add to wish list | library


418 of 433 recommend this,
would you recommend it?

yes | no

Support this site by purchasing from these vendors using the links provided below. As an Amazon Associate SA-CD.net earns from qualifying purchases.
 
amazon.ca
amazon.co.uk
amazon.com
amazon.de
 
amazon.fr
amazon.it
CDJapan
jpc

Discussion: Pink Floyd: Dark Side of the Moon

Posts: 15
Page: 1 2 next

Post by azure April 11, 2006 (1 of 15)
I have only compared the HD DSD stereo programme with the 1979 Stereo MFSL Half Speed Master Lp.
and, have not compared thethis SACD version with the 1994 PCM remaster RBCD nor original PCM master for RBCD..
So I cannot make any comparisons here with the previous CD releases nor surround vs. quad mix.

There is a bit of controversy out there regarding the source of the stereo program... many people have reported that there is little difference between the earlier CD, and many have not acknowledged which previous version they have compared it to.

My question is Did the stereo HD and CD layer programmes originate from the original analog stereo master or from one of the PCM masters

At worst they have sourced it from the first 80s PCM master
At best it may have been sourced from the 1994 PCM remaster
Ideally it did come from the original analog master

If it was only a "DSD remaster" from the original analog master i gather unlike the surround mix: PCM would not have been involved.....

Regardless I personally prefer the SACD version over the above MFSL release....

Post by racerguy April 11, 2006 (2 of 15)
All analog.

Post by sgb November 19, 2006 (3 of 15)
As regards to the strange review of this recording posted on 19 November, I did not know whether I wanted to go along with the four others who voted negatively, or to vote in favor of the review. I pondered for a moment why someone would waste the time to write such a silly essay then decided I would rather read what was the basis of the reaction those who read it then posted negatively. It certainly did conform to the requirement here to avoid brief reviews. The recording is, of course, one of those sacred cows of which most everyone whose never let go of their adolescent values prizes greatly. I wondered then whether the negative votes came from such persons.

Post by georgeflanagin November 20, 2006 (4 of 15)
sgb said:

As regards to the strange review of this recording posted on 19 November, I did not know whether I wanted to go along with the four others who voted negatively, or to vote in favor of the review. I pondered for a moment why someone would waste the time to write such a silly essay then decided I would rather read what was the basis of the reaction those who read it then posted negatively. It certainly did conform to the requirement here to avoid brief reviews. The recording is, of course, one of those sacred cows of which most everyone whose never let go of their adolescent values prizes greatly. I wondered then whether the negative votes came from such persons.

Looking at the string of reviews that preceded the one in question, I was impressed with:

[1] How many reviews there were.
[2] How few were thought to be "helpful" after one of the earliest reviews.

Perhaps what we need are reviews which are juried by the staff on the one hand, and scrawls on the chalkboard which are automatically erased after a week on the other.

George Flanagin

Post by Beagle November 20, 2006 (5 of 15)
RE the Nov. 19 review:
What is so surprising about a TOTALLY-STONED review of Dark Side of the Moon?

Post by Julien November 21, 2006 (6 of 15)
Mr Howardroark said:

"If You Do Nothing Else ÷÷÷

• Multi-Channel SACD Sony deck
• Decent surround speaker setup
• Clean/Efficient Amplifier | Receiver
(Yamaha | Denon | Onkyo | Marantz)
• RCA (NotCheap) SACD Cables - $200
• Clean Monster Power Power Center

÷÷÷ In This Lifetime

(*) Why Only Sony?
1. Because they invented SACD they just sound better than when played on any other brands, all else the same.
2. I agree with those who feel it should not be this way, but my experience is that way. There are far worse things in life.
3. Damn lucky to argue the finer points of which what were used to make this or that re-mastered SACD¿?
4. Why? Because it is Sony. I believe it is fair.
5. To the extent that you get for what you pay. For what you don't pay, you do not get.

• Sony TV's & components work best when they work All Sony. I once bought a Panasonic VCR with a brand new Sony Flat Screen 32" TV that would not play DVD or VHS without a faint green line down the side edge of the screen. Finally bought the Sony model, for $100 more, and the picture was perfect."


Julien says:

The stoned "review" (still hard to see it as one) is quite funny anyway.

I am waiting with impatience for the review Mr Howardroark will write when he discovers how average the equipment he refers to is, while listening on a good hi-fi system to a DSOTM that sounds about a hundred times better...

In China we have a saying: a frog watching the sky from the bottom of a well...

Post by raffells November 21, 2006 (7 of 15)
Julien said:


Julien says:



In China we have a saying: a frog watching the sky from the bottom of a well...

Q...Why bring the French sky lookers into this.?
Apart from this question , it was a Funny review.Hopefully so is my response?.
as regards the review..if thats what you call it...
I bet you if he had a Sony Playstation it would sound better than anything I you or even Windy could produce.At any cost.
Sony ?..They invented CD and that was perfect then?..or as the Sony demonstrater said to me when I reviewed it as a poor Hifi product ..(1981) ..Its it perfect midi fi..which is 95 percent of the market and thats where we will make most money.!.He was right.

..or .Maybe the reviewer was listening in surround.
Personally I have a cheap Lp that totally beats the sonics of the sacd.In stereo.System Cost a fortune but it obviously isnt as good as a Sony system which are not as reliable a manufacturer as stated,.They are not that easy to repair either.. See reviews..(some televisions were ok) but many many many things were not... Walkmans in particular..maybe thats a different Sony?..

Post by Beagle March 11, 2007 (8 of 15)
DSOTM lovers,

Don't walk -- RUN down to your nearest WalMart: they have a DSOTM wall clock for 8.99 (probably with an audible tick).

Post by Wilhelm—Xu Zhong-Rui May 21, 2014 (9 of 15)
Today's excitement anticipating another Pink Floyd remastering made me recall this 2003...

390 of 404 recommendations so far ; but all 45 Reviews and the 8 previous Posts of this Discussion haven't mentioned James Guthrie, "who mixed the album for surround sound."


For you who's truly interested in having an insight into the process... http://www.pinkfloydz.com/darksidesandv.htm compiles the 3 informative pieces that Ken Richardson wrote.

First, 'Tales from the Dark Side' (Guthrie) :
'He acknowledges that some fans are wondering why the album’s original engineer, Alan Parsons, wasn’t involved with the remix. It was Parsons who did the quad mix in 1973.

“The band listened to that quad mix and elected not to use it,” Guthrie says. “I used the original stereo mix as my guide, because it captured the detail and emotion of the songs.

“The focal point of the six-channel mix is the listening position, not any of the speakers. What I have tried to do for many, many years is to make the speakers disappear—so that you’re aware of sound being everywhere. You get immersed in the sound and can experience the music...'


Secondly, 'Another Phase of the Moon' (Parsons) :
"Parsons explains why the SACD mix doesn't speak to him..."


And 'All That You Hear' (Richardson's Review) :
"My advice: buy an SACD player!..."

Post by Iain May 22, 2014 (10 of 15)
If you don't currently have it, run, don't walk to AP and get "Wish You Were Here". It's a significant improvement in composition, content and sound quality over DSOTM.

This used to be my favourite PF title, until I heard WYWH.

Page: 1 2 next

Closed