[karmypolitics]

Which version (non-lp) of pink floyd's albums are best to get? or, which is better, the new SACD hybrid version or an older version? I'd mostly be listening to the cd layer as I don't own a SACD player.

also, what's this business of watermarks? cuz when you think about it, with audio compression throwing out inaudible signals, wouldn't that mean that the watermarks have to be audible?

 

[bundee1]

Either get the remastered 20th anniversary cd or the MOFI remastered version because the CD layer of the SACD is severely compressed and sounds markedly worse than the SACD.

 

[karmypolitics]

also, how 'bout their other albums?

 

[fyrfytrhoges]

20th anniversary version rocks, if you can find one, ebay's the best bet, but it's gonna cost you.

 

[mkmelt]

You can skip the MoFi Gold Disk of DSOM. The SACD hybrid sounds better and I am referring to the redbook (CD) layer cause I don't yet own a SACD capable player.

 

[Canman]

Hi mkmelt, when I had an SACD player (SCD-1) I compared the MoFi to the cd layer of the DSOtM SACD and I thought the MoFi was superior.

 

[mkmelt]

"You can skip the MoFi Gold Disk of DSOM. The SACD hybrid sounds better and I am referring to the redbook (CD) layer cause I don't yet own a SACD capable player."

I hate to have to eat my own words, but here goes. I listened to my Mo-Fi version of DSOM (the one made in Japan) and compared it to my SACD hybrid redbook layer.

The Mo-Fi version is less compressed and has better detail. The SACD hybrid redbook layer sounds good, although it is compressed, and a bit softer overall. Perhaps that is why I liked it when I first heard it, it was the closest to the sound of DSOM on LP that I had heard.

Also, my initial impressions of the Mo-Fi DSOM vs the sound of the SACD layer were made on a Sony SACD as I recall. Perhaps the performance of this SACD player on redbook playback is to blame. I can't recall the model, it was one of the low-end SACD capable players. Perhaps the NSV500 if that it the correct designation.

So let me close by saying that the original Mo-Fi version of DSOM sounds very detailed and uncompressed. The latest SACD hybrid sounds compressed on redbook playback, but it does have a certain warmth that makes it sound like an analog recording. Both versions are eminently listenable.

 

[karmypolitics]

how 'bout compared to the 20th anniversary ed?

 

[mkmelt]

I do not own a copy of DSOM 20th Anniversary Edition. I have owned at various times:

The original LP release from 1973 - pretty much wore it out between 1973 and 1980

The MFSL LP release from 1979 - Had that one until 2001 when I sold all my Mo-Fi LPs

The original CD release from 1985 - Gave it to my sister when I got the MFSL Gold Disk

MFSL Gold Disk from 1987 - Still have this one.

The SACD hybrid from 2003 - My newest version of this album.

Not long ago I met someone who claimed to have a case of (10) of the UHQR pressings of DSOM stashed away. He was asking $1400 ea. for them. I never pursued this as I don't have a vinyl playback system capable of doing justice to these.

 

[fyrfytrhoges]

i mentioned that the 20th anniversary edition is spectacular, i think it came out before music companies started getting deparate and issueing remasters and such just to command the price of the almighty dollar, fwiw.

 

[Andrew Pielet]

How do all of these compare to the 10th anniverary edition?

EDIT: Nevermind, I have the 20th anniversary. Yahoo!!