Dark Side of the Moon – 5.1 SACD mix vs. original 4.0 Quadraphonic mix
Gee, where do I begin? I must say that the SACD is absolutely stunning. The resolution was far and above the DTS CD I was using for comparison. Comparing the SACD to a DTS CD containing the original quad mix was hardly a fair contest. Of course, my aim was to compare the two mixes, ignoring the obvious sonic gap. That’s easier said than done. The resolution of the SACD could not be ignored. It made the lossy compressed DTS CD sound positively thin by comparison.
However, with a bit of willpower I was able to overcome my drop-jawed amazement and concentrate on the individual mixes. I synched up both discs and was able to switch between them in real time. This made it very easy to pick out differences.
One thing that became quite clear very early is that the new 5.1 mix, compared to the original 4.0 mix, has much, much more bass. I mean, the bass was obviously pushed way up in the mix. The bass is so thick and heavy at times that it masks intricate details and tends to muddy the vocals. The drums were also pushed up in the new 5.1 mix but not to an overpowering level. I feel the drums are at a more appropriate level in the 5.1 mix. Although the bass was a tad shy in the 4.0 mix, I feel that it was brought up too much for the 5.1 mix (gee, I wonder if Mr. Waters had a say in this).
As for general presentation, on the whole, I would term the 5.1 mix to offer more of a “wide stereo” presence with surround elements, as opposed to the 4.0 mix, which is just the opposite – a surround mix with stereo elements. These differing approaches both work amazingly well for different reasons, and sometimes for contrasting reasons on different songs. I’m trying to stay away from writing about song-by-song or bar-by-bar comparisons for fear of getting bogged down here, but what you end up with is some songs sounding more airy and open in either mix. In other words, the differing strategies seem to achieve this same result depending upon the individual song. Okay, okay, I’ll throw in one example. I find the original 4.0 mix to offer a more airy and open presentation for “Speak To Me” and “Breathe” while I find the 5.1 mix to offer the same for “On The Run”.
What has to be THE major difference in the two mixes (and this ties in with the differing approaches described previously) is that the 4.0 mix is mostly discrete while the 5.1 mix is mostly blended. Personally, I love super discrete surround mixes because it makes it very easy to identify and dissect the individual elements of the recording. I find that exercise fascinating, but it does not always (though it does a lot of the time) lead to the most satisfying listening experience. What happens in this case is that some of the sparser arrangements tend to sound thin, unfocused and overly fragmented in the 4.0 mix while they sound more cohesive and natural in the 5.1 mix. This works both ways, though, because some of the more elaborate elements will sound thick and congested in the 5.1 mix while they sound sharp and clean in the 4.0 mix.
A lot of the time, the 5.1 mix does sound very open and involving. It seems to me that perhaps some undesirable effects may have been employed to achieve this. I can’t be sure, but it seems some additional echo/reverb or perhaps front/back digital delay was added to the footsteps in “On The Run”. The end result is very satisfying, but sounds markedly different from the 4.0 mix. I had a similar feeling (with an opposite reaction) when I was listening to “Great Gig In The Sky” on the SACD. Clare Torry’s voice seemed to suffer slightly from a diffusion not heard on the 4.0 mix
Another obvious difference between the two mixes is the use of the center channel in the 5.1 mix. I’m not a big fan of center channels, generally, but I must say this time it was used to great effect. It never draws your attention to it but succeeds in really anchoring the image. On at least a couple of occasions this works too well. A passage that might otherwise be freely floating about is found “stuck in the middle”. However, for a vast majority of the time, I find the center channel in the 5.1 mix to be a great addition.
One thing that is certainly prominent on both mixes is the tape hiss. It is a great relief to know that they didn’t NR the life out of the 5.1 mix. One good thing about the pumped up bass in the 5.1 mix is that it helps mask the tape hiss a good percentage of the time where it can otherwise be heard on the 4.0 mix.
I must say that I was very apprehensive about the new 5.1 mix since I’ve always adored the original 4.0 mix. I can say with a sigh of relief that I welcome the new mix, and as it stands on its own, it is an incredible piece of work. However, I won’t go so far as to say it relegates the original 4.0 mix to obsolescence. On the contrary, I think the two mixes deserve to exist hand-in-hand, each offering unique, contrasting and revealing views on this classic record.
Finally, I would just like to map out my preferences, song-by-song, between the two mixes:
1._ _ _ _ Speak To Me (4.0)
2._ _ _ _ Breathe (4.0)
3._ _ _ _ On The Run (5.1)
4._ _ _ _ Time (5.1)
5._ _ _ _ The Great Gig In The Sky (TIE)
6._ _ _ _ Money (5.1)
7._ _ _ _ Us And Them (4.0)
8._ _ _ _ Any Colour You Like (4.0)
9._ _ _ _ Brain Damage (4.0)
10._ _ _ _ Eclipse (4.0)
That works out to roughly half the songs in favor of the old surround mix, and half the songs in favor of the new surround mix. This reflects my true preference for each and I did not intend for the balance to come out this way, but I’m glad that it did. It helps illustrate how the differing approaches to mixing this album have succeeded in different ways. They are both treasures, each deserving to be enjoyed and marveled over.
Gee, where do I begin? I must say that the SACD is absolutely stunning. The resolution was far and above the DTS CD I was using for comparison. Comparing the SACD to a DTS CD containing the original quad mix was hardly a fair contest. Of course, my aim was to compare the two mixes, ignoring the obvious sonic gap. That’s easier said than done. The resolution of the SACD could not be ignored. It made the lossy compressed DTS CD sound positively thin by comparison.
However, with a bit of willpower I was able to overcome my drop-jawed amazement and concentrate on the individual mixes. I synched up both discs and was able to switch between them in real time. This made it very easy to pick out differences.
One thing that became quite clear very early is that the new 5.1 mix, compared to the original 4.0 mix, has much, much more bass. I mean, the bass was obviously pushed way up in the mix. The bass is so thick and heavy at times that it masks intricate details and tends to muddy the vocals. The drums were also pushed up in the new 5.1 mix but not to an overpowering level. I feel the drums are at a more appropriate level in the 5.1 mix. Although the bass was a tad shy in the 4.0 mix, I feel that it was brought up too much for the 5.1 mix (gee, I wonder if Mr. Waters had a say in this).
As for general presentation, on the whole, I would term the 5.1 mix to offer more of a “wide stereo” presence with surround elements, as opposed to the 4.0 mix, which is just the opposite – a surround mix with stereo elements. These differing approaches both work amazingly well for different reasons, and sometimes for contrasting reasons on different songs. I’m trying to stay away from writing about song-by-song or bar-by-bar comparisons for fear of getting bogged down here, but what you end up with is some songs sounding more airy and open in either mix. In other words, the differing strategies seem to achieve this same result depending upon the individual song. Okay, okay, I’ll throw in one example. I find the original 4.0 mix to offer a more airy and open presentation for “Speak To Me” and “Breathe” while I find the 5.1 mix to offer the same for “On The Run”.
What has to be THE major difference in the two mixes (and this ties in with the differing approaches described previously) is that the 4.0 mix is mostly discrete while the 5.1 mix is mostly blended. Personally, I love super discrete surround mixes because it makes it very easy to identify and dissect the individual elements of the recording. I find that exercise fascinating, but it does not always (though it does a lot of the time) lead to the most satisfying listening experience. What happens in this case is that some of the sparser arrangements tend to sound thin, unfocused and overly fragmented in the 4.0 mix while they sound more cohesive and natural in the 5.1 mix. This works both ways, though, because some of the more elaborate elements will sound thick and congested in the 5.1 mix while they sound sharp and clean in the 4.0 mix.
A lot of the time, the 5.1 mix does sound very open and involving. It seems to me that perhaps some undesirable effects may have been employed to achieve this. I can’t be sure, but it seems some additional echo/reverb or perhaps front/back digital delay was added to the footsteps in “On The Run”. The end result is very satisfying, but sounds markedly different from the 4.0 mix. I had a similar feeling (with an opposite reaction) when I was listening to “Great Gig In The Sky” on the SACD. Clare Torry’s voice seemed to suffer slightly from a diffusion not heard on the 4.0 mix
Another obvious difference between the two mixes is the use of the center channel in the 5.1 mix. I’m not a big fan of center channels, generally, but I must say this time it was used to great effect. It never draws your attention to it but succeeds in really anchoring the image. On at least a couple of occasions this works too well. A passage that might otherwise be freely floating about is found “stuck in the middle”. However, for a vast majority of the time, I find the center channel in the 5.1 mix to be a great addition.
One thing that is certainly prominent on both mixes is the tape hiss. It is a great relief to know that they didn’t NR the life out of the 5.1 mix. One good thing about the pumped up bass in the 5.1 mix is that it helps mask the tape hiss a good percentage of the time where it can otherwise be heard on the 4.0 mix.
I must say that I was very apprehensive about the new 5.1 mix since I’ve always adored the original 4.0 mix. I can say with a sigh of relief that I welcome the new mix, and as it stands on its own, it is an incredible piece of work. However, I won’t go so far as to say it relegates the original 4.0 mix to obsolescence. On the contrary, I think the two mixes deserve to exist hand-in-hand, each offering unique, contrasting and revealing views on this classic record.
Finally, I would just like to map out my preferences, song-by-song, between the two mixes:
1._ _ _ _ Speak To Me (4.0)
2._ _ _ _ Breathe (4.0)
3._ _ _ _ On The Run (5.1)
4._ _ _ _ Time (5.1)
5._ _ _ _ The Great Gig In The Sky (TIE)
6._ _ _ _ Money (5.1)
7._ _ _ _ Us And Them (4.0)
8._ _ _ _ Any Colour You Like (4.0)
9._ _ _ _ Brain Damage (4.0)
10._ _ _ _ Eclipse (4.0)
That works out to roughly half the songs in favor of the old surround mix, and half the songs in favor of the new surround mix. This reflects my true preference for each and I did not intend for the balance to come out this way, but I’m glad that it did. It helps illustrate how the differing approaches to mixing this album have succeeded in different ways. They are both treasures, each deserving to be enjoyed and marveled over.
