HiRez Poll Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon [SACD]

[JonUrban]

OK. I guess I had to eventually put this one in the pile. It's been discussed here to death. The cracks, the AP mix, James Guthrie, etc, etc.

If you've already posted about the title, and don't feel like going on and on again, just vote. It would be "too easy" to take this one at face value without comparing it to the vaulted 4.0 mix of AP. On the other hand, is it fair to compare it to the AP? Use your own judgement.

I feel it should be included in our list, so here it is. Have at it!

:banana:

:-jon

 

[winopener]

OK. I guess I had to eventually put this one in the pile. It's been discussed here to death. The cracks, the AP mix, James Guthrie, etc, etc.

Said in another post: waste of plastic. MFSL versions have the true stereo mix without the JG remixing, extra bars and so on. AP Quad version is a true mch mix, not the JG remixing which sound excellent in clearness but totally disappointing as mch mix. Super Stereo fits in boomboxes, not in 5.1.
Unfortunately, the perfect example of how to lose a occasion for a perfect disc.

 

[sspsandy]

I know the general consensus is that the Guthrie SACD mix isn't as adventurous as the Parsons mix, but I happen to like the SACD a lot. Maybe that's due to my liking alternate mixes of recordings, whether mono, stereo, quad, 5.1, what have you. It is very surround and pleasing to listen to, there is a lot of use made of the rear and center channels, if no quad mix had existed this SACD would have floored everyone, it only pales by comparison to the Parsons mix. I do prefer the British SQ mix (having never heard the discrete Q8 mix), but thought that this is a showcase demo of the SACD format, perhaps a compromise to the widest possible audience, so smoother, but still has enough discreteness to make me happy. Without a doubt the best sounding version of the album in terms of range of sound, very Hi Rez, and being 5.1 blows away any stereo version no matter how good it is.

 

[zabble]

Unfortunately, it is impossible for me to be objective about this one, having heard the AP mix first. I do really like the SACD version of "On the Run", but I was really disappointed with the narrow instrument spread of "Time" which to me was a showcase of the AP mix. Again, I can't really be too objective.

 

[JonUrban]

To me, the biggest disappointment is "US and THEM". AP did it perfectly. But, this has all been said before. Do a search........................

 

[daved64]

While the actual mix is a bit boring, Doug Sax mastering is great. You can crank it and it never grates on the ears. I give it a 7

 

[MIDIQ]

To me, the biggest disappointment is "US and THEM". AP did it perfectly. But, this has all been said before. Do a search........................

I will agree with this statement totally. US and THEM was perfect on the Q8, my favorite song, with the vocals echoing around the speakers. But the SACD over all has a good sound, but being used to the Q8 version for many years, i just don't hardly ever pull out the SACD version to listen to, almost always the Q8 version. But i did give the SACD an 8, not bad.

 

[Eggplant]

Bottom line: Don't like it, don't play it.

Can't even really explain why, except it just isn't pleasant to listen to.

Unfortunately, it's such an important release that if you should probably spend the fifteen bucks and get it anyway.

5, mostly for historical reasons.

And yes, I did like the AP version better.

 

[bobou2]

I would love to hear the AP mix....
but how does one find a cdr of that mix in DTS??

p.s. I really like the SACD

 

[kstuart]

The problem with the poll is that it assigns only one number.

Just to start off with, each disc has more than one version (track is an inaccurate term).

For example, on this disc, the stereo redbook is the worst yet (the UK Harvest CD made in Japan is the best redbook, IMHO).

The multichannel new mix, on the other hand, is the best sounding version of this album in audiophile terms, although I have all the same misgivings as everyone else on this Forum, about the mix itself.

 

[winopener]

For example, on this disc, the stereo redbook is the worst yet (the UK Harvest CD made in Japan is the best redbook, IMHO).

I have it, bought back in 1984 (it was *really* twenty years ago??? i'm gettin' older...) and IMHO the MFSL gold version (mine is UD1) is better than the Japanese UK.

 

[ssully]

Said in another post: waste of plastic. MFSL versions have the true stereo mix without the JG remixing,

The two-channel mix is not a remix.

 

[Eggplant]

The two-channel mix is not a remix.

On all hi-rez discs, SACD and DVD-A,
the two-channel mix is NEVER a remix.

 

[ssully]

On all hi-rez discs, SACD and DVD-A,
the two-channel mix is NEVER a remix.

That's mostly been my experience too, but it's not a requirement. Word is , for example, that the two-channel version on the upcoming Genesis 'Lamb Lies Down on Broadway' SACD will be a remix. God knows why. IIRC Deutsche Grammaphone's SACD release of the Carlos Kleiber 'Beethoven 5 & 7) has a remixed two-channel version as well.

I have seen this claim that the DSotM two-channel is a remix, before online, but as best I can tell from what Guthrie has said, from waht been reported about the SACD in the audio press, and from my own listening, it simply isnt'. It's just a new remastering of the original master tapes.

 

[EMB]

With these discs, the stereo is not of much interest to me, so I won't rate the merits(or lack of same)of that mix...but a '9' for the new mix, it's still a great listen, even if, yes, we would have preferred the Quad we've all gotten used to over the years.

As for the Crest cracking...did snag a non-Crest recently, so I'm covered. Which is as well, since the original I bought is really delicate-looking!

ED

 

[Bob Romano]

After hearing the original AP mix, I didn't have much hope for this one and I was right. Some parts are good others just miss the mark. I give it a 9 for the music and a 6 for the mix. So I guess that would be a 7 overall.

 

[Cai Campbell]

I gave it an 8. The Guthrie surround mix, on its own, would probably elicit a 10 score from me. Ah, but I don't live in a vacuum... the spectacular AP mix cannot be ignored. The two surround mixes, in my mind, are two interpretations of the same work. In some ways I prefer them both, but in the final analysis, AP gets the 10 and Guthrie gets an 8.

 

[Eggplant]

How many different surround mixes of DSOTM are there? 2 or 3?

I always assumed the US Capitol Q8 had the same mix as the UK EMI SQ disc, and that both were the vaunted 1975 Alan Parsons one. I haven't heard the Q8 since the 70's, so can't compare them.

 

[Scottmoose]

Worth having. To an extent. If you've not heard the AP mix, because it's the better by an embarassingly wide margin. But not everyone can have access to that, (I'm trying to be objective here. Is it woking?!) so...
The redbook layer on the SACD has been fooled with, possibly to make the high-res stereo layer sound better. And it does. But still no better than the 20th Anniversary remaster on CD. Oh dear. And it looses that wonderfully tight bass that ye olde, vilified 16 bit redbook does so well.
The 5.1 mix? Much better than the stereo layers, and if we're being honest, if you hadn't heard the AP mix, you'd be a happy person. But I have. And I'm not.

 

[Bob R]

Amazing opinions here. I gave it a ten before reading the post.

I don't have the advantage of having experienced anything other than the SACD, and the "redbook" CD.

The sound of the footsteps at the end of "Breathe", running around the five speakers convinced me that this was well worth buying, six months before I had a player to hear it on.

I love it.