• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Layla and other assorted love songs MFSL vs. 40th anniversary edition

Elitemav

Elitemav

Super Member
Derek & The Dominos - Layla & other assorted love songs

for those who have heard both the MFSL (mobile fidelity sound labs) gold cd and the new 40th anniversary edition of the album. which one is the best in your opinion?
 
Register to hide this ad
I bought the MFSL disc because I was less than pleased with the original cd issue which was then, a double disc set. Hoping for a better sounding release, I was pretty underwhelmed with the MFSL version. Luckily I bought mine for $9.99 at Costco when Mobile Fidelity was on their way out. More hiss than I would like a CD to have.
 
I'm surprised that this was even released as an MFSL recording. That album was always kind of thin and low-fi sounding IMHO (even though the music was great). Much like George Harrison's "All Things Must Pass" - a great set of albums but the fidelity is kind of lacking. Not sure they can spruce up what ain't there to begin with.
 
I have not heard the 40th. I have read good things about it.

Also consider the hybrid CD/SACD. For me, it is the best version I've heard. It really gets the tone right.
 
Somewhere I read a quote from Herb Belkin, former president of MFSL, and he said that they did albums like these not because they were "high fidelity sound" but rather that they wanted to get the best possible sound out there. It's a bit of a hard thing to understand on my part, but I guess that if there is going to be a copy of this album out there in the world, the would want to be the ones who released the best sounding one, distortion and all.

Kinda strange, isn't it?
 
I suppose it makes some sense if they put it the context of good recording = most faithful reproduction. Kind of like the Robert Johnson box or many of the Billie Holliday compilations. Good doesn't necessarily have to sound good as long as the pressing is clean and quiet. Of course that doesn't mean I would drop $30 on it.
 
Can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear applies here. All the various reissues/remasters sucked. ----And it's a shame, really. I've always felt "burned" buying this title. Signed: Disgruntled.
 
I can't speak to the MFSL, bu I have the original LP and the Hybrid SACD. The SACD really sounds good.
 
Hybrid SACD or UK Polydor original vinyl is as good as you get here. This recording is not the best sounding to begin with. It is what it is.
 
I agree that SACD version is the best out there. I also have MFSL version and few others. As others have said, the sound quality is not great on any of them.
 
It is one philosophy to say "We only release the very best-sounding recordings, period." It is a very different thing to say "We release only the best version possible of each of the recordings that we do release."

In the first instance, many popular records would be eliminated from the company's list of releases, because the original recordings weren't up to standards. You can't fix was was never there to begin with (in audio recordings, given available technology).

In the second case, you are providing a service by at least giving people who love the songs on a particular LP the chance to hear them at the best they can be, even if their best isn't really very good (due to inferior recording in the first place).

The second approach probably makes the most money, given how many popular but not-too-well recorded/mastered LPs exist. MFSL chose this approach. There is nothing wrong with that; their aims were still admirable, and they provided a valuable service to music lovers. Many of us treasure many of their recordings.

It does mean, however, that we cannot always assume that every issue that is MFSL is automatically a superb recording; only that it will be one of the better versions of that recording (and at least sometimes the best available).

When in doubt about an MFSL title, it sometimes pays to search over on the Steve Hoffman forum; those guys love to discuss releases in great comparative detail.


It's also true that some of the newest digital re-masterings are better than some of the MFSL releases. I think as long as the original master recordings are in good shape (for analog, or in high-res shape for digital), we'll see better and better releases being made, using improved technologies --as least in the digital realm. But this will only be done for major/popular recordings, at least for some time to come, due to expense. Companies rarely do what isn't very profitable, and if they do, they rarely do it for long.
 
Last edited:
I have the MFSL gold CD but haven't played it in many years. I have the Simply Vinyl pressing and it stinks. I'm going to try the new Polydor pressing.
 
I just got the 40th and the MFSL Gold so now I have the SACD , SACD hybrid , MFSL Gold , 20th box set, JVC Super Vinyl (no longer in print) and the 2008 remastered vinyl imported from th UK as well as the original vinyl. The SACD 5.1 surround version sounds the best to me hands down. you can hear more in the 5.1 surround track than the stereo version of the SACD. now for the redbook cd only for listening in your car I would also give the redbook layer of the SACD the winner.
 
Arkay said:
It is one philosophy to say "We only release the very best-sounding recordings, period." It is a very different thing to say "We release only the best version possible of each of the recordings that we do release."

In the first instance, many popular records would be eliminated from the company's list of releases, because the original recordings weren't up to standards. You can't fix was was never there to begin with (in audio recordings, given available technology).

In the second case, you are providing a service by at least giving people who love the songs on a particular LP the chance to hear them at the best they can be, even if their best isn't really very good (due to inferior recording in the first place).

The second approach probably makes the most money, given how many popular but not-too-well recorded/mastered LPs exist. MFSL chose this approach. There is nothing wrong with that; their aims were still admirable, and they provided a valuable service to music lovers. Many of us treasure many of their recordings.

It does mean, however, that we cannot always assume that every issue that is MFSL is automatically a superb recording; only that it will be one of the better versions of that recording (and at least sometimes the best available).

When in doubt about an MFSL title, it sometimes pays to search over on the Steve Hoffman forum; those guys love to discuss releases in great comparative detail.


It's also true that some of the newest digital re-masterings are better than some of the MFSL releases. I think as long as the original master recordings are in good shape (for analog, or in high-res shape for digital), we'll see better and better releases being made, using improved technologies --as least in the digital realm. But this will only be done for major/popular recordings, at least for some time to come, due to expense. Companies rarely do what isn't very profitable, and if they do, they rarely do it for long.
Click to expand...


First thing I have to say is "Well said!" Now, moving on...

I can mostly agree about MFSL doing things to make a profit, but some of their albums were just bizarre. Who would listen to Steeleye Span, John Klemmer, LA Jazz Choir, or Bernie Krauss? Some of the titles that they released as so off the wall I'm at a loss as to why they released them, and the only reason I can explain their coming into being is that the recordings must be of high quality. I have listened to all of those, except for LA Jazz Choir, and I was very impressed with the sound quality of them.

I can understand if some of their releases were not the greatest choices. Blind Faith would be another great example. I understand that the album is legendary amongst classic rock fans, and artists alike, but the quality? I'm not impressed in the least. I could find a much better way to spend 200 bucks than buy an sealed MFSL release of this title.

I think that some of the more.....questionable....releases (in terms of sound quality), were forced through in spite of the engineers objections, but I can't tell you for sure. What I can tell you is that even though the master recording is crappy, if you have it on MFSL half-speed master, you will own the best version of this crappy recording available, but that is just my humble opinion.

Once again, well said Arkay, I really think that you hit the nail on the head. :yes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom