For a ranking of the best version of this album: ruclips.net/video/yTgRYGk9SYA/видео.html For my review of the album and music itself, feel free to check it out here; ruclips.net/video/xwQ2gFD-Q14/видео.htmlsi=8iq9ejNWL2vUuFnA
It was like nothing I had ever heard before! some people said it was way ahead of it's time. Best listening to it on headphones, you hear things you never did on an ordinary stereo system.@@top5records796
@@top5records796 For me (in '73 or '74 it was an audio adventure- like watching the moon landing). This remaster is far far away from that experience. But I have gone on enough about how disappointing this was for me.
@@FormulaProg I understand that. When you have several pressings of this album this might not be one to stick to. The unique value is also not so high for me.
@@top5records796 I was talking about it today in a record shop near me with the owner and he was saying it's just the 2016 packaging nothing extra just a different hype sticker. I guess I'll see you back here for the 55th anniversary pressing 😂
Well,imho the first MFSL pressing of this record is still the best sounding one. They abstained from messing with the very high quality Alan Parsons mix and just reduced noise. Perfect. What else do you want ?
@@top5records796atmos, 5.1 surround etc. The only blu ray player I have though is my PS5 so it will sound as good as my headphones allow but I have a few blu ray audios and they do sound fantastic. Hope you are well, Sir
Recieved my copy of the Blueray version yesterday, it contains a Dolby Atmos 5.1 surround and a Sterio mix. No video. I have only played it through once so want to give it another chance but like you mentioned with the vinyl, there is an "improved" separation of the instruments but definate lack of depth. I have the 30th SACD version so will be doing a comparison as soon as I get a minute. Packaging is a A5 size portrait gatefold with a booklet and stickers. The blueray is in a disappointing paper Sleeve within the gatefold It's still available via Rough Trade if anyone is looking for the blueray
13 yrs old when darkside was released it coincided with my first hit of acid, it became my favorite pastime, tripping with Floyd. Seemingly everyday great songs and bands came out everyday.
I don’t know how old you are but I hope that before our deaths things will happen. I think that, when the original artists have deceased, also a lot of the conflicts die which make new releases possible. Live shows will be available and the step to audiophile labels will be easier.
Thank you, I also collect dark side pressings and you just saved me some $$. I really like the UK A3/B3 and the 5th UK (with HTM and Harry in the deadwax). I also have the 30th but I think the fresher tape puts the UK presses above it. I didn't bother with the digital 2016 and I'll skip this one.
Coincidentally I have the 5th HTM (even without knowing it’s a HTM though I’ve always been a big fan of his Pink Floyd pressings). Somehow the HTM’s are always the best sounding versions.
KKKKKKKKK oloco mano, que isso... Mas tá certo tu, tem que tirar onda mesmo depois de tudo que passamos. Esse mano aqui dos videos é meio coxinha na real, tá ligado rs, tipo tu viu ele falando que não vai nesse Waters pq é um show político (na real as vezes fica chato mesmo mas adoro Waters). Cheers !!!@@MPS541
In the sense that even the bad ones are better than most stuff, when it's DSOTM. But now after watching you go thru many cool printings, some legendary, I feel like investing in a decent vinyl player indeed. I used to enjoy my Ministry and Pearl Jam albums on the pick-ups for Brubeck's sake! @@top5records796
For those who own 2016 version remastered by Bernie Grundman, James Guthrie & Joel Plante from analog tapes, stick to it, even the content is identical between the two.
@@top5records796 Like the 95% of other releases which have been from analogue tapes in recent times. This 50th anny version is exactly the same in that respect. Let's drop the nonsense please. There's a smaller or larger 'digital part' in most of remasters, even those which cost upwards of $60 and which claim they're straight from analog to master disc ready to cut a stamper. But the source here (2016 edition) was an analogue tape, not digital.
@@drazenbabich well… I wouldn’t be that cynical just because of the MOFI-scandal. There are loads of companies like Analogue Productions who are fully AAA. Also; though very good, the 2016 Bernie Grundman mastering does have a digital feel to it. The texture of the sound is different and in another way than for example the What’s Going On or Mingus Ah Um On Steps. The 2016 and 2023 are good but they are clearly not audiophile or analogue.
@@drazenbabich certainly. With regard to detail and frequency digital (recording) has an incredible amount of possibilities. But; the texture is different from analogue. The same thing is noticeable with film. A 35mm projection has a different texture than a DCP projection. Though both can reach incredible amounts of detail and definition the texture is different.
thanks, i recently bought this one and the Bluray Atmos release. After your perfect review, i will keep the vinyl unsealed. Btw, over the years i collected 63 different versions now (including Box Sets, Cassettes, CDS, SACD, etc). In my opinion the best sounding vinyl is by far the Japanese Pro-Use EMLF-97002 from 1978. If you ever find one of these, grab it ;-) Best wishes.
I'm still looking for a first German pressing! I really love the 30th Anniversary cut by Kevin Gray, it's brilliant. I still slightly prefer the UK pressing.
@@top5records796 The UK is also brilliant, but the german one has the huge mid range brilliance and overall a good punch. The 30th Anniversary is more for the detailed Fans. The Details on this are great, but the german and the uk have the best overall sound imo.
@@robertorossi9485 is that really good? To be quite frank I’m not a regular fan of ‘70s Japanese pressings. The vinyl quality is great and really silent but I think a lot of the masterings done there mis an edge, punch and bass. Do you know what the stampers are?
To me I found this release to be extremely well done, compared to my friends 30th press I played against the new 50th on my system with a Denon 103D MC cartridge. I found the 50th to have a very smooth sound, but the instrument separation and bass sold it for me! I also compared it to my Japanese 1st press, UK -5/-5, 1981 MFSL and 2016 and I still preferred this 50th press! Maybe it's just my system. Loved hearing your thoughts on this! 😊 Will you be getting the Phil Collins Face Value AP 2 lp? I would also love to hear your thoughts on that!
That is interesting! And thanks for your response! I will be doing Face Value! A friend of mine is getting it next week! I’m really curious about that one!
@@top5records796 Awesome! I will certainly pick it up once I hear your verdict! I just picked up the 2016 half speed of Face Value and I thought it sounded absolutely glorious, my 1st UK was a bit lacking in the bass tightness and instrument separation department :(
@@top5records796 The Wings half-speed of Wild Life was so well done, it sounds like a remix! The soundstage and mastering is so much better than my original NM condition 1st UK pressing. The half-speed really gave the album a modern sound that still has that lofi vibe, but much more audiophile, plus the added bonus of no more sibilance! ;) I'd stay away from the RAM half-speed, amazing modern sound but unfortunately, there is extreme channel distortion on the end side 2 :(
More than 1200 different pressings, so might be the case! But… some people will re-record every album and do 5 different releases with different colours and artwork for collection value at the same time for collectors and prize them 60 bucks (here’s looking at you Taylor Swift…). So depends on what’s the more extreme milking of the cow.
@@KoolKatDave There are so many choices out there, I have the MoFi Gold CD, and the 2016 release. I had an original I bought it when it came out ( yeah I'm old!) but foolishly ditched my albums for CD'S in the 80's. At this point I'm probably not going to let them milk me again!
I had a Yugoslav quadraphonic pressing from 1973. and today I bought the 50th aneversery version. The version from 1973. is much sharper. When I play 2023. version I can barely hear the ride on Us and Them, while on the 1973. version they're perfectly clear. I wouldn't say this is a bad pressing. It's just that I prefer the brighter ones because the details are more noitceable on them. But overall, I would say that darker mix (like the one on 50th aniversary edition) works fine with this kind of music.
Start with piper at the gates of dawn and then the rest in chronological order, to best enjoy the musical journey as it actually happened. Incredible. I wish I could hear all the albums for the first time again. ❤
This 50th anniversary reissue has a nice warm layer in the low and mid frequencies and I found fascinating how it retained enough detail in imaging on my system. Usually the warmth ruins that but not in this case. This sound signature has been a trend in most modern mastering therefore this is just a modernized sounding presentation (what a remaster is supposed to be). My favorite master cuts are UK Stereo and SQ, but this new one is far better than my 2016, which had very laidback separation causing sounds like the wurlitzer be a bit hidden in the mix as well as hi hats sounding a bit harsh and fake. This new release addressed those issues and brought lots of fun on tracks like On The Run. Very sad to hear you didn’t like it. You may want to add a bit of EQ and check if it comes to life.
Yeah - on my system - my ears- I did not think so. I agree with the presenter here. This is not simply different (for me) and definitely not an upgrade. I don't think this new direction or emphasis suits this music. I think it is way too balance towards this new approach. I don't know if the original source of this master was analogue or digital. Some digital sources are remastered with an attempt to make albums sound more analogue or warm or more British. Sometimes that works out. The original was floating and balanced - and warm enough. I don't think it being bass-y was helpful at all.
My copy has arrived, but I've not listened to it yet. I have a UK solid triangle 1st edition, the 30th, 40th anniversary editions, an Australian quad copy, the Grundmann remix and now 50th. Then I have the CD versions. I think I have a problem! Maybe we need to set up a help group! I didn't get the box set, nor the Atmos as I don't have the equipment. I also don't have the UHQRversion nor any Japanese releases, so perhaps I'm not too mad!!
@top5records796 apologies. I meant the MFSL version! I'd been looking at UHQR on something else and had that stuck in my head. (A UHQR would be interesting though!)
I have the meddle first English pressing and the 2016 pressing, they are almost the same in quality and sound. I don't hear many differences between the two vinyls.
I'd guess that the new master would have been mixed for best effect on headphones and bluetooth speakers as that's how music seems to be primarily consumed today. The older analog mixes with deeper low-end response and softer definition work better on stereo speakers in physical spaces where the sound can 'swirl' around.
Is this 50th Anniversary issue remastered from original analog tapes? or is this cut from a DSD/Digital master? I still can't figure that out. Can you help? Thanks.🙏
I read yesterday that the most a DSOTM album sold for was over $13k and it was just sold less than a month ago in May of 2024. Side note you didn’t mention or discuss the 180g weight and if it added any value to this album pressings sound quality and collection value in the future
@@top5records796 First USA edition (checked on pinkfloyd archives page) and one of the first Argentina editions (Argentine vinyl was of good quality in the 70s).
Здравствуйте, привет вам из России! Я так ждал это издание и вот теперь и не знаю,что делать ,вы говорите,что не чего в плане улучшения звука тут нет😢 А вот версия Роджера Уотерса мне очень понравилась ,это совершенно НОВЫЙ альбом,я уже купил его на голубом виниле,пока ещё не получил по почте , жду. Спасибо вам за ваш обзор , буду думать😊
For me 50th is the best remaster ever. Second one is 1994 Doug Sax, third 1986 Harvest. I also have 2003 30th, 2011 discovery, 1992 Shine On, Mobile Fidelity 1987 .. and I don't like them. Dali Oberon 1 + Denon Ceol N11. Asus zenfone 10 + Sennheiser Hd58x.
I’ve only listened to that one at a friends place (so no side to side comparison). It is also digitally sourced (but mastered by Bernie Grundman). I did not feel the urge to buy it since it wasn’t better than any of the analoge sourced copies I have. My suggestion is; buy an older analoge copy. if it has to come down to 2016 vs 2023 I’d go for 2016, because of Grundman.
Them doing this was such a money grab. Had they released both this and the boxset at the same time or at least communicated they were going to do a standalone I would have bought this instead paid the stupid amount for the boxset. Extremely disappointed that greed pushed this 50th Release.
Thanks for your response! Is the big box such a disappointment? Because I think this stand alone release is, as a standalone, not an interesting contribution to anyone who already has the album.
@@top5records796 Well Im one of those who likes the idea of major anniversary releases of music I love. The Box is massive, doesn't fit in a Kallax shelf at all. I only bought it because it is 50yrs, it is essentially the 2016 release (which I have). In the end I bought the boxset because I didn't know a standalone would be coming otherwise I would have bought that and left it sealed. Something family can enjoy when I leave this realm.
Dude I agree. But im an audiophile. I think it’s kind of stupid that this dude is a ‘purist’ and only listens to analogue. I think it’s stupid that he thinks that an album, cut from analogue in 1973 would sound better than a digital remaster from 2023. The original sounds great. But, if you listen to the Dolby atmos version, it sounds better than ANY dsotm than I’ve ever heard.
I don’t think digital is immediately a no go. There are pressings with a digital step that I have been very enthusiastic about on this channel. I would love to hear the atmos of DSOTM some day.
It’s impossible to improve upon the original! It was perfect in every way! Maybe if you have an exceptional sound system to listen with. Most people don’t even have that now
Valid question; I don’t have that one but I have heard it. So I have not done a A / B comparison but seeing that both are from digitalized masters, done at the Bernie Grundman company with (some of the same people involved) and assuming my memory is correct; these are not two complete different worlds of pressings.
I have both. I think 2016 is better, although the vinyl is quieter on this one. My 50th is sort of muddy in my case. Other people are raving about it, so who knows
Maldicion, remastericen Atom Heart Mother, ese si que seria un gran premio. Animals de 2022 es criminal como suena en comparacion con la version original. espero que atm pueda tener su remasterizacion merecida. saludos. ahh por cierto. DSOTM redux, "APESTA"
its a great enough album that it doesnt need " remastering ", ... " remastering" is adding or removing sounds from an original work, i dont like that idea and i have heard other remastered pieces , sadly sounding horrible compared to the original , and the only way to appreciate a piece is the original vinyl record or tape, CDs not a true copy but digitally created .... OR GO TO A LIVE CONCERT, which would be rather difficult for that classic group today so i will have to quote JRR TOLKEIN, "Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it ", ... (a little exaggerated because that album original does exist , in many collections and peoples homes,), great album though, excellent review
yes sir, and have you seen the YT video of PINK FLOYD dark side of the moon live in WHEMBLY i believe , the burning cross, very tripply light show for that era i guess, today rather disturbing to me as it makde my head burst , 24 minutes long, but DSOTM is very slow tune long and slow, i am getting the craving to find and drag out my record player, i am an audiophile, i prefer lossless for digital format listening, or WAV. cant take a record player everywhere lol@@top5records796
Remaster and Remix (and even Reissue). Two different words, two different actions. ReWORKS of various types, do not always get the proper monikers. Humans are weird dialectic and jargon based animals. Somebody said "don't sweat the small stuff". But that is what got us where we are. We need to sweat the small stuff. I had issues with the way some of the Peter Gabriel "remastered" works sounded, and Larry Fast and Synergy as well. Weird, that "Synergy" is all synth music and on vinyl and it sounds way better coming from a turntable than it does off the later CD releases.
indeed, you sound like an audiophile , if i may ask you, do you or have you any knowledge about " single sided headphones ", one ear only but stereo sound or as close to it as possible if i wear headphones i wont hear but one channel from my only working ear, and yes i thought the exact same thing about remsatering already digital synthesized and thought his sounded awful, one really stands out to me is pink floyd, but name any, i listen to a lot of genres from classical to metal, cheers@@cosmicraysshotsintothelight
I find it’s a very even handed remaster.. not loud not quiet… not too endy nor low endy .. just a lot of middle ground .. trouble is … it’s a bit boring…. Seriously… really good but a bit to easy going …
I've been listening to DSOTM again and again for forty years and can't really understand why its considered to be a benchmark for audiophile listening. Yes, it sounded exceptional back in1973 but it pales in comparison to modern recordings. Hell, even Justin Beiber cd's blow DSOTM out of the water in terms of audio engineering. Yes, its a monumental album but its not what I play when I want to test out a new piece of audio equipment.
@@top5records796I bought my first dsotm LP in like 1978 and received another standard LP release in 1985. I purchased a standard CD version in 1988. When testing new audio equipment I might listen to Selling England by the Pound by Genesis, or an Al Dimeola recording or any number of female jazz vocalists. I also like using Amused to Death by Roger Waters.
This is not so straight forward, is it? You really so have a first pressing U.K. or U.S. or...? If U.K., is the solid blue triangle version? Because if so, I am sorry, no digital streamable version should be THAT. If that's your case then you have a crap turntable playback system.
Analog pressings cost a mortgage payment. There will be no more analog pressings as the master tape is 50 years old and has been played countless times. So, don't get hung up on the "digital source" crap. The album is good, this pressing is excellent, it will never be the same as the 50 year old original UK pressing which everyone raves about but few have heard, and even less can afford, and nobody will come to your house, rummage through your record collection and mock you for not owning "The Real Thing". Not enough bass? Buy an equalizer and boost the bass on playback. No need to spend $500 on a MoFi or UK pressing, or Japanese limited edition. The "improvement" in the sound may be real from those pressings, but is it worth that kind of money? Even a good hooker doesn't charge that much for a 45 minute engagement. There will ALWAYS BE videos praising THE version you don't have. Be happy with what you've got.
No, it is called "ultra" now. You know, like the speed of your brain as it relates to grasping human endeavors. I have a bridge in Arizona I'll sell back to you...
Very bad sounding 2023 remastering! They kill 3D stage and details. Don't waste your money! Too bad for Pink Floyd! They just try to make money again. The worth part is the CD sound bad comparing to vinyl. The 2011 is still the best remastering.
I did not like this remaster. I look forward to an UHQR shot at this. I am getting a little tired of the emphasis of bass and warmth. I like analogue, but man, talk about warm equals muddy. If you want to "collect" this - fine. But as for me? Let me just say this. I am negative about this remaster - not so much the pressing. The vinyl is very quiet. It is "warm" it is muddy, muddy and muddy as hell. I have a system that tends do play bright which includes Klipsch speakers and and an AT VM30 EN cart. This cart tends to play bright with great separation. With that said. If this plays muddy (my experience) on my system- then shucks man. If you like what you have, don't waste your 35 bucks for the standard pressing issue. I am so disappointed. Peace-
I can't understand why this album is so popular. Breath, Time, Us & Them, Brain Damage and Eclipse are just typical early 70s soft rock with pretentious lyrics and sound effects added. Money is an attempt at funk, On the Run is just an early 70s synthesizer on a monotonous loop, and Any Colour You Like is just Gilmours phaser pedal at max speed doing some loose improvising. And the Great Gig in The Sky isn't really Pink Floyd at all, it's a session singer doing he own thing. The whole album is essentially a polished soft rock sellout compared to their more experimental years. And don't play the old and misguided "you have to be high to best appreciate Floyd" card on this. Looking at wallpaper is trippier when you're high.
I actually never listened to this record high. I guess sometimes a album just has to click. So I understand where you are coming from. Perhaps I listened to it just the right moment to fall in love.
I'm out after listening to you yammer on about analogue and digital masters. So you're an analogue purist who thinks he has golden ears. Heard that nonsense countless dozens of times.
I think this critic's brain is "heavily scarred" when I hear this "review". A bit of a bias against the digital realm. Perhaps I am in error. A blind "listen test" is in order. I think you would fail worse than Trump. By the laws of physics, a vinyl album pressing is an analog storage medium. A needle cannot follow "digital" tracks (because there is no such thing), and no master cutting lathe can cut "quantized" digital steps and cuts ONLY analog 'grooves' as well. So all of the "remastering" was prior to the final stereo ANALOG master that gets cut into a vinyl pressing master. In the early CD days, there were three letters to designate the path to the glass CD pressing master (which in this case IS a digital realm at the last stage). So, you are angry that there was a "D" somewhere in the path to the "A" lathe, or you are saying that it was not a remaster, but in fact also a "remix"? Also... You said "quadruple" from what I could glean through your accent when you described the Australian pressing. Without even researching, I am guessing that was a "quadraphonic" pressing, which was four channels, two on each groove wall, and required quadraphonic playback equipment to properly reproduce the entire sound field (or envelope) that was recorded.
Dear @cosmicraysshotsinthelight, Luckily my head is not heavily scarred, as a matter of fact I have a professional degree in sound design. Thanks for stating the obvious with regard to "digital cutting". In this video I assumed viewers know I am talking about a digital source versus a analoge source. I am not mad that there is a D in the path. They are open about it, it would have been a more interesting release though if it was all analoge. I do not know what the digital step in the proces has done to the sound quality, but this pressing does not sound as spectacular as the all analoge copies I have. I have good sounding records with a digital step in the proces (some MoFi One Steps for example), I mention that regularly on this channel, but there is the danger of losing information (or even just texture) in that proces. I am not biased, for me the best outcome would have been if this 50th anniversary one would have blown all other versions away. I am only interested in hearing the best sounding version of an album. You are right that I said quadruple (which is a delicious beer type) and I meant quadraphonic. Does this disqualify anything?
@@top5records796 " Thanks for stating the obvious with regard to "digital cutting"." So, just whom is it obvious to? A person claiming to have earned a degree in "sound design". Sounds pretty nebulous. A musician designs sounds. A critic with a degree who is NOT being a musician is not a "sound designer". You probably think a $1500 power cord is "professional audio equipment", because that is how audiophools work..
For a ranking of the best version of this album: ruclips.net/video/yTgRYGk9SYA/видео.html
For my review of the album and music itself, feel free to check it out here; ruclips.net/video/xwQ2gFD-Q14/видео.htmlsi=8iq9ejNWL2vUuFnA
Thanks!
Thank you! That is very generous of you!
Yes 50 years old! IMO The greatest album ever made, bought it as soon as it was released in 73 and still play it today.
Sounds awesome! What was it like listening to it for the first time in ‘73?
It was like nothing I had ever heard before! some people said it was way ahead of it's time. Best listening to it on headphones, you hear things you never did on an ordinary stereo system.@@top5records796
Selling England by the pound is better 😉 same year, not a bad year for progressive rock.
Just a matter of opinion :)@@FormulaProg
@@top5records796 For me (in '73 or '74 it was an audio adventure- like watching the moon landing). This remaster is far far away from that experience. But I have gone on enough about how disappointing this was for me.
I have the 2016 release Remastered from the original analogue tapes by JAMES GUTHRIE, JOEL PLANTE and BERNIE GRUNDMAN and it sounds wonderful
That’s not a bad release aswel, but it is not from the analog tapes. It’s from a digital master, but sounds pretty good.
I had it and sold it. For me it sounded exactly the same as my 40th anniversary which is the 2011 one. Oh so many versions it's hard to keep up. 😅
@@FormulaProg I understand that. When you have several pressings of this album this might not be one to stick to. The unique value is also not so high for me.
@@top5records796 I was talking about it today in a record shop near me with the owner and he was saying it's just the 2016 packaging nothing extra just a different hype sticker. I guess I'll see you back here for the 55th anniversary pressing 😂
@@FormulaProg well… I truly hope the 55th anniversary will be a 2 LP 45 RPM pressing. Now that would be something new!
Well,imho the first MFSL pressing of this record is still the best sounding one.
They abstained from messing with the very high quality Alan Parsons mix and just
reduced noise. Perfect. What else do you want ?
Alan Parsons = GOAT in this realm.
I was gonna buy this album again, but remembered I'm not a complete fool. Might get the blu ray though, just for the stickers, of course....
Blu ray might be interesting! What’s on it?
@@top5records796atmos, 5.1 surround etc. The only blu ray player I have though is my PS5 so it will sound as good as my headphones allow but I have a few blu ray audios and they do sound fantastic. Hope you are well, Sir
Recieved my copy of the Blueray version yesterday, it contains a Dolby Atmos 5.1 surround and a Sterio mix. No video.
I have only played it through once so want to give it another chance but like you mentioned with the vinyl, there is an "improved" separation of the instruments but definate lack of depth. I have the 30th SACD version so will be doing a comparison as soon as I get a minute.
Packaging is a A5 size portrait gatefold with a booklet and stickers. The blueray is in a disappointing paper Sleeve within the gatefold
It's still available via Rough Trade if anyone is looking for the blueray
13 yrs old when darkside was released it coincided with my first hit of acid, it became my favorite pastime, tripping with Floyd. Seemingly everyday great songs and bands came out everyday.
I’ve still got my 1973 copy With also comes on cassette and 8 track printed on the back
Good honest review, I have to agree with you this should have been given the UHQR treatment and hopefully it will before I die lol.
I don’t know how old you are but I hope that before our deaths things will happen. I think that, when the original artists have deceased, also a lot of the conflicts die which make new releases possible. Live shows will be available and the step to audiophile labels will be easier.
@@top5records796 I'm sixty next week so I hope it happens soon lol 😂😂😂
@@puddle5ofmud599 haha! Have a wonderful birthday next week! With or without a DSOTM UHQR!
@@top5records796 Cheers man I appreciate that.
You do know that old MoFi did an original UHQR release of DSOTM way back? It is very expensive now.
Thank you, I also collect dark side pressings and you just saved me some $$. I really like the UK A3/B3 and the 5th UK (with HTM and Harry in the deadwax). I also have the 30th but I think the fresher tape puts the UK presses above it. I didn't bother with the digital 2016 and I'll skip this one.
Coincidentally I have the 5th HTM (even without knowing it’s a HTM though I’ve always been a big fan of his Pink Floyd pressings). Somehow the HTM’s are always the best sounding versions.
The UK A3 B3 is definitely my favourite pressing, but the 5th and 6th issues are top class too
Yep, that supposed to be a no-brainer. I do miss having a proper vinyl player, tho. Neat, as usual!
Thanks! A no-brainer in the sense that…?
Achei que era uma daquelas imagens de "luto pelo Brasil", já ia dizer "xiu ae bozominion" 😂😂😂
KKKKKKKKK oloco mano, que isso... Mas tá certo tu, tem que tirar onda mesmo depois de tudo que passamos. Esse mano aqui dos videos é meio coxinha na real, tá ligado rs, tipo tu viu ele falando que não vai nesse Waters pq é um show político (na real as vezes fica chato mesmo mas adoro Waters). Cheers !!!@@MPS541
In the sense that even the bad ones are better than most stuff, when it's DSOTM. But now after watching you go thru many cool printings, some legendary, I feel like investing in a decent vinyl player indeed. I used to enjoy my Ministry and Pearl Jam albums on the pick-ups for Brubeck's sake! @@top5records796
For those who own 2016 version remastered by Bernie Grundman, James Guthrie & Joel Plante from analog tapes, stick to it, even the content is identical between the two.
Though it’s not from the analog tapes, they digitalized them.
@@top5records796 Like the 95% of other releases which have been from analogue tapes in recent times. This 50th anny version is exactly the same in that respect. Let's drop the nonsense please. There's a smaller or larger 'digital part' in most of remasters, even those which cost upwards of $60 and which claim they're straight from analog to master disc ready to cut a stamper. But the source here (2016 edition) was an analogue tape, not digital.
@@drazenbabich well… I wouldn’t be that cynical just because of the MOFI-scandal. There are loads of companies like Analogue Productions who are fully AAA.
Also; though very good, the 2016 Bernie Grundman mastering does have a digital feel to it. The texture of the sound is different and in another way than for example the What’s Going On or Mingus Ah Um On Steps.
The 2016 and 2023 are good but they are clearly not audiophile or analogue.
@@top5records796 "have a digital feel" you say? OK.
@@drazenbabich certainly. With regard to detail and frequency digital (recording) has an incredible amount of possibilities. But; the texture is different from analogue. The same thing is noticeable with film. A 35mm projection has a different texture than a DCP projection. Though both can reach incredible amounts of detail and definition the texture is different.
thanks, i recently bought this one and the Bluray Atmos release. After your perfect review, i will keep the vinyl unsealed. Btw, over the years i collected 63 different versions now (including Box Sets, Cassettes, CDS, SACD, etc). In my opinion the best sounding vinyl is by far the Japanese Pro-Use EMLF-97002 from 1978. If you ever find one of these, grab it ;-) Best wishes.
How does this compare with the 2003 and 2011 release?
IMO the German first Press (best mid-range of all releases) and the 30th Anniversary Pressing (cut by Kevin Gray) are the best sounding ones.
I'm still looking for a first German pressing! I really love the 30th Anniversary cut by Kevin Gray, it's brilliant. I still slightly prefer the UK pressing.
@@top5records796 The UK is also brilliant, but the german one has the huge mid range brilliance and overall a good punch. The 30th Anniversary is more for the detailed Fans. The Details on this are great, but the german and the uk have the best overall sound imo.
@@theheepster I’m going for a recordhunt in German end of October! I’ll definitely put it on my list!
Don’y forget the first japanese press!! Rich mid range, a lot of detail in the upper frecuencies…una delicia!!!!
@@robertorossi9485 is that really good? To be quite frank I’m not a regular fan of ‘70s Japanese pressings. The vinyl quality is great and really silent but I think a lot of the masterings done there mis an edge, punch and bass. Do you know what the stampers are?
I heard this pressing on a massive yamaha ns5000 based system at a hifi show..its sounded quite good.
I was looking for a reliable advice on this. I got it. Thanks!
Thanks! I’m happy to hear that!
@@top5records796
I like what you do
I think the 2016 is the best sounding that I’ve heard.
Interesting! Which ones have you heard?
I’m really surprised nobody made a 45 rom/two dusc version.
I agree! I hope we’ll get a UHQR in the future.
Cannot speak for the LP, but the CD of the 2023 remaster is a great upgrade to the 2011 remaster - MUCH better !
To me I found this release to be extremely well done, compared to my friends 30th press I played against the new 50th on my system with a Denon 103D MC cartridge. I found the 50th to have a very smooth sound, but the instrument separation and bass sold it for me! I also compared it to my Japanese 1st press, UK -5/-5, 1981 MFSL and 2016 and I still preferred this 50th press! Maybe it's just my system. Loved hearing your thoughts on this! 😊 Will you be getting the Phil Collins Face Value AP 2 lp? I would also love to hear your thoughts on that!
That is interesting! And thanks for your response! I will be doing Face Value! A friend of mine is getting it next week! I’m really curious about that one!
@@top5records796 Awesome! I will certainly pick it up once I hear your verdict! I just picked up the 2016 half speed of Face Value and I thought it sounded absolutely glorious, my 1st UK was a bit lacking in the bass tightness and instrument separation department :(
That’s interesting! Do you have more good experiences with Half Speed mastering pressings?
@@top5records796 The Wings half-speed of Wild Life was so well done, it sounds like a remix! The soundstage and mastering is so much better than my original NM condition 1st UK pressing. The half-speed really gave the album a modern sound that still has that lofi vibe, but much more audiophile, plus the added bonus of no more sibilance! ;)
I'd stay away from the RAM half-speed, amazing modern sound but unfortunately, there is extreme channel distortion on the end side 2 :(
Is Dark Side the most remastered, repackaged, reissued, reimagined, etc., album ever?! Talk about milking the same cow forever…
More than 1200 different pressings, so might be the case! But… some people will re-record every album and do 5 different releases with different colours and artwork for collection value at the same time for collectors and prize them 60 bucks (here’s looking at you Taylor Swift…). So depends on what’s the more extreme milking of the cow.
So if you could milk that cow and reap profits you would too I'd imagine.
@@pnichols6500 oh, no doubt, Capitalism rules. I just wonder what is the best pressing or is that even possible to determine anymore?
Roger waters has done a garbage version. Greed !
@@KoolKatDave There are so many choices out there, I have the MoFi Gold CD, and the 2016 release.
I had an original I bought it when it came out ( yeah I'm old!) but foolishly ditched my albums for CD'S in the 80's.
At this point I'm probably not going to let them milk me again!
It sounds great one store in town had it I don't think u can find it again 😅
I had a Yugoslav quadraphonic pressing from 1973. and today I bought the 50th aneversery version. The version from 1973. is much sharper. When I play 2023. version I can barely hear the ride on Us and Them, while on the 1973. version they're perfectly clear. I wouldn't say this is a bad pressing. It's just that I prefer the brighter ones because the details are more noitceable on them. But overall, I would say that darker mix (like the one on 50th aniversary edition) works fine with this kind of music.
Start with piper at the gates of dawn and then the rest in chronological order, to best enjoy the musical journey as it actually happened. Incredible. I wish I could hear all the albums for the first time again. ❤
agree, 100 %
This 50th anniversary reissue has a nice warm layer in the low and mid frequencies and I found fascinating how it retained enough detail in imaging on my system. Usually the warmth ruins that but not in this case.
This sound signature has been a trend in most modern mastering therefore this is just a modernized sounding presentation (what a remaster is supposed to be).
My favorite master cuts are UK Stereo and SQ, but this new one is far better than my 2016, which had very laidback separation causing sounds like the wurlitzer be a bit hidden in the mix as well as hi hats sounding a bit harsh and fake. This new release addressed those issues and brought lots of fun on tracks like On The Run.
Very sad to hear you didn’t like it. You may want to add a bit of EQ and check if it comes to life.
Yeah - on my system - my ears- I did not think so. I agree with the presenter here. This is not simply different (for me) and definitely not an upgrade. I don't think this new direction or emphasis suits this music. I think it is way too balance towards this new approach. I don't know if the original source of this master was analogue or digital. Some digital sources are remastered with an attempt to make albums sound more analogue or warm or more British. Sometimes that works out. The original was floating and balanced - and warm enough. I don't think it being bass-y was helpful at all.
My copy has arrived, but I've not listened to it yet. I have a UK solid triangle 1st edition, the 30th, 40th anniversary editions, an Australian quad copy, the Grundmann remix and now 50th. Then I have the CD versions. I think I have a problem! Maybe we need to set up a help group! I didn't get the box set, nor the Atmos as I don't have the equipment. I also don't have the UHQRversion nor any Japanese releases, so perhaps I'm not too mad!!
Interesting! There is no UHQR but if that ever comes out; get it!
@top5records796 apologies. I meant the MFSL version! I'd been looking at UHQR on something else and had that stuck in my head. (A UHQR would be interesting though!)
So, you are telling us that you *do* have quadraphonic vinyl playback gear and amps? Really? A rare thing indeed if so.
I have the meddle first English pressing and the 2016 pressing, they are almost the same in quality and sound. I don't hear many differences between the two vinyls.
How do you compare this with 2016 remastered release?
They are quite the same.
And with 2011 release?
Interesting commentary!
Thank you!
I'd guess that the new master would have been mixed for best effect on headphones and bluetooth speakers as that's how music seems to be primarily consumed today. The older analog mixes with deeper low-end response and softer definition work better on stereo speakers in physical spaces where the sound can 'swirl' around.
I think new consumption really changes these masters. It’s also very noticeable on the way Queen approaches (horribly alters) their releases.
Is this 50th Anniversary issue remastered from original analog tapes? or is this cut from a DSD/Digital master? I still can't figure that out. Can you help? Thanks.🙏
It is from a digital master!
@@top5records796 Thank you. I surely don't need to buy this one.
I read yesterday that the most a DSOTM album sold for was over $13k and it was just sold less than a month ago in May of 2024.
Side note you didn’t mention or discuss the 180g weight and if it added any value to this album pressings sound quality and collection value in the future
Do you think a 360g 100th anniversary would be kinda cool
I have two 70's vinyl versions, and the 2016, I don't think I'll be getting this one, no need really.
Nice! Which ‘70s vinyl versions?
first US edition, and an early ARgentine edition (said to be a clone of the UK edition)@@top5records796
Dont- not worth it.
@@top5records796 First USA edition (checked on pinkfloyd archives page) and one of the first Argentina editions (Argentine vinyl was of good quality in the 70s).
Здравствуйте, привет вам из России! Я так ждал это издание и вот теперь и не знаю,что делать ,вы говорите,что не чего в плане улучшения звука тут нет😢 А вот версия Роджера Уотерса мне очень понравилась ,это совершенно НОВЫЙ альбом,я уже купил его на голубом виниле,пока ещё не получил по почте , жду. Спасибо вам за ваш обзор , буду думать😊
My thoughts exactly. Roger Waters revisit is much more interesting and compelling.
For me 50th is the best remaster ever. Second one is 1994 Doug Sax, third 1986 Harvest. I also have 2003 30th, 2011 discovery, 1992 Shine On, Mobile Fidelity 1987 .. and I don't like them.
Dali Oberon 1 + Denon Ceol N11.
Asus zenfone 10 + Sennheiser Hd58x.
Do you prefer 2016 reissue or 50th anniversary?
I’ve only listened to that one at a friends place (so no side to side comparison). It is also digitally sourced (but mastered by Bernie Grundman). I did not feel the urge to buy it since it wasn’t better than any of the analoge sourced copies I have. My suggestion is; buy an older analoge copy. if it has to come down to 2016 vs 2023 I’d go for 2016, because of Grundman.
BTW, did you see the dude who labeled DSOTM Redux... "Wish Gilmour was here"? LOL. It's funny 'cuz it's true. Cheers !!!
That’s funny! Who did that?
Them doing this was such a money grab. Had they released both this and the boxset at the same time or at least communicated they were going to do a standalone I would have bought this instead paid the stupid amount for the boxset. Extremely disappointed that greed pushed this 50th Release.
Thanks for your response! Is the big box such a disappointment? Because I think this stand alone release is, as a standalone, not an interesting contribution to anyone who already has the album.
@@top5records796 Well Im one of those who likes the idea of major anniversary releases of music I love. The Box is massive, doesn't fit in a Kallax shelf at all. I only bought it because it is 50yrs, it is essentially the 2016 release (which I have). In the end I bought the boxset because I didn't know a standalone would be coming otherwise I would have bought that and left it sealed. Something family can enjoy when I leave this realm.
I saw this at a store realllllllllyyyy wished i got it
I just got it' 😅
Sanest audiophile
Dude I agree. But im an audiophile. I think it’s kind of stupid that this dude is a ‘purist’ and only listens to analogue. I think it’s stupid that he thinks that an album, cut from analogue in 1973 would sound better than a digital remaster from 2023. The original sounds great. But, if you listen to the Dolby atmos version, it sounds better than ANY dsotm than I’ve ever heard.
Thank you!
I don’t think digital is immediately a no go. There are pressings with a digital step that I have been very enthusiastic about on this channel. I would love to hear the atmos of DSOTM some day.
@@top5records796 it’s the best Dsotm I’ve ever heard. It’s great! I urge you to listen to it! Sorry for the miscommunication.
It’s impossible to improve upon the original! It was perfect in every way! Maybe if you have an exceptional sound system to listen with. Most people don’t even have that now
This pressing is definitely not an improvement on the original.
Won't get that hype sticker off without ripping it such a pain !!!
The amount of re issues of this album is like the reissues of Skyrim on every console
My question is. Is this version any better than the 2016 version ?
Valid question; I don’t have that one but I have heard it. So I have not done a A / B comparison but seeing that both are from digitalized masters, done at the Bernie Grundman company with (some of the same people involved) and assuming my memory is correct; these are not two complete different worlds of pressings.
I have both. I think 2016 is better, although the vinyl is quieter on this one. My 50th is sort of muddy in my case. Other people are raving about it, so who knows
Maldicion, remastericen Atom Heart Mother, ese si que seria un gran premio. Animals de 2022 es criminal como suena en comparacion con la version original. espero que atm pueda tener su remasterizacion merecida. saludos. ahh por cierto. DSOTM redux, "APESTA"
its a great enough album that it doesnt need " remastering ", ... " remastering" is adding or removing sounds from an original work, i dont like that idea and i have heard other remastered pieces , sadly sounding horrible compared to the original , and the only way to appreciate a piece is the original vinyl record or tape, CDs not a true copy but digitally created .... OR GO TO A LIVE CONCERT, which would be rather difficult for that classic group today so i will have to quote JRR TOLKEIN, "Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it ", ... (a little exaggerated because that album original does exist , in many collections and peoples homes,), great album though, excellent review
Thank you! And coincidentally since I’m rewatching LOTR at this moment a JRR Tolkien quote seems really fitting! Thanks!
yes sir, and have you seen the YT video of PINK FLOYD dark side of the moon live in WHEMBLY i believe , the burning cross, very tripply light show for that era i guess, today rather disturbing to me as it makde my head burst , 24 minutes long, but DSOTM is very slow tune long and slow, i am getting the craving to find and drag out my record player, i am an audiophile, i prefer lossless for digital format listening, or WAV. cant take a record player everywhere lol@@top5records796
Remaster and Remix (and even Reissue). Two different words, two different actions. ReWORKS of various types, do not always get the proper monikers. Humans are weird dialectic and jargon based animals. Somebody said "don't sweat the small stuff". But that is what got us where we are. We need to sweat the small stuff.
I had issues with the way some of the Peter Gabriel "remastered" works sounded, and Larry Fast and Synergy as well. Weird, that "Synergy" is all synth music and on vinyl and it sounds way better coming from a turntable than it does off the later CD releases.
indeed, you sound like an audiophile , if i may ask you, do you or have you any knowledge about " single sided headphones ", one ear only but stereo sound or as close to it as possible if i wear headphones i wont hear but one channel from my only working ear, and yes i thought the exact same thing about remsatering already digital synthesized and thought his sounded awful, one really stands out to me is pink floyd, but name any, i listen to a lot of genres from classical to metal, cheers@@cosmicraysshotsintothelight
I find it’s a very even handed remaster.. not loud not quiet… not too endy nor low endy .. just a lot of middle ground .. trouble is … it’s a bit boring…. Seriously… really good but a bit to easy going …
It doesn’t have a lot of power indeed.
I've been listening to DSOTM again and again for forty years and can't really understand why its considered to be a benchmark for audiophile listening. Yes, it sounded exceptional back in1973 but it pales in comparison to modern recordings. Hell, even Justin Beiber cd's blow DSOTM out of the water in terms of audio engineering. Yes, its a monumental album but its not what I play when I want to test out a new piece of audio equipment.
What do you play when you want to test a new piece of audio equipment? And which pressing of this album do you have?
@@top5records796I bought my first dsotm LP in like 1978 and received another standard LP release in 1985. I purchased a standard CD version in 1988. When testing new audio equipment I might listen to Selling England by the Pound by Genesis, or an Al Dimeola recording or any number of female jazz vocalists. I also like using Amused to Death by Roger Waters.
Exactly the same as the 2016 reissue.
You kids are adorable.
Might have to wait till the 80th anniversary for the next analogue cut 😢
Well… Who knows? Perhaps Chad Kassum comes with good news somewhere soon.
The analog master tapes are too damaged to be used. This is why the 2016 remastered is already from a digital master.
I had got a digital copy vinyl a few years ago and i sold it cause the poor quality Sound without soul. I prefer listening that álbum in mp3 now.
On mp3?
I have the first pressing. Qobuz version is better.
This is not so straight forward, is it? You really so have a first pressing U.K. or U.S. or...? If U.K., is the solid blue triangle version? Because if so, I am sorry, no digital streamable version should be THAT. If that's your case then you have a crap turntable playback system.
Ninguém suporta Roger Waters.
Analog pressings cost a mortgage payment. There will be no more analog pressings as the master tape is 50 years old and has been played countless times. So, don't get hung up on the "digital source" crap. The album is good, this pressing is excellent, it will never be the same as the 50 year old original UK pressing which everyone raves about but few have heard, and even less can afford, and nobody will come to your house, rummage through your record collection and mock you for not owning "The Real Thing". Not enough bass? Buy an equalizer and boost the bass on playback. No need to spend $500 on a MoFi or UK pressing, or Japanese limited edition. The "improvement" in the sound may be real from those pressings, but is it worth that kind of money? Even a good hooker doesn't charge that much for a 45 minute engagement. There will ALWAYS BE videos praising THE version you don't have. Be happy with what you've got.
who buys albums ?? ... i gave mine to the thrift stores DECADES ago !!
People who enjoy music buy them. Okay to give them to thrift stores, they’ll find a good home.
this bullshitte reminds me of the "New & Improved" laundry detergent ... a few years later, it's "New & Improved" AGAIN ??
They never stated this was new and improved though. I think it’s much more about keeping an album alive and available.
No, it is called "ultra" now. You know, like the speed of your brain as it relates to grasping human endeavors. I have a bridge in Arizona I'll sell back to you...
Audioifool.
Very bad sounding 2023 remastering! They kill 3D stage and details. Don't waste your money! Too bad for Pink Floyd! They just try to make money again. The worth part is the CD sound bad comparing to vinyl. The 2011 is still the best remastering.
I agree the new pressing sounds bloody awful! Hate it..
The 8😅 remaster. Ill pass
I did not like this remaster. I look forward to an UHQR shot at this.
I am getting a little tired of the emphasis of bass and warmth.
I like analogue, but man, talk about warm equals muddy.
If you want to "collect" this - fine. But as for me? Let me just say this.
I am negative about this remaster - not so much the pressing. The vinyl is very quiet.
It is "warm" it is muddy, muddy and muddy as hell.
I have a system that tends do play bright which includes Klipsch speakers and and an AT VM30 EN cart.
This cart tends to play bright with great separation.
With that said. If this plays muddy (my experience) on my system- then shucks man.
If you like what you have, don't waste your 35 bucks for the standard pressing issue. I am so disappointed.
Peace-
I can't understand why this album is so popular. Breath, Time, Us & Them, Brain Damage and Eclipse are just typical early 70s soft rock with pretentious lyrics and sound effects added. Money is an attempt at funk, On the Run is just an early 70s synthesizer on a monotonous loop, and Any Colour You Like is just Gilmours phaser pedal at max speed doing some loose improvising. And the Great Gig in The Sky isn't really Pink Floyd at all, it's a session singer doing he own thing. The whole album is essentially a polished soft rock sellout compared to their more experimental years. And don't play the old and misguided "you have to be high to best appreciate Floyd" card on this. Looking at wallpaper is trippier when you're high.
I actually never listened to this record high. I guess sometimes a album just has to click. So I understand where you are coming from. Perhaps I listened to it just the right moment to fall in love.
I kinda feel sorry for u tbh
I'm out after listening to you yammer on about analogue and digital masters. So you're an analogue purist who thinks he has golden ears. Heard that nonsense countless dozens of times.
There are some digital pressings that I am very enthusiastic about.
Quadrophonic or GTFO
Quadraphonic. And the gear for reproducing it is rare as well.
The remaster of a remaster of a remaster ... makes no sense at all !!!
I assume they went back to the original master (be it digital) to do the remaster.
The masterful mastery of your grasp of the situation has no bounds! Incredible!
Why not keep quiet, play the thing, and then we are free to make our own minds up.
Make up your mind through a RUclips recording to judge the audio of a pressing?
I think this critic's brain is "heavily scarred" when I hear this "review". A bit of a bias against the digital realm. Perhaps I am in error. A blind "listen test" is in order. I think you would fail worse than Trump. By the laws of physics, a vinyl album pressing is an analog storage medium. A needle cannot follow "digital" tracks (because there is no such thing), and no master cutting lathe can cut "quantized" digital steps and cuts ONLY analog 'grooves' as well. So all of the "remastering" was prior to the final stereo ANALOG master that gets cut into a vinyl pressing master. In the early CD days, there were three letters to designate the path to the glass CD pressing master (which in this case IS a digital realm at the last stage).
So, you are angry that there was a "D" somewhere in the path to the "A" lathe, or you are saying that it was not a remaster, but in fact also a "remix"?
Also...
You said "quadruple" from what I could glean through your accent when you described the Australian pressing. Without even researching, I am guessing that was a "quadraphonic" pressing, which was four channels, two on each groove wall, and required quadraphonic playback equipment to properly reproduce the entire sound field (or envelope) that was recorded.
Dear @cosmicraysshotsinthelight,
Luckily my head is not heavily scarred, as a matter of fact I have a professional degree in sound design. Thanks for stating the obvious with regard to "digital cutting". In this video I assumed viewers know I am talking about a digital source versus a analoge source.
I am not mad that there is a D in the path. They are open about it, it would have been a more interesting release though if it was all analoge. I do not know what the digital step in the proces has done to the sound quality, but this pressing does not sound as spectacular as the all analoge copies I have. I have good sounding records with a digital step in the proces (some MoFi One Steps for example), I mention that regularly on this channel, but there is the danger of losing information (or even just texture) in that proces. I am not biased, for me the best outcome would have been if this 50th anniversary one would have blown all other versions away. I am only interested in hearing the best sounding version of an album.
You are right that I said quadruple (which is a delicious beer type) and I meant quadraphonic. Does this disqualify anything?
@@top5records796 " Thanks for stating the obvious with regard to "digital cutting"." So, just whom is it obvious to? A person claiming to have earned a degree in "sound design". Sounds pretty nebulous. A musician designs sounds. A critic with a degree who is NOT being a musician is not a "sound designer". You probably think a $1500 power cord is "professional audio equipment", because that is how audiophools work..