[Mindless]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesciolino /img/forum/go_quote.gif i really really beg to differ on this one. i mean c'mon.

C'mon what? The different between SACD and conventional CDs are minute at best. Personally, I hear no difference between the two.

Regarding the clocks on "Time". There's just something special about them. I want to turn the volume down, but at the same time I want to keep listening to see if my ears can take it.

 

[markl]

Quote:

C'mon what? The different between SACD and conventional CDs are minute at best.

Now this, I can't support, FWIW.

I hear a world of difference between CD and SACD. But that doesn't mean the SACD of the DSOTM is the best digital version. It's not awful by any means, but it is compressed, bright, and mechanical/digital sounding. No warmth or "breath of life". It's basically a modern remaster run through a Hi-Rez format.

 

[Mindless]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl /img/forum/go_quote.gif Now this, I can't support, FWIW. I hear a world of difference between CD and SACD. But that doesn't mean the SACD of the DSOTM is the best digital version. It's not awful by any means, but it is compressed, bright, and mechanical/digital sounding. No warmth or "breath of life". It's basically a modern remaster run through a Hi-Rez format.

In other words, ick!

 

[Redo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl /img/forum/go_quote.gif But that doesn't mean the SACD of the DSOTM is the best digital version. It's not awful by any means, but it is compressed, bright, and mechanical/digital sounding. No warmth or "breath of life". It's basically a modern remaster run through a Hi-Rez format.

That's a stretch... DSoTM on SACD, both 2 channel and 5.1 channel, is a VERY good master.

 

[markl]

Compared to what? What other versions have you heard?

It's been said "there's no bad version of DSOTM", and the SACD has the extra resolution to recommend it, but that doesn't necessarily make it the best sounding version out there.

 

[Redo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl /img/forum/go_quote.gif Compared to what? What other versions have you heard? It's been said "there's no bad version of DSOTM", and the SACD has the extra resolution to recommend it, but that doesn't necessarily make it the best sounding version out there.

1994 release, MFSL release, SACD release, SACD hybrid side, original US LP release.

 

[markl]

There's always the chance some people prefer the sound of compression (sadly most people do), or an extra treble spike (again most people do) to make the sound "pop".

To me, sure it's great for the first couple minutes ("wow the detail"), but it gets fatiguing over time and isn't natural sounding. Particluarly for an album like DSOTM, where listening to the whole thing through is how it's done.

You're not likely to find a bigger defender of Hi-Rez on these forums than me (I fought through those Clone Hi-Rez Wars from the beginning

), but that doesn't mean we should put blinders on and put all our faith in the format alone ("it's hi-rez so it must be better"). It's more about mastering than format. There are many regular CDs that out-perform badly mastered SACDs.

I have no proof of this, but if you go back in time to when the DSOTM SACD was made, there were at that time no sophistacted desks or machines that go ping that could manipulate the sound (add compression or EQ) in the DSD/SACD format. If I were a betting man, I'd bet the DSOTM SACD was converted to PCM, processed, and then authored back in DSD. That may account for it's mechanical sound.

 

[Redo]

DSD to PCM back to DSD when handled with care is near perfect, in some cases there has been reports of it being a lossless conversion. Nothing in the realm of PCM to DSD or vice versa would cause any real problems since it's conception. Most all SACD's are mastered in PCM anyhow.

It would boil down to the master, and IMO, the SACD master of DSoTM has the thickest midrange of any release except for the Vinyl. It's not a casualty of the loudness war, but it just isn't as balanced as the MFSL release.

 

[pesciolino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mindless /img/forum/go_quote.gif C'mon what? The different between SACD and conventional CDs are minute at best.

and 2 + 2 = 5

 

[Bleeding Spark]

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-Pak /img/forum/go_quote.gif The MFSL of DSotM is good but not great. According to the guys at SH MoFi did EQ the album so it's not a strictly flat master. I've compared the MFSL to the Toshiba black triangle "1A1" and the Toshiba does sound better.

Most albums (especially rock albums) have some EQ applied during the mixing or mastering stage. To my knowledge MOFI has never claimed to do a "flat transfer" from the tape. Steve Hoffman will do a flat transfer if he feels that EQ would harm, rather than improve the sound of the album.

Compression and EQ are always the choice of the mastering engineer. Say what you will about the MOFI Dark Side of the moon, but it's certainly not compressed.

The MOFI is good, but there are better versions out there. I love the 30th anniversary 180 gram LP and the stereo SACD layer.

 

[Dr.Love]

To my ears the MFSL is the best version by far that I've heard. I'm not crazy about the SACD or the 20th anniversary editions at all.

There is a black triangle Japanese version of the album that rivals or even surpasses the MFSL CD from what I've heard, but have yet to hear it for myself.

The MFSL Darkside of the Moon satisfies so much that after hearing it I stopped searching for other versions.

 

[Dr.Love]

Oh, and if you like Floyd; you may be interested in the MFSL cd of Meddle.

 

[Pseudonym]

thanks to this thread, i just discovered MFSL. so thank u to all who have commented. while i dont have any originals yet, i have flac files and love them.

 

[soundboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl /img/forum/go_quote.gif But the original Japan pressed "Black Triangle" version is also quite yummy. (Lots of luck finding one, though )

So the black-triangle's a rare CD?

 

[pesciolino]

the mfsl meddle is indeed very good