[megawzrd]

I had the cd version for a while and was never really that impressed. Recently though I picked up the album on vinyl and was blown away. Although my cd version wasn't one of the remastered versions I don't think there could be a marked improvement by any digitally remastered cd version over vinyl. I think a good DSOTM audiophile vinyl is probably the best way to experience this album. Its probably the closest you could get to the original recording (I have yet to test the waters of SACD and DVD Audio of course but I am content with my Vinyl LPs and have no need to).

I would also agree with some of the responses that the production on this album was over the top for the time and equiptment. Although all of its production is indeed part of the beauty of this album.

 

[markl]

Quote:

Age has nothing to do with sound quality.

Well, for once I get to agree to some extent with bigshot. Don't be fooled by a 1950s/60s/70s copyright date, indeed some of the very finest recordings come from this period (but that's not to say it's an automatic badge of quality, far far from it). A lot of what was recorded in the 70s in pop music stomps on most modern recordings sadly. Great analog equipment at the peak of its development.

I3eyond, which CD edition do you have? What is copyright date and mastering info?



P.S. And don't be put off by appearance of tape hiss, if that is what you are reacting to. Tape hiss present on a CD is *good*. That means it hasn't been digitally no-noised which sucks all the life and air out of perfectly good analog recordings. Believe me, you don't want them to "get rid of the tape hiss", because in the process of removing it, you are removing critical musical information as well. Neil Young says "all the magic happens in the tape hiss" and he's right!

 

[Masonjar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl Well, for once I get to agree to some extent with bigshot. Don't be fooled by a 1950s/60s/70s copyright date, indeed some of the very finest recordings come from this period (but that's not to say it's an automatic badge of quality, far far from it). A lot of what was recorded in the 70s in pop music stomps on most modern recordings sadly. Great analog equipment at the peak of its development.

I guess my point was, if all you're familiar with are recent recordings, albums from the 70's are going to sound kind of weird.

If everything you listen to is artificually bright due to current trends in overmastering, yes, an old recording might sound dull.

I got the feeling that the original poster was expecting something out of it that just wasn't happening with 70's recordings, not that it was *bad* or anything.

Just different.

-jar

 

[gordolindsay]

The new sacd hybrid of DSoTM is supposed to be quite compressed and dull sounding compared to the earlier copies. Only God knows how many different masterings there are of this album.

The MFSL does sound pretty darned good to these ears but I agree, not reference quality. If you dare trudge through all the Dark Side threads over at steve hoffman's website, you'll find your way to a quality recording of it. If you're willing to pay a pretty penny that is. The MFSL is good and that can be had for around $40 for sure.

 

[PinkFloyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman I wouldn't call Dark Side of the Moon reference quality

Neither would I, far from it actually. Compared to really good recordings DSOTM can be described as "mediocre" at best. It's an excellent album but the recording quality is certainly not "reference" material IMO.

EDIT: I'm talking about the "CD" the original vinyl is miles better than the CD's (all of them)

 

[I3eyond]

thanks for all the replies guys!

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl I3eyond, which CD edition do you have? What is copyright date and mastering info?

don't know what's what .. so i'll just post everything i see on the cd...

digital remaster copyright 1992

CDP 0777 7 46001 2 5

 

[I3eyond]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman I think upgrading (or even downgrading ) your sound card will help immensely.

i'm thinking the 0404, but i'd have to get an amp.

suggestions?

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gordolindsay The new sacd hybrid of DSoTM is supposed to be quite compressed and dull sounding compared to the earlier copies.

The CD layer on the SACD sounds just the same as the lted MFSL box to me. When I got the SACD, I didn't see any need for the vinyl any more and sold it for way too much money. The SACD layer has slightly different mastering... a higher overall volume level and perhaps a tad less compressed. The difference between the two is very small though. Nothing to go out and buy an SACD player for to be sure.

See ya
Steve

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by I3eyond i'm thinking the 0404, but i'd have to get an amp. suggestions?

No, you wouldn't. Just get a 1/4-to-RCA adapter for your headphones, and control the volume levels through your PC. Not as good as an amp, but not that inconvenient. I would suggest using that method until you have the cash for an amp.

 

[Senn20]

Quote:

Originally Posted by I3eyond thanks for all the replies guys! don't know what's what .. so i'll just post everything i see on the cd... digital remaster copyright 1992 CDP 0777 7 46001 2 5

Ah, yours is different from mine. The one I have also says digital remaster 1992 though.

I have this one and it sounds good to me:

 

[solbergg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by I3eyond are all floyd albums this way??

You never specified, did you buy the cassette version?

 

[ChaosCow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by I3eyond don't know what's what .. so i'll just post everything i see on the cd... digital remaster copyright 1992 CDP 0777 7 46001 2 5

Yeah, I own that one. It didn't sound like garbage, really, but I got it before I got big into headphones (I was using an SR-80 straight from an iPod). I mean, I eventually upgraded to the 1974 Harvest Japan version, and I think it sounds a lot better (on Money, especially, the guitar sounds much different), but it shouldn't sound muddy.

If your other albums sound fine, it's just a mastering problem, and I'd recommend finding a better version (Harvest Japan or MFSL) if you like what your'e hearing.

I agree that the bells should be very, very clear, though.

 

[I3eyond]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl P.S. And don't be put off by appearance of tape hiss, if that is what you are reacting to. Tape hiss present on a CD is *good*. That means it hasn't been digitally no-noised which sucks all the life and air out of perfectly good analog recordings. Believe me, you don't want them to "get rid of the tape hiss", because in the process of removing it, you are removing critical musical information as well. Neil Young says "all the magic happens in the tape hiss" and he's right!

this is really REALLY apparent on lynyrd skynyrd's greatest hits, and it REALLY gets on my nerves. is this the hiss you're talking about, or do you know?

 

[I3eyond]

Quote:

Originally Posted by solbergg You never specified, did you buy the cassette version?

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....oduct&id=94969

album i have ^

 

[OceanEnthusiast]

i was never overly impressed with DSOTM sound quality on headphones either. it's not bad, just not mind blowing. The Wall is a better recording, IMO.