'Thriller', but this time there was an added warmth to the drums/bass frequencies that was too severe and muddied up the sound a bit more than I usually like. 'Looking For Love' was one of the few stand out tracks that actually came out sounding much better than my The Cars' 'Greatest Hits' CD or FLAC files. In the end, I am happy with some of the tracks here, but others are just too warmed up for me. I would still listen to the SACD, but I might end up too temped to grab my regular CD or use FLACs. 'Tango In The Night" by Fleetwood Mac is a much better release by Mofi in my opinion. I loved how the drum kit came out sounding, and the synths on 'everywhere' had a golden shimmer that radiated out of my speakers and honestly gave me a real chill. I also loved how Stevie Nick's vocals sounded, clear, detailed, and emotive. This is a strong pickup in the Mofi catalog for sure. Again, I found the entire release 'punchier'... bass kicks were more defined and strong, the bass part could be easier heard, and some of the lower synths (like on Seven Wonders) was more pronounced than I'm used to. Not a bad thing, just different. So what do I think so far, specifically with Mofi SACDs? I would really love to sit here on the couch I am writing this from and say the SACD technology was the magic dust that made the difference, but I know that is not the truth. The real truth is that Mofi releases seem to use very different techniques in mastering and have a completely different sound BEFORE they are ever pressed to that gold SACD disc. I'm not saying that SACD doesn't help to a nominal degree, but the real difference I am hearing has to be coming from decisions which mastering and recording engineers made to affect the mix and final master of the release... and I think that is overselling the SACD importance. My opinion, take it with a grain of salt. I have a small number of non Mofi releases on the way from around 2003, so I'm considering my final opinions of SACD unsolved until I hear some older SACDs from folks other than Mofi. Good news is, I have the transport and DAC now to really listen to these critically, so I'm interested in the outcome. Stay tuned for a better conclusion + more insights.
As you suggest the mastering probably has more effect than the medium used for the music. As a CD enthusiast I expect you are familiar with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war I'm sure that a few years ago the same article used three different CD releases of Thriller to illustrate increasing levels of loudness. The same subject got me wondering how, back in the days when MS-DOS didn't see any need to support discs over 32MBytes, https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/41912.html they mastered CDs. The answer was linearly hence the lack of opportunity to mess with levels. The Sony PCM-F1 predated CD and it can be said CD was based on it. https://www.stereophile.com/content/sony-pcm-f1-digital-audio-converter They would take a Betamax tape (or similar) to the CD pressing plant and play the digital stream in real time into the CD master "cutting" machine. It was only in the 1990s that the recording could be stored in a computer and the audio engineers thought "I'll juts tweak this and that and this"
Yes, loudness is most certainly an ingredient in the 'Mofi Magic', but I'm not going to say it's the only one. I don't think I've ever heard a modern remastering of pre-1990s music that didn't have some increase in loudness. Thing is, I can understand why engineers add loudness; People's tastes in music have shifted quite a bit since the last 50 years. If you play old rock/pop from the 60s and 70s, music is usually mixed very quiet, and sub bass is almost always non-existent. The focus during these years was on vocals and guitars, which all land in the middle frequencies, so it made sense to make mixes flat and linear. Some music in the early 80s (Yacht Rock, blue eyed soul), continues that idea, and is flat and silent as can be, whilst more progressive synthesized pop started to get more energetic and loud sounding with increasingly heavier reliance on sub bass and of course synthesized or heavily processed bass/drums. Fast forward to today, music has an insane amount of sub-bass and loudness these days and to be quite honest, the 'BOSE Sound' of all bass, all trebble, no mids, seems to be the playbook for modern recording engineering. If I play any track from Christopher Cross' first album, then go to say Justin Bieber, I'd better hope I turn down my volume by like half, because I'll go deaf and blow something out if I don't. My opinion on this is simple. Some old albums need a boost in loudness, some don't. If I get an album from Mofi that is already boosted in loudness and it needed it badly to begin with, it saves me a trip to my EQ. If I get an album from Mofi that is over-done or too heavy/loud, I'm heading to my EQ, or just putting in the old CD copy. Adding loudness can make a mix come alive, or it can completely kill it. I think Mofi is trying to deliver based on this thinking, but they don't get it right all the time. What bothers me about this mentality is the lack of transparency or communication from engineers. On new remastered releases, I never see any details on what was done or why they thought adjustment was needed. In fact, I've bought a few albums that were marketed as just a re-release, and then I learned after listening that it was remastered to hell by seemingly a middle schooler. It was recently a Starship re-release that I bought that was like this... don't remember which one...
Great collection of SACDs there, and Maria Carey (sorry, someone had to say it ). I certainly wouldn't be complaining about SACD prices if you look at how much they are here in Oz, generally $65 to $75 and about a tenth of the range. As such I only have 2 SACDs, however they are pretty much the standards, being Brothers in Arms and The Dark Side of the Moon, so personally I don't think I have heard a bad SACD. Would love to get more but as you mentioned, it can be a bit of a lottery, one that I am not willing to pay for 75 bucks a pop for. What sort of "loudness" are we talking about here? There are several different meanings the word can be used for. A synonym for volume (of both the recording and listening environment). The loudness control that compensates for lost bass and treble perception when playing at low volumes. Equalisation (I would argue this is not a correct use of this word, but it is still adding volume to what you are listening to). Compression. The killer of dynamic range! CDs did get louder volume wise, particularly in the 90s, but I think the bigger issue was when they ran out of headroom and started using compression to get things to "sound louder". This meant much of the dynamic range was lost, making the mixes "muddier" and producing ear fatigue with any decent listening session. Think of a movie on the TV compared to when the ads come on! I'm pretty sure Mobile Fidelity were and are trying to retain the higher dynamic range of many of these original recordings whilst also making them suitable for modern equipment. People love to talk about the "artist's intent", but let's face it, we were all playing these albums back in the day with the loudness switch permanently on and probably some kind of "scoop" equaliser setting. As such, these just don't sound like we remember them on new equipment, and I feel that modern recordings are often building that in to the recording as modern hi-fi manufacturers continue to take away our ability to do it ourselves. I am also pretty sure that SACD has a hard limit for recordings of -6db to avoid the possibility of clipping, although I doubt this convinces anyone to use less compression.
Recaptcha it's nice reading about you enjoying your SACD's . Some of those albums i also have on Mofi one step vinyl. It would be nice to see the rest of your system, if you feel like showing them you can always post here My system and room have changed a bit since that first post.
Yep, I agree with you, and I have no excuses for my actions. The Wikipedia article that Longman linked was specifically about increasing the level of the entire recording, but for me and my Mofi findings, I'm thinking a combination between 1 and 2. Some of the aforementioned SACDs I tested seemed to be both louder overall than previous editions of the recording, and also boosted in low frequencies... which is an effect that a 'loudness button' on say a vintage receiver would provide. When I say that a recording is 'punchier' or 'more energetic' I am referring to boosts in lower and higher end frequency bands or 'The BOSE Sound', and the overall subtle increase in volume I am observing is technically the definition of 'loudness'. Two separate adjustments I feel, that is present in some Mofi stuff I've looked at, and not in others. Also keep in mind, this is the opinions and findings of one dude... I'm not saying Mofi is bad, and I overall really love the sound of these discs, it's just that I feel some unnecessary knob twiddling has been done on rare occasion.
Of course, it is inline with what I have heard from others though. It is great that there are companies out there trying to make the mixes as good as possible, and there are things that we obviously wouldn't know about either, like the condition of the master tapes that, no matter how well they are stored, would still be deteriorating over time. Some of these are getting pretty old now! This is why I am not against Mofis "scandalous" decision to make digital copies to prevent further degradation of LP masters. I have found (and this is CDs rather than SACDs) that many Australian albums had their best versions when the CDs were still being printed in Japan, and have recently bought myself a my fourth and best copy of Whispering Jack as such (not including tape and LP copies). Well worth the not unreasonable price, and I don't think there is anyone in Australia that is really doing any good preservation of any of this stuff, both for music and movies. Can we mention what a pain having any type of multi-disc player is when half the CDs are at 80s level and half are twice the volume? I am sure everyone here has an experience of being blown out of the car when a certain disc comes on! I will say that I am definitely not enough of a purist to not smash an equaliser into the signal chain to get something I am listening to to sound how I want it to sound!
