My Adventures in SACD... Mofi & Beyond!

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.

1. A synonym for volume (of both the recording and listening environment).
2. The loudness control that compensates for lost bass and treble perception when playing at low volumes.
3. 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).
4. 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!

 

As mentioned in my previous post, I purchased a few non-Mofi related SACDs from back in the heyday of SACD (when initial hype was big), and they just so happened to arrive end of last week! I took several days to listen critically to my selection, so I feel pretty confident about my findings. Here is my selection, pictured with my AMP/DAC (the Amp has a built in DAC).



3 Peter Gabriel albums I am extremely well familiar with (and really love deeply)... all remastered in 2003 for SACD by Sony. Based on my research of these, seems like at this point Sony was approaching many artists about remastering their discography for SACD, and Peter Gabriel was one of the more positive artists enthused about the format. In fact, 'UP', his 2002 album, was mixed from the beginning in 5.1 for SACD. Incidentally, I did buy that album too, but it is still in the mail...

I really wanted albums that I had listened to many times before, and could also compare with regular CD editions I already had in my library. These albums did the job perfectly.



First of all, I have to mention how much I love these plastic cases. They are much higher quality than ordinary 'jewel cases' used for CDs, and several steps up from the 'Mini LP' CD disc folder packaging Mofi uses. They definitely feel solid and quite heavy in the hand, and add to the elevated experience of holding and using the SACD. The only crime these cases might be guilty of is being harder to open than regular CD 'Jewel Cases'... these SACD cases have proper clasps, unlike regular CD cases which stay shut with only friction.

Something else that bugs me in general is that some SACDs come in regular CD cases, some come in these upgraded cases, and some come in digipaks. I wish they had agreed on a standard like with CD.

I should also mention at this point that unlike Mofi releases which are quite reasonable (in price) for what you are getting, these releases here have been out of print for well over a decade, and as such are expensive and hard to find. Discogs didn't have any of these for sale at the time of posting this, and I purchased these on eBay. 'So' was very costly at around $150USD, whilst Us and Security were more reasonable at ~$50 each.



The back of this SACD looks just like an ordinary DVD, complete with some light 'coffee staining' that I see on many of my video DVDs. It lacks the gold sheen that many other SACDs I've seen have... even all of the Mofi discs are goldish, but these Peter Gabriel SACDs are all plain silver. Not that any of this matters haha.

But what about the SOUND of these? Let me go through each one:

Security
I was really impressed with this release, even though I spent the least amount of time here. To keep things general, the tone and eq found throughout the release seems virtually unchanged from my older CD copy. What I really noticed was that the detail was much improved and the vocals and drums were brighter... and I don't mean brighter in a way that is fatiguing or obvious, I mean brighter as in the tone and body of cymbals, vocal sibilances, snares, and upper mid instruments were detailed and more pronounced. Overall, the adjustments made to this remaster was noticeably more subtle than I found with the average Mofi remaster, and I was really really impressed here.

So
So had me grinning from ear to ear and feeling the goosebumps the minute I started on track 1 'Red Rain'. The cymbals and light tom touches found at the very beginning had a lot of tone and detail in them, and surprisingly, the bass was pretty much bang on how I was used to hearing on CD and FLAC. There was nothing undesired added, like warmth or muddiness, it was the original intention of the song, plus a lot of added detail. I was equally impressed with 'Sledgehammer', the rhythm guitar part played by David Rhodes was incredibly easy to track throughout the song, and the timbre of it was much improved. 'Don't Give Up' was another track I loved. Frankly, I was amazed at the quality and tone of Peter's vocals here, and the gospel-like piano in the middle section was a little warmer and more prominent... It sounded thin to me in the original. Similar story with 'Mercy Street'... wonderfully detailed percussion and great tonal sound in general. In summary, I was extremely impressed overall with this entire album remaster.

Us
First of all, everything that applies to So/Security applies here too. Increased detail, more visible tones in vocals and drums, except that specifically for Us, the bass parts on a few songs are a tiny bit warmer than (I think), than the original release was. It's very minor, but I perceived on 'Digging In the Dirt' and 'Steam' that the bass was more muddy than I really liked. 'Digging In The Dirt' and 'Secret World' were two tracks I really wanted to mention from this remaster, and while I was not all that happy with the supposed improvements between CD and SACD on the former track, 'Secret World' sounded incredible. I loved what was done to the bass part, it was fuller and thicker, but not muddy, and the vocals were very present and 'in the room'.

Overall, I really love and appreciate these 3 releases, and will be choosing them as the definitive way to listen to these albums moving forward. Once again, I understand that what was done from a remastering point of view probably matters more to the sound than it simply being on SACD, but it's subtle enough to where you don't overtly question the mastering and wonder if the SACD is really the improvement you are hearing. In the case of these 3 discs, I think these were all remastered close together time wise, and by the same team. I think this because the changes made to each album seem pretty lateral and evenly applied to all... it's not a mastering mixed bag.

I guess in a more broad sense, I still like very much the Mofi releases I have in my collection now, but since I have heard SACDs from the beginning years, I have a deeper appreciation for the more delicate approach of remastering which brings subtle improvements, rather than Mofi's more dramatic 'change in sound signature' that I have witnessed.

 

So (no pun intended) I watched a video the other day about the evolution of CD boxes. Ahh, the things we watch on YouTube. Anyway, it suggested that these updated cases (marketed as "Super Jewel Boxes") were designed to address all the criticisms of the original jewel case, and were used in regular CDs for some time before being replaced by cheaper options. Certainly the modern standard for CD cases seems to be "as cheap as possible". It did mention that these came to be associated with SACD releases (which is also the only place I have seen them) as I guess penny pinching wasn't quite so necessary in these more expensive releases. They are pretty great with only one downside, that being different sized inlays meant upgrading an existing CD to one of the se was not possible.

The gold colour on DVDs usually relates to the disc being dual layer, so I would hazard a guess to say these releases are not hybrid discs with a CD layer?

Thanks very much for your detailed notes on these albums and the format in general, I know it takes some time to really do some critical listening and then come up with a way of trying to describe what it is you are hearing. It sounds as if you have enjoyed replaying a lot of albums you love though so it was definitely worth it! I might have to revisit So myself (in poverty-stricken 16bit, 44.1kHz form).

I will mention that my turntable has the ability to "rip" records directly into DSD format (technically DSF) that I can then burn to DVD and play on my SACD player natively. My Oppo player can also play the native DSF files from the network, although when used as a Roon endpoint they are converted to PCM. I have only really done a couple of old various artist albums (the ones with 9 tracks smashed on to each side) and some old singles that are absolutely not available anywhere on CD (before running out of recordable DVDs) so probably not the best examples, but I don't think I would be able to tell of it were the record or file playing if someone ABXed them. Although that would probably be the case with the (also available) PCM option too. It does make me feel a bit better that I am getting more use out of my player though!

 

I would love to see this vid, please share a link if you can.

You are exactly right, these are not hybrid discs! In the US, these 3 albums were released on standard Stereo single layer SACD, which is what I have. However, in a strange twist of fate, the European & UK release of these 3 albums were on Hybrid discs, so those are probably gold on the back. Also, all of my Mofi discs (except 2) are Hybrid SACDs, and I've got a dedicated post for those 2 non-hybrid discs planned...

I have had to cash out on two of my other hobbies to fund this system, so I'm not exactly pulling money out of thin air LOL. In all honestly, the older I get, the more serious I become about music, and for me at this point in my life, this is making me a lot happier than anything else hobby-wise could. (but calling my love of music a 'hobby' has been a gross understatement for sometime now).

'So' is one of my top favorite albums, and a gateway drug for me into 80s music. I don't know why, but I'm not a fan of Gabriel's work before Security (Genesis or solo), but everything with Security going forward I am quite onboard with.

You should totally go back to it and have a listen! ... maybe shake it up by using a pair of speakers or headphones you haven't heard it on yet!

Vinyl to DST?? That's really interesting to be honest, and If I owned such a setup, I would be wasting a lot of time running experiments with it. What model of TT is it? My Mac SACD player can also play DST files by way of the front USB port, but I have no DST files to try this with.

On the subject of being able to tell the difference between different files and fidelities, I am in the same boat as you. If I was blindfolded and given an SACD and regular CD with the same mastering, I am confident that I would not be able to tell the difference... and that's what makes this entire thread immune from the usual casual listener hecklers... we are comparing apples to oranges. The same album, 2 different formats, but also 2 different masterings. I would not be here if we were simply comparing SACD to CD!

Since really diving into this format, I've determined that for me, the SACD badge is mainly just a quality assurance promise that I am getting one of the best masterings of a release, treated with cleanroom precision throughout the entire production process, and placed onto a format that takes as little away from the sound as humanly possible (even if any removing from sound is only mathematical). The result and reward to my ears is both great taste in mastering and a great disc... and I can't dislike either!

I have yet to 'hear the disc' itself...

 

Here you go.

My gateway drug to 80s music was growing up then!

It is the Sony PS-HX500. Mid level as far as turntables go, and you cannot change the headshell, but you can change the cartridge which I might consider in the future. Apparently the one supplied is aligned correctly from the factory. It requires Sony's "High Res Audio Recorder" software to record (DSD 2.8 and 5.6, PCM up to 192kHz/24bit) which some people have found "problematic", but has worked for me on an old, custom built PC hacked to run Windows 11. I did once get digital noise distortion whilst attempting a recording, but a restart fixed things. I have not been able to find what ADC it uses, not that I would know the difference anyway, but a mid 2010s ADC capable of DSD encoding must be okay.

This reminded me of a scene from Roswell!


Max: "Isabelle, can you please not do that?"


Isabelle: "Oh, yeah, like listening to a CD is the problem."