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

[mandel]

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. In which case I am not sure I know what all the fuss is about, possibly because I heard the Guthrie mix first

 

[bobou2]

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.

Well my comment was not directed at you but at just one of the "1" votes and one of the "2" votes.
And I find myself listen to the quad exclusively

 

[Disclord]

What kind of decoder was the SQ-to-American Q8 of DSOTM processed through? Surely Capitol wouldn't have used a simple non-logic matrix? If it was decoded through a logic-based decoder, the Q8 would be a good one to have just to hear the quality of professional logic-based SQ decoding. And in what year was the American Q8 released?

Cheers!
Ty C.

 

[timbre4]

If memory serves, the purple Capitol Q8 tapes began appearing late in 1974. DSOTM was played constantly from it's Spring 1973 release and the quad version took a good while to finally appear.

 

[Zepguy]

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.

I know you guys have discussed this album over and over, but hey it's new to me!

I agree with Foxman, I guess ignorance is bliss. I just bought an SACD player (FINALLY) and being a Pink Floyd fan for the better part of the past two decades, this was the first CD I wanted to listen to. While I do agree that the SACD surround gets a little boring in a few spots, and I expected to hear more on the Us and Them echoes, I still gave this a 10.

Let me start by saying I have never heard the AP Quad mix. However, if I ever do it could be the most amazing mix I have ever heard, but I will still have much respect for the SACD we all own because it is the way the artist wanted it to sound, and the way they wanted their music to be heard. They obviously knew the AP mix was out there and didn't approve of it for whatever reason. I compare it to someone taking a painting by Picasso, and leaving the same images, just shuffling them around a little. To many people that may make it more pleasing to the eye, but it wasn't the artist's true vision so I doubt many would really pay it much mind. That's the way I feel about the AP mix. Many will say it's because I haven't heard it, but as I said above even if I think it's great, I will still enjoy the SACD because the band had a hand in the mix. After all, it is their music!

 

[Guy Robinson]

After all, it is their music!

It is their music but we are the customer/consumer. If you don't please the customer you end up playing your instrument on some street corner. Also, what is a work of art without people to appreciate it. Is it even a work of art if just the artist says it is? A lot of artists don't get surround. If you don't get it and surround is established as an alternative mix to the stereo (which at this point it should be) then you should give it to someone that does (Elliott Scheiner for instance) to do the surround mix. Just my feeling.

 

[daved64]

It is their music but we are the customer/consumer. If you don't please the customer you end up playing your instrument on some street corner. Also, what is a work of art without people to appreciate it. Is it even a work of art if just the artist says it is? A lot of artists don't get surround. If you don't get it and surround is established as an alternative mix to the stereo (which at this point it should be) then you should give it to someone that does (Elliott Scheiner for instance) to do the surround mix. Just my feeling.

DSOTM on SACD isn't a "bad" mix, it's just not as good as the AP one. If we didn't have the quad to compare it to, we might not be so critical. But it is hard........the old " what if" comes to your mind.....

 

[Ge Someone]

the old " what if" comes to your mind.....

Ah, what if ... Alan Parsons was allowed to "correct" a couple of things in the new cleaned up version. Well, it's not gonna happen.
By the way, what on earth is taking them so long to release 5.1 SACD's of Wish You Were Here and Animals (let alone the PULSE DVD)?

 

[Zepguy]

By the way, what on earth is taking them so long to release 5.1 SACD's of Wish You Were Here and Animals (let alone the PULSE DVD)?

Good question! What is the problem? Are they waiting until Christmas to try and maximize sales or what?

It is their music but we are the customer/consumer. If you don't please the customer you end up playing your instrument on some street corner. Also, what is a work of art without people to appreciate it. Is it even a work of art if just the artist says it is? A lot of artists don't get surround. If you don't get it and surround is established as an alternative mix to the stereo (which at this point it should be) then you should give it to someone that does (Elliott Scheiner for instance) to do the surround mix. Just my feeling.

A valid point Guy. However, as Daved64 said "DSOTM on SACD isn't a "bad" mix". I believe maybe it's just not what some of you are used to hearing when you think of DSOTM in surround because the AP mix has been around so long. And I don't think Pink Floyd will be on the street corner anytime soon, but I get your point. I think as long as the music itself is good (and it's not released solely in 5.1) no one is going to go broke due to a "less than desirable" surround mix.

 

[Guy Robinson]

DSOTM on SACD isn't a "bad" mix"

This is of course a matter of opinion. I have played the SACD twice since I got it the week it was released. On the second playing I made the decision not to play it again. When I want to hear DSOTM guess what I reach for?

 

[Frantic]

"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" (Quote Daved64)

This is exactly how I feel. I have this tendancy to crank it up as well and the louder you go, the better!

I will give it an 8.

 

[Angrom]

A great one, one of the best among the few SACD I own.
You're totally inside the album, and the surround mix made me rediscover a lot of things i had missed.

 

[BananaSlug]

I gave this one a '9' many months ago. Since then I've had a chance to hear the Parson's mix from a high quality source and I understand the dissapointment of many. This was the first SACD I bought (long before I had a SACD player) and the first disc I listened to in Hi-Rez/surround. I was amazed and hooked. At that time I would have given it an '11'

Now, I would probably rate it an '8' or so, it has a good mix - very good on some songs - it sounds great and it's Pink Floyd. No regrets, if my copy were to go missing or break I'd repurchase in a heartbeat, but normally I listen to the Parson's mix.

 

[BARKSTAR]

I envy everyone on QQ who has heard the Parson's mix of this album.

Is there any way to get a hold of this commercially on DTS CD or such or is it only available from yourselves who have transferred it across to the format?? I love the SACD version but would like to hear the Parson mix.

 

[uofmtiger]

I gave it a ten. Never heard the quad version. I do like the surround mix on it and I think it a lot better than the 2 channel CD version I own. I also have it on vinyl and listen to the SACD surround version much more often. I think the SACD gives the album new life for those that do not already have the quad and do not have access to it.

 

[Demolition Man]

You know I've heard both Parson's quad and Guthree's 5.1 mix and I give them both 10's for different reasons. Parson's for being more risky and daring - indeed there are times when I want to listen to TDSOTM with a bit more experimentalness to the surround mix. However there are other times when I want to listen to the surround mix being a little closer to the stereo mix with a nice amount of surround use added in which is what the Guthree mix is to me. I enjoy and love both however which is always a good thing, right?

 

[qtheking]

its floyd... music is amazing -10 however the mix isnt a full 10.. so the disc gets a 9

 

[IDJIT DRAGON]

Like many of the non Quadphiles here I thought that the SACD was "the" demo disc for the format. Now, having heard the Quad mix DVD-A, I can understand some of the complaints but the SACD loses none of it's appeal if you consider that the vast majority of people have never heard the quad mix and. like me, visit this forum looking for HiRez recommendations

I'll vote 9


Cheers


Martin

 

[Zepguy]

Like many of the non Quadphiles here I thought that the SACD was "the" demo disc for the format. Now, having heard the Quad mix DVD-A, I can understand some of the complaints but the SACD loses none of it's appeal if you consider that the vast majority of people have never heard the quad mix and. like me, visit this forum looking for HiRez recommendations

I'll vote 9


Cheers


Martin

Where can I get the Quad mix on DVD-A? I would love to hear it.

Thnx

 

[JonUrban]

The SACD should be judged on its own merit. It should not be penalized because someone prefers the AP mix.

Also, let's keep this thread on track, eh? The "other" version is not a legitimate release, remember???