Page 1 of 1
Is the MFSL Leeds really different than the standard '95 CD?
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 6:21 pm
by Chris M
I would think not since they presumably come from the same digital master but sever posters on SH.tv claim the MFSL is better. Has anyone ever done a null test?
Re: Is the MFSL Leeds really different than the standard '95
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 6:57 pm
by Dob
Chris M wrote:...several posters on SH.tv claim the MFSL is better.
Wow...really? I thought the consensus over there was that they were the same. I sure as heck can't hear a difference.
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 7:00 pm
by Xenu
There might be different EQ, but it wouldn't help us in determining who added what.
Re: Is the MFSL Leeds really different than the standard '95
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 7:24 pm
by Chris M
Dob wrote:Chris M wrote:...several posters on SH.tv claim the MFSL is better.
Wow...really? I thought the consensus over there was that they were the same. I sure as heck can't hear a difference.
Someone over there said the midrange sounded better on the remix. I've never compared the 2, I bought the MFSL when it came out but I unloaded it when I realized it was the remix.
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:30 pm
by lukpac
I've got a CD-R of the MFSL Who's Next around here. I can check again, but I'm pretty sure the EQ is a bit different.
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:32 pm
by MK
I once listened to both on someone else's stereo system, which actually had a pretty good tube preamp.
The difference isn't worth the extra cash, IMO, considering what you're dealing with: a new, digital remix.
If anything, your better off getting Luke's version of the complete set, speed-corrected and without the added echo, compression, and NR (which actually is needed, but you might be able to de-click it yourself) on the remix. Otherwise, stick with the 1995 remaster, which sounds fine for what it is.