From: rvkl60@aus18a25.sps.mot.com (Tom Mathes)
Subject: Re: Mobile Fidelity....
Organization: Motorola Inc, Austin, Texas
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:27:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.210233.16182@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> winalski@adserv.enet.dec.com (Paul S. Winalski) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec11.223240.3067@holos0.uucp>,
>lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed) writes:
>
>[regarding MFSL gold discs]
>|>
>|>Anyway, no one has offered any reason to believe that gold discs would
>|>produce fewer raw errors, perhaps leading to fewer uncorrectable errors.
>|>Since disc players are made with aluminum discs in mind, it seems likely
>|>that gold discs would be no better, and perhaps worse, than aluminum ones.
>|>It reminds me of those idiot CD rings that add mass to the discs: they
>|>only reason they don't break players or make for more errors is that there's
>|>enough tolerance in the players that they aren't adversely affected.
>|>I suspect gold discs are the same.
>|>
>
>The claim is that, since gold is a more malleable material than aluminum,
>the gold foil will adhere more closely and more smoothly to the pits in the
>CD, thus providing a better surface to be read by the laser, and reducing the
>number of read errors.  As far as I know, nobody has ever conducted experiments
>to test this hypothesis.  I noticed that MFSL has stopped making this claim
>in their packaging of Ultradiscs.  I think maybe the Federal Trade Commission
>got after them and told them to either back up the claim with facts or to stop
>making it.
>
>For both CD rings and gold plating, another claim that has been made by their
>proponents is that, although the error correction logic may correct any read
>errors, the invocation of this circuitry leads to second-order jitter effects
>in the power supply of the CD player, effects that are picked up by the DAC
>and analog components of the player and that result in audible distortion.
>Once again, there haven't been any properly conducted studies to determine
>the validity of the claim.
>
>--PSW

I own a few of these discs.  The gold metalization does have one
advantage over aluminum: it can't oxidize over time.  It may be
a remote chance, but if there's a defect in sealing a standard
CD, the aluminum layer will eventually oxidize and make the
CD useless.  A similar defect in the MF discs will not cause
a problem, since the gold won't oxidize.

As for sound quality, I do notice a difference.  I listened, back
to back, to the standard CD issue of Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of
the Moon", and the MF version.  The MF version has *much* more
pronounced deep bass.  For example, the drum "heartbeat" at the
opening and ends of the disc aren't that dramatic on the standard
CD issue; they sound much more realistic on the MF issue.  The music
seemed to take on more "air" about it.  I thought I was just
imagining things, but I could more easily pick out individual
sounds/instruments/voices on the MF release than on the standard
release.

Same goes for Floyd's "The Wall".  The standard CBS CD issue 
sounds pretty good, but the MF pressing has superior sound,
IMHO.  Bass again is more defined and deeper/louder, the
transients aren't compressed sounding, but unfortunately,
tape hiss is more pronounced sounding.  I've noticed that
releases of older masters, where the engineers really tried
to get the original master's  sound on CD, often show up more
hiss than a schlocky release on CD.  Take the Led Zeppelin boxed
set, for example.  The Jimmy Page remasters, from the same tapes,
sound better on the boxed set than the standard Warner releases.
Unfortunately, the tape hiss also comes out more pronounced.

If you *really* like the musical piece, buy the MF release.  To
me, it's worth the money if you want the best possible sound.

Tom Mathes                                e-mail : rvkl60@email.sps.mot.com
Motorola Inc. / MOS Memory Products Div.  phone  : (512) 928-7627
Austin, Texas