HiRez Poll Pink Floyd - DARK SIDE OF THE MOON (50TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION) [Blu-Ray Audio (Dolby Atmos)]

[sjcorne]

soo is this mix just alan parons quad with james guthrie added speakers to expand it a little? I have been listening to this and the immersion one and they sound very similar. Though the atmos has more bass then the quad.

I don't think the Atmos mix is like the '70s quad mix at all - that version of "Money" really sounds like you're standing in the studio surrounded by the band, with Nick and Roger directly in front of you, David's guitar stabs over your left shoulder and Rick over to the right. It's more like the James Guthrie 5.1 mix - which sounds kind of 'big' in a nondescript way, but you don't really get that clear sense of where each of musician is located - with the voices and some other sound effects parsed out into the height speakers.

 

[PissedOffPeoN]

ya you are right, i just compared it by playing the atmos after the 4.0 quad.. i really loved the different speaker pinging in some of the songs like us and them and any color you like.

 

[Albert Dagger]

Has anybody confirmed that the mastering is exactly the same?

Mike, I've ripped both discs and these are my impressions:
- the 5.1 mix is exactly the same.
- DR values are identical, but with different peak and RMS values. Seems a level shift, but there's more...
- Frequency response is 'almost' identical
- spectrograms confirm it's the same DSD master converted to PCM. But they are not the same. See screenshot below.
- I tried to listen to the 'differences' with a null test, but the two transfers cannot be aligned, they run at slightly different speeds.
Conclusion: it's the same 5.1 mix, which has been re-transferred to PCM at a lower volume (1.5dB on average). Minor differences in speed etc. are to be expected. I couldn't notice any differences that can be heard, just differences that can be seen via analysis software.

Spectrogram comparison (On the Run 2011 Blu-ray disc, left; On the Run 2023 Blu-ray disc). The two tracks were level-matched before capturing this screenshot.

 

[JediJoker]

Spectrogram comparison (On the Run 2011 Blu-ray disc, left; On the Run 2023 Blu-ray disc). The two tracks were level-matched before capturing this screenshot.

I don't like the look of that "ripple" banding on the new edition. To me, it suggests some kind of error in transcoding.

 

[Frogmort]

The two tracks were level-matched before capturing this screenshot.

Any chance the level-matching software introduced this anomaly?

 

[Albert Dagger]

Any chance the level-matching software introduced this anomaly?

No, it was the same before, just at a lower volume. All songs are like this.

 

[Plan9]

Mike, I've ripped both discs and these are my impressions:
- the 5.1 mix is exactly the same.
- DR values are identical, but with different peak and RMS values. Seems a level shift, but there's more...
- Frequency response is 'almost' identical
- spectrograms confirm it's the same DSD master converted to PCM. But they are not the same. See screenshot below.
- I tried to listen to the 'differences' with a null test, but the two transfers cannot be aligned, they run at slightly different speeds.
Conclusion: it's the same 5.1 mix, which has been re-transferred to PCM at a lower volume (1.5dB on average). Minor differences in speed etc. are to be expected. I couldn't notice any differences that can be heard, just differences that can be seen via analysis software.

Spectrogram comparison (On the Run 2011 Blu-ray disc, left; On the Run 2023 Blu-ray disc). The two tracks were level-matched before capturing this screenshot.
View attachment 90369

Oh wow it looks like a transcode error or an aliasing problem.
Also why use an unfiltered DSD master on Blu-Ray... the same hing happened with Genesis Selling England by the Pound.

 

[zeerround]

FYI if you want to compare two versions, once you have matched the level you can "subtract" one from the other to hear/see the difference.

"subtract" = invert the phase of one, and mix them together.

In non traditional DAW programs like Plogue Bidule, you can just use a subtraction operator.

One way to match the level is use the substraction method to "null" the difference. By which I mean adjust the level of one while monitoring the difference output, and minimizing it. It's easier to find a minimum, using that method.

However, it's also possible that the "mix" is the same, but the mastering is not, in which case they could have different EQ and Dynamics.

 

[inspclouseau]

FYI if you want to compare two versions, once you have matched the level you can "subtract" one from the other to hear/see the difference.

"subtract" = invert the phase of one, and mix them together.

In non traditional DAW programs like Plogue Bidule, you can just use a subtraction operator.

One way to match the level is use the substraction method to "null" the difference. By which I mean adjust the level of one while monitoring the difference output, and minimizing it. It's easier to find a minimum, using that method.

However, it's also possible that the "mix" is the same, but the mastering is not, in which case they could have different EQ and Dynamics.

Being old and simple minded, especially these days, I'd take an actual track from a physical sacd disc, then the same track from the 'immersive' br disc, and compare with same track from 50th br disc. Each one in a quiet room from my main seating position. Average loudness levels at least close to 75db would be adjusted to compare if they are that off. But the main differences/changes, if any is what I would look out for. I am referring to the 5.1 only. My ears are amazingly FINE for a geezer. Everything else though,,,,not so much.

 

[Albert Dagger]

FYI if you want to compare two versions, once you have matched the level you can "subtract" one from the other to hear/see the difference.

"subtract" = invert the phase of one, and mix them together.

In non traditional DAW programs like Plogue Bidule, you can just use a subtraction operator.

One way to match the level is use the substraction method to "null" the difference. By which I mean adjust the level of one while monitoring the difference output, and minimizing it. It's easier to find a minimum, using that method.

However, it's also possible that the "mix" is the same, but the mastering is not, in which case they could have different EQ and Dynamics.

You can't really do that with these two rips. They don't run at the same speed so a null test will not work unless the speed is adjusted first.
For your reference, I ripped the 5.1 from the blu-ray disc without atmos. I'm not sure if there's also a 5.1 on the atmos disc, I can't remember.

 

[Albert Dagger]

Oh wow it looks like a transcode error or an aliasing problem.
Also why use an unfiltered DSD master on Blu-Ray... the same hing happened with Genesis Selling England by the Pound.

Thanks for that. So, this is a mistake that must have happened at the stage of converting the DSD into PCM?

Also, I'm not too sure about the different track speeds. If they used the same DSD mix and master, why would the tracks from the 2011 and 2023 rips have different speeds? When I tried inverting the waveforms to 'hear' the differences, I couldn't perform the null test because the tracks did actually run at different speeds.

 

[AYanguas]

After listening more to the Atmos mix and exploring the different decoded channels 7.1.4, I am becoming more convinced that it is a good mix.

There are discrete effects in “On the Run”, quote voices somewhere that now we can hear better (and be surprised if listening with closed eyes), some minor pannings of synth at the end…

But apart from those few effects, the whole rest of the album is mainly Quad with low level echo/reverb on the Center, Sides and Tops. Only few discrete sounds, like echo of piano only in the Top rears, and echo of drums only in the Surround left. I think that should give a little ethereal effect about from where is coming the sound. No full sound completely Isolated in any channel.

The four ‘Quad’ channels almost play the same sound. Fronts the whole sound and rears the same but with a little echo. There are almost no ‘discrete’ instruments, vocals.

The good sonics result is similar to what we praise about Auro-3D. I.e. some kind of extended stereo and put in the height level a copy of sound with small echo/reverb to complete the full bubble of a big listening hall. (But with a low level of Auromatic setting).

The sound is really bubble surroundy and balanced with no shrill level sounds (like Riverside), But... just being used to discrete ping pong sounds, I miss a little more joy.


Considering that, it is a good mix, but I miss something more, I now vote for 9 (instead of the 10).

 

[Plan9]

Thanks for that. So, this is a mistake that must have happened at the stage of converting the DSD into PCM?

Also, I'm not too sure about the different track speeds. If they used the same DSD mix and master, why would the tracks from the 2011 and 2023 rips have different speeds? When I tried inverting the waveforms to 'hear' the differences, I couldn't perform the null test because the tracks did actually run at different speeds.

If they used the same DSD master, the conversion to PCM shouldn't have made them at different speeds. That's probably an error too.

 

[SeeMoreDigital]

If they used the same DSD master, the conversion to PCM shouldn't have made them at different speeds. That's probably an error too.

Indeed... It's not like it's difficult to convert 6-channel dsd to 6-channel pcm at any bit-depth and sample-rate at the correct speed...

 

[mercury]

maybe my imagination, but in the first tracks of the SACD release i remember listened the airplane came with the engine starts at the rears then the plane flies crash at the front speakers i really like this effect but in the atmos all sems to be at front maybe my imaginaton... sound bigger than the SACD but less discrete

 

[Sixtyten]

I've heard it, but I'll reserve a score until I've had time to digest things. Initial impressions? If the SACD version is six of one, this is half a dozen of the other.

 

[duneman]

I’ve listened to the Apple Music Atmos version, multiple times. Taking into account the reduced bit rate, to me it sounded very immersive. Nick’s roto toms in Time are in the heights. Very effective. Many other elements are present in the surround field. I hear things I’ve never heard before, so there’s that! I think sometimes it pays off to adjust levels on the heights and the rears. My system is 5.1.2.. I did so with this. There are few albums that don’t need it. SW‘s mixes usually don’t. The Waka/Wazoo set doesn’t.

 

[GOS]

I listened to the Atmos disc again last night...at a very agressive volume. I'm still feeling this sounds just amazing. I'm simply not looking at this release and comparing it to the quad, nor am I worrying about how it compares to other Atmos titles that may be much more aggressive in the height channels. Nor, am I standing under my height speakers listening for sounds. I'm sitting in my normal sweet spot, and listening.

I think it kicks holy ass. My vote remains a 10.

 

[Sal1950]

I think it kicks holy ass. My vote remains a 10.

I agree. It is a different balance which brings a lot
of the lower layered parts out more. A clearer look
into the background musings.
I love it.

 

[Daniel]

Hello everyone,
I heard the Atmos mix of DSOTM and reading through here, someone somewhere said that Eclipse has less punch compared to the 5.1 edition. Here's my observation on this mix: in the beginning of "Brain Damage", the first cymbal hit of that song....well, the cymbals are muffled. It sounds like they've been EQ'd down and also turned down in the mix. The last two tracks of the album sound like they have no treble (or, very very minimal) on the drumkit, while there is normal treble on keyboards, guitar and vocals. The vocals are too prominent while the drumkit sounds muffled. I tried several things with my system and to no avail, I couldn't "find" those cymbals and drum punch. It seems that's how Guthrie mixed it. I have a 5.1.2 system only. Can someone with a full Atmos setup and competent hardware confirm what I heard?
I remember that in the 5.1 mix he turned Waters' voice louder on those last 2 tracks, to Gilmour's chagrin. Now he seems to have taken it to a different level and it's a big disappointment for me, I think it just sucks, Waters' egomania sucks.
I may be wrong, but I doubt it.
I wanna be wrong in my observation, I want those cymbals to be somewhere for me to hear. Otherwise I consider this a botched effort and a failure, just like those hidden Meddle mixes on the Early Years box.