Ultimate Dark Side of the Moon recording?

[markl]

Quote:

They certainly have knowledge about how many versions have been realised and so on...But IMO they are more Collectors than Audiophiles...and guess what, Collectors will always praise and pay premium for the rarest, hard to find item.

Speaking as both an audiophile *and* a collector, I have to speak as a recovering "re-master-o-phile". I've been a CD man since 1987, but an educated audiophile only since 1995 or so.

Until fairly recently, I confess I've been firmly on the remaster bandwagon. It's new and improved, thus it must be better, right? Well, in reality, "new and improved" usually actually just means LOUDER and more COMPRESSED. Yes, I can now hear things I couldn't before, but that's not due to increased resolution, so much as boosting of loudness.

The average guy on the street (and even the slightly educated but newly minted "audiophile"), will recoignize the LOUDER version as "better". Louder is seductive. It's evil and insidious. It's addictive and engaging.

But it's not RIGHT or TRUE. Yes, older CDs may not have been authored with the latest D/A converters. But almost universally, modern remasters are inexcusably LOUDER and compressed to within an inch of their lives. And then re-EQ-ed to be brigher and shiny-er than reality. And maybe then again, no-noised to erase dreaded tape hiss. Tape hiss is REAL and it's your friend. You can't erase tape hiss without erasing actual MUSIC, and this typically results in an airless, smothered sound.

That's to say that not all ancient or early CDs automatically sound BAD. Nor do all modern remasters. However, IMHO, the last thing one need look at to determine quality of any particular pressing is release date. There are plenty of early CDs that sound great and plenty of remasteres that sound great. It all depends on each title.


All that said, I really like the MFSL edition of this title, over the earlier versions. *However* I really like the 1997/2000 remasters of every Floyd title, though I don't have those Redbook remasters for DSOTM. I can say that I like the MFSL even over the SACD version, and for me, that's saying a lot.

 

[Mastergill]

I agree with you markl, remasters are far from being always better than older pressing, especially those last few years (loudness war and all that crap). And with MFSL i like better their first CDs (Ultradisc I), but many early CDs made between 1983 and 1987 are really bad to average sounding, not necessarily because of poor mastering or A/D conversion (these old Sony PCM1630s were not that bad), but because pressing CDs was a new business and a delicate process not really mastered by lot of pressing plants (especially in Europe and UK).

The matrixes were not perfect, tolerance not very tight, they thought with the very effective CD's error correction it would be okay, but if you constantly trigger this error correction, which basically recreate missing or unreadable data, this is not good for the sound.

 

[adhoc]

I have 3 versions - the 30th anniversary, the original release and MFSL #517. I find it difficult to do a valid comparison with all the 3 being mastered at such different levels.

 

[GreatDane]

I have both the official SACD and the not-so-official

DVD-A version...I gave away my late 80's CD copy. Multi-channel is a good thing

I think I've done DSoTM to death.

 

[adhoc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mastergill I don't know where this myth come from but i guess it's too late to debunk now. Those first Pink-Floyd release under the label Harvest/EMI, even the first ones pressed in Japan are really bad sounding. These were my first CDs purchase back in 1984, so i think i know how they sound. All MFSL release trounce them. The best DSOTM on CD is probably the first MFSL edition "Ultradisc" pressed in Japan. This was the golden age of Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab IMO. (They used other AD converters that i found slightly cold for 'Ultradisc II' and 'Ultradisc II - gain system') You know, these guys at Steve Hoffman forum are not really what i would call 'hardcore audiophile'. They certainly have knowledge about how many versions have been realised and so on...But IMO they are more Collectors than Audiophiles...and guess what, Collectors will always praise and pay premium for the rarest, hard to find item.

Actually, a copy of this just turned up at my door. Non-TO version. It is certainly a different presentation - far less fatiguing than the UDII - which I also have. This one is a keeper.

Also, do take note that the good people over at SH have debunked the UD vs UDII myth wrt DSOTM at least. They are identical. Or at least bit-for-bit digitally identical.

IMPORTANT NOTE:
To all those considering purchasing a non-TO CP35-3017 DSOTM, this version comes with "pre-emphasis" - which means that if your player cannot compensate for it, there will be a 10dB boost at 10kHz. Which is...

...perfect for knocking them flying bugs right out of the air.

While the ability to detect (and compensate for) pre-emphasis is part of the redbook spec, reports that some newer CD players cannot decode pre-emphasis (thus leaving IN the 10kHz spike) are popping up.

Those who use computer-based rigs are out of luck too.

 

[Mastergill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by adhoc Also, do take note that the good people over at SH have debunked the UD vs UDII myth wrt DSOTM at least. They are identical. Or at least bit-for-bit digitally identical.

I never said there's a difference between DSOTM Ultradisc and Ultradisc II for the simple fact that i don't own the UDII version but only the original release UD.

However newly mastered UDII releases have/had a different sound signature than UD regardless of the album. They used a different A/D converter for UDII which to my ears is slightly colder with a tad bit of digital hardness. UD sound warmer, more analog. But yes, probably they didn't remaster DOSTM for UDII, it's from the same master than UD.

 

[dip16amp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by adhoc Those who use computer-based rigs are out of luck too.

The RME audio cards let the user select emphasis. Maybe other sound cards also support it.

 

[Icehawk]

I have to go with the vinyl 180g 30th Anni pressing I just picked up - wow, the SQ blows away literally anything else I've heard except pure digital music which is something else entirely IMO.

http://www.musicdirect.com/products/...p?sku=LDP82136

This is the first record that truly opened my eyes, now I get why some people are vinyl fanatics.

I'll have to grab that DVD-A too

 

[LFF]

Reviving this long dead thread for a revision:
 
Best version for me, after much listening and upgrading my system, etc etc is the Japanese Black Triangle version followed by the MFSL UHQR and SACD.

 

[sonci]

Unfortunately, that also comes with  pre emphasis,
so a bit complicated to listen on pc or some  players,
and even if we de emphasis, is it bit to bit identical with the source?
 
EDIT: Why is so difficult to post in Head Fi with my Android phone?
Quote:

Reviving this long dead thread for a revision:
 
Best version for me, after much listening and upgrading my system, etc etc is the Japanese Black Triangle version followed by the MFSL UHQR and SACD.

 

[salannelson]

Quote:

Unfortunately, that also comes with  pre emphasis,
so a bit complicated to listen on pc or some  players,
and even if we de emphasis, is it bit to bit identical with the source?
 
EDIT: Why is so difficult to post in Head Fi with my Android phone?

 
I've never ripped a CD with pre-emphasis, but isn't EAC capable of "de-emphasising"?

 

[InnerSpace]

On CD I like the MFSL gold disc, but my all-time fave was the MFSL half-speed mastered LP from 1979.

 

[Mike Scarpitti]

I have an old UK version pressed in Swindon, and an old UK version pressed in Japan. Those two to me sound identical. I also have the 20th anniversary edition, which sounds a bit 'cleaner' but is definitely compressed in some way. For instance, the loud parts of Us and Them are definitely less loud than they are on the UK releases. I also own a US Capitol from the mid-90s which sounds merely OK. I would recommend the older ones if you like full dynamic range, but the 20th anniversary one if you prefer a slightly compressed sound. I have not heard the recent remasters, but I used to own several vinyl versions (including UK, German, and MFSL pressings). None of those compares to a good CD, of course.

 

[hogger129]

Either the Black Triangle/Blackface Harvest with the Sony mastering, or the 2011 remaster.  I see no reason to pay $50+ that the MFSL goes for now on eBay when you can get that Blackface Harvest disc for less.  The 2011 is good too and readily available.
 
Now as for the pre-emphasis on the non-TO discs, foobar2000 has a plugin that can remove it.  People have also posted EQ curves for Audacity that will remove it.  iTunes can remove it if you rip through iTunes.  There are ways around it.

 

[RRod]

  Now as for the pre-emphasis on the non-TO discs, foobar2000 has a plugin that can remove it.  People have also posted EQ curves for Audacity that will remove it.  iTunes can remove it if you rip through iTunes.  There are ways around it.

 
SoX can remove it too (just to give another option):
sox a.flac b.flac deemph