The original Epic sounds too forward and aggressive, and even artificial and distorted.
How about the CBS Master Sound half speed vs the MoFi One Step?
How about the CBS Master Sound half speed vs the MoFi One Step?
Most realistic and least fatiguing Michael Jackson Thriller pressing?
- Thread starter SoundMann
- Start date
Apparently, the so-called high end pressings just make things worse.
The CBS has way too much treble for instance, and the MoFi sounds like listening to it thru a microscope.
So the question remains, which of the numerous pressings actually sounds the most natural and realistic (least fatiguing)?
The CBS has way too much treble for instance, and the MoFi sounds like listening to it thru a microscope.
So the question remains, which of the numerous pressings actually sounds the most natural and realistic (least fatiguing)?
Try the original Japanese pressing made from lacquer cut by Bernie Grundman. The one that MJ is not listed as co-producer.
I tested it against a friend’s sealed, first US pressing. Obviously we opened and UL cleaned it before listening. It sounded a little bit more on the top against Japanese one, but Japanese sounded quieter, more refined and balanced to my ears. I don’t like Japanese pressings but this is an exception.
Alternately check Dutch pressing. I used to have that one but gave it away to a friend. I don’t remember how it sounds. Don’t bother with master sound version it’s early digital.
I tested it against a friend’s sealed, first US pressing. Obviously we opened and UL cleaned it before listening. It sounded a little bit more on the top against Japanese one, but Japanese sounded quieter, more refined and balanced to my ears. I don’t like Japanese pressings but this is an exception.
Alternately check Dutch pressing. I used to have that one but gave it away to a friend. I don’t remember how it sounds. Don’t bother with master sound version it’s early digital.
Last edited:
I have 3 versions of Thriller. 1982 pressing 2nd print w/MJ as co-producer, 2018 cut at SST and press by MPO and the 2022 MoFi OneStep. In some cases the 1982 is forward/aggressive as mentioned but for me it has the best natural details. The MoFi is too clinical for me, I think it's ok, glad I did not pay the MSRP and the 2018 MPO pressing IMO is actually very good! I could easily live with that version over the MoFi anyday, especially for the price.
I've never heard the Japanese version.
I've never heard the Japanese version.
I’d be surprised if you find a vinyl pressing more realistic / less fatiguing than this digital Redbook pressing.
If you’ve a macbook and headphones I suggest 1 notch below max volume. Unless you wanna’ get jiggy then max volume.
I also have an early Redbook Cd. It is just a little bit less compressed but doesn’t come close to vinyl version. I compared them. Vinyl is more detailed, alive and lifelike IMHO but YMMV.
I enjoy surprises. Got an in-room video to share? Either your own or anybody else’s?
BTW, no worries, mtemur. I wasn't really expecting you to produce a video to substantiate your claims here.
Is that the original, bog-standard, CD? I think I have it somewhere...
Speaking of vinyl, I remember a German (i think) pressing that had a very solid bass line.
I'm sorry if I put you on hold. I'm not really good at sharing videos. Besides that wasn't a claim, it was more like an experience which I'm not too certain about. Sorry again.
I forget exactly but sometihing like Michael Jackson's Greatest Hits History Volume 1. Or something like that. Just run-of-the-mill greatest hits CD presumably.
Very nice. But it does sound just a tad homogenized, pasturized, and/or compressed where the dynamics have had their wings clipped just a bit. But still nice. As such, with a little fuller swing of dynamics I think my flavor is just a little more realistic.
Interesting thread, I have the original 1982 redbook/CD, and it is not fatiguing at all, I also had the vinyl back in the day (not sure which version), same with that.
Would be tempting to think that your system might be on the forward side if you find this album to be fatiguing. But you might like your system that way for all I know of course.
Anyway, just as a data point at least, to me this is not an album that typically comes to mind when talking about aggressive / forward recordings.
Would be tempting to think that your system might be on the forward side if you find this album to be fatiguing. But you might like your system that way for all I know of course.
Anyway, just as a data point at least, to me this is not an album that typically comes to mind when talking about aggressive / forward recordings.
Appreciate your perspective. Generally my in-room presentations and videos are anything but forward. There is the volume level differences so that part can be tedious to better match. Is it possible that you're mistaking forward for dynamic?
For example. Here's my video compared directly to a supposedly unadulterated (no playback system or room) Youtube video that may not be the same pressing. Regardless, do you find mine more forward than this Youtube version?
Also, I've got to admit I've some questions about the analog version Rexp posted above. That video was posted 10 years ago, they intermix the "Thriller" video with the turntable spinning of which appears to be a Chicago labeled album playing. But for argument's sake, I'll assume all is legit.
All 3 videos are programmed here to auto-start at roughly the same spot in the song if you just push play. But again, to better match, you'll have to play a bit with the volume control to better align them.
No, forward and dynamic is very different things in my vocabulary at least. And fatigue is something I get if the frequency response typically from the mids and up are too uneven and/or forward, as in higher energy than the rest of the spectrum. Fatigue is not something I get from a dynamic system. On the contrary a system with high dynamic range or dynamic capacity typically also has low distortion, and a sense of being effortless.
I haven't heard your system in real life, so I can't say how it sounds of course. Thank you for the videos. Due to your recording being influenced both by the room, by your microphone and by whatever I am playing it back on, I think it is hard to compare that to the studio recording. Based just on the recordings, your room / system sounds significantly more bass heavy than the other two. It is hard to compare the mids/highs.
Similar threads
