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

[cordobaman]

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???

OK...I've downloaded the AP mix to compare to the SACD. No comparison...the SACD is Better IMO. A 9.

I love AP...and his mix...but it's dated. The SACD is warmer, more "dreamy"...which is how Floyd should be. The quad mix has too distinct separation of the instruments rather than being surrounded by sound in the SACD. Now, the Quad works better with the cash register sounds in money, but what happened to the low synth in Time? It's barely there on the quad. Also, the guitar leads flow better on the SACD.

I think the SACD is a more modern, sophisticated approach of Surround Sound whereas the Quad is for the nostalgic folks.

 

[Cai Campbell]

I think the SACD is a more modern, sophisticated approach of Surround Sound whereas the Quad is for the nostalgic folks.

Translation: The SACD is wide stereo and the quad mix is, well, quadraphonic!

 

[Eggplant]

I think the SACD is a more modern, sophisticated approach of Surround Sound

No question, this is true. How could it not be? Thirty years of technology are hard to compete with. Even AP agrees.

But sophisticated does not equal better. We've seen this many times recently.
Compare Deep Purple/Machine head's DVD-A mix vs. the old British quad mix. The DVD-A has MUCH better effects and EQ, the quad is simple simon. The question is not who wins the technology race, but rather, which is more effective? For the majority hear who've heard both, it's easy.

I disagree that the SACD is "warmer" and more "dreamy". In fact, that's a major problem -- along with the lack of discreteness which you apparently prefer. The new mix of "Us and Them", again, has MUCH more modern effects, including a true 5.1 reverb. But Guthrie made the sax, which sounds dreamily distant in the quad, too close and present. Decisions like this are musical, not tecnological, and they can help or hurt a mix far more than the quality of the reverb.

I do agree that there exists a fair amount of "quad nostalgia" on these boards, but I for one have little of it, at least as far as the actual sound goes. But some quad mixes are indeed excellent and stand up even in the harsh light of 2006. This is one.

P.S. AP has explained in at least one article that he did not have access to "all the elements" when creating his original quad mix, hence the missing instruments.

 

[Dylan Berichon]

P.S. AP has explained in at least one article that he did not have access to "all the elements" when creating his original quad mix, hence the missing instruments.

I had also read that Parsons simply didn't have enough tape machines to handle all the over dubs on the Quad version.

 

[Chris Gerhard]

I just got this SACD yesterday and have listened to it once. It is an amazing mix in my opinion. I have tried to get the Alan Parsons mix to compare before voting on the SACD but to no avail, I don't know how to download something like that. I guess I will see if my son can do it for me since the only links I have found require the Torrent method, whatever that crap is, it sure beats me. If I can't hear for myself what all of the hoopla about that bootleg is about, I will decide whether the SACD is a 9 or 10. I always liked "Dark Side of the Moon" but never considered it the rock masterwork its reputation indicates but this SACD might have me change my mind.

Am I the only person that has bought so many discs recently to not really be able to listen to any one more than once or twice for the next several months. I am afraid all of these popular discs will be soon gone forever, including most of the great SACD surround music. My SACD collection now surpasses my DVD-A collection in both quantity and quality.

If the bootleg DVD-A isn't ever heard by me, I only need to decide whether to give this one a 9 or a 10, but it sure sounds like a rare 10 from me so far.

Chris

 

[Ge Someone]

Guthrie made the sax, which sounds dreamily distant in the quad, too close and present.

I like the sax on the SACD very much, but I like the looping echoes on the AP mix even more
And the "reverbs" from the echo cambers underneath Abbey Road studios were famous (prolly not for 5.1?), although Guthrie did quite well with the big plates that were installed in his studio for this project.

 

[CarcPazu]

I gave it a ten, of course for historical reasons, but I really enjoyed the mix, very smooth and enjoyable. I couldn't listen to the redbook version anymore. I didn't heard the AP version tho, if it's better than this, I just can imagine.

CarcPazu

 

[Misterz]

I would have give it a 9 until I heard the old Parsons DVD-A. In my opinion there is a loss in Details on the SACD compared to the original mix (DVD-A). Of course there is less noise on the SACD but the DVD-A sound much more "natural".

 

[filper]

If anyone is still looking for a copy of DSOTM Hybrid in Burlington, Ontario, there is a store holding a copy for me until Friday May 4.

I found one closer to home.

Send me a PM and I'll give you the details.

Please be fair and give a fellow 'Quad' a chance if you already have a copy.

 

[The Rang]

Dark Side is also available at Amazon.com right now for $9.99

Free shipping on orders over $25.

I know this is predominantly a surround forum, but can anyone comment on the 2 channel hi-rez of Dark Side? Couldn't find any comments her on it. The redbook layer apparently sucks.

 

[Almen]

In my opinion, the hi-rez two-channel stereo is fantastic, and far superior to the red-book CD.

 

[halothane]

I really should give this a 10 as it is an absolutely beautiful remix of one of my favourite albums, but like a lot of contributors to the thread i've "acquired" that pesky Parsons quad mix which just shades it IMHO. I agree with many of the differences reported by the other people who have made the comparison and most of the differences favour the quad mix to my ears.

Arguably this SACD is the more authentic release, in a strange kind of way, as Parsons said he rushed his mix and it was never fully endorsed by the band. James Guthrie, who mixed this SACD, has been reported as saying that the band listened to the old quad mix, opted not to use it, and asked for the changes that others have highlighted between the two mixes to be made.

Whatever the Floyd politics may be, my ears prefer the AP mix so i'm knocking this one down to 9/10.

 

[JohnA]

Finally I got my hands on the mythical AP mix on DVD-A

It's good, certainly on par with the SACD mix. The differences are not as pronounced as many have implied, and the fact that it sounds one tape generation older doesn't help either (more tape hiss).

I think that an enthusiast would like to have both versions. I prefer the SACD mainly because it is more clear and crisp at high volumes.

...as for the 'adventurous' mix come on, go to a safari if you are feeling adventurous. On a song by song comparison they cancel out in 'adventure' terms I'd think...

 

[EMB]

I think that an enthusiast would like to have both versions. I prefer the SACD mainly because it is more clear and crisp at high volumes.

Well, it should be, given the advancement of technology, and the ability to mix with more elaborate equipment.

That said, when given what Alan Parsons had to work with--and the haste with which the mix was done--his still packs quite the punch after all these years. But it has to be remembered that most of those who prefer the AP mix have lived with it for decades. Have to admit, it has that old 'analog warmth' one does not hear so much in the SACD mix, but we expected that, the technology is not only further advanced and more elaborate, but this mix probably went through some tweaks(and of course 'band approval')before sent out to the public. Indeed, the comparison reminds me of the original Moody Blues' DAYS OF FUTURE PASSED stereo mix, compared with the later stereo remix found since in virtually all reissues of the album. The older one has a bit more murk and muddy bass, and less pronounced highs, but it sounds a bit more rock than pop for that, while the remix--like the quad version--showcases the orchestra far better than it does the band, which comes off a bit less tight than they were in that original stereo mix.

But yeah, any fan really needs both mixes, because both are great fun, just different approaches and other circumstances.

...as for the 'adventurous' mix come on, go to a safari if you are feeling adventurous. On a song by song comparison they cancel out in 'adventure' terms I'd think...

Depends on my mood which one I'll pop in, but safe to say I'd never trade my SQ vinyl for anything, even if I'm not the rabid fan of this album that some obviously are.

ED

 

[Led9]

I have both quad mixes and when I want to show off my surround system to newbies I still pull out the AP mix even with its sonic shortcomings. Just listen to AP's mix of "Us and Them" and I think it's obviously better.

Rick

 

[Cai Campbell]

...and the fact that it sounds one tape generation older doesn't help either (more tape hiss).

The ONLY place where tape hiss is obvious on the DVD-A is during the opening heartbeat, and the fact that it is there should be reassuring, it means that there has been no noise reduction applied at all. However, tape hiss is noticeable throughout the DVD-A and SACD, if you listen for it. I am happy to hear at least some tape hiss on the SACD, because that means they didn't squash the life out of it with NR, like they did on the Moody Blues "Days of Future Passed" SACD.

The dynamic range of the AP DVD-A is truly astounding and the fidelity is superb. You need to remember you are listening to a direct transfer from the original quad mix master tape. You can't really compare this to the polished commercial output of the SACD. Knocking one vs. the other in terms of tape hiss is an apples/oranges thing. It's not even worth mentioning.

Had the AP quad mix been used for the SACD you can bet it would have been cleaned up as well. What you're hearing from the DVD-A was not meant for public consumption. There is a DTS version of the AP mix floating around that was cleaned up for commercial release by DTS Entertainment. Rumour is it was just about to be released when the project was cancelled in favor of the SACD project. Anyway, the level of tape hiss on this version is comprable to what you find on the SACD. Overall, the DTS version sounds very good, but the fact that it is lossily compressed and has noise reduction applied obviously impacts the fidelity. I'll take the un-fucked with hi-rez direct transfer from the AP quad master tape any day.

That said, there are some tracks off the SACD that I do prefer to the AP mix. One of these days I would like to put together a disc containing my favorites from each, but it would be pretty tough to edit them together.

Check out this thread for a track-by-track rundown. When I wrote this I didn't have access to the AP DVD-A, but the comments about the mix differences are still relevant: https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=980

 

[JonUrban]

Just as stereo freaks will rail for their "original mix" when a remixed CD of a classic LP comes out, you can't kill a quad guy who prefers the "original mix" of a quad title. As is with the stereo situation, we always will have the original so we can enjoy the merits of both.

 

[JohnA]

...the fact that it is there should be reassuring, it means that there has been no noise reduction applied at all.

Very true

However, tape hiss is noticeable throughout the DVD-A and SACD, if you listen for it. I am happy to hear at least some tape hiss on the SACD, because that means they didn't squash the life out of it with NR, like they did on the Moody Blues "Days of Future Passed" SACD.

totally agree.
Still, 'Days of future past' on SACD sounds miles better than any previous version, CD, LP or even DTS

The dynamic range of the AP DVD-A is truly astounding and the fidelity is superb. You need to remember you are listening to a direct transfer from the original quad mix master tape. You can't really compare this to the polished commercial output of the SACD.

Yes, the AP mix feels more 'raw', closer to the original tapes

 

[EMB]

The SACD should be judged on its own merit.

And if the SACD is the only point of MC reference, can't imagine anyone not being impressed by it, since it IS very well done, just under modern circumstances and sensibilities.

It's interesting that we have so many members here raving about the Moody Blues SACD's, until we remember that many haven't heard the old Q8's, reels, or Japanese vinyl. Some do reference the DTS discs(both of which do have some NR), but let's face it, it helps if you are new to these mixes and haven't lived with the old ones for 30+ years, as some of us have. There is a natural tendency to prefer the old rather than recent when it comes to any kind of music, particularly now in the digital age where so many other variables/applications are being used(NR, loudness, compression, whatever), somewhat, IMO, much too often, and often without any logical need to emply them beyond just for the hell of it, or in the name of(gag) 'improved sound quality'.

ED

 

[etzeppy]

Someone on the Steve Hoffman Forum is claiming that the red book stereo layer on this disc includes the original quad mix SQ encoding. Can anyone confirm or refute?

Here is the thread:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=193163