Pink Floyd: The best CD mastering of Dark side of the moon is...? 9 versions to compare
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- PART 2 (2011 to 2023): • Pink Floyd All CD mast...
Comparison and subjective ranking of 9 different red book cd masterings of the 1973 album Dark side of the moon by Pink Floyd. All cd's in my personal collection.
Listened to all of these a countless number of times using a Panasonic discman from 2005 with BOSE OE2 headphones, and alternatively a Technics HiFi from the 90s with Technics speakers or Sennheiser HD280 pro headphones.
00:12 Sony Japan Mastering
01:35 Second Sony Mastering (USA) - Capitol Records
02:25 EMI mastering (rev level 0) - Harvest Records
03:16 Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs mastering
04:54 Shine On Box Set (Columbia Records mastering)
06:04 20th Anniversary Box - Doug Sax mastering (EMI rev level 2)
07:26 1994 Doug Sax (EMI rev level 2)
08:24 30th Anniversary SACD/CD - James Guthrie mastering
10:07 2011 Guthrie and Plante remaster
Collaborate with the channel by buying my album of original music on bandcamp:
jmgalie.bandca...
Donations: www.paypal.com...
To check what mastering of the album on CD you have, install free EAC software in a PC with a drive, insert cd, go to action, test selected tracks. It will create a text file with peak levels for each track. If it matches this: 39.9 / 43.3 / 70.1 / 55.2 / 72.3 / 44.5 / 53.9 / 54.6 / 61.2 , you have the first mastering considered the Holy Grail. All versions of DSOTM are good, except that for collectionist freaks and audiophiles, the above version is most cherished...
To identify your versions and more info on Pink Floyd's DSOTM:
forums.steveho...
pinkfloydarchiv...
#darksideofthemoon #cdcollection #vinylcommunity
The first one is by far the best. Like the ToshibaEMI on vinyl, the first pressing is the best followed by the MFSL ultradisc. Everyone who loves this album has an opinion. Mine is just one of many. Your opinion matters because you love the music and the music is what really matters. It’s why we listen. Stay safe my mates!😊👍🏻😷
👍
Then the question is how good AD converters were in 1983 or 1984. So that would convert the analog sound into digital data
Analog Productions / Acoustic sound has also released Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon on SACD this year
@@Andersljungberg, Mr Anders, I’m sure there are those who disagree with me. I’m hardly the last word. It is possible to find favorites that fit your ears and taste. The thing is enjoying what you listen to and what you listen to them on. Each must find their own path and what makes them happy. The vintage Luxman CD player D-06 as it plays SACDs and is a superb stand alone player. I don’t have one, but my former boss does and it is silky!
@@markphilpot8734 Just like with CD players, it matters who made it. A Marantz, for example, probably doesn't sound the same
For me the best is the Doug Sax 20th anniversary, detailed, warm and punchy.
I have that one... It's great...
I have the mobile fidelity version and always thought it sounded great. (I also have the mobile fidelity version of The Wall as well)
thanks for watching
For my ears and my high end speakers the SACD is it for me.
I have the Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab Ultradisc gold plated version of both Dark Side of the Moon(Harvest) and- Breakfast in America by Supertramp (A & M ) Both were made in Japan. When i listen to these CD's in stereo, i use cross-talk cancellation to achieve a dramatic 3 dimensional sound stage. where the walls of the listening room "disappear" and the depth of the soundstage appears to extend behind the speakers about 20 feet.
How does one get cross talk cancellation operable?
Not 24-karat gold? They play and have been measured to regular CDs, sadly. Yes, some are good edits with a little smoother sound, but editing sound is not ideal to find quality.
Try SACD as it is the best by far, as it uses better technology. I enjoy playing it like a brand-new record all the time. Some of the highs just roll off more, and the voice is perfectly played back, but mostly the instruments' start and end of notes last much longer, which in normal CD or record recordings are shorter. Also, it's smooth and very analog sounding, which I love."
@SafeAndSoundTXAudioExcursion never had it personal, good cables, and a good amp will stop it .
Ive tried mono amps for each speaker , bi amping which works with some speakers . But ive never had crosd talk
I have the MFSL Ultradisc and I can recommend it.
I've always listened to the 1994 Doug Sax master on CD, then when I bought the 2016 CD it was so sad to hear that so much of the dynamics had been squeezed away.. just going into Eclipse it didn't climax anywhere near like the 94.. sad that so many new listeners won't hear it like that, and even more so if it's through digital streaming!
Same with Final Cut - 1st track when Roger sings "Should we shout....." his voice is lower than earlier and the drum fill in doesn't climax either.. way over compressed!
I totally agree, thanks for commenting
Big problem with CD versions of old classic LP's is the irresistible temptation to screw with the mix and eq and screw up the recording really badly. I have a half dozen CD's of some of my LP"s where this is the case, and an authentic CD that truly improves on the LP is rare. For Dark Side of the Moon, my solution was to simply buy the new LP version, really glad I did, it sounds EXACTLY like the original recording, just like I remember it, it was perfect then, and needs NO improvement.
I doubt anyone thinks it was literally "Perfect". But the goal should be to reproduce what was DONE on the recording back then. And I am sure it COULD be improved, as it was a very good recording, but not spectacular. If they went back to the truly ORIGINAL multi track tapes it could easily be improved.
@@kevintomb But that is rarely done due to the cost. Most often, they take the master and re-EQ it for CD, and that is where the trouble starts. But yes, absolutely if any of the CD's of this classic were remixed, they could really bring more life to it. But then it just would not sound the same, and there is value in the character of the original recording, IMHO.
@@SpeakerBuilder I have the original it's still perfect I'm very careful with my records I hate the sound of C d's Is in general
@@SpeakerBuilder And I expect the original tapes will have deteriorated somewhat, making it very difficult to re-mix and re-master to a modern standard.
@@OWEN-CASH Not to mention the rumble, wow and flutter!
I do own the 20th anniversary, MFSL and SACD versions. To my ears the MFSL master sounds very close to analoge versions very smooth and warm. It is my personal favorite. I don‘t really like the 20th anniversary version because subjectively it sound too analytically. I can‘t describe it any better. As always the quality of reproduction depends also on the quality of your gear. The best master will sound crappy if you play it on low end equipment.
I have a Technics system which is fairly high end, but even on my discman with bose headphones, this album sounds amazing. I agree, 20th anniversary does not grab me emotionally as much as other versions.
@@amateurmusicresearch1972 Something digital was added in 1972. There is nothing special in the sound of Dark Side of the Mon, especially compared some 1971 & before albums.
Right there with you brother.😎
'94 remaster is one of my favourites here. New artwork, nice booklet, simple packaging. I also have the 2011 Experience Edition which comes with an extra disc.
Agreed, the packaging for that release was the best!
The 1988 Mobile Fidelity release of "Dark Side of The Moon" DID use the first generation, stereo master tapes. EMI put both tapes (Side A and Side B) on a transatlantic flight, from London to Los Angles, with an EMI Staffer personally holding the tapes the entire journey. Once the EMI Staffer cleared customs in Los Angles, he was driven to the Mobil Fidelity Mastering Lab which was in Sebastopol CA.
good info, 1988
Wow!!
And the 1993 Mobile Fidelity re-release with Gain System didn't?
@@SPAZZOID100 Sure, dsd is even more quality
@@SPAZZOID100 Tapes gets moldy and decompose overtime. Collectors knows nothing and they careless about this.
So glad I have the 1st Sony Japan Mastering cd, that I bought back in the 80’s. Great video…✌️
the holy grail!
Usually cd recordings from the 80s aren’t known for superior recording quality! Recording engineers thought they could lean back and reduce their own effort…as the cd format itself would do a good part of their actual job. Which is so wrong!!
I have a few of those versions. The 20th, the Box set and one of the early CD pressings. I like the Box set version of the three. There is also another version bouncing around that I like, the Alan Parsons quad mix. Someone got their hands on the masters that were never used...it was rejected by the band, and turned it into a DVD-A, along with a Stereo mix. They also added a sub channel, so it is technically a 4.1 version of the album. Fascating to listen to!
Any version that Steve Hoffman DIDN'T touch is a superior version.
Agree
I've yet to find a "bad" sounding version of DSOTM.😎👍
That’s just like The Wall also
I have the first Japanese pressing I bought in Germany in the early 80s.....is this version worth anything ?
My go to listening version is the SACD which was not really addressed here
tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me you didn't watch the video...
@XX-121 what video !?
Background music is distracting!
I agree! 1st Sony Japan is the one! None of the others beat it.
totally!
@@amateurmusicresearch1972 I agree 100%. The Harvest label Japan 1st pressing is tops!
Have owned/heard all the ones in this video. Sony Japan (1983) is best. Maybe because the tape was only 10 years young at the time.
The best way to hear this album digitally is to get ahold of a very good 1st press vinyl version and carefully rip that to digital. Orig. UK, German and Holland pressings come to mind.
Excelente video. Yo tengo la versión en LP de 1988 que fue hecho en Venezuela que el sonido es muy bueno y en cd tengo la versión del 20 aniversario y la versión de 1994 que según el video es la misma del 20 aniversario. Definitivamente uno de mejores álbum de todos los tiempos.
gracias hermano latinoamericano!
This is my take (I have all of the versions in the video also):
There are many that will always go with the rare and expensive. Which are usually japanese first pressings.
Sometimes this is true as far as best sound quality, many times its not. One has to know what they are looking at in the matrices. That is the most important part. That and matching mastering peak level numbers. More on that later.
My philosophy on sound quality...
For me, the ultimate comparison is:
How does a particular DSOTM hold up against the best UK lp pressing?
And what exactly constitutes "best sound"?
And why is the UK lp the best?
(note: I am not an lp only guy. I believe whatever medium serves the music and sound quality best and most realistic is the medium I want. Just so happened the original UK got it right on DSOTM. Therefore why not use it for the gold standard comparison.)
Lets look at this starting with question 2:
IMO, what constitutes best sound is what ever makes the band and the vocalist seem more realistic. Like real instruments with space yet detail and a vocal that is also "alive" and the least processed sounding. Balanced eq, no bad compression (brickwalling) and the least amount of anamolies (tape drag, dropouts etc) as possible. No noise reduction, no fiddling about with mastering trickery that compromises the music and dynamics.
Why is the original UK lp the standard for best sound on DSOTM?
Because it not only checks off all the above boxes but in addition it has a nearly three dimensional sound that seems to float in the room around you.
Im a very analytical type person and dont buy too much into "fairy dust" sound. Much of it is hyperbole. But in this case, it is not.
If one has ever heard the best lp pressings of DSOTM played on a stellar system or even a midrange system, then you know exactly what I mean.
Having established the best in which to do comparisons to for those positive qualities the UK lp exhibits helps to hear which CD/digital version comes closest to this.
First, let me say a "bad" version of DSOTM takes a alot of effort to find. Its a well recorded album. Perhaps the best recorded album in rock history.
Given that..there are good, better and best..
I do not think the MFSL does the best job or even second best. The eq, while initially impressive, has midrange issues. So it gets a thumbs down from me for that reason. Also one can tell in comparison to the best early digital versions that the tapes just arent as fresh sounding here.
The Doug Sax would come in second. It has a balance of all qualities as you mention, yet it lacks one thing: That three dimensional quality of the best UK lp.
The others have various flaws that I agree with in your video. Im not a fan of the sterile sounding James Guthrie, nor of the KG mastered sacd (though the 30th Anniversary lp comes in second to the UK lp and is a very good version). And there are a couple of versions that you didnt mention that lean more towards the shrill or blanketed sound.
So what digital versiondoes come close to that three dimensionality sound of the best UK lp?
For me it is the first japanese pressing Black Triangle or Black Face Harvest.
However....
One thing to realize is not all Japan for Japan black triangle CP35 and Jpn for Jpn Harvest black faced cds are equal. That is, some are from the later '86 transfer.
That is why I believe I can hear a difference in japanese first pressings at times. Which was always confusing.
Again, I am not one to get into some "pressing plant differences" or "fairy dust" or whatever first pressing fetish one may choose. Its the mastering that is the judge. And when we can match the matrices with the peak levels of the best masterings then we can determine the best sounding versions.
After blind tests A/B with a friend and then also my gf (who couldnt care less about the album), we all chose one above the rest:
CP35-3017-2 1A1
The CD pressings using the original CBS/Sony Records Japan digital transfer.
Whether that is the CP-35 Black Triangle or Harvest Black face or even a certain US Capitaol pressed cd, they must share the same mastering.
Again, not all Black Faces, Japanese triangles are the same. This must be determined by checking certain signifiers on the disc and/or the mastering peak levels.
This is where the confusion sometimes lies with the "TO and non-TO" discussion. The TO is not a determining signifier. There is other info in the matrices that are though. Or rather the lack of them.
I wont go into all that. But I will simply say that one has to be careful when looking. Those matrices are very important to determine whether you are getting a correct best sounding version.
So while I agree with you on the black face, one still has to be careful. Not all of them are the best mastering.
Well written, I agree with everything here. Except that DSotM has an especially 3D or etherial feel to it on the UK LP.
I have most of the relevant LP cuts and while the UK is great I wouldnt say its leaps and bounds ahead.
I might have said thats the case before, but Im now more familiar with other fantastic audiophile recordings which do a much better job of creating a 3D illusion than any Pink Floyd album.
@@leon9021 While Im sure there are other albums that have just as good or even better dimensionality than DSOTM's first solid blue triangle press or "second pressings" (and even the japanese first emi/odeon is close), I was using the best early pressings as the gold standard for this trait as far as choosing a digital version. A gauge if you will. As it has been pretty well established that later earliest versions of DSOTM are the best sounding concerning this three dimensional quality.
By the way, Im not a real fan of the term "three dimensional" but it seems to be a term most can relate to. Maybe a "floaty" quality describes it best. Or perhaps more specifically the illusion of not just a bigger wider soundstage but one in which one can hear more depth front to back in the soundstage. I have a hunch that the freshness of the tapes may contribute to this auditory illusion by showing the instruments finer tonal detail (especially the drums) as much as eq or mastering magic. Thus the reason why the early digital versions are able to present this quality also. The later is more speculatory than factual. Whatever the reasons, I can certainly hear it.
It is kind of difficult to describe this 3D quality. Its like the difference in seeing a Mark Rothko abstract expressionist painting on a print and seeing the actual painting in a museum in front of you. One can "see through" the painting if that makes sense. And by doing so the actual real piece of art brings out emotions one is just not going to be able to experience in a litho. A quality even harder to conceptualize in music as an audible description I suppose.
Whatever and however one chooses to describe this sound quality as, I simply do not hear that quality in later masterings nearly as much. Perhaps due to many factors (differing equipment, modernization of equipment, tubes, eq choices, fresher tapes vs degeneration of tapes and even vinyl quality (small influence perhaps)?) I dont know for certain. Too many variables to be able to repeat the magic of the early pressings I would assume.
But, to my ears, there is no doubt the right early lp pressings have that spacey depth, freshness, clarity, punchiness, snap, additional detail, dynamics, imaging etc other later pressings simply do not have. Vocal distortion is less, clarity is increased. Blind testing that I have done several years apart plays this out every time.
And the correct black triangle/black harvest cds get very close to that experience. Probably about as close to it as digital can. Or at least so far. Though I think digitals potential and perhaps even the mastering of this album has not been reached. The later is also simply speculation and opinion.
Also, to the point of other albums having even a better dimensionality to them than Dark Side: That may be so, but I cant really use a completely different album to do this A/B'ing with. Though I understand what you are stating in principal.
Whatever the case, Parson certainly had a knack for making amazing sounding recordings didint he?
hello, very complete analysis. I have 3 versions of DSOTM on LP, not a UK version unfortunately, but an Argentina first pressing, which supposedly should be similar. Argentina still had good pressing plants back in the 70's. I see what you mean with the non-TO issue, the peak levels are the key to determining the mastering version.
I find that the LP is best when heard on a good hifi system in your living room, with generous speakers; the CD is best for headphone listening, I use my discman outside on the balcony for example or when in bed.
I have the black triangle version and the code in the inner rim reads
CP35-3017 U 1A1 TO
@@Smallick29 What are the peak levels?
Looking at the matrix numbers in yours it may not match the peak levels refered to in the video.
Also, Im curious, an
extremely faint orchestral Ticket to Ride (like an elevator music version) can be heard at the very end of "Eclipse" Just after the last voice snippet, as the heartbeat fades out.
Can you hear this faint "Ticket To Ride" with headphones?
You can at the end of the last track 'Eclipse'.
39 secs before the end of the disc, the following words can be heard:
'There is no dark side in the moon really.
As a matter of fact it's all dark.'
At about 27 secs before the end of the disc,
the orchestra starts faintly playing 'Ticket to Ride'.
You have to play it very loud, starting 27 (or 39) secs before
the end of the disc.
If you start, say 44 secs before the end,
you can hurt your ears!
You should use heaphones and play it loud.
(yes I am serious)
I have the 1993 20 anniversary edition and sounds amazing . I have heard a lot of cassette versión and one i'm Vinyl , and the 20 anniversary sounds much more clear and clean . My favorite .
and the nicest packaging too
Cool video, I remember buying the 1992/3 boxed anniversary edition new in 1993. I forgot all about it, after watching this video a week ago I went downstairs, started digging through boxes and found the sucker today !! Thanks for jogging my memory !!
It's the nicest edition in terms of packaging for sure.
Once I listened to the SACD in 5.1, I never looked for another 2 ch version again
I have the US version I got when it came out and it still sounds great. Glad to see it was one of the better ones.
The MFSL Ultradisc release is the only CD i have of this album and i am very happy with it. In fact i think if you have this CD, you really don't need the MFSL vinyl release as it seem to suffer a little in the high frequencies for some reason. My MFSL disc also still comes with the original Disc holding mechanics that flips out and unhooks the Disc. However i am not sure if mine is from 1988 or the early 90s re-issue. Imho it still sounds better than the 20th anniversary CD with the white prism. The booklet of the first Japanese and US release is really nice. Much nicer than the VERY plain text info in the MFSL release. You really don't collect the Ultradisc version for the booklet but really ONLY for the Master.
Tengo la MOFI y la SACD, la MOFI es muy fiel a las cintas Master, solo que en algunos momentos el transfer a digital les jugó una mala pasada creo yo, el CD lo tengo como Nuevo todavía y desde siempre escuché en un par de momentos unos clicks digitales... obviamente lo probé en no se cuánto equipo pude desde hace décadas ya, así que intuyo fue un defecto del transfer, ya que no me suena a defecto de fabricación, suena a que el Audio así fue grabado, así que creo que el error estuvo en la Digitalización del Master. El SACD me suena muy bien de todas maneras, más claro y abierto que el MOFI (que suena con agudos más opacos) pero es verdad que no suena tan "orgánico" y puede terminar agotado el oído, sobre todo si se escucha con auriculares. Ambas versiones son muy buenas de todas formas. Saludos!
En algún lado leí, no recuerdo muy bien donde, que algunos clicks tienen que ver con el equipo que usaron para transferir a digital, un equipo de TV usando cintas VHS, algo por el estilo.
The blu-ray disc of this record is multi-channel also. It sounds stellar.
yeah and thankfully it also includes the 4.0 quadrophonic-mix by Alan Parsons.
La verdad...quede muerto
Simplemente tengo el blueray
Un sintoamplificador thompson..una bandeja sony para vinilos .otra para cds.yamaha..y un par de columnas jbl..y despues de escucharte no se que decir..tengp algunos vinilos
Cds-hdm..y ahí termina mi
Intención de escuchar mejor..sin duda muy lejos de todo...tengo 72 años y me costaron muchas privaciones tenerlo..nada de auto...vacaciones etc
.ya hace 7 años q lo tengo..comprar ya ni pienso.
Pero mis felicitaciones..
Sigo pensanddo que es el mejor disco q he escuchado...genesis crimson.yes.e.l.p. jethro..en ese estilo..claro que mi amor es el blues...y hendrix zepp.purple who.stones.vaughan..con zappa tengo probleemas..
Quizas sea muy elevado para mi..bueno un abrazo..mientras no palme..seguire escuchando
Una pena q no pueda..por motivos económicos..apreciar plenamente ..um abrazo
True sacd stereo or 5.1 sacd recording is the best by far.
I own 3 different CD versiins and sacd. Oh yeah including 2 LPs and SACD stereo is the one.
So used to the 2011 version now that it's my go to DSOTM. I can't really fault it, but I'm no audiophile.
thanks for watching
I have a few of these pressings, including the first Sony Japan mastering, the 20th Anniversary Doug Sax re-mastering and the 30th anniversary Hybrid/SACD. To me, this album begs to be listened to in surround, and so my favourite is that 30th anniversary 5.1 channel SACD.
Re-mixing DSOTM to five channels must have been quite a task. Unfortunately, it shows in this 2003 re-mix. It starts off beautifully, with instruments and the voice interjections and laughter distributed in various creative ways among the 5 channels, with sounds coming from all around. Maybe it's my imagination, but by the time we get to the album's stunning climax and the final three tracks, it seems like Guthrie just left almost everything in the front stereo channels. It's as if the job just wore him out in the end and he wanted to get it over with.
I also love the 1974 quadraphonic mix; I think it consistently makes better use of the back channels and keeps the listener in the center of the sound field. But it also has some serious omissions--again, particularly in the latter tracks. Try listening for the bass guitar line in Brain Damage. It's just. . . gone! I don't mean muted or pushed to the background; it's just not there! It's as if Alan Parsons was pissed off with Roger on that day for some reason and said to himself, "Sorry, you're not making the cut today."
Great comment, thanks!
The only japanese issues I can find on discogs have a black triangle on the disc. I could not find any that were listed like yours. I have seen some that look like yours on ebay but that do not specify 1983. Could you help, I genuinely would like to get a reasonable early mastering version but I want to get the right one. Thanks
Check pinkfloydarchives.com/DiscTOC.htm then go to japan flag, it will help you identify the cd. My version at that page is under the USA section as the first made in japan import.
You can get the second pressing of the Toshiba Black triangle CD from 1986. It uses the same matrix (CP35-3017) but is far cheaper. A great sounding CD.
Only old school music appreciaters understand the old school stereo equipment.
Ask a younger person what a Sansui is.
ehhh, it´s a kitchen knife
Make sure your HI-FI.Is somewhere over 5000 dollars or more.Otherwise you won't hear much off a difference.No matter what version of TDSOTM you have.No good playing it on some cheap old HI-FI.
That's true, mine is about that price range, but also important, is using good quality headphones, if that's how you like to consume your music. When you have kids, it's not always possible to blast the stereo system.
You must have an SACD player or a Blu-ray player that supports SACD to get maximum sound quality from the Super Audio CD disc. It must therefore be able to decode DSD. The normal CD track is Normal PCM and only 16 Bit
I actually love the SACD stereo mix. It is probably my “go to” version of this album. I presume the stereo mix that got voted as the poorest version is the standard CD stereo mix, not the SACD stereo mix.
I also have an Italian CD pressing from 94. But I think it’s just the same as the UK version.
my bluray with those mixes is faulty, but I was able to get a download, and hear it through plex, it does sound great.
DSOTM has sold an estimated 45+ million copies - vinyl - 8-track - cassette - then you have the multiple CD - DVD - Blu-ray versions etc. - digital downloads - rips ..
Way back when - we'd record the vinyl onto HQ cassette for use in the car - almost never bought any official release cassette versions in record shops - but still I must have purchased this record at least a dozen times over the years in various formats.
There are probably even more copies out there in one form or another than anyone could ever possibly account for. So assuming they can still find a copy or 2 laying around to listen to ( lol ) - what on Earth will they think about it in the year 2073 - or 2173 ?
I bought a cassette version of DSOTM just for the sake of collecting, and fixed my walkman to listen to it, it sounds good, but has the usual wear of cassetes, due to years of use. I think 2073 will be a mix of hunger games and mad max, not much time for music...😁
By far the sacd is best. Just listened from hifi rose to freya plus to wilsenton r8 to verity speakers.
And I thought I might sit in the listening position all day lol.
the cd layer or the SACD layer? Stereo or surround?
I have the 1993/1994 Doug Sax mastering and the 2003 SACD versions.
My favorite was the quadrophonic 8 track running through my Craig powerplay quadrophonic car stereo with Jensen coaxial and triaxal speakers. Incredible for its day.
I have the CDP 7 46001 2 Japan 1973
yo tengo una version en LP de 1973 impresa en Argentina que herede de mi padre. No tiene rayas y suena bien. No obstante, mi version favorita es un CD de una edicion de 1994 de fabricacion UK que salieron cuando lanzaron Division Bell. Me gusta mucho la dinamica y no tiene esa compresion molesta que ponen tanto ahora.
yo también tengo el lp argentino, de las primeras ediciones, siempre el vinilo tiene más onda
I have the MFSL version. Gonna keep an eye out for the original.
i think the first record when released was very good, all others and in cd are very poor in sound quality and also not respecting the first excelent production, some people say it sound better because they cut some parts that sounded bad when digitalized to have less noise compared to the record when released, it´s like a good cassette recorded on a cheap cassette deck
I have a first edition on LP, sounds awesome despite the 50 year wear on it
I just got the album dark Side of the moon 20th anniversary box for 10$ (Mint /mint and the Pulse box for also 10$ Mint /Mint what luck!!
I have the MFSL (1981, not 1979 version), mint state and listen only twice...
It sounds incredible !!🔥
that's a good one, from master tapes
Expect a new version in 2023 to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the 20th anniversary remaster 😀
for sure, 50th anniversary, the Beatles did remixes for the 50th, maybe a remixed version of DSOTM? not really necessary...
@@tyronebunne2220 SDE is where you know me from - unless you’re a police officer!
MFSL Tonal-K is the vey best, but very difficult to find a copy.
Is that CD or vinyl?
I just found first sony japan mastering on vinted for 1.50£
what did you think of the sound?
I got the first Lp version telling you it can also be bought on cassette and 8 track.
Cool
The higher the compression the worser the sound! Just analyse it! (compressed music sounds typ. louder but more dull)
True!
@@amateurmusicresearch1972 So many "remastered" releases have been ruined close to be unlistenable!
For instance "I ROBOT" of Alan Parsons!
They've killed the sound of a LEGEND !!!
It's a national shame to treat the lifetime achievement of hard working honored people like piece of dirt!
Someone should go to prison for such crime!
Thousands of remastered albums have been ruined! (maybe even more)
These wrecked stuff is also a danger for your , if you are drunk and listen to loud (earphones!) for more than a few seconds it becomes really critical because the human ear has NO protection for transients (short but loud impulses) !!
What about the gold disc that was made in the US?? Thats the version I have.
Anadialog channel has a video about the two versions
Wow thank you, great video…
Too bad about the 30th Anniversary CD layer, because the 30th Anniversary LP sounds amazing. I have the SACD - I'll have to compare the CD stereo layer to the SACD stereo layer now in my Oppo.
please do! and let us know, I have the SACD but no SACD player unfortunately...
Analog Productions / Acoustic sound has also released Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon on SACD this year
yes, I finally got a used Sony bluray player with SACD, after almost 20 years of waiting I'll get to hear to the SACD layer of the 2003 DSOTM...
The Doug Sax remaster still takes the prize for me. It's beautiful.
that's a good one and probably the best booklet design.
I'm only got the '73 UK vinyl pressing, and i have enough with it...
At least there isn't a bogus mqa version.
I’ve got the mid 80’s US version and it’s been my favorite so far.
thanks for watching
I've got the mobile fidelity and the new 50th anniversary blu-ray in atmos surround sound that sounds amazing
cool, I have a bluray player but my amp probably doesn't decode atmos anyway
@@amateurmusicresearch1972 it also has 5.1 mix , uncompressed 24bit/96khz ,dts hd master , uncompressed 24bit/192khz and remastered stereo mix
The SACD and Immersion Box Set Blu Ray editions in 5.1 surround are the best I have heard apart from hearing it played live prior to it's original release. That was quadraphonic in the theatre.
the immersion box set also has a DVD with a surround version, do you if it's the same, or less resolution?
@Nicholas the mfsl is taken from the original quadmix and mixed down to stereo (the immersionbox got also got the original quad mix (witch is the best played on a quadraphonic audio set not on a 5,1 surround set)
I have the Mofi gold disc and it's incredible!
One has to wonder about the condition of the UK master and mulitrack. Whether it's worthwhile producing a new DSD version, or have the original tapes deteriorated too much. I have the 2003 SACD and it's excellent, but alas, I no longer have a multichannel system.
Yeah alot of these tapes have to be getting old and tired. Its like with The Beatles. They need to do AAA of the stereo catalogue like they did with the mono set. Instead the tapes just set there deteriorating each day. Seems silly to me. What are they going to do when the tapes are useless? Put them in a museum to oggle at?
I didn't instantly switch to CDs, sticking to vinyl a while longer than many, so I didn't buy DSOTM in digital format until then. By chance it was the 20th anniversary box set which sounded fine to me. Around the same time I bought a partial Shine On set in a record fair (funds being a consideration) that didn't have DSOTM (so couldn't compare) but did comprise Wish You Were Here, Animals and the two Wall discs. In all cases I've not compared them to my vinyl copies, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were differences. In particular, my CD copies of Physical Graffiti & Mott omit inter-track interjections by the band.
It's interesting that these different CD releases are audibly distinct.
vinyl is great, but cd has its strong points too
I have a few versions including the new 50th anniversary one. I like the 2003 SACD version best, mostly because it is much higher fidelity running DSD to DSD.
not sure if the 50th cd is a new remaster or the same as before...
Great content on your channel Keep it up You got my sub 👍
thxs!
MSFL is by far the best master recording of all.
it's up there
Totally agree
the best version is from the live album Delicate Sound of Thunder😎
I have owned 11 copies 6 vinyl 5 digital. The two best are the first Japanese for USA and the Mo-Fi ultradisc
we concur 👍
I Watched this video in your other channel, but I love this new version!
😀😀😀
First copy i got was the 93/1994 remaster. . Later on i found an original Harvest japan copy. Compared by ear with my headphones and my old sony cd player. .. i havent listened to the later version since. That old Japan cd sounds much more natural and the stereo sound and little details are all there it just sounds much better.
Totally agree, thanks for commenting
@@amateurmusicresearch1972 no problem , so many people i know think if its a cd its just digital its all the same. And i keep sayin no. Especially if its from a analog master. There can be cds mastered wrong or bad remasters. And it really grinds my gears when you see an old fully digital recording. DDD disc thats been remastered.. like. What the heck could have possibly been wrong that it needed that?. Almost every one ive listened to the original sounded best. .. but then you have older ones mastered for LP production which do not sound right on a cd.. any cd should just be a flat eq curve since there really is no mechanical limits or anything that need addressed. LP needs its own treatment. Most tapes cut off beyond the average persons hearing range but it might be tapered lower before the cut off so it may take a little treatment. .. I was big on cassette tapes. And have a nice technics that has a full auto calibration feature for blanks. It sets bias. EQ curve and leveling so the red zone on the meters is actually where the tape starts becoming over-saturated. Since many tape formulations are different. This feature is very handy. I had recorded a few cds onto some Sony LNX 60 type 1 tapes no dolby no nothing just calibrate and set the input levels and go. .. and with headphones besides the expected tape hiss noise heard between tracks or at low level bits of the songs i almost couldn't even tell the difference. Very clean recording capability that machine has. It might not be a top end Nakamichi but its still a pretty good performer. Either way i can run out copies on tape from CD that sound notably better than commercially released cassettes.
I've have numerous DSOTM CD's collected over the years (and all the PF albums), but there comes a point where buying more is ludicrous. There is more to music than PF and living in the past.
yes, I won't be buying the 50th anniversary
Plus every new remaster has a lower DR, more compression and sounds worse that the previous "remaster" First pressing was the best and it's been going downhill ever since
I also have the first Japanese version and an early album pressing.
I am producing a film on Roger Waters. Could I please ask permission to maybe use a small clip of this video?
Kind regards
Barry
Great insight but what is that dreadful overpowering background music
this is the copyright free music youtube likes, otherwise, they demonetize or block your video
The early CD versions are from master tapes EQ'd for vinyl (harsher mid range, less bass, and harsher sounding digital converters of the time).
*Objectively speaking* the "best" CD versions are those from the earliest possible generation tapes, well mastered (in my opinion, Doug Sax's masters). The original 2 track 1/4" master tape is long worn out, no oxide layer left.
Only the remixes are from the first gen multi-track tapes.
Doug SAx is up there, and also has the best booklet.
doesn't matter, it's a boring album compared to The Wall
I only have the 2003 SACD Hybrid version as I got it used for $20.
CD layer does sound a bit brick walled and lacks punch.
SACD layer on the other hand was pretty good dynamic detailed and punchy a tad bright on certain songs with guitar solo but it was great overall.
Quad mix on the other hand as I didn't have the right equipment so a stereo playing with missing channels is all I can managed but even so I still enjoyed half Quad experience.
Wished they made SQ Quadraphonic mix on Vinyl release so the stereo playback still sound decent and not as jarring as the Discrete Quad Vinyl or SACD Quad.
Either way I stuck with this version as the folks at Discogs will make sure that certain CD version will fetch stupid high prices as usual.
Someone asked this guy "How many copies of DSOTM do you have?" answer "All of them"
I think the best sound is the original master tape without any additives or effects.
probably
I still have the UK Harvest, USA Capital, 20 Anniversary Edition and 24K CD.
I also have the 1/2 speed master LP.
Excellent presentation of one of the most important albums in my life. Thank you for sharing. God bless
👍
All of them are the best album ever made.
I bought a New, the Wall vinyl & took it back.it didn't have the right sound to it I was looking for a old version for a while then one day i came out of a book/music store & by the free bin I found a box of old records w/ dark side & the Wall in it plus alot more awesome finds Free!
The Super Audio CD 5.1 mix can sound good, but some moments sound bad, like vocals on GREAT GIG and the heartbeat is dead center at the album's opening when I is supposed to be not he side like the human heart. It was meant to supplant the 4-track Alan Parsons Quad mix form the 1970s no one liked, including the band and Parsons, but they both are a ways and available on the out of print IMMERSION box set. I have the MOBILE version and like it the best of all, even over the first CD, but the new MOON box will have the album in 12-track Dolby Atmos, so the album might FINALLY get the surround mix it deserves and maybe even the best stereo version yet. However, the vinyl versions will be a separate matter and we'll see about that too. Great video!
thanks! glad you liked it
Nothing against CD / digital; but : Dark Side is an Album you should really listen to on Vinyl : The most Tubey Magic, without which you have nothing. CDs
give you clean and clear. Only the best vintage vinyl pressings offer
the kind of Tubey Magic that was on the tapes in 1973 !
🙂
@@amateurmusicresearch1972 : by the way, MFSL CD The Joshua Tree U2 (1996) is a sonic dream, better than many vinyl versions; same for VANGELIS BLADE RUNNER Audio fidelity SACD (2013) , fantastic remastering by Steve Hoffman !! Just to give credit where credit is due :-)
Ok, Tom Port. 😉
Have two picks here: 1 - Japan and 6 - Sax
Really enjoy the "Quad" on the Immersion. If you don't have a 5.1, check out Brain Damage/Eclipse on the 1983 "Works" compile. It's a fold-down of front/rear right into the right, and the same with the other side. But, there's things you'll hear not on the regulars.
have the immersion box but never listened to the quad mix, will try it...
@@amateurmusicresearch1972 It's easy to disregard; didn't mess with it for months. Was more into the 1972 rough draft Parsons did. Anyhow, enjoy.
I tend to agree with those version preferences. If I get into rebuilding my Pink Floyd physical CD collection I think I'm going to go for the '94 version of the Sax remaster. I like the streamlined revision of the packaging from the '92 collector's set.
Wow...I've got a uk harvest. Great gig sounds great on this. Very dynamic.
The best version is the 2011 experience edition because its 2CD with the live show included in one set, but i don't see many people that own it for some reason
I have the immersion box set with that live show, I also used to have that 2 cd edition
@@amateurmusicresearch1972 I'd like the big box one day, but it's a bit out of my price range.
What about the discovery and Oh by the Way editions? Thankfully I have the 20th Anniversary and Shine On copies as well as the sacd so won't be needing any more. Still stick my solid blue triangle vinyl on the turntable occasionally though!
discovery is the same as the 2011 remaster, and oh by the way is the same mastering as 30th anniversary, but would like to have those box sets too!
@@amateurmusicresearch1972 ah. I see now. I have the Oh by the Way set, but don't play those as it's a real fiddle getting the discs in and out of the thick card sleeves. I think my copy is the early one with the printing errors. Discovery set still to purchase, but there are loads of fakes out there!
How good or bad is the sound on the Shine On version? I always wanted to have that box but didn't had the money for it.
I knew my ears weren’t playing tricks on me. I used to own am early version. The DB levels are low but it sounded clean, especially on the nicks ride cymbals on Breathe and us and them. It was a version that had speak to me and breathe as track one compared to most newer versions splitting these into track one and two. But my dumb ass gave it away when I bought 30th anniversary disc that came with the super audio CD and stereo mix. In 2003 I couldn’t even play the 5.1 mix because I didn’t have the setup. I didn’t get to hear the mix until 2012 when I had 5.1 setup and a Sony o Blu-ray player that played SACD. The mix was good but not as clear. Then the 2011 remaster sounded even worse for clarity. Damn it 🤣 I still own the 30th and 2011 abs now they are releasing the 50th anniversary, please fix the mix this time around
i agree, the older versions have more clarity and a lot less digital tinkering done on them. I heard the 5.1 mix when it came with the immersion box set, while interesting, I wouldn't have it as a "go to" version. Thanks for commenting!
Video about Dark Side but .. I want to share my opinion about best remaster of few PF albums:
1. Atom Heart Mother - 1994
2. Meddle - 2011
3. Dark Side od the Moon - Doug Sax (UK Harvest Second. I don't like 1992 Shine On, 2011, 2003 and ... MoFi. I don't have 1st and 2nd Sony).
5. WYWH - 1994
6. Animals - 2019 remix
7. The Wall - 2011
8. AMLoR - 2011
9. Division Bell - 1994
10. Delicate Sound - Remix
tend to agree, but AMLoR I go 100% with the remix, Delicate thunder also remix
@@amateurmusicresearch1972
I don't like AMLoR Remix. I just love the original sound of '80.
After hearing "Dark Side.." 50th Anniversary.. this version is now my favourite. Doug Sax second.
Any of them. After 48 tests, I consider the best: 1. A vinyl, EMI HW-5149, reissue in 1977, made in Japan ; and 2. SomeWax SW-001-2 Фонотека Меломана, an unofficial reissue 2001 dated in Russian Federation. This is one of worst sound records by Pink Floyd.
On vinyl I have 3 issues, 1st US edition, Argentina (1970's edition), and 2016 remaster, the older the better is usually the case, even with the surface noise.
Sin ningún tipo de duda.
La Cuadrophonica de Parsons!!!
I have the 7th version BUT the label side has crumbled away.
It still plays though, so it would seem that the playing surface is sandwiched between the plastic faces ... unlike a Beatles album I had which did the same. In that instance, the label underside was the playing surface and so was left with a transparent disc that played nothing.
good thing, usually if label goes, so does the sound, long live pink floyd
Haven't watched the video but IMO its the MoFi CD.
I have several CD's of this too. Bought the Mofi gold cd. Not sure what to believe when they state something. Great video! Thanks for sharing.
That first Harvest release is my favorite. I own 2 copies.
!!!
Can anyone help with the CDP-7460012 code DIDX-226. 111A17 , I can't find any remastering and version info for this code.
The Dark Side of the Moon (Capitol Records 6th issue) DIDX-226 111A16 [Made in USA - Digital Audio Disc Corp. D]. Probably a variation of this issue, with Sony mastering, made in 1984.
Great video. What about the "Immersion" boxed set release? It had Quadraphonic, 5.1 and stereo mixes in Bluray, DVD and CD.
Have it! but this vid was only on cd, and the 2011 remaster is the same as the cd that comes in the box set.
@@amateurmusicresearch1972 Would it be nice to compare the multichannel editions of DSotM? I personally like the good old Quad mix by Alan Parsons best, which is somewhere on the Immersion version (the box or the standalone, don't remember exactly). The instruments (read: band members) are very separated. On each channel an instrument. Whereas the modern 5.1 mixes are all over the place.
A la fecha de hoy es muy difícil que una edición moderna post año 2000 quede bien, ya que el master y sus safety copy están muy pero muy gastados. Muchos discos se están haciendo solo a partir de un traspaso digital que alguien hizo en U-Matic en los años 80, o peor aún un traspaso en DAT a principios de los 90. No todas las veces se almacenó correctamente la cinta, y además varias se destruyeron en incendios como el gigantesco de Warner en que murieron como 8 mil master.
buena data, gracias
@@amateurmusicresearch1972 tengo más datos y manejo español e inglés. Saludos !