Latest on MJJC

Dangerous 2LP 33RPM & SACD announced

from SH forums:

Folks believe this track on the new release has a constant volume imbalance between the left and right channels. Based on my inspections, it's not the volume that's imbalanced, but the EQ. One channel is bass heavy, and the other is treble heavy. These characteristics weren't at all present on all prior releases. Whether it's truly is a mastering error, or just how the original tape appears, we may never know (but on a side note, I believe this detail being overlooked at all makes it somewhat of an error) .

Good news though, the source is completely recoverable, and the end result is a much more dynamic experience than any digital release has ever offered! In fact, it's one of two tracks on the new release which is actually MORE dynamic than even the original vinyl counterparts!
 
Gotta say, I'm really shocked by this. I knew I should have followed my own advice of "Never pre-order anything. Ever. No exceptions."

mjfp said:
They aren't
Click to expand...
I misremembered. Apparently the US version of the first Thriller SACD does not meet the Scarlet Book standard. Plus Billie Jean has sync problems. When you consider that, plus the fact Sony didn't produce enough copies, I just couldn't be bothered.
 
Posted on the Steve Hoffman forum:

"With regards to the channel imbalance – our engineers have determined the channel balance on the SACD version matches the channel balance of the master tape.



Thank you in advance. "



- Bridget Citro Davis
COO & Co-owner

office 312-738-5005
------------------------------------------

Edit - It's the purpose of Mofi to provide the best possible master for such releases, not a flat transfer.
 
Last edited:
Guess the vinyl is the same then? People on those forums are saying that their vinyl sounds fine. I'm still not gonna buy it though.

That's a wild reply, who cares if it matches exactly what's on the master tape, fix it before you release it and charge for it.
 
I'm seeing people on steve Hoffman saying that the channel imbalance has always been there, even on the original? This true?
 
SmoothGangsta said:
I'm seeing people on steve Hoffman saying that the channel imbalance has always been there, even on the original? This true?
Click to expand...
They're basing their assumption on the fact that the right channel in the OG CD is clipping.

Not only that, but even if that was the case... the OG CD/LP don't have this problem, they're more dynamically compressed than the actual master tape, thus, the "issue" is fixed, intentionally or not.
 
SmoothGangsta said:
Guess the vinyl is the same then? People on those forums are saying that their vinyl sounds fine. I'm still not gonna buy it though.

That's a wild reply, who cares if it matches exactly what's on the master tape, fix it before you release it and charge for it.
Click to expand...
This is so confusing when you don't have your own copy at hand to hear for yourself.
 
NeoGardiV12 said:
They're basing their assumption on the fact that the right channel in the OG CD is clipping.

Not only that, but even if that was the case... the OG CD/LP don't have this problem, they're more dynamically compressed than the actual master tape, thus, the "issue" is fixed, intentionally or not.
Click to expand...
Yeah I saw that people have compared their original CD and it does indeed sound different. A shame they are not going to fix it.

Also wild that nobody thought to fix it before release.
 
You guys are brilliant.. It's so funny...

Here are some more quotes from the steve hoffman forum, for balance (no pun intended):
"Got the SACD in the mail today and immediately put it in. I was expecting a disaster from some of the comments but on first impression Jam sounded fine.. good even. Not quite as much punch-you-in-the-face slam as I've heard on Jam before, but more than I expected honestly. Good separation as you'd expect on an 'audiophile' mastering."


The highlight:
"For comparison, here's Jam from my CD. Louder, more compressed, possibly some limiting, and still a channel imbalance."
Proceeds to post a picture of a waveform of JAM from the OG 1991 CD.
Answer to that: "So its been there for 34 years?"


Another great one:
Question: "Why wasn't Bad released as an SACD?"
Answer: "All digital 44.1, 16bit. There would be no point."


You all can listen to a FIXED version of MoFi JAM now on YouTube also... 🦄 🌈


:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
MJJuniorSinceMW said:
You guys are brilliant.. It's so funny...

Here are some more quotes from the steve hoffman forum, for balance (no pun intended):
"Got the SACD in the mail today and immediately put it in. I was expecting a disaster from some of the comments but on first impression Jam sounded fine.. good even. Not quite as much punch-you-in-the-face slam as I've heard on Jam before, but more than I expected honestly. Good separation as you'd expect on an 'audiophile' mastering."


The highlight:
"For comparison, here's Jam from my CD. Louder, more compressed, possibly some limiting, and still a channel imbalance."
Proceeds to post a picture of a waveform of JAM from the OG 1991 CD.
Answer to that: "So its been there for 34 years?"


Another great one:
Question: "Why wasn't Bad released as an SACD?"
Answer: "All digital 44.1, 16bit. There would be no point."


You all can listen to a FIXED version of MoFi JAM now on YouTube also... 🦄 🌈


:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
I'm really curious why you are acting so obnoxious and hostile to everyone in this thread for absolutely no reason.
 
Last edited:
SmoothGangsta said:
I'm really curious why you are acting so obnoxious and hostile to everyone in this thread for absolutely no reason.
Click to expand...
I'm not. Sorry if it comes off as that.
I'm posting quotes. And please, you can not say that this all very funny.

Everybody is up in arms about something while the opinions on that thing vary from one extreme end of the spectrum to the other.

While most people haven't got their hands on the very thing they are talking about and having an opinion about.

And last not least, I'd wanna see those peoples audio set ups on which they are judging a CD that most haven't even in their home (yet).

Sorry if you don't like my takes on the situation. But it's so 2025 online drama, I can't take it serious.
 
MJJuniorSinceMW said:
You guys are brilliant.. It's so funny...

Here are some more quotes from the steve hoffman forum, for balance (no pun intended):
"Got the SACD in the mail today and immediately put it in. I was expecting a disaster from some of the comments but on first impression Jam sounded fine.. good even. Not quite as much punch-you-in-the-face slam as I've heard on Jam before, but more than I expected honestly. Good separation as you'd expect on an 'audiophile' mastering."
Click to expand...
Listen to it and you will get your own answer
MJJuniorSinceMW said:
The highlight:
"For comparison, here's Jam from my CD. Louder, more compressed, possibly some limiting, and still a channel imbalance."
Proceeds to post a picture of a waveform of JAM from the OG 1991 CD.
Answer to that: "So its been there for 34 years?"
Click to expand...
Here are some audio samples: https://magicvinyldigital.net/2025/...cd-vinyl-record-magnificent-or-disappointing/

MJJuniorSinceMW said:
Another great one:
Question: "Why wasn't Bad released as an SACD?"
Answer: "All digital 44.1, 16bit. There would be no point."
Click to expand...
Bad, Dangerous and HIStory were to 95% recorded on analogue tape before it was transferred to digital tape, looking at the spek of the SACD, you can see the music is cut off at 44.1kHz and above that, there's just noise and artifacts

MJJuniorSinceMW said:
You all can listen to a FIXED version of MoFi JAM now on YouTube also... 🦄 🌈
Click to expand...
saying a "fixed" version (which doesn't even sound good at all, bro mesed up the remaster completely) is on YouTube is completely irrelavant as it's about the released product, not something you first have to rip, fix and listen.
 
MJJuniorSinceMW said:
I'm not. Sorry if it comes off as that.
I'm posting quotes. And please, you can not say that this all very funny.

Everybody is up in arms about something while the opinions on that thing vary from one extreme end of the spectrum to the other.

While most people haven't got their hands on the very thing they are talking about and having an opinion about.

And last not least, I'd wanna see those peoples audio set ups on which they are judging a CD that most haven't even in their home (yet).

Sorry if you don't like my takes on the situation. But it's so 2025 online drama, I can't take it serious.
Click to expand...
You haven't provided any takes other than calling other people funny and posting laughing faces.
 
MJJuniorSinceMW said:
Those leaf, grass & flower connoisseurs... 🌈🦄
Click to expand...
erm actually 🤓☝️ sorry I'm not about to be the nerd here but some people are vegans / vegetarians for health reasons : ) so sometimes it's really not their choice if they can consume meat or not : ) the more you know (y)🌠🌈
 
MJJuniorSinceMW said:
I'm not. Sorry if it comes off as that.
I'm posting quotes. And please, you can not say that this all very funny.

Everybody is up in arms about something while the opinions on that thing vary from one extreme end of the spectrum to the other.

While most people haven't got their hands on the very thing they are talking about and having an opinion about.

And last not least, I'd wanna see those peoples audio set ups on which they are judging a CD that most haven't even in their home (yet).

Sorry if you don't like my takes on the situation. But it's so 2025 online drama, I can't take it serious.
Click to expand...
It costs around €50, what do you expect people to do on a Michael Jackson forum? I'd consider this discussion is essential for what is allegedly an audiophile release for what would be a lot of money for a release. Thanks.
 
SmoothGangsta said:
You haven't provided any takes other than calling other people funny and posting laughing faces.
Click to expand...

Well, I haven't because I can't, can I?
I (and I'd suspect most other fans from Europe) can't and shouldn't have a set opinion, because we haven't got the thing in our hands.

By looking at those graphs and listening to the (very) short snippets I'd say, yes there is a difference. And I think that "Jam" from 1991 CD sounds better. But is it a night and day difference? Yeah there is more base and more punch on the '91 release. But why should I be mad, if I want that, I can listen to the '91 release.

Like there was a difference between original and MoFi releases of OTW and Thriller also. And the web was up in arms when those were released all the same. And yes those releases sound different to the OG releases. But it's nuanced and it's about preference. If you enjoy the OG more, the punchy club sound, listen to the OG. If you prefer the high dynamic range, separation & broad soundstage, the more analytic approach, listen to the MoFi release.

First: Those recordings ALWAYS sounded great. MJ, Bruce, Quincy and Bernie Grundman made sure of that.
There wasn't a HUGE gain to be expected by the MoFi treatment in the first place.

Second: People want different. Then when they get different, they say it doesn't sound OG anymore. So what is the matter?
Those were always great recordings and great sounding recordings. There isn't a heaven or hell difference to be expected. Jam will always be the song Jam. "Will You Be There" will always be "Will You Be There". There won't be a release where any song magically will sound completely different. We know those songs inside out, there won't be a "coming to Jesus" moment, or a situation where you can say "Wow I never heard that there was this instrument in it", or "I never heard those vocals on there before".

I do hear that the 2001 & later remasters are loud and more compressed. But are those really unenjoyable?
It's still "JAM" on all these releases. If my aim is loud & more base, like in a club or a car setup, I'd deliberately choose the 2001 version.
If I'm sitting in my living room and listening on my decent system, sitting dead center at the stereo sweet spot and all, concentrating on nuances, I'd choose the OG vinyl or CD, or maybe the MoFi in the future...

Last: The higher quality of your setup, the higher the resolution of the source, the more likely that little imperfections will come to light.
Maybe in the case of Dangerous those imperfections were masked by the master of Bernie Grundman.
And maybe MoFi did a one to one remaster of what was recorded, hence putting more of a highlight on those imperfections that Bernie masked.
It seems, what many of you wanted is a "pre-equalized" mastering. But maybe then Bernie's OG pressing is the better choice.
 
innuendo141 said:
It costs around €50, what do you expect people to do on a Michael Jackson forum? I'd consider this discussion is essential for what is allegedly an audiophile release for what would be a lot of money for a release. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I'd say if you are a fan, that has spent money on the tape, the first pressing CD, the usual '91 CD, multiple different vinyls, Qobuz downloads, special and anniversary editions etc. etc. it shouldn't make much of a difference to shell out 40 Euro more.

And if you're a true audiophile, where you spent otherworldly amounts of money on, amp, pre amp, stylus, audio cable, record player, EQ, speakers and what not, 40 or 50 euro really won't carry any weight, would it?

That's not to say that I'll happily shell out 40 Euro for a bad quality product.
But that MoFi Dangerous is a bad product stands to be proofed.
I enjoy MoFi OTW and MoFI Thriller. So my hope is that I will enjoy MoFi Dangerous.
 
Last edited:
MJJuniorSinceMW said:
I'd say if you are a fan, that has spent money on the tape, the first pressing CD, the usual '91 CD, multiple different vinyls, Qobuz downloads, special and anniversary editions etc. etc. it shouldn't make much of a difference to shell out 40 Euro more.

And if you're a true audiophile, where you spent otherworldly amounts of money on, amp, pre amp, stylus, audio cable, record player, EQ, speakers and what not, 40 or 50 euro really won't carry any weight, would it?

That's not to say that I'll happily shell out 40 Euro for a bad quality product.
But that MoFi Dangerous is a bad product stands to be proofed.
I enjoy MoFi OTW and MoFI Thriller. So my hope is that I will enjoy MoFi Dangerous.
Click to expand...
The problem isn‘t spending 40€ for an audiophile product but spending 40€ for a bad audiophile product that sounds worse than a CD you can grab for 25 cents at the nearest flea market or online
 
mjfp said:
The problem isn‘t spending 40€ for an audiophile product but spending 40€ for a bad audiophile product that sounds worse than a CD you can grab for 25 cents at the nearest flea market or online
Click to expand...
That's the notion I'm disputing.
If it's a bad product to you, don't buy it or return it. The thing is you haven't bought it. Haven't gave it a listen. And still are screaming online how it is a bad product.
 
MJJuniorSinceMW said:
That's the notion I'm disputing.
If it's a bad product to you, don't buy it or return it. The thing is you haven't bought it. Haven't gave it a listen. And still are screaming online how it is a bad product.
Click to expand...
I did buy it, I listened to it, I analyzed it, I remastered/fixed it even
 
Barely got a chance to listen to the Dangerous SACD and I guess I wasn't the only one underwhelmed. Its disappointing for sure coming off the heels of the amazing OTW release that this one falls so short of that kind of quality in several areas. By the looks of the thread I guess there won't be any fixing this likely so this will just go down in the miss column on MJ releases. :confused:
 
@mjfanatic777 said:
wait what does that mean? 😅 idk I feel like people are so cool and knowledgeable when they use words that cool and knowledgable people use..? you get what I mean
Click to expand...
Hahaha believe me, I’m far from cool or knowledgeable! Devil’s advocate basically is when you argue an opposing opinion even though you yourself may not fully agree with it for the sake of debate.

In this case, some people were upset that they were releasing these SACD albums in a weird order. I played devil’s advocate by saying that they might be doing all of MJ’s albums and this was just the first one they finished. I don’t entirely believe that personally (given how Dangerous has exploded in popularity over the last few years, I can imagine the estate giving it a push), but it’s a way to keep the conversation going and throw some new material in the mix.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top