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

[Foxman]

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


I love it.

I voted before reading these posts as well.

This is the measuring stick by which I measure multichannel music. Odviously I am in the minority on that lil thought.

That said I have never knowingly listened to the AP version. I guess ignorance is bliss.

 

[Bob R]

I finally had a chance to sit down and compare the Allan Parsons mix (Quad 4.0 “DTS” & 2 CH redbook CD) vs the James Guthrie 5.1 surround mix on the SACD.

Some scattered thoughts as I listen:

The running footsteps in “On the Run” were distinctive and strong in all four speakers as they ran from RF to RR to LR to LF (they fade in the LF) on the SACD, they fade in the LR and are barely present by the time they arrived at the LF.

The wonderful vocals in “The Great Gig in the Sky” by Clare Torry were a little more harsh on the Quad, but I swear I could hear the breath in her chest, rise and fall as she sang. Her voice was from “all over my head” vs “out across the front” on the SACD.

When she drops down to say “Who said I wasn’t afraid of dying?”, it was much more distinctive in the Quad version.

Drums on “Time” were four corners equal (more like the speakers were mounted on the corners of a four poster bed) with some nice diagonal interplay on the Quad, vs the rears coming in and out on the SACD - they are more “front heavy” here.

The opening vocals on “Money” seem weak or strained on the SACD where they were stronger (and the same) on 2 CH and the Quad versions.

I agree that the SACD version of “Us and Them” is like tepid water compared to the strong and distinctive AP mix. The SVS sub was present and strong in all three formats.

Overall, I have to give the nod to the Quad vs the SACD. Although the James Guthrie 5.1 mix is no slouch.

I like them all.

Many thanks to a “music friend” for the opportunity to compare them.

 

[Eggplant]

I agree that the SACD version of “Us and Them” is like tepid water compared to the strong and distinctive AP mix.

Yep. That's the track to use if you really want to compare the two versions.

Only the AP mix is immersive, capturing the dreamlike nature of the song (I've always pictured a light rain falling over the battle on some green English countryside). It seems that Guthrie really doesn't understand very well the mood of the track, and that's kind of sad.

 

[Ge Someone]

I had heard the Alan Parsons quad mix before, but I decided to give this one a (fair) chance. I have been listening through it for a couple of times now.
To start with the positive remarks, the sonic quality is very good. The new surround mixes of On the run and Any colour you like are very well done. Brain Damage and Money are just OK, the rest is just so so in terms of surround.
There are many missed opportunities, the already mentioned echoes on Us and Them (although the saxophone is nicer here), why not a bit of Claire Tory's voice in the Center to help her from being overwhelmed by the band, why so afraid of placing instruments in the back?
So a 9+ for sonics and content, 7 for the 5.1 mix (don't bother with the CDDA layer

 

[solaris]

Ok I've only heard the SACD mix. I found it was good, but did not bring new life to something I have heard too much. I wish it did. some other disc have done this, this is not one of them.

 

[rusinurbe]

I have recemntly been thinking about this release and still wonder why it was not released on DVD-A given the Multimedia capabilities of teh format. Imagine having this release and watching it on a DTS track with all of the original films used live as the back drop to the music. The clock animations at the start of time. If the release had been based on the AP Quad Mix then this would have been the ultimate release of this album.

 

[EMB]

It is unfortunate....but at least we got a reasonably good(if not quite the Quad)5.1 mix out of it, and survived the 'Crest hole cracking' syndrome....

ED :sun

 

[Ge Someone]

After all the comparing of the Guthrie surround mix with Parsons's, I though it might be good to place the link here to Alan Parsons view on this. On the second page he does some track by track comments.
(And to be fair here's Guthrie's comments).
Highlight AP quote for me

“I did the mix very quickly. If I’d known that the record would sell in its millions, then I would’ve insisted on having more time. There’s stuff missing from the quad mix. I just didn’t have enough tape machines in the studio to get it all in. The quad was a compromise; I have no problem admitting that fact. I did it single-handedly without automation. But the feel of that mix is pretty exciting.

It is somehow tragic the band didn't approve his mixes, but then again it's their album isn't it?

 

[EMB]

Yes, it is their album...and I remember that story well, and Parsons was bracingly honest, which is refreshing, as he didn't try to make excuses, merely explain the conditions and circumstances. He was also right: there was no way to know how big this album was going to be...why expect better sales for this one, than, say, the modest numbers of Electric Moo, AHM, and MEDDLE? No reason at all, of course, but DSOTM took off, and must have surprised everyone in the PF camp.

Parsons is also correct when he states 'the feel of that mix is pretty exciting'...if there is one aspect of the Guthrie mix that is lacking, it's that consistent 'excitement'...for whatever reason, Alan's mix does have a certain verve, a bravado, that I think the Guthrie mix hasn't enough of. But that said, both mixes are fun, and make the old warhorse easier for me to take, since God knows most of us have heard it too many times to count...

ED

 

[bobou2]

It is too bad we have a member here that rated this release a 1 and another rated it a 2. It is a shame because both members are "anti-SACD". I only wish jon would remove those tainted votes.

 

[Guy Robinson]

It is too bad we have a member here that rated this release a 1 and another rated it a 2. It is a shame because both members are "anti-SACD". I only wish jon would remove those tainted votes.

They may have just been registering their disappointment with the poor mix done by Guthrie when compared to the Parson's mix. I must admit I have only listened to the SACD about 3 times since I got it. Mainly the week or so after it was released. Now, the Parson's mix has been listened to a great deal more.

 

[bobou2]

They may have just been registering their disappointment with the poor mix done by Guthrie when compared to the Parson's mix. I must admit I have only listened to the SACD about 3 times since I got it. Mainly the week or so after it was released. Now, the Parson's mix has been listened to a great deal more.

I find myself listening to the quad mix more too. My point about the votes was the 2 members that gave this a low rating don't even have a SACD player.

 

[Guy Robinson]

I find myself listening to the quad mix more too. My point about the votes was the 2 members that gave this a low rating don't even have a SACD player.

If that is true they shouldn't be voting unless of course they heard it somewhere else.

 

[Neon Kitten]

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

Not all hi-rez discs; as I mentioned in another thread, the two-channel mix on the Simple Minds "New Gold Dream" DVD-A is a brand new (and rather underwhelming) mix done by the same guy who did the multichannel version.

And of course Jeff Wayne's Musical Version Of War Of The Worlds has a brand new stereo mix on board, thankfully done by Jeff himself.

 

[BARKSTAR]

I really like this disc. I haven't listened to the stereo layers at all but I thought the Multi Channel was incredible. I hear a lot of people complaining about instrument placement etc on 'Time' (which is my favourite tune on the album) but I thought it was fantastic. Quality blew me away. @:

Having not grown up with this album I would love to hear the Alan Parsons mix that everyone raves about to hear the differences. Pretty doubtful this will ever appear as a future disc by the sound of things though. All I do know is that my Dad and Uncle grew up listening to this album and when they heard this they were amazed. Guthrie must have done something right.

9/10

 

[Cai Campbell]

Guthrie must have done something right.

It's all relative. Relative to nothing, he did an awesome job. Relative to the Alan Parsons mix, he really dropped the ball.

 

[BARKSTAR]

Relative to the Alan Parsons mix, he really dropped the ball.

Is there any way in the future that the Parsons mix could ever be made available in SACD or another disc format at any time? I'm not an expert on this but is it true that Parsons went ahead and produced the Quad mix without the bands permission?? If so I take it this will never see the light of day again, only to be heard by anybody that already owns it?

 

[mandel]

Which one of the quad mixes is the one people think is the best? As far as I am aware there were two different Q8 mixes (a uk one and a non uk one) and the SQ mix. I've listened to a DTS of one of the Q8 mixes (dunno which) and thought it generally very similar to the SACD version.

I have the SQ vinyl, maybe I should run it through the Adobe Audition SQ decoder and give it a listen.

 

[winopener]

I find myself listening to the quad mix more too. My point about the votes was the 2 members that gave this a low rating don't even have a SACD player.

I was one of the "1" voters and i do have a sacd player. Listened two times when bought, deeply disappointed, filed in the archive and never got played again since.
The quad version spins almost once a month.
Quite a difference.

 

[zabble]

Which one of the quad mixes is the one people think is the best? As far as I am aware there were two different Q8 mixes (a uk one and a non uk one) and the SQ mix.

I'm almost entirely certain there was only one quad mix available---the Alan Parson mix. The differences between the two q8 versions and SQ version is fidelity and discreteness.

The best version you could buy (in terms of discreteness) was the British q8. This is the version that really shines.

The SQ L.P. intrinsically has the best sonics, but the tradeoff comes in the discreteness (even when listening through a Tate, the separation can't touch the U.K. q8).

Finally, there was the U.S. q8. The four channels of this q8 were created through the decoding of an SQ encoded mix. Instead of simply transferring the 4 channel mix master to four channels of another tape to be used as the q8 production master (as was customary on virtually every other q8 produced), they chose to take an SQ encoded tape of the four originally discrete channels and then decoded them back into four to make what became the U.S. version of the q8. The results were the worst of both worlds. You had the less-than-spectacular separation of an SQ record combined with the sonic shortcomings of the 8-track tape. Why a matrix system ever played a role in the creation of a quad 8-track I'll never understand @: