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

[Key]

Nah it's just the regular mix. It probably decodes just fine but the SQ mix is different.

 

[JonUrban]

Once can't believe everything one reads over at SHF.

 

[etzeppy]

Once can't believe everything one reads over at SHF.

How true. The OP has since been set straight.

 

[tedhead]

In interviews, David Gilmour said he used to prefer a "wetter" mix, more mysterious vocals from the interviews. Waters preferred a mix that was more dry, the interviews more clear to understand the "concept". Since James Guthrie started his career with the Floyd during the time of The Wall, and is more closely affiliated with Waters than with Gilmour, I can see why the SACD mix is the way it is. The sax being more upfront, drier mix, clearer vocals, less gimmicky quad effects, its more of Roger's point of view. Not that he just ran over Gilmour, apparently he likes the way it is mixed now with maybe a few reservations. You can tell all of this from the "Making of DSOTM" dvd, and other interviews.

That said, I agree with most of the posts that have been made over the years. Parsons' mix over Guthrie's, but Guthrie's SACD sound quality is amazing.

 

[carledwards]

I'll weigh in extremely late on this and state that I do enjoy the SACD but it is quite the different animal from the original Parsons Quad mix. My preference, perhaps not surprisingly, is for the Parsons mix. It grabs me by the back of the neck whereas the SACD just tickles my ears!

 

[Almen]

In interviews, David Gilmour said he used to prefer a "wetter" mix, more mysterious vocals from the interviews. Waters preferred a mix that was more dry, the interviews more clear to understand the "concept". Since James Guthrie started his career with the Floyd during the time of The Wall, and is more closely affiliated with Waters than with Gilmour, I can see why the SACD mix is the way it is. The sax being more upfront, drier mix, clearer vocals, less gimmicky quad effects, its more of Roger's point of view.

I would without any hesitation say that Guthrie's SACD mix is wetter, vocals muddier, placement less distinct, that is, exactly as Gilmour wanted it.

 

[Ge Someone]

[..] Guthrie's SACD mix is [..] exactly as Gilmour wanted it.

That is also my thinking about this, they tried to stay close to the Chris Thomas stereo mix in terms of reverbs. That way it was most acceptable to both Waters and Gilmour. I think Gilmour never liked the Parsons mix much.

 

[daved64]

Since James Guthrie started his career with the Floyd during the time of The Wall, and is more closely affiliated with Waters than with Gilmour, I can see why the SACD mix is the way it is. .

A look at Guthrie's credits reveals no particular allegiance.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_...s_.28Pink_Floyd_and_Floyd-related_releases.29

 

[tedhead]

I would without any hesitation say that Guthrie's SACD mix is wetter, vocals muddier, placement less

One example the saxophone being so prominent, clear, without reverb in the center speaker. Not to mention the interview vocals being clearer, as Waters has wanted it because of the concept of the album. Gilmour didn't care so much about the concept as Waters (hardcore Floyd fan knows about this is not surprising) so he wanted to the interviews answers to be more mysterious, wetter. Its a clear, dryer mix. Its even talked about in the Dark Side of the Moon book. Gilmour is happier with the the Guthrie's mix than Parson's, but he still would argue for a wetter mix than what we got on the SACD.

 

[Time Lord]

This recording does need to be judged on its own merits and not by comparison with previous mixes. I have played this SACD to many friends including professional musos who play Floyd for a living and tour internationally and without exception this recording is met with amazement and awe. DSOTM isn't even my favourite Floyd album, before I pass on I would like Guthrie or similar to do Animals and Wish You Were Here. I was recently asked by a young man about 20 when I was wearing one of my Floyd T-shirts out shopping whether I was a Waters man or a Gilmour man, I couldn't give him a straight answer then and I'm not sure I can now because the sum of their parts far exceeded any of their individual output.

 

[Philip Spinner]

This recording does need to be judged on its own merits and not by comparison with previous mixes. I have played this SACD to many friends including professional musos who play Floyd for a living and tour internationally and without exception this recording is met with amazement and awe. DSOTM isn't even my favourite Floyd album, before I pass on I would like Guthrie or similar to do Animals and Wish You Were Here. I was recently asked by a young man about 20 when I was wearing one of my Floyd T-shirts out shopping whether I was a Waters man or a Gilmour man, I couldn't give him a straight answer then and I'm not sure I can now because the sum of their parts far exceeded any of their individual output.

Whenever I wear my Pink Floyd The Wall t shirt from the premier at the Ziegfeld I get the same question. It's a real ice breaker.

 

[Dixie4]

I bought this after " Wish You Were Here " ( which i liked ) but this has to be one of the worst albums of all time ! Very overated. Most of it's just a noise, with a screaming woman thrown in !

 

[SMS]

I bought this after " Wish You Were Here " ( which i liked ) but this has to be one of the worst albums of all time ! Very overated. Most of it's just a noise, with a screaming woman thrown in !

Wow. Really. Are you being serious, Dixie?

You make it sound like you've never heard Dark Side of the Moon before? I am not sure how that is possible. Many songs from that album are played on the radio every day.

Oh well... I suggest you give it a few more spins. It is an absolute classic, and definitely in my "top 20" favorite albums. And I was not even born when it was released. If you find yourself starting to like the music, then I suggest you get your hands on the Alan Parsons Quad mix. It is better, IMO, than the Guthrie mix on the SACD.

Brad

 

[EMB]

I bought this after " Wish You Were Here " ( which i liked ) but this has to be one of the worst albums of all time ! Very overated. Most of it's just a noise, with a screaming woman thrown in !

I do understand your feelings about the 'screaming woman' (Clare Torry), heh...because I once played this for someone unfamiliar with the album (hard as that is to believe, I know) and it is a surprise upon first listen, given the previous tracks (and although positioned as the bridge between Sides 1 & 2, it does run too long, IMO). But then, DSOTM is a narrative, after all, from start to finish, and even if it is padded out a little by filler ("Any Colour You Like" is certainly that), it is all recorded and assembled so well that, like SGT. PEPPER, even if you don't think the songs are strong, the end result is certainly unique and entertaining (most of all in quad or 5.1).

But as many millions as it has sold, even if you're just joshin' us, I can understand why an album like DSOTM doesn't work for everyone. I like it, have always been impressed by the achievement (and as surprised as the band was by its popularity, in 1973 and over the decades), but...no, I don't think it's a great album. But when in the mood, it's a fine listen.

ED

 

[Dixie4]

I do understand your feelings about the 'screaming woman' (Clare Torry), heh...because I once played this for someone unfamiliar with the album (hard as that is to believe, I know) and it is a surprise upon first listen, given the previous tracks (and although positioned as the bridge between Sides 1 & 2, it does run too long, IMO). But then, DSOTM is a narrative, after all, from start to finish, and even if it is padded out a little by filler ("Any Colour You Like" is certainly that), it is all recorded and assembled so well that, like SGT. PEPPER, even if you don't think the songs are strong, the end result is certainly unique and entertaining (most of all in quad or 5.1).

But as many millions as it has sold, even if you're just joshin' us, I can understand why an album like DSOTM doesn't work for everyone. I like it, have always been impressed by the achievement (and as surprised as the band was by its popularity, in 1973 and over the decades), but...no, I don't think it's a great album. But when in the mood, it's a fine listen.

ED

Hello, i've listened to the album twice since your post. I wasn't joshin' LOL Actually on reflection, it was probably harsh to say it's one of the worst albums of all time, especially if you judge it has a narrative / concept album. I actually liked it from Us And Them, onwards. ( when i first listened to it, initially )
I have to agree....Clare, screams & moans for far too long ! It's one of my least played SACD's, but i guess it's not the kind of album, you'd play on a regular basis ?

Rob.

 

[Dixie4]

Wow. Really. Are you being serious, Dixie?

You make it sound like you've never heard Dark Side of the Moon before?

Hello Brad, i was born 10 years before it was released, and had never heard the album. ( obviously well aware of Money ! ) I had never heard a Pink Floyd album, till i purchased " Wish You Were " a few months ago. ( even though, i like it more now, i would never place it in a " top 20 favourite " list. Not even a top 100 list to be honest ! )
I think timing ( and times ) are key, with albums that have sold very well. For example, would have this album sold in the same quantities, if it were released today ? Probably not. Would have Adele sold has many albums in 1973, as she has today ? Probably not.

 

[rusinurbe]

Hello, i've listened to the album twice since your post. I wasn't joshin' LOL Actually on reflection, it was probably harsh to say it's one of the worst albums of all time, especially if you judge it has a narrative / concept album. I actually liked it from Us And Them, onwards. ( when i first listened to it, initially )
I have to agree....Clare, screams & moans for far too long ! It's one of my least played SACD's, but i guess it's not the kind of album, you'd play on a regular basis ?

Rob.

The whole album is available on CD in alternative 1972 mix in the DSOTM box. If you want a completely different perspective on the album and to understand just how many good decisions were made to turn it from a mediocre album to a great album give that a listen. For me its the pick of the imersion boxes, along with the live Animals songs

 

[SMS]

Hello Brad, i was born 10 years before it was released, and had never heard the album. ( obviously well aware of Money ! ) I had never heard a Pink Floyd album, till i purchased " Wish You Were " a few months ago. ( even though, i like it more now, i would never place it in a " top 20 favourite " list. Not even a top 100 list to be honest ! )
I think timing ( and times ) are key, with albums that have sold very well. For example, would have this album sold in the same quantities, if it were released today ? Probably not. Would have Adele sold has many albums in 1973, as she has today ? Probably not.

You are correct... there is no question that timing is key. DSotM needs to be judged as an album, and today music is not really about albums, but rather songs or singles. So, an album like DSotM could easily go totally unnoticed today.

It would be interesting go 10 years into the future and compare sales of DSotM and Adele over time. I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect DSotM continued (and continues) to sell in reasonably large quantities every year for decades. I wonder if Adele "21" will still be selling 10 years from now? Hard to say...

For me DSotM was a "grower". I didn't love it right away, either. Clare Torry's vocals can certainly be grating upon the first listen but they can grow on you (although my wife still can't handle them). I probably only considered the album a masterpiece in the late 90s, 10 years after I first heard it. But, if find that many of my favorite albums are ones that didn't click right away. And... conversely, some of the albums that I do love upon the first listen, often quickly fade and I get bored of them.

Brad

 

[leevitalone1]

You are correct... there is no question that timing is key. DSotM needs to be judged as an album, and today music is not really about albums, but rather songs or singles. So, an album like DSotM could easily go totally unnoticed today.

It would be interesting go 10 years into the future and compare sales of DSotM and Adele over time. I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect DSotM continued (and continues) to sell in reasonably large quantities every year for decades. I wonder if Adele "21" will still be selling 10 years from now? Hard to say...

For me DSotM was a "grower". I didn't love it right away, either. Clare Torry's vocals can certainly be grating upon the first listen but they can grow on you (although my wife still can't handle them). I probably only considered the album a masterpiece in the late 90s, 10 years after I first heard it. But, if find that many of my favorite albums are ones that didn't click right away. And... conversely, some of the albums that I do love upon the first listen, often quickly fade and I get bored of them.

Brad

Having discussed this before, have concluded DSOTM and WYWH will be "classic" music in the future, Just like kids listening to Beethoven today. Both will be popular well into the future, alas Adele will be forgotten. Why do I feel this way? Becauase I see the kids today listening to the same music I did when I was a kid. This means something: that our generation is viewed by them as being important, by our actions, and our music.

 

[JonUrban]

I found it actually refreshing to hear an opposite view of this title from someone who had never heard it. I can see where they're coming from. Just because someone loves a title, doesn't mean everyone loves it. If you take this album out of context, out of it's time, out of the web it's woven into, I can see how it may seem odd, boring, strange, and maybe wonder why it was so popular.

If it came out today, and was up on iTunes, other than Money, the rest of the album would probably be soon forgotten. Timing, as they say, is everything.