Forums dot lukpac.org

Which is better, the MFSL gold CD or the current Irwin remaster? Pretend money's not an issue, which is better sonically speaking?

I'm not enamored with Mr. Irwin's mastering style generally, but I haven't heard either of the discs in question. He tends to be on the brighter side of things, if that bothers you (based on comparisons between the Airplane Surrealistic mono/stereo twofer and Irwin's later remaster).

Isn't the two-fer NoNoised to death? Or are you talking about the gold CD two-fer?

If you want to hear the MFSL for yourself, here you go:

http://btmusic.org:2710/torrents-details.php?id=9616

(No, I don't work for them. Just a satisfied customer...)

dudelsack wrote:I'm not enamored with Mr. Irwin's mastering style generally, but I haven't heard either of the discs in question. He tends to be on the brighter side of things, if that bothers you (based on comparisons between the Airplane Surrealistic mono/stereo twofer and Irwin's later remaster).

He isn't NEARLY as bad as Inglot, though. The only Irwin disc I can recall offhand which sounded painfully bright was the Ballroom/Millennium Sundazed set.

He also, unfortunately, goes through a really weird period where he dynamically processes the crap out of everything. Some of his Raiders reissues look as if they were hit with a loudness filter, and two or three of the Turtles CDs are basically buzzsaws (although interesting enough, they sound pretty good, and Audition can perfectly reconstruct what hte original waveform looked like).

MK wrote:Isn't the two-fer NoNoised to death? Or are you talking about the gold CD two-fer?

Nah, I meant the regular silver CD. If it's no-noised, that's news to me, but I'll admit to not really checking for it.

I got a hold of Irwin's Crown of Creation remaster. It's very good, and the bonus tracks are excellent, but the MFSL gold CD gets the edge. Similar deal with a lot of older MFSL gold CD's, the volume is a touch softer overall, and a 'darker' sound (something I hear a lot of people describe MFSL's that Steve Hoffman would later claim to be a flat transfer).

The volume on the MFSL may be soft but if you look at the waveforms, a number of tracks come close to the absolute output limit, so they it's not a case of mastering too quiet.

Irwin said he followed EQ instructions that were used for the original Lp's - he apparently wasn't pleased by other CD issues, claiming they got further and further away from what the albums were 'supposed to sound like' - so maybe his CD sounds close to the original vinyl. Regardless, I prefer the MFSL.

MK wrote:Irwin said he followed EQ instructions that were used for the original Lp's - he apparently wasn't pleased by other CD issues, claiming they got further and further away from what the albums were 'supposed to sound like' - so maybe his CD sounds close to the original vinyl. Regardless, I prefer the MFSL.

"Crown" is the only reissue in the latest series that I *didn't* pick up, but I do have the Mo-Fi CD and the original RCA black label first press vinyl. What I found interesting in the interview that Irwin did with Fremer was his mentioning of the "bass shaving" that he did to the master tape because he felt it was "too much"...or something like that. Now, the original vinyl does have this big fat, lush bottom that I actually like. Does the remaster sound like it has been thinned at all? How about in comparison to the Mo-Fi CD?

FWIW, the Irwin remaster of "Volunteers" sounded shockingly very close to the Mo-Fi, IMO. Despite some posts on another board that the new remaster "blew it away."

I just returned the Irwin remaster to the library, but I recall Irwin's mastering being a touch more aggressive on the high end. The bottom end, couldn't tell you.