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

[Dixie4]

If you break down the album track by track, you've got 1.08 seconds of a heartbeat, which you can't hear, unless you turn it up. ( i know it's not a track, a kind of Janet Jackson snippet / intro, for the time. ) Follwed by a short song, then 3.31 seconds of what is noise / sound effects....followed by another song, before we get 4.47 of Miss Torry, moaning & screaming....how much of that would you class has " real music " ? It does pick up from there, and is actually very good....but i'd never say it was a " classic " album, because i think an album to be regarded has a classic, has to be good / exceptional from begining to end. Basically, it's an album that consists of just 4 songs.

 

[SMS]

If you break down the album track by track, you've got 1.08 seconds of a heartbeat, which you can't hear, unless you turn it up. ( i know it's not a track, a kind of Janet Jackson snippet / intro, for the time. ) Follwed by a short song, then 3.31 seconds of what is noise / sound effects....followed by another song, before we get 4.47 of Miss Torry, moaning & screaming....how much of that would you class has " real music " ? It does pick up from there, and is actually very good....but i'd never say it was a " classic " album, because i think an album to be regarded has a classic, has to be good / exceptional from begining to end. Basically, it's an album that consists of just 4 songs.

I definitely understand your perspective, however, other than perhaps the heartbeat, I'd call ALL of it music. I agree that "On the Run" is not really traditional music, but there certainly is a rhythm to that track, and it very effectively conveys the feeling of anxiety that is intended. Perhaps it is not music, but simply "art". There is more emotion in those sound effects than much of the fluff put on mainstream radio. IMO, it is the emotion contained within the songs, even without any words, that gives many people a strong connection to the album.

Even if you never experience a strong connection to the album, I think you have to respect that DSotM pushed the boundaries of what was possible in a studio in 1973. I can't imagine how many hours were spent agonizing over every detail of the recording. I think that attention to detail is rarely seen on modern recordings, and that is truly a shame.

Brad

 

[Dixie4]

I definitely understand your perspective, however, other than perhaps the heartbeat, I'd call ALL of it music. I agree that "On the Run" is not really traditional music, but there certainly is a rhythm to that track, and it very effectively conveys the feeling of anxiety that is intended. Perhaps it is not music, but simply "art". There is more emotion in those sound effects than much of the fluff put on mainstream radio. IMO, it is the emotion contained within the songs, even without any words, that gives many people a strong connection to the album.

Even if you never experience a strong connection to the album, I think you have to respect that DSotM pushed the boundaries of what was possible in a studio in 1973. I can't imagine how many hours were spent agonizing over every detail of the recording. I think that attention to detail is rarely seen on modern recordings, and that is truly a shame.

Brad

I suppose you have to judge the album has a concept album, and the tracks mentioned were part of that concept. I'm not saying those tracks don't convey anything. ( Pink Floyd, obviously felt they were ) Everyone's interpretation is obviously not always the same.
For me, my favourite band for conveying atmosphere and detail, has always been Toto. I'm sure they would have been influenced by PL to some degree ? ( amongst many others ) Never had the success & recognition they deserve.
I agree for it's time, it was probably different to what people had heard before ?...and technically breaking new ground ?
( Us & Them, reminds me of The Beatles, for some reason ? )

 

[Quad Linda]

A 9, though I'd do 8.5, if that were possible. First, I love this album. I've owned virtually every variation there is. Still, I got sick of hearing it as a demo album in the store, mostly as a 2ch Capitol, and later as a 2ch Mofi LP. Also got sick of Rumours, Touch, Crime of the Century and Saturday Night Fever, all of which I love. Since the SQ was a UK import, we didn't have the luxury of replacing copies as we wore them out, which we did with Capitol. Car fi was the only way we'd demo with Q8. So, this wasn't a Quad demo album.

Musically, it's great, BUT I had moved to more adventurous things. I do love songs with hooks. There are a couple here. After all, it's a concept album. When this album was released, I was listening to Faust, Cluster, early Kraftwerk, Mahavishnu and Miles. Not many hooks in those, but they're way more adventurous, with a higher level of musicianship. Although I began buying Floyd records in '68, those other bands were more alluring in '73. To me, this was a more commercial Floyd, and it wasn't the direction I thought they should take. Still, it's a classic and a work of art. It sold beaucoups copies. Still does. It doesn't make my top 100 albums. Groundbreaking it ain't. Don't shoot me!

I like this mix. But, the AP mix on BD is the one. If this is 9, that's a 10. If you like 2ch, the MoFi LP is the one. As with most MC titles I own, I've never bothered to listen to the 2ch mix(es.) I did play them on Immersion. My complaint with this mix is the same as with many 5.1 mixes. The extra channel(s) seem to throw the engineers for a loop. 5.1 mixes are a different mindset from Quad. I've often contended that 5.1 IS Quad. Being full range, Quad has bass, and it has a phantom center. Although this is a good mix, it's not a great mix.

If you don't want to pop for Immersion, you NEED this. If you've never heard the AP mix, you'll likely think this is wonderful. An artifact of a bygone era.

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.

 

[0tto]

well, i discovered this album in late 70th. that's was the time of my entry into world of music.
so mainly were thrilled with more hard rock stuff. and when in general DSOTM was a great listening,
but never liked in past this part with screaming woman. not sure why, but always prefered to skip
this track in past. when i listening this album now, i'm pretty sure that i don't like the vocal abilities
of this lady. could be such vox considered to be great for the jazz, but i can't stand it.
as for this particular release, i still prefer AP quad mix.

 

[JonUrban]

I love the chords to "Great Gig in the Sky", and they're nice to play on a Grand Piano. Try it sometime if you can.

 

[Time Lord]

Since when does a great tune needs to have words? There are a lot of great instrumental songs out there.

As David Byrne of Talking Heads wrote "Singing is a trick to get people to listen to music for longer than they would ordinarily"

 

[JonUrban]

I deleted a pile of posts that had nothing to do with the evaluation of the SACD of Dark Side of the Moon.

Please stop the personal attacks and attempts at changing peoples opinions. What's the point? Everyone has the right to like something or dislike something, without having to defend themselves endlessly.

Comon folks, it's 2012.

 

[kap'n krunch]

My 2 euro cents.
Waste of plastic.
Being a "Sonic painting", not a real "Rock" album by itself, there are so many things that could have been done with the material!
Alan Parsons' seminal mix is the true mix, but ,as I mentioned, you could have grabbed this from its many appendages and have done something else that maybe AP hadn't envisioned!
So many wasted opportunities.

Bottom line=it's an "extended stereo" mix=if you feed your stereo LP through the DPL decoder in your receiver you will probably get a better -and more adventurous- mix than this SACD.
All for "safety" sake, meaning, "oh , if an average Joe with a Home Cinema in a box gets this, we want them to get a "safe" mix, not something that will challenge their system and have him notice that 'Surround' is not like the sound on his DVDs!!!"

Of course, it was one of the first SACD I bought,
and
one of the first I sold!

So much so that I couldn't even stand to LISTEN to the whole thing!!!!

The AP mix set the bar so incredibly high that I was "insulted" by this jerk *ff of a mix.
I'm positive almost anybody with some mixing expertise (and there's plenty of them in this forum) could have done a much better job.

I gave it a "1" cause there wasn't anything lower than that....

Now, the ALBUM on the other hand.....is a solid 10!!!!

Proof that you can turn a diamond into a turd in the wrong hands!!!!

 

[kap'n krunch]

...oops!

 

[DKA]

...oops!

....and you're six hours ahead of most of us.

While I did my fair share of mudslinging here, leaders lead, and I am grateful always to Jon when he steps in and puts a stop to something.

Back to the SACD itself.

 

[leevitalone1]

I deleted a pile of posts that had nothing to do with the evaluation of the SACD of Dark Side of the Moon.

Please stop the personal attacks and attempts at changing peoples opinions. What's the point? Everyone has the right to like something or dislike something, without having to defend themselves endlessly.

Comon folks, it's 2012.

Thank you Jon!! The voice of reason. enough is enough! it's only opinions.

 

[ProgRules]

My 2 euro cents.
Waste of plastic.
Being a "Sonic painting", not a real "Rock" album by itself, there are so many things that could have been done with the material!
Alan Parsons' seminal mix is the true mix, but ,as I mentioned, you could have grabbed this from its many appendages and have done something else that maybe AP hadn't envisioned!
So many wasted opportunities.

Bottom line=it's an "extended stereo" mix=if you feed your stereo LP through the DPL decoder in your receiver you will probably get a better -and more adventurous- mix than this SACD.
All for "safety" sake, meaning, "oh , if an average Joe with a Home Cinema in a box gets this, we want them to get a "safe" mix, not something that will challenge their system and have him notice that 'Surround' is not like the sound on his DVDs!!!"

Of course, it was one of the first SACD I bought,
and
one of the first I sold!

So much so that I couldn't even stand to LISTEN to the whole thing!!!!

The AP mix set the bar so incredibly high that I was "insulted" by this jerk *ff of a mix.
I'm positive almost anybody with some mixing expertise (and there's plenty of them in this forum) could have done a much better job.

I gave it a "1" cause there wasn't anything lower than that....

Now, the ALBUM on the other hand.....is a solid 10!!!!

Proof that you can turn a diamond into a turd in the wrong hands!!!!

Also proof that previous experiences will effect perceptions. I doubt if you would feel this way had you not previously had extensive experience with the quad mix. It must just pale in comparison. I have never heard the quad mix and to me, the sacd is awesome. To me, it seems to have plenty of discreet effects in the surrounds. I can't imagine a stereo version of this thru DPL sounding anywhere near as good.

In fact, I think DSotM has much more discreet effects that the new WYWH sacd- with the exception of Welcome to the Machine, that mix seems to be big stereo to me. I was surprised (and a little disappointed) upon listening to WYWH that it didn't have a lot more discreet effects- especially after all the reviews I read praising the surround mix. It would seem to be an album that begs for more creative use of surrounds- I was expecting something more along the lines of FL's Yoshimi. Don't get me wrong, I like the WYWH sacd, but I think the mix could have been more inventive, just like the music. I never got this feeling from DSotM sacd. Over the years, it's been my most played mch disc, to the point where I've had to limit the times I listen to it, so I don't get burned out on it.

 

[leevitalone1]

Also proof that previous experiences will effect perceptions. I doubt if you would feel this way had you not previously had extensive experience with the quad mix. It must just pale in comparison. I have never heard the quad mix and to me, the sacd is awesome. To me, it seems to have plenty of discreet effects in the surrounds. I can't imagine a stereo version of this thru DPL sounding anywhere near as good.

In fact, I think DSotM has much more discreet effects that the new WYWH sacd- with the exception of Welcome to the Machine, that mix seems to be big stereo to me. I was surprised (and a little disappointed) upon listening to WYWH that it didn't have a lot more discreet effects- especially after all the reviews I read praising the surround mix. It would seem to be an album that begs for more creative use of surrounds- I was expecting something more along the lines of FL's Yoshimi. Don't get me wrong, I like the WYWH sacd, but I think the mix could have been more inventive, just like the music. I never got this feeling from DSotM sacd. Over the years, it's been my most played mch disc, to the point where I've had to limit the times I listen to it, so I don't get burned out on it.

I gotta agree with the 4.0 version. It is-well better. It should have been left alone. I can see tweaking, but it was changed. same with WYWH 4.0 is different, but I like both. Really jaded with both. must have heard both a million times, but evry so often I get in the mood. The one to "have" is the BD with both albums as it has both versions @ HR

 

[ssully]

If you break down the album track by track, you've got 1.08 seconds of a heartbeat, which you can't hear, unless you turn it up. ( i know it's not a track, a kind of Janet Jackson snippet / intro, for the time. ) Follwed by a short song, then 3.31 seconds of what is noise / sound effects....followed by another song, before we get 4.47 of Miss Torry, moaning & screaming....how much of that would you class has " real music " ? It does pick up from there, and is actually very good....but i'd never say it was a " classic " album, because i think an album to be regarded has a classic, has to be good / exceptional from begining to end. Basically, it's an album that consists of just 4 songs.

No, it isn't.

Breathe,
Time,
Money,
Us and Them,
Brain Damage,
Eclipse.

All six qualify as 'songs' don't you think? Five of them even have verse/chorus structure. (Obligatory on-topic reference) On the SACD too.

 

[leevitalone1]

No, it isn't.

Breathe,
Time,
Money,
Us and Them,
Brain Damage,
Eclipse.

All six qualify as 'songs' don't you think? Five of them even have verse/chorus structure. (Obligatory on-topic reference) On the SACD too.

YES!! Full agreement!! But! of course you always have the choice of not listening to it! And let those who like it, be. Negative comments only breed contempt. Is that the point? No! it's the music. It is after all, just that. we respect all opinions good or bad, that's what they are-opinions, nothing more! :chill Peace!

 

[Dixie4]

No, it isn't.

Breathe,
Time,
Money,
Us and Them,
Brain Damage,
Eclipse.

All six qualify as 'songs' don't you think? Five of them even have verse/chorus structure. (Obligatory on-topic reference) On the SACD too.

There's an arguement to say that from Us And Them, onwards it's only one track ? i.e. just leads into Brain Damage & that leads into Eclipse. Only speaking from my point of view, but on first listen, i couldn't differeniate a begining & ending ? So much so the cd had finished, and i thought i was still listening to Us And Them ! ( you have to agree, they flow into one another ? )
Can i just clarify, i do like the cd, ( has stated in earlier posts ) but not necessarily all of it, or a multi channel favourite. ( in my opinion ) I gave it a 2.

 

[kap'n krunch]

Also proof that previous experiences will effect perceptions. I doubt if you would feel this way had you not previously had extensive experience with the quad mix. It must just pale in comparison. I have never heard the quad mix and to me, the sacd is awesome. To me, it seems to have plenty of discreet effects in the surrounds. I can't imagine a stereo version of this thru DPL sounding anywhere near as good.

In fact, I think DSotM has much more discreet effects that the new WYWH sacd- with the exception of Welcome to the Machine, that mix seems to be big stereo to me. I was surprised (and a little disappointed) upon listening to WYWH that it didn't have a lot more discreet effects- especially after all the reviews I read praising the surround mix. It would seem to be an album that begs for more creative use of surrounds- I was expecting something more along the lines of FL's Yoshimi. Don't get me wrong, I like the WYWH sacd, but I think the mix could have been more inventive, just like the music. I never got this feeling from DSotM sacd. Over the years, it's been my most played mch disc, to the point where I've had to limit the times I listen to it, so I don't get burned out on it.

Of course previous experiences will Affect perceptions!!!!
But I had always listened to DSOTM in a lovely MFSL LP plenty of times (decades!) BEFORE I listened to the AP mix, which I first listened to only a few years ago, and of course , was blown away by it!

It's like when Lennon stated that Sgt. Pepper's had to be listened to in mono to appreciate it, because the main intention of the artist is expressed in that particular mix.

And regarding the stereo thru the DPL, you'd be amazed(it depends on the DPL settings too) ...just try it...and besides , you'll get better fidelity than the SACD if you play the LP....

WYWH is another story...different takes than the stereo mix, etc....and although the mix is not nearly as good as DSOTM, it is STILL WAY better than the SACD...

 

[ProgRules]

Of course previous experiences will Affect perceptions!!!!
But I had always listened to DSOTM in a lovely MFSL LP plenty of times (decades!) BEFORE I listened to the AP mix, which I first listened to only a few years ago, and of course , was blown away by it!

It's like when Lennon stated that Sgt. Pepper's had to be listened to in mono to appreciate it, because the main intention of the artist is expressed in that particular mix.

And regarding the stereo thru the DPL, you'd be amazed(it depends on the DPL settings too) ...just try it...and besides , you'll get better fidelity than the SACD if you play the LP....

WYWH is another story...different takes than the stereo mix, etc....and although the mix is not nearly as good as DSOTM, it is STILL WAY better than the SACD...

I listen to all of my 2 ch music thru DPL, so I'm very familiar with that. I have played around a bit with the settings as well. Still no match for a discreet 5.1 mix imho. As for fidelity, I have heard no issues with the DSotM sacd- but then maybe my system isn't as revealing as yours- or maybe my old ears, which have been subject to a lot of loud music over the years, recorded and live, can't hear it.

BTW- I have the mofi DSotM- guess I should sell that so a vinyl lover could enjoy it, because it hasn't been played in years- decades even.

Are you saying that the WYWH sacd uses different takes than the original LP? That is news to me. Again, though, I much prefer the sacd to the LP or the CD.

 

[kap'n krunch]

.....
BTW- I have the mofi DSotM- guess I should sell that so a vinyl lover could enjoy it, because it hasn't been played in years- decades even.
....

If you choose to keep it "in the family", I'll buy it from you...mine was sadly fatally injured!
Cheers....