Forums dot lukpac.org

Apparently there have been (yet again) discussions about the differences between MoFi's "Ultradisc" and "Ultradisc II" discs on another well known forum. Other than a few comments passed along to me, I have not seen the thread(s) (no, really - I haven't been there in months). However, the comments I have seen talk about differences, different people mastering, etc.

THE FUCKING MASTERING IS IDENTICAL. THE DIFFERENT VERSIONS ARE DIGITALLY IDENTICAL.

Just to be fair, I've only compared a handful of UD/UDII discs. However, the album most often quoted as being different - Dark Side Of The Moon - was one that I tested.

I've seen talk of "well, maybe things were remastered for the UDII series, and that engineer did things differently." Once again: they are digitally identical to their UD counterparts. How do I know?

Perfect sync
Analog tapes never run at the same speed twice. You might get close, but if you master something twice (from analog tape), there will be slight speed differences, and when you line them up in the digital domain, they will not hold perfect sync. All of the UD/UDII comparisons I've done show *perfect* sync. Besides, do you *really* think MoFi would go get all those master tapes again after several years?

Ok, but what if they went from digital to analog and back, you might ask? Sorry, no dice. Unless the D/A and A/D convertors use an external clock (the same for both), the clock signal will be different for both, and again, there will be slight timing differences. The two won't be in perfect sync.

Inversion test
But, you say, maybe for the UDII's additional processing was done in the digital domain, and no reclocking was done. This would explain the (supposed) differences in sound *and* the perfect sync. Well, we have a little test to check for that. It's called an inversion test. You line up both versions, then digitally invert one. It's basically like multiplying a number by -1. As with numbers, if the two versions are identical, you'll get 0 (ie, silence). *Any* differences will show up as noise/music. Example: Take two copies of a file, adjust one by -.1dB, and then adjust it again by +.1dB. If you do an inversion test between this and the original, you *will* get some noise, albeit at a low level. You know what you get when you do an inversion test on the UD's and UDII's? Silence.

"Oh," you might say, "there are differences, but they are low level, and your inferior equipment can't resolve them." Sorry, but I've thought of that too. If you take the "silent" result and digitally amplify it (by, say, 70 dB - a HUGE amount), you get - *gasp* - silence.

So there's really no way around it - the UDII's were *not* "re-remastered". But why do some people hear differences? Well, there are two possible reasons:

1) Bias. It's true. Tell someone that something is true, back it up with some "facts", and it's amazing what they will believe. Watch Penn & Teller's "Bullshit" sometime. In one episode, people were served a selection of "different" bottled waters. The taste testers noted different qualities for each. It turns out, though, that all actually came from the same source - a garden hose.

2) Jitter. Ie, time based error. What's possibly happening is that the data on the two versions is identical, but the way it is "printed" on the discs is slightly different, causing the data to be read slightly differently time-wise. This *shouldn't* cause a bit of difference, but I've heard it can.

So yeah, people, don't buy in to this crap. It's being perpetuated by people who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, at least as far as digital audio is concerned (and possibly in other ways as well). Don't believe me? Go do your own tests.

That any of this is even in question simply astounds me.

YOUR INFERIOR EQUIPTMENT, LUKE.

My Asian houseboy does not approve.

When are we getting WYWH run 1 vs. run 2 comparison?

I am gonna have to agree with Luke in this case....

He is right, MoFi would definitely not re-lease those tapes for remastering, and if they did, it is a near imposibility to have the same mastering twice with analog tape. Speed differences, Jitter, level would all reveal themselves easily on "ANY" equipment crappy or not.

So.... Does this mean MoFi was pulling a marketing scam with UDII discs? Materials may or may not have been better, but to say one is better than the other puts you in what we like to call "the fraud circle"

Now on the Columbia discs there were mastering differences in the process leading to the difference in quality. Remember that in most cases Columbia did not have to "lease" tapes, they needed to go to the vault, pull em' out, and have the engineer perform.

Brian,

UD = Made in Japan
UDII = Made in USA

lukpac wrote:Brian,

UD = Made in Japan
UDII = Made in USA

Interesting, that is a fact I was not aware of.

Of course, how much real audiophile material originates here in the US?

Granted MoFI was a true to the art company when started in 1977, but later I am not as certain in the belief they really cared as much about the sound as they did selling good looking gold CD's. My example is the 200 gram vinyl reissues, some of the worst pressings I ever heard passed as "audiophile".

Patrick M wrote:When are we getting WYWH run 1 vs. run 2 comparison?

brite wrote:Now on the Columbia discs there were mastering differences in the process leading to the difference in quality. Remember that in most cases Columbia did not have to "lease" tapes, they needed to go to the vault, pull em' out, and have the engineer perform.

I've got good news for Patrick, bad news for brite.

I just compared the CD-Rs sent by both. As is my understanding, Patrick sent me an original Mastersound pressing, while brite sent me a later edition. The two were thought to be different.

I just compared the title track. The indexing was slightly different between the two, but as far as the audio goes, it was identical, just as with the MoFi's. Perfect sync, and the inversion test revealed silence. Increasing the gain on the inverted result by 96 dB still resulted in silence.

So there you have it.

Also, FWIW, wouldn't EMI be in control of the WYWH master tapes?

lukpac wrote:UD = Made in Japan
UDII = Made in USA

With one exception.

Patrick M wrote:With one exception.

That being?

britre wrote:Interesting, that is a fact I was not aware of.

Yeah...they switched from a pressing plant in Japan to (I believe) JVC in the US, and the UD/UDII switch happened at the same time.

Of course, how much real audiophile material originates here in the US?

Not sure what you mean by that, exactly. As far as I know, all of MoFi's mastering was done in the US. It was simply the CD pressing itself that was (originally) done in Japan. Same goes for DCC.

Granted MoFI was a true to the art company when started in 1977, but later I am not as certain in the belief they really cared as much about the sound as they did selling good looking gold CD's. My example is the 200 gram vinyl reissues, some of the worst pressings I ever heard passed as "audiophile".

Who's Next and Live At Leeds were taken from the digital remix tapes prepared by Jon Astley. I believe their Kinks disc was taken from '80s remixes.

lukpac wrote:

Patrick M wrote:With one exception.

That being?

Actually two, according to John Harp's site.

http://www.aurealm.com/zinc.htm#differe ... aDisc%20II

All UltraDisc II's are made in America. All but two UltraDisc CDs were made in Japan: UDCD 504, Brad Miller's THE POWER AND THE MAJESTY was pressed by the Disctronics CD manufacturing company in Australia. UDCD 563, Cannonball Adderley's SOMETHIN' ELSE was pressed in the United States. Beginning with UDCD 568, Queen's "A Night at the Opera," released in October 1993, all MFSL Gold CDs have been exclusively released as UltraDisc II series.