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

[mrcond]

After reading some of the bashing of the Guthrie mix of DSOTM over in the Animals threads, I had to revisit this SACD and had a full listen at good volume. The verdict for me is this is a very satisfying listen. Great sound quality, I love the low end, and quite a bit of discrete activity in the surrounds. Perhaps not as adventurous as the Parsons quad mix, but very, very good nonetheless. When I am in a certain mood, I may even say I prefer to listen to the 5.1 mix over the quad (blasphemy!). Looking at some of the poll votes for this one (12 people voted 1 or 2? Really?), frankly I don't get the hate.

 

[JohnN]

After reading some of the bashing of the Guthrie mix of DSOTM over in the Animals threads, I had to revisit this SACD and had a full listen at good volume. The verdict for me is this is a very satisfying listen. Great sound quality, I love the low end, and quite a bit of discrete activity in the surrounds. Perhaps not as adventurous as the Parsons quad mix, but very, very good nonetheless. When I am in a certain mood, I may even say I prefer to listen to the 5.1 mix over the quad (blasphemy!). Looking at some of the poll votes for this one (12 people voted 1 or 2? Really?), frankly I don't get the hate.

Agree. Always enjoy the 5.1.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

After reading some of the bashing of the Guthrie mix of DSOTM over in the Animals threads, I had to revisit this SACD and had a full listen at good volume. The verdict for me is this is a very satisfying listen. Great sound quality, I love the low end, and quite a bit of discrete activity in the surrounds. Perhaps not as adventurous as the Parsons quad mix, but very, very good nonetheless. When I am in a certain mood, I may even say I prefer to listen to the 5.1 mix over the quad (blasphemy!). Looking at some of the poll votes for this one (12 people voted 1 or 2? Really?), frankly I don't get the hate.

There is no question Guthrie was able to turn up the fidelity several notches.

If the quad mix never existed, I think this 5.1 mix would have fared better. But the quad mix showed what was possible and the 5.1 pales in comparison. I think that is where the low votes are coming from.

Imagine the quad mix with the Guthrie uptick in fidelity. Now we're talking.

 

[JohnN]

There is no question Guthrie was able to turn up the fidelity several notches.

If the quad mix never existed, I think this 5.1 mix would have fared better. But the quad mix showed what was possible and the 5.1 pales in comparison. I think that is where the low votes are coming from.

Imagine the quad mix with the Guthrie uptick in fidelity. Now we're talking.

Imagine the quad mix with the Guthrie uptick in fidelity. Keep talking.

 

[sjcorne]

If the quad mix never existed, I think this 5.1 mix would have fared better. But the quad mix showed what was possible and the 5.1 pales in comparison. I think that is where the low votes are coming from.

Parsons summed it up perfectly way back in 2003:

“I’m not surprised that Pink Floyd rejected my quad mix of Dark Side for the SACD,” Parsons says. “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's a shame he didn't get a second shot at it, this time using a DAW and all the other benefits of modern technology.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Parsons summed it up perfectly way back in 2003:

It's a shame he didn't get a second shot at it, this time using a DAW and all the other benefits of modern technology.

I wonder whats missing?

 

[ar surround]

With all the hoopla about the new Atmos mix for a measly $300, I gave this lowly $18.95 SACD a spin today. This is possibly the only multichannel disc that can handle Auro 3D full-strength level 16 without becoming a mess. It is quite an impressive listen...much more spectacular than the Guthrie "big stereo" that comes across in straight 5.1.

 

[Mj33]

Eight people have voted a 1 for this release? Seriously? It’s not worth the plastic for eight people? I mean a 3 or a 4 would already be a disservice to this mix, but a 1? You have got to be kidding.

 

[ar surround]

Eight people have voted a 1 for this release? Seriously? It’s not worth the plastic for eight people? I mean a 3 or a 4 would already be a disservice to this mix, but a 1? You have got to be kidding.

Half of them are regulars here. I can only surmise that they are pissed because of the "big stereo" mix especially compared to what Parsons did and what could have been done.

 

[ar surround]

Having now spent considerable time listening to this 5.1 SACD, the Parsons Quad, and the new Atmos mix, I still prefer this SACD. It has a tonal balance and range which seems to impart more impact...balls...or whatever one would like to call it. As good as they are, the other two mixes do not do that for me.

Also, for whatever reason, this 5.1 has always upmixed gloriously for me whether with Logic7, Auro2D or Auro3D.