I apologize for the unhelpful comments, technically speaking it is not a legit copy and as such links to the torrent for this in ISO format while easily searchable using google cannot be posted on legit sites like avsforum. Try keywords dsotm dvda.

Could you please be more specific? :)

"...while easily searchable using google cannot be posted on legit sites like avsforum. Try keywords dsotm dvda."

Could you please be more specific? :)

How much more specific do you need??:rolleyes::confused:

Go to GOOGLE and put in the keywords! Hit "enter" or "return" on your computer.

-t

How much more specific do you need??:rolleyes::confused:I think he was joking. (see big smiley) ;)

Just bought PULSE, the 1994 live concert remastered in 5.1 on DVD, 2005. WOW!
2 DVDs = 4 hours, main concert = 145 minutes Concert Audio choice of 448kbps or 640kbps
Disc 2 is DSOTM, well, best of anyway
Music Production by James Guthrie and David Gilmore
DVD produced by James Guthrie and Storm Thorgerson
CMV Columbia Music Video
:)

Just bought PULSE, the 1994 live concert remastered in 5.1 on DVD, 2005. WOW!
2 DVDs = 4 hours, main concert = 145 minutes Concert Audio choice of 448kbps or 640kbps
Disc 2 is DSOTM, well, best of anyway
Music Production by James Guthrie and David Gilmore
DVD produced by James Guthrie and Storm Thorgerson
CMV Columbia Music Video
:)

What do you mean "best of?" They played the album in its entirety.

That's also how Roger Waters presents his concert. He plays a mix of older songs, has an intermission, then comes back and plays the entirety of the Dark Side album. Great stuff!

Well, it looks like I will have to give the DVD-A more of a listen now that I have the ability to play it on my HTPC.

Your PC can play the DVD-Audio?

BTW, when sent over HDMI as DSD, the level on the subwoofer .1 channel is extremely low.

BTW, when sent over HDMI as DSD, the level on the subwoofer .1 channel is extremely low.And how exactly are you sending DVD-A as DSD? :confused:

Fact is, there shouldn't even be a subwoofer channel. Unfortunately, though, someone concocted one. If you want more bass from your sub, you need to set your speakers to SMALL. Bass is not something that this recording is lacking.

And how exactly are you sending DVD-A as DSD? :confused:

Fact is, there shouldn't even be a subwoofer channel. Unfortunately, though, someone concocted one. If you want more bass from your sub, you need to set your speakers to SMALL. Bass is not something that this recording is lacking.

my DVD-A player (Pioneer 610 - same as 49) sends multichannel audio via HDMI- should i not call that "DSD"?

my system is properly configured, thank you. ths issue is as i alluded to. i know the content is "there" it's just i have to make a volume adjustment to my subs that i don't have to make for other recordings.

No, DSD is an SACD thing only.

- should i not call that "DSD"?No, you shouldn't. Because it's not. Unless you are discussing the SACD. THis thread is in regards to the DVD-A of the quad mix of DSoTM.


my system is properly configured, thank you. ths issue is as i alluded to. i know the content is "there" it's just i have to make a volume adjustment to my subs that i don't have to make for other recordings.The DVD-A has more than enough bass content. So, I'm not sure what the "issue" is that you are alluding to. If your speakers are set to LARGE and are truly LARGE speakers, then you will get plenty of bass with the disc. If your speakers are set to SMALL, you will also get plenty of bass. I don't think I have ever heard anyone complain about the bass content. As I pointed out, an LFE channel was added on top of the bass already present in the 4 channels of the original recording.

I would love a PM from anyone on how I can get a copy of this...I just happened across this thread and I am a HUGE Floyd fan. Any help would be appreciated.

I would love a PM from anyone on how I can get a copy of this...I just happened across this thread and I am a HUGE Floyd fan. Any help would be appreciated.

I downloaded mine via Rapidshare. Google is your friend (as is a good high-speed connection- the compressed files were themselves 2.5GB) It's totally worth the hassle, though. I've never been as big a freak for DSOTM as many, but this version brings out so much of the symphonic aspects of the record that it has grown on me quite a lot.

How available are the SACD versions of DSOTM, I've seen them in stores up until recently.

Amazon, Music Direct, Acoustic Sounds, etc...on-line orders are easiest.

so when is "wish you were here" coming out on sacd, 2020?

For those who are new to 5.1 and want a pretty nice disc take a look in the racks, notice quite a few SACD copies.

Can we pre order "Wish you were here" that far out?

Since Sony's abandoned SACD, not likely

I would love a PM from anyone on how I can get a copy of this...I just happened across this thread and I am a HUGE Floyd fan. Any help would be appreciated.You might want to take a look at the Pirate Bay. ;)

Having dramatically upgraded my system in the past year, I have to say despite originally loving the DVD-A version of DSOTM much more than the SACD, I'm beginning to feel the opposite now.

I think the issue is sound fidelity. While the DVD-A's mix remains more interesting to me, with my improved set-up, I can really hear the limitations of the fidelity of the mix. Shockingly, at times it sounds almost "lo-fi" to me, and now being able to play it near reference levels on my system, the underlying hiss on the disc is very apparent and annoying. But volume is not the issue, even at lower volumes where the hiss is less noticeable, the disc really sounds like the almost 40 year-old recording that it is.

On the SACD however, the recording sounds like it was made yesterday. There is a crispness to it that is unmatched on the DVD-A. It really was a revelation playing it on my new set-up. The fidelity of the disc was absolutely amazing to me, having heard DSOTM so many times before. And because of this, even though it might be a lesser mix than Parson's, I find it the SACD much more preferable now and it would be difficult to go back to the DVD-A.

Anyone else had this experience?

Perhaps because the DVD-A is just a A2D copy of the original mastertapes while the SACD has all the benefits of modern digital noise reduction, there is where the difference lies (in terms of hiss etc.). An interesting exercise would be to take the MLP tracks which are not copy protected on this title, and leaving the mix the same, just apply similar noise reduction and other audio improvement processes on it and listen to the differences. There are readers on this forum who have the gear and expertise to do this if they are so inclined.

Remember both discs from the same source material so any difference in sound quality is due to a different mix (of course) and noise reduction processes.

It's not just noise reduction, it's the fidelity as well. At lower volume where the hiss is not as apparent, the DVD-A still doesn't match the SACD's sound quality. The SACD mix has definitely been cleaned up and re-mastered in every which way. I used to think the mix was a little bright, but on my upgraded set-up, it's not bright at all. Overall, if I had to choose between to two to demo my system, it would definitely be the SACD.

Well as I noted if some smart person can take the MLP tracks from the DVDA and apply similar processing that would be an interesting exercise .

Well I just like the way it's mastered as far as the way he used the extra channels, and to me it just sounds like a high quality 30 year old analog tape so the hiss doesn't really bother me, your hearing it exactly as it sounds on the original.
All the people I have played it for or who found it after I recommended it like it too, I just think it's the best mix of the album I've ever heard so I didn't spend a ton of time trying to pick out it's flaws. I have the SACD somewhere here as well but I just don't like what they did with the mix compared to this one.

It's not just noise reduction, it's the fidelity as well.Of course it is. :) The SACD's SQ is much better.

Of course it is. :) The SACD's SQ is much better.

In many places it is. In some the DVD-A equals the SACD. The comment earlier about tape hiss is correct, but you only get it in some silent moments.

If you go back and forth with a/b comparisons, especially instantaneous ones, you'll go bonkers. A lot of passages that suggest preference for the DVD-Audio are, admittedly, only a preference for a more aggressive--but not superior--surround mix.

I reviewed both for High Fidelity Review. When I did the SACD review, it was a positive revelation, something that glittered. The DVD-Audio review--because it invited a comparison with the SACD--was an exercise in frustration. http://www.highfidelityreview.com/reviews/review.asp?reviewnumber=12583627

Both discs are great examples of the possibilities of surround music, especially for music "originally" mixed in two channel. I agree that the SACD is the superior version, both in fidelity and in the mix--but it's a close call in many, many cases.

Thanks,

Nick :cool:

Well as I noted if some smart person can take the MLP tracks from the DVDA and apply similar processing that would be an interesting exercise .

Gotcha, so basically you're saying if someone took the tracks from Parson's mix on the DVD-A and "cleaned" it up to bring it to the sound quality of the SACD, then in essence, we'd have the "best of both worlds" combining the "superiority" of Parson's mix with the SQ superiority of the SACD.

However, that's to assume that the fidelity of the DVD-A is equal to the original master tapes, which while possible, I find highly unlikely.

Of course it is. :) The SACD's SQ is much better.

Absolutely, and not by a small margin. I guess the revelation for me was not so much the high fidelity of the SACD, which was to be expected, but the comparatively "low fidelity" of the DVD-A. Having upgraded my system to, I suppose, much more revealing speakers and components, it was quite shocking to hear both discs back-to-back and witnessing the discrepancy in the sound quality between the two.


All the people I have played it for or who found it after I recommended it like it too, I just think it's the best mix of the album I've ever heard so I didn't spend a ton of time trying to pick out it's flaws.

It certainly wasn't a deliberate attempt to "pick out it's flaws", but rather, a very obvious observation when I listened to them both on my upgraded system.

In many places it is. In some the DVD-A equals the SACD. The comment earlier about tape hiss is correct, but you only get it in some silent moments.

Perhaps I played it above reference levels as it was loud enough where I heard the hiss even during the songs. That was part of the reason why the DVD-A became less satisfying, as it was an obviously apparent limitation to the dynamics of the mix. It was certainly more apparent in between songs, of course. The SACD, at the same volume, had none of this and would go from dead silence in between tracks or perhaps from a quiet section to a loud synthesizer note in a very convincing way. No, I don't usually play DSOTM at deafening levels, but I remember my dissatisfaction with the fidelity of the DVD-A lead me to increase the volume to somehow compensate for the seemingly low fidelity and limited dynamics of the mix. It didn't work.

If you go back and forth with a/b comparisons, especially instantaneous ones, you'll go bonkers. A lot of passages that suggest preference for the DVD-Audio are, admittedly, only a preference for a more aggressive--but not superior--surround mix.

I find this to be true. As I've given more time to the SACD, it's become more apparent that the mix is not just "a stereo experience with ambience" as Parson's interview had brainwashed me into thinking. In certain parts, the SACD mix actually uses more pronounced effects in the surround channels, and overall, is a skillfully executed surround mix. It is a bit more subtle and less aggressive than Parson's mix, just a different interpretation really.

I reviewed both for High Fidelity Review. When I did the SACD review, it was a positive revelation, something that glittered. The DVD-Audio review--because it invited a comparison with the SACD--was an exercise in frustration. http://www.highfidelityreview.com/reviews/review.asp?reviewnumber=12583627

Both discs are great examples of the possibilities of surround music, especially for music "originally" mixed in two channel. I agree that the SACD is the superior version, both in fidelity and in the mix--but it's a close call in many, many cases.

Thanks,

Nick :cool:

Thanks for the link and nice review. Can't say I agree that it's "a toss-up as to overall sound quality" between the two, but an excellent review and analysis nevertheless.

Now that some years have passed, care to reveal who "Deep Throat" i.e. the "mystery engineer" is who bestowed this wonderful gift to the world? :D

Remember both discs from the same source material so any difference in sound quality is due to a different mix (of course) and noise reduction processes.

However, that's to assume that the fidelity of the DVD-A is equal to the original master tapes, which while possible, I find highly unlikely.

Further to this, I should elaborate that this was more of a "gut feeling" than really knowing the possibility of this, as for who did the transfer, the process in which it was done, with what equipment, etc., have remained a mystery, so perhaps it could be possible that the DVD-A is a highly faithful reproduction of the original tapes that they were transferred from.

The reason why I originally found this doubtful was I just couldn't imagine, no matter the methods used and the amount of post-processing was done, of the possibility of being able to bring the quality of the DVD-A mix to the level of fidelity on the Guthrie SACD. They sound THAT different to me.

To go on a slight tangent, I reasoned if they couldn't manage a fidelity above a taped voicemail for John Lennon's vocal on "Real Love", then really there couldn't be any chance using today's technology where they can bring the fidelity of the DVD-A mix to that of the SACD. Yes, I know the SACD of DSOTM was worked on a few years after the Beatles Anthology, but highly doubtful that in those few years the technology could have improved that much.

But now I realize the two mixes were NOT "from the same source material" anyway. The DVD-A mix was supposedly transferred from the master tapes of Parson's original quadraphonic mix, which by definition would make them, at the very least, second-generation dubs from the original masters. Not only were they dubs, but they were mixed down into the 4 quadraphonic tracks. Guthrie, on the other hand, had access to the original 16-track master tapes, and created the surround mix from scratch.

That alone could explain the huge sonic differences of the two mixes. While if extensive post-production work was done on Parson's original quadraphonic masters, it could of course come much closer to the fidelity of the SACD mix. But even if we were to assume that the DVD-A was equal to the quality of those quadraphonic master tapes, I still think it would be highly unlikely for them to ever be on par with the SQ of the SACD mix, no matter how much post-processing using today's technology was done to them, and possibly never considering the disparity of the original sources of the two mixes.

Well, as some of you keeping scores may remember, I was originally giving preference to sacd version, precisely due to the exceptional fidelity but I must say, having listened to the dvd-a little bit more, I have come to appreciate the quad mix slightly more than I originally did. Make no mistake, when I want to demo my setup to guests, its the sacd that comes out (with a dedicated lfe track, it creates a very nice ambiance to a familiar record for most) but in private listening, it is a toss-up for me - I enjoy both mixes tremendously and have grown to like the organic feel and texture of the quad mix, hiss included (and yes I agree that its there during non-silent parts as well, you do have to have a system capable of reproducing it).

Well, as some of you keeping scores may remember, I was originally giving preference to sacd version, precisely due to the exceptional fidelity but I must say, having listened to the dvd-a little bit more, I have come to appreciate the quad mix slightly more than I originally did. Make no mistake, when I want to demo my setup to guests, its the sacd that comes out (with a dedicated lfe track, it creates a very nice ambiance to a familiar record for most) but in private listening, it is a toss-up for me - I enjoy both mixes tremendously and have grown to like the organic feel and texture of the quad mix, hiss included (and yes I agree that its there during non-silent parts as well, you do have to have a system capable of reproducing it).

Perhaps I should rephrase. Of course the tape hiss is there throughout, but not much noticeable when the music is drowning it out. I'm fairly certain that my system is capable of reproducing it.

Thanks,

Nick :cool:

..
But now I realize the two mixes were NOT "from the same source material" anyway. The DVD-A mix was supposedly transferred from the master tapes of Parson's original quadraphonic mix, which by definition would make them, at the very least, second-generation dubs from the original masters. Not only were they dubs, but they were mixed down into the 4 quadraphonic tracks. Guthrie, on the other hand, had access to the original 16-track master tapes, and created the surround mix from scratch.


Probably right but I still think if somebody got hold of the original MLP tracks and turned them into PCM (no loss there) and then applied the sophisticated noise processing that modern computer gear and good ears can provide, it would be a very interesting result. I am not expert in this but a one generation analogue dub would add tape hiss and possibly some slight loss of highs. And of course each tape machine has wow and flutter (even if at very low levels) so that would add some audio artifacts however minor.

Still it does beg the question - how good would have been a Parson's mix done today from the original 16 tracks masters? We will never know probably.

Still it does beg the question - how good would have been a Parson's mix done today from the original 16 tracks masters? We will never know probably.

If you means in terms of SQ then there is no reason to believe it wouldn't just as good as Guthrie's SACD mix.

Further to this, I should elaborate that this was more of a "gut feeling" than really knowing the possibility of this, as for who did the transfer, the process in which it was done, with what equipment, etc., have remained a mystery, so perhaps it could be possible that the DVD-A is a highly faithful reproduction of the original tapes that they were transferred from.

The reason why I originally found this doubtful was I just couldn't imagine, no matter the methods used and the amount of post-processing was done, of the possibility of being able to bring the quality of the DVD-A mix to the level of fidelity on the Guthrie SACD. They sound THAT different to me.

To go on a slight tangent, I reasoned if they couldn't manage a fidelity above a taped voicemail for John Lennon's vocal on "Real Love", then really there couldn't be any chance using today's technology where they can bring the fidelity of the DVD-A mix to that of the SACD. Yes, I know the SACD of DSOTM was worked on a few years after the Beatles Anthology, but highly doubtful that in those few years the technology could have improved that much.

But now I realize the two mixes were NOT "from the same source material" anyway. The DVD-A mix was supposedly transferred from the master tapes of Parson's original quadraphonic mix, which by definition would make them, at the very least, second-generation dubs from the original masters. Not only were they dubs, but they were mixed down into the 4 quadraphonic tracks. Guthrie, on the other hand, had access to the original 16-track master tapes, and created the surround mix from scratch.

AFAIK they both had access to the original 16-track multis. The difference is that Parsons worked wholly in analog; Guthrie was working mostly in the digital domain. Parsons started with the 16-tracks analog multis and created a 4-track analog mixdown master tape from them, which was years later transferred to digital (by parties unknown). Guthrie started with the 16-tracks analog multis, transferred them to digital, and created a 6-track digital mixdown master from the digital dubs. Guthrie was thus able to avoid a generation of tape and analog gear noise; he may also have used digital NR and could have applied it to any or all of the 16 tracks, whereas Parsons would only have had access to analog, if any, and the transferrers of Parsons' mix could only apply digital NR (if any) to the four tracks of his quad master.


That alone could explain the huge sonic differences of the two mixes. While if extensive post-production work was done on Parson's original quadraphonic masters, it could of course come much closer to the fidelity of the SACD mix.

? A straight digital dub at 96/24 could be expected to completely preserve the audio qualities of Parsons' original quad mixdown master tape, if done competently.


But even if we were to assume that the DVD-A was equal to the quality of those quadraphonic master tapes,

There is no reason to assume that is NOT the case...unless there is evidence of significant post-production done on the DVD-A, or evidence that the transfer was not from the original quad masters, or evidence that the original quads are damaged.

The only significant post-production applied to the DVD-A that I know is the creation of a .1 channel . I think this was a mistake, personally, since all it appears to do in this case is duplicate bass content that is in the 4 main channels.

Well, I am really curious to hear the SACD since I have the DVD-A and am greatly impressed. You could make an argument that the bootleg DVD-A has actually spurred sales of the SACD in my case.

There is a lot of speculation about this things were recorded for the SACD and DVD-A. I am sure that we are all referencing various online articles etc... but anywho......

I specifically recall that many parts of the DSOTM was recorded originally as quadraphonic and down mixed into stereo for original release as described in an old article from Parsons. The ‘clocks’ and the cash registers for “Money” etc…

So being a purist, I am going to be very biased towards the quadraphonic version as the true “master”.

AFAIK they both had access to the original 16-track multis.

I never questioned Parson's having access to the original 16-track master tapes, of course he did. :rolleyes:

I was replying to lchiu7's assertion that "both discs [are] from the same source material so any difference in sound quality is due to a different mix (of course) and noise reduction processes", which is NOT true. The DVD-A was taken from Parson's original QUADRAPHONIC mix master, which as I stated by definition would be at least a second-generation dub. Guthrie's SACD mix was created from scratch from the original 16-track master tapes, and therefore, the two discs are NOT from the same source material.

? A straight digital dub at 96/24 could be expected to completely preserve the audio qualities of Parsons' original quad mixdown master tape, if done competently.

Yes, and that's a big "IF". No one knows who did the transfer, the methods used, the equipment used, or whether the quadraphonic mix wasn't actually from a DUB of the master of Parson's original quadraphonic mix.

There is no reason to assume that is NOT the case...unless there is evidence of significant post-production done on the DVD-A, or evidence that the transfer was not from the original quad masters, or evidence that the original quads are damaged.

You're missing the point, which is EVEN if the "DVD-A was equal to the quality of those quadraphonic master tapes, I still think it would be highly unlikely for them to ever be on par with the SQ of the SACD mix, no matter how much post-processing using today's technology was done to them, and possibly never considering the disparity of the original sources of the two mixes."

Again, my point was in relation to lchiu7's assertion that with digital noise reduction and post-processing, that the DVD-A mix can reach the SQ of the SACD, which I find highly unlikely.

The only significant post-production applied to the DVD-A that I know is the creation of a .1 channel . I think this was a mistake, personally, since all it appears to do in this case is duplicate bass content that is in the 4 main channels.

Agreed that it was unnecessary. Even on a cheap HTiB, the bass management of the AVR would have routed the low frequency signals to the sub. No need for an additional LFE channel.

I specifically recall that many parts of the DSOTM was recorded originally as quadraphonic and down mixed into stereo for original release as described in an old article from Parsons. The ‘clocks’ and the cash registers for “Money” etc…

Yes, that's true. Those effects were originally recorded for a Parsons quadraphonic project, which he offered to Floyd and they accepted for DSOTM.

So being a purist, I am going to be very biased towards the quadraphonic version as the true “master”.

Depends on what you mean by "master". If you mean "vision", yes, the Parson's mix was the "original" quadraphonic vision, mainly Parson's own as the band had limited input (due to not caring about it enough it seems) on the quadraphonic mix. An interesting side note is that Parson's isn't 100% satisfied with the quadraphonic mix himself, as he's noted in interviews that he wasn't given enough time to perfect it.

In terms of the SACD, it's worthwhile if solely for the sound quality itself. DSOTM has never sounded better fidelity wise. Credit must be given to Guthrie who did an amazing job bringing the sound quality of the 70's masters into what really could pass for being recorded today. I was stunned when I heard it in my upgraded system.

As for the mix, it's debatable which is "better". I've always loved Parson's original mix, and thought the SACD mix took more slack than it deserved. They are BOTH good, though Parson's mix uses more discrete effects in the surround channels. However, it's a myth to think Guthrie uses the surround channels just for ambiance, he does not and I think his is also a virtuoso mix. Just different and it's quite nice to have another option to listen to.

Ideally for myself, I would love if it is was possible to "clean up" the DVD-A a bit to bring it closer to the SACD. Maybe someday someone will attempt it, but until then, I find myself preferring and listening to the SACD nowadays mostly because of the much superior sound quality.

Yes, that's true. Those effects were originally recorded for a Parsons quadraphonic project, which he offered to Floyd and they accepted for DSOTM.



Depends on what you mean by "master". If you mean "vision", yes, the Parson's mix was the "original" quadraphonic vision, mainly Parson's own as the band had limited input (due to not caring about it enough it seems) on the quadraphonic mix. An interesting side note is that Parson's isn't 100% satisfied with the quadraphonic mix himself, as he's noted in interviews that he wasn't given enough time to perfect it.

In terms of the SACD, it's worthwhile if solely for the sound quality itself. DSOTM has never sounded better fidelity wise. Credit must be given to Guthrie who did an amazing job bringing the sound quality of the 70's masters into what really could pass for being recorded today. I was stunned when I heard it in my upgraded system.

As for the mix, it's debatable which is "better". I've always loved Parson's original mix, and thought the SACD mix took more slack than it deserved. They are BOTH good, though Parson's mix uses more discrete effects in the surround channels. However, it's a myth to think Guthrie uses the surround channels just for ambiance, he does not and I think his is also a virtuoso mix. Just different and it's quite nice to have another option to listen to.

Ideally for myself, I would love if it is was possible to "clean up" the DVD-A a bit to bring it closer to the SACD. Maybe someday someone will attempt it, but until then, I find myself preferring and listening to the SACD nowadays mostly because of the much superior sound quality.

I don't disagree with what you said but again most of it is speculation.

For example:

I would like to think that the original Parson’s Quad’ mix was created and never quit finished off. Which agrees with his own comments from some articles. I would also think that this quad mix was shelved and never played again until it was transferred to digital. Hence the only degradation would be the aging time of the tape since it was played very infrequently.

On the other hand, the 16 track master has been used (IIRC) several times already for various reissues of DSOTM over the years. Hence it could only be a lower quality source and would need the ‘magic’ of digital NR etc…. to bring it up to snuff.

So from my perspective, the Parson’s Quad mix could be the best pure unaltered source material that remains from the DSOTM sessions. I’m taking a big stand in refuting the benefits of digitization but that’s my right. It doesn't matter if its audio of video, some data is always changed or lost in translation.

Again, I gotta check out the SACD to make up my own mind. I have read many arguments for the DVD-A being the best but each to their own. But I guess it doesn't really matter if we own both. :D

I don't disagree with what you said but again most of it is speculation.

It doesn't seem like you are replying to the post you quoted, but rather to my reply to krabapple!

Still, yes much of it is speculation with regards to the DVD-A as no one not very close to the situation knows the actual details of the transfer of the quadraphonic mix that appears on the DVD-A.

For example:

I would like to think that the original Parson’s Quad’ mix was created and never quit finished off. Which agrees with his own comments from some articles. I would also think that this quad mix was shelved and never played again until it was transferred to digital. Hence the only degradation would be the aging time of the tape since it was played very infrequently.

Yes, as I mentioned in the actual post your replied to, Parson's himself said he felt dissatisfied with the quadraphonic mix as he felt he wasn't given enough time to work on it. However, it was "finished" as it was released as an quadraphonic eight-track tape (Harvest/EMI Records Q8 SHVL 804), and not "shelved".

In terms of the "degradation", that was never the point. The point was 1) whether the original masters of the quadraphonic tape was even used for the DVD-A, and 2), that the quadraphonic mix itself was at least a second-generation dub from the original 16-track master recordings.

On the other hand, the 16 track master has been used (IIRC) several times already for various reissues of DSOTM over the years. Hence it could only be a lower quality source and would need the ‘magic’ of digital NR etc…. to bring it up to snuff.

This doesn't seem likely that the original 16-track masters are a "lower quality source" than a dub that was mixed down from its original 16 tracks to 4 tracks, given the generation loss and the reduction of tracks, but in any case, if I recall correctly, it was only the third time these original 16-track masters have been used.

And even if noise-reduction and extensive post-production was used on the SACD release, which should be expected during any modern remastering of old recordings, that doesn't mean the original 16-track masters are a "lower quality source". It just means they are trying to increasing its sound quality as much as possible using the latest technology they have at their disposal, and I have to say in the case of the SACD, they did a brilliant job.

So from my perspective, the Parson’s Quad mix could be the best pure unaltered source material that remains from the DSOTM sessions.

Again, it's highly unlikely this second-generation 4-track dub can be superior to the original 16-track masters as a source material, and further to this, again the question I raised was whether the quality of the recording on the DVD-A equals the quality of the actual 4-track quadraphonic masters of Parson's mix. Perhaps so, but if this was the case, it certainly lends to the notion that the quadraphonic masters are NOT the "best pure unaltered source material that remains from the DSOTM sessions".

I’m taking a big stand in refuting the benefits of digitization but that’s my right. It doesn't matter if its audio of video, some data is always changed or lost in translation.
You can take whatever "big stand" you want, but I'm not sure how's it's relevant in any way to our discussion. In any case, while you might refute the "benefits of digitization", please note that the DVD-A is also a "digitization" of the original analog tapes of Parson's quadraphonic mix.

Again, I gotta check out the SACD to make up my own mind. I have read many arguments for the DVD-A being the best but each to their own. But I guess it doesn't really matter if we own both. :D

Yes, you really should check out the SACD and make the comparison for yourself. As for which one is "best", if we are talking about which mix is best, then it's a valid argument and I wouldn't be surprised if people prefer Parson's mix as I have done in the past. If we are talking about the issue of sound quality, however, it's not even a debatable point and the SACD is far superior in that department, that is unless you believe background hiss, lower dynamics, and less clarity, detail and overall fidelity are attributes of "better" sound quality.

Yes, that's true. Those effects were originally recorded for a Parsons quadraphonic project, which he offered to Floyd and they accepted for DSOTM.



Depends on what you mean by "master". If you mean "vision", yes, the Parson's mix was the "original" quadraphonic vision, mainly Parson's own as the band had limited input (due to not caring about it enough it seems) on the quadraphonic mix. An interesting side note is that Parson's isn't 100% satisfied with the quadraphonic mix himself, as he's noted in interviews that he wasn't given enough time to perfect it.

In terms of the SACD, it's worthwhile if solely for the sound quality itself. DSOTM has never sounded better fidelity wise. Credit must be given to Guthrie who did an amazing job bringing the sound quality of the 70's masters into what really could pass for being recorded today. I was stunned when I heard it in my upgraded system.

As for the mix, it's debatable which is "better". I've always loved Parson's original mix, and thought the SACD mix took more slack than it deserved. They are BOTH good, though Parson's mix uses more discrete effects in the surround channels. However, it's a myth to think Guthrie uses the surround channels just for ambiance, he does not and I think his is also a virtuoso mix. Just different and it's quite nice to have another option to listen to.

Ideally for myself, I would love if it is was possible to "clean up" the DVD-A a bit to bring it closer to the SACD. Maybe someday someone will attempt it, but until then, I find myself preferring and listening to the SACD nowadays mostly because of the much superior sound quality.

Agree 100% until the last 10 words. I would have ended " I find myself preferring the DVD-Audio version due to the more interesting mix":D Also the DVDA has more analog character...

/snore :rolleyes:

Agree 100% until the last 10 words. I would have ended " I find myself preferring the DVD-Audio version due to the more interesting mix":D Also the DVDA has more analog character...

As I wrote a few posts back, I would was exactly the same until I upgraded my system. Now the DVD-A, unfortunately, sounds too low-fi for me, though of course, the mix is still amazing. The SACD, however, offers a sound quality I've never heard on any DSOTM release which therefore, makes it more interesting to me. :D This improvement in SQ wasn't as apparent to me on my previous system and perhaps because of that, I preferred the DVD-A.

/snore :rolleyes:

I couldn't agree more. I shouldn't have even bothered.

I couldn't agree more. I shouldn't have even bothered.I'm snoring at the recent discussion in the thread, not the recording(s). ;)

I'm snoring at the recent discussion in the thread, not the recording(s). ;)
+1 :rolleyes:

/snore :rolleyes:

Has anyone synced up this quad version to Wizard Of OZ? I think it works nicely...

On the other hand, the 16 track master has been used (IIRC) several times already for various reissues of DSOTM over the years.


No, the *two* track master has been accessed repeatedly. There have been no new mixdowns since the original quad and 2-track mixes were made, until the 5.1 SACD, so there has been no reason to access the multitrack (16-track) master before the SACD project.

No, the *two* track master has been accessed repeatedly. There have been no new mixdowns since the original quad and 2-track mixes were made, until the 5.1 SACD, so there has been no reason to access the multitrack (16-track) master before the SACD project.

Yes, that's true, the SACD was only the third time the 16-track masters had been used.

I'm snoring at the recent discussion in the thread, not the recording(s). ;)

Then get off this thread. :rolleyes: Nothing more snooze-inducing than a "me too, me too!" post by someone with nothing else to contribute. :p

Now back on topic, I have to say I also very much like the Quad version of "Wish You Were Here". Not as ambitious in the surround mix as the DSOTM DVD-A, but amazing sound quality for being a rip from vinyl, which I think captured the 70's feel of both the recording and original release.

The DSOTM is still my favorite all of the Pink Floyd quadraphonic releases, but I think WYWH makes for a great companion piece to it.

OK guys somebody please feel sorry for me and send me a copy.. please.. 8 different downloads and tried them all on my toshiba a35 jvc bp10 and my dennon 1900 all to no avail. please help a guy out who just got the new onkyo 3007 and some new psb speakers, music already sounds awesome and I would like to hear the ultimate on my new system .. please.. (yes actually I have failed enough to start begging ..please.. pm me:confused:

OK guys somebody please feel sorry for me and send me a copy.. please.. 8 different downloads and tried them all on my toshiba a35 jvc bp10 and my dennon 1900 all to no avail. please help a guy out who just got the new onkyo 3007 and some new psb speakers, music already sounds awesome and I would like to hear the ultimate on my new system .. please.. (yes actually I have failed enough to start begging ..please.. pm me:confused:

What exactly is the problem you're having? Is it the disc doesn't work? Keep in mind that when you're burning, it needs to be a DVD-A disc. It won't work as a data disc, etc.

OK guys somebody please feel sorry for me and send me a copy.. please.. 8 different downloads and tried them all on my toshiba a35 jvc bp10 and my dennon 1900 all to no avail. please help a guy out who just got the new onkyo 3007 and some new psb speakers, music already sounds awesome and I would like to hear the ultimate on my new system .. please.. (yes actually I have failed enough to start begging ..please.. pm me:confused:


Try playing what you downloaded with Shaplay or Foobar2000 on your pc...

I can't seem to find DSOTM on Amazon in DVDA format. I see the CD and Hybrid SACD - DSD, and even vinyl. Do they carry it? I ordered the CD from Amazon two weeks ago, but got the CD instead, even though it came up as while searching for the DVDA.

Any help would be appreciated. Thank you!

I can't seem to find DSOTM on Amazon in DVDA format. I see the CD and Hybrid SACD - DSD, and even vinyl. Do they carry it? I ordered the CD from Amazon two weeks ago, but got the CD instead, even though it came up as while searching for the DVDA.

Any help would be appreciated. Thank you!

The DVD Audio version of DSOTM is not an official release.... it is based on the Alan Parsons quadraphonic mix that was on studio reel and "unofficially" released via filesharing, so you can't (or at least shouldn't be able to) buy it anywhere.

Just google "Dark Side Of The Moon DVD Audio" (without the quotes) and you'll find more information and links.

I just wanna know which one is 'Pink' ?

"By the way, which one's Pink?" from Wish You Were Here.

Guys, it's great to come back here several years later and see this thing going strong.

By the way, some of you might be interested: I've managed to get this masterpiece into just the four channels as the Alan Parsons originally intended. I did this by dis-assembling the DVD-A using DVD-A Explorer and deleting the LFE track and saving as a multichannel FLAC.

The only problem now is, with my perfect DSOTM quad mix in FLAC format, I haven't yet found a way to to play a FLAC file into my HT system to hear DSOTM as it was meant to be heard! :(

Any ideas if there's a HDMI card that can pass the hirez signal from a PC to a pre-processor?

cheers,
Martin.

Maybe one of the many multi media players out now? Like a WDTV Live or a Asus playo or something similar.
I can play all kinds of files from my PC and then into the receiver with mine.

Guys, it's great to come back here several years later and see this thing going strong.

By the way, some of you might be interested: I've managed to get this masterpiece into just the four channels as the Alan Parsons originally intended. I did this by dis-assembling the DVD-A using DVD-A Explorer and deleting the LFE track and saving as a multichannel FLAC.

The only problem now is, with my perfect DSOTM quad mix in FLAC format, I haven't yet found a way to to play a FLAC file into my HT system to hear DSOTM as it was meant to be heard! :(

Any ideas if there's a HDMI card that can pass the hirez signal from a PC to a pre-processor?

cheers,
Martin.


This is out of date but shows some cards that can pass lossless compressed or uncompressed multichannel PCM up to 196/24. THese are for desktops only, there are no laptops with HDMI that can do it yet

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1093445

The only problem now is, with my perfect DSOTM quad mix in FLAC format, I haven't yet found a way to to play a FLAC file into my HT system to hear DSOTM as it was meant to be heard! :(


You could buy a squeezebox, and do a lot more than just play your DSOTM FLACs.

You could buy a squeezebox, and do a lot more than just play your DSOTM FLACs.

You could also get a Popcorn Hour A200 which plays multichannel FLAC over HDMI and is more than just an audio player.

You could also get a Popcorn Hour A200 which plays multichannel FLAC over HDMI and is more than just an audio player.

Looks very cool...first I've heard of this unit.

Looks very cool...first I've heard of this unit.

I am pretty happy with the original DVD-A that was released but if I had a way to make the multichannel FLAC, since I have a A200 I would check it out. But then I haven't noticed any muddled bass or any other complaints with the DVD-A so it's not been a pressing thing for me.


Slightly OT - the Syabas Popcorn hour range of media players are very powerful and flexible.

There has been a lot of discussion on this forum about the fidelity of the LFE track. The people who made this DVD Audio iso actually did a lot of listeners a favor by adding the LFE. They took into account the kinds of surround systems people are running now as opposed to the hi-fi systems that reigned in the days of quadraphonics.

In the 1970's, subwoofers were far from standard. There was a debate that they did not belong in a hi-fi system because they unnaturally enhanced bass that should have been reproduced in full-range speakers. A typical audiophile who purchased a quadraphonic system would have invested in four identical full-range speakers.

Addition of the LFE track enables modern users to approximate the original quadraphonic mix. The quad mix was not designed to be played on a typical modern surround system. However, for those with absolute fidelity in mind, it's not terribly difficult to emulate a quadraphonic system using modern equipment.

1. Turn off the subwoofer and use four identical full-range speakers. Play back in pure direct mode. This will result in the highest level of fidelity for this recording.

2. Those without four full-range speakers cannot have true fidelity. The best approximation is to set all of the speakers to small and send all of the LFE to the subwoofer. If the front and surround speakers are not identical, some kind of normalization such as Audyssey should be used. The temptation might be to leave the front speakers set to large if possible, but this will lead to duplicate bass from the front channels.

Not all home-theater owners use full-range speakers for surround because they are unnecessary for modern applications.

Issues of fidelity aside, I have found that this recording sounds best on my system with the subwoofer on, all speakers set to small, and Dolby PLIIx-M engaged. What I get is a version of DSOTM in 7.1 (sans center) that sounds absolutely fantastic.

Since I only have two full-range speakers, I am grateful that the LFE track was added.

There has been a lot of discussion on this forum about the fidelity of the LFE track. The people who made this DVD Audio iso actually did a lot of listeners a favor by adding the LFE. They took into account the kinds of surround systems people are running now as opposed to the hi-fi systems that reigned in the days of quadraphonics.


If all they've done is copy bass from the four channels, to the LFE, so that the bass content is duplicated in sub + main channels, then no, they haven't done anyone a favor except those who demand to see the 'active' light lit up on their subs. Modern surround systems all have bass management that could extract the four channel bass to the subwoofer.

The LFE channel was created for *loud*, low bass found especially in movie soundtrack special effects...e.g., explosions, where headroom could be an issue. I count perhaps one instance on DSOTM (the end of 'On the Run') where that conceivably applies. But even for that they probably used some standard 'explosion' sound effect from the BBC archive....



Addition of the LFE track enables modern users to approximate the original quadraphonic mix.


Simply extracting the bass to the sub would do that better...it creates a 'full range system' too.


2. Those without four full-range speakers cannot have true fidelity.


Well, you can't get 'true fidelity' to what Parsons heard in the mixing studio unless you used the same loudspeakers he did, in the same room, in the same configuration.

The people who made this DVD Audio iso actually did a lot of listeners a favor by adding the LFE. They took into account the kinds of surround systems people are running now as opposed to the hi-fi systems that reigned in the days of quadraphonics.

Addition of the LFE track enables modern users to approximate the original quadraphonic mix.You're wrong. And I am surprised that, based upon your discussion, here, that you don't realize that. The LFE track that was added is redundant. This means that, yes, as you said, if you turn the sub off and use 4 full-range speakers the LFE track will be dropped altogether, and the soundtrack will simply be reproduced as intended. But setting the speakers to SMALL, with the subwoofer turned on, results in a situation where the bass info encoded in the LFE track is sent to the sub along with the rerouted bass from those channels set to SMALL, creating unnecessary and undesirable redundancy. Had the LFE track been constructed in such a way that it did not represent redundant information, and instead represented material that was extracted and subtracted from the other 4 channels, it would have been correct. But, then, those with the inability to reroute the LFE channel to their front channels, would not have been able to reproduce the soundtrack as intended when using 4 full-range speakers.

The correct way to have constructed this disc would have simply been as was initially intended, in 4.0, allowing bass to be managed properly and as desired on the user's end. Easy.

I suppose I should have qualified what I was thinking of about fidelity. Obviously 'true fidelity' as it is being interpreted by a previous poster could only be achieved on the original equipment with the master tape using Alan Parson's own ears and brain to receive and interpret the sound. I was thinking of fidelity in terms of what the typical hi-fi quad-system owner would tend to hear from a Q8.

As for the bass management, setting the speakers to small will indeed create redundant bass sent to the sub along with the LFE. This is only a problem for one of two reasons: if the sub is too loud, locating the sub's volume control shouldn't be too difficult. Alternately, there could be phasing distortion caused by the LFE playing at a slightly different time from the filtered redundant bass. I certainly haven't noticed anything like this, though I will listen very carefully next time. In my case, my receiver is capable of filtering the bass from the front and surround speakers while restricting bass replay to only the LFE channel. I understand that some receivers may not be capable of this.

I still think the whole things sounds fantastic filtered through Dolby PLIIx-M.

As for the bass management, setting the speakers to small will indeed create redundant bass sent to the sub along with the LFE. This is only a problem for one of two reasons: if the sub is too loud, locating the sub's volume control shouldn't be too difficult. Alternately, there could be phasing distortion caused by the LFE playing at a slightly different time from the filtered redundant bass.No. I think you misunderstand. The way that this disc was made duplicates bass info at the subwoofer. Over the range of frequencies that the contrived LFE channel covers, it sends more bass info to the subwoofer than was originally intended.

How can you understand that turning off the subwoofer with this disc and 4 full-range speakers can provide proper playback yet not understand how setting the speakers to SMALL with a subwoofer results in bass redundancy that is not in the original recording?

Again, the proper way to have constructed this disc would have been to have simply encoded it exactly as it occurred on the master tapes, in 4.0. Any bass management desired could then be applied by the end-user's equipment. Bass managing at encoding, on the front end, should NEVER be done. But that's not even what this represents; this is a redundant LFE channel that was simply slapped atop the other 4 full channels of info; it is not even bass management.

That the creator of this disc had access to the original master tapes, yet still decided to go ahead and take the license to add a redundant LFE channel, is a shame, in my opinion.

I suppose I should have qualified what I was thinking of about fidelity. Obviously 'true fidelity' as it is being interpreted by a previous poster could only be achieved on the original equipment with the master tape using Alan Parson's own ears and brain to receive and interpret the sound. I was thinking of fidelity in terms of what the typical hi-fi quad-system owner would tend to hear from a Q8.

As for the bass management, setting the speakers to small will indeed create redundant bass sent to the sub along with the LFE.


If LFE bass in the mix merely copies other channel bass, typical use of a subwoofer gets you 'redundant' bass, no matter what size you set your other speakers to.. because the bass is redundant in the 4.1 mix itself.


This is only a problem for one of two reasons: if the sub is too loud, locating the sub's volume control shouldn't be too difficult. Alternately, there could be phasing distortion caused by the LFE playing at a slightly different time from the filtered redundant bass. I certainly haven't noticed anything like this, though I will listen very carefully next time. In my case, my receiver is capable of filtering the bass from the front and surround speakers while restricting bass replay to only the LFE channel. I understand that some receivers may not be capable of this.

Though AVRs *should* offer this option -- just as they *should* offer proper bass redirection to 'LARGE' speakers -- it's more often absent than not in my experience.

Meanwhile, 'fidelity' to the original quad mix could have been achieved much more routinely, with an 'empty' LFE channel and bass management from small loudspeakers-->subwoofer, in a system calibrated to the user's taste -- which most AVRs CAN do these days.

No. I think you misunderstand. The way that this disc was made duplicates bass info at the subwoofer. Over the range of frequencies that the contrived LFE channel covers, it sends more bass info to the subwoofer than was originally intended.

How can you understand that turning off the subwoofer with this disc and 4 full-range speakers can provide proper playback yet not understand how setting the speakers to SMALL with a subwoofer results in bass redundancy that is not in the original recording?


I think he gets it, since he is aware of possible phase issues.

But his setup actually highpasses his L/C/R/Sur loudspeakers, without rerouting their bass to the sub -- his AVR can do that, which IME is a rare option. So he's actually playing it back with *just* the LFE bass coming from the sub and no bass from the rest of hte loudspeakers (i.e. nonredundant)...meanwhile arguing that the rest of us should use sub volume control! :p


That the creator of this disc had access to the original master tapes, yet still decided to go ahead and take the license to add a redundant LFE channel, is a shame, in my opinion.

Luckily it's fairly easy for the tech-minded among us to now re-recreate the 4.0 mix, from ripped mono wavs. For me it's all files on hard drive, so I don't even have to fuss with DVD burning.

Luckily it's fairly easy for the tech-minded among us to now re-recreate the 4.0 mix, from ripped mono wavs. For me it's all files on hard drive, so I don't even have to fuss with DVD burning.Yeah, I do not know why I have not done that, myself. Never thought about it until recently, I guess. Haven't listened to this disc in ages.

I'm not experiencing this "double bass" in my system, and I actually prefer several of the cuts on this disc to even the SACD version. I always encountered a slight distorted, "overmiked", condition on the voices of Us and Them. On this disc, I don't get that same thing, with the lyrics being clearer. I find the entire disc to be very nicely mixed.

I'm not experiencing this "double bass" in my system...........Yes you are.

Guess I need to do another side by side with the two formats and see if I recognize what you write about.

Guess I need to do another side by side with the two formats and see if I recognize what you write about.Whether you recognize it (or even prefer it) is sort of irrelevant. It is in the recording. It's, unfortunately, how it was made. The LFE channel on this disc simply represents unnecessarily redundant bass info.

Whether you recognize it (or even prefer it) is sort of irrelevant. It is in the recording. It's, unfortunately, how it was made. The LFE channel on this disc simply represents unnecessarily redundant bass info.

Actually it's not irrelevant for him--"sort of" or otherwise. Why keep beating this drum?

Actually it's not irrelevant for him--"sort of" or otherwise. Why keep beating this drum?

Because the internet is serious business?

Actually it's not irrelevant for him--"sort of" or otherwise. Why keep beating this drum?Hey, it wasn't me who brought it up recently. And I'm not beating a drum. Honestly, there is really nothing to discuss about it.

Hey, it wasn't me who brought it up recently. And I'm not beating a drum. Honestly, there is really nothing to discuss about it.

Okay. :)

Hi all,

I've read this thread and find the possibilities interesting, but I need some help.

I've looked up DSOTM 4.1 DVDA and found pages and pages of bit-torrent type links. I understand the one I'm looking for is @3.6Gbytes, OK.

What I need help with is how to safely download this file to image onto a dvd disk. So far, all of the links go to sites where you either pay for a free trial of the service, or you have to pretty much open up your computer (all cookies, repeat all:eek:) to progress to the next screen. What happens at the next screen is open to speculation.

So, if any of you have found a safe, zero cost, way to access the music file (image) I would appreciate you letting me know. Please PM me, or post here with an invitation for me to PM you.

Thanks,
Mike K

p.s. I am very much interested in listening to this recording. I'd buy it if it was a commercial release somehow (I'll look for the SACD in stores) and happily compensate PF or AP, but I refuse to let some download ad-service profit from what is essentially a public domain creative work. A bit old-school. What can I say?

When I found my download it was on the Usenet newsgroups, one of the music ones, that's where I'd look.
You also might want to try a search on http://www.filestube.com/ and see what turns up. I think most of those pay to download sites just list things that are publicly available then try to stuff your computer full of all kinds of bots and add type things anyways.
I'm sure there is a free download available somewhere still.

Hi all,

I've read this thread and find the possibilities interesting, but I need some help.

I've looked up DSOTM 4.1 DVDA and found pages and pages of bit-torrent type links. I understand the one I'm looking for is @3.6Gbytes, OK.

What I need help with is how to safely download this file to image onto a dvd disk. So far, all of the links go to sites where you either pay for a free trial of the service, or you have to pretty much open up your computer (all cookies, repeat all:eek:) to progress to the next screen. What happens at the next screen is open to speculation.

So, if any of you have found a safe, zero cost, way to access the music file (image) I would appreciate you letting me know. Please PM me, or post here with an invitation for me to PM you.

Thanks,
Mike K

p.s. I am very much interested in listening to this recording. I'd buy it if it was a commercial release somehow (I'll look for the SACD in stores) and happily compensate PF or AP, but I refuse to let some download ad-service profit from what is essentially a public domain creative work. A bit old-school. What can I say?

You have a PM. Torrents and other technology like it should be total free of charge. It's one of the basic ideas to promote user support.

The problem might well be that the torrent is not so well seeded now given the title has been around for a bit. I did a quick look and found one that had a few seeds and peers that might work but any more information is likely to be OT and possibly in appropriate for this group to post.

But if you can find it - grab it. I much prefer this version over the SACD one.

The torrent that is out there now is good. It may take a while to finish downloading as there are not many seeds.

But be patient...good things come to those who wait =)


I also prefer this quad mix to the retail SACD.

The torrent that is out there now is good. It may take a while to finish downloading as there are not many seeds.

But be patient...good things come to those who wait =)


I also prefer this quad mix to the retail SACD.

Yes.

Patience did pay-off. Verrrrryyy Nice. Playing with receiver a bit to ease some of the bass. Really nice definition. :)

Thanks for the help proffered by the users of this forum.

My 1st copy of this was LP. Had it on cassette, then CD. I am very pleased with this!! Sounds great.

Mike K.

Comparing stereo between the original MFSL Vinyl and SACD, which one is better?

Comparing stereo between the original MFSL Vinyl and SACD, which one is better?

This QUAD version!:D

Wow, this is still being discussed. I use this as a demo disk when people see my tubes. I've grown to like it, mostly because the sound is good. I have trouble though with the balance coming from my older DVD-A player. The player has front/rear control, and center channel, but no left/right. My receiver doesn't have it on 5.1 direct input, only on the digital ins. My tube amp is slightly off, and I control that with my tube pre-amp, but that's not inline when I use the DVD-A. I could put the l/r directly into the tube pre I guess, but then I'd lose volume control as the tube is strictly manual and I'd have to balance front/back to change volume each time.

Of course for DSOTM the only volume is LOUD.

Whether you recognize it (or even prefer it) is sort of irrelevant. It is in the recording. It's, unfortunately, how it was made. The LFE channel on this disc simply represents unnecessarily redundant bass info.

Indeed. I've deleted the LFE track now have made my own 4.0 (quad) 24-bit/96kHz flac which plays flawlessly on my Dune HD media streamer through HDMI straight into my processor.

NB, so as to 'force' the correct channel/speaker output, it's actually a six-channel flac, with blank centre and blank LFE channels.
ie:- LF; RF; blank; blank; LS; RS.

Also, for fully gapless playback, I've stitched together all the songs on 'side 1' into one flac file, and again for 'side 2'. (two flacs in total -- side 1 & side 2)
However now the latest Dune firmware also allows gapless playback in certain modes -- such as when playing audio concurrent with a slideshow.

I have an original vinyl record of the quadraphonic version of DSotM--somewhere. It came with a pyramids poster that was blue instead of green (someone ripped that off of me years ago). I don't want to argue about the legality or morality of the DVD-A copy. I just want to add that there are two ways (at least) that one can easily distinguish the quad version from the stereo version of DSotM: (1) Clare Torrey's vocals on "The Great Gig In The Sky" are considerably less frantic on the quad version; and (2) The words "There is no dark side of the moon, really...." at the end of the album are much easier to hear on the quad version. On the stereo version, you must have the volume cranked way up to even hear them. These tests will allow anyone to distinguish real quad (Alan Parsons) recordings from stereo versions (whether rendered in 5.1 sound or not). It's a rotten shame that they deep-sixed the quad version. It was not only remastered, but Clare Torrey's vocals prove that at least parts of it were re-recorded.

Heh, you ARE aware this bad boy is part of the Immersion set, right?

Listening to it now - haven't a/b'd with the dvd-a, but it sounds pretty damn fantastic on Blu, with appropriate amount of tape noise to boot.

I have an original vinyl record of the quadraphonic version of DSotM--somewhere. It came with a pyramids poster that was blue instead of green (someone ripped that off of me years ago). I don't want to argue about the legality or morality of the DVD-A copy. I just want to add that there are two ways (at least) that one can easily distinguish the quad version from the stereo version of DSotM: (1) Clare Torrey's vocals on "The Great Gig In The Sky" are considerably less frantic on the quad version; and (2) The words "There is no dark side of the moon, really...." at the end of the album are much easier to hear on the quad version. On the stereo version, you must have the volume cranked way up to even hear them. These tests will allow anyone to distinguish real quad (Alan Parsons) recordings from stereo versions (whether rendered in 5.1 sound or not). It's a rotten shame that they deep-sixed the quad version. It was not only remastered, but Clare Torrey's vocals prove that at least parts of it were re-recorded.

where can one find DVD-A version to compare to SACD?

Heh, you ARE aware this bad boy is part of the Immersion set, right?

Listening to it now - haven't a/b'd with the dvd-a, but it sounds pretty damn fantastic on Blu, with appropriate amount of tape noise to boot.


Right. It's now an official release in all of its HiRez 24/96 PCM 4.0 quadraphonic glory, on the Immersion BluRay disc.

Meaning, they didn't double the bass in a .1 channel? Good! :D

I have an original vinyl record of the quadraphonic version of DSotM--somewhere. It came with a pyramids poster that was blue instead of green ....
These tests will allow anyone to distinguish real quad (Alan Parsons) recordings from stereo versions (whether rendered in 5.1 sound or not). It's a rotten shame that they deep-sixed the quad version. It was not only remastered, but Clare Torrey's vocals prove that at least parts of it were re-recorded.

I read somewhere that the only vinyl LP released in Quadaphonic (4-ch) was something like London Records label. Quite limited in release and UK only. Is that the provenance of yours?

btw, very much agree about the quality and clarity of vocals, even on this DVD-A 4.1. Really, really, sweet pure direct analog from source through amps to 4 floorstanders. Those vocals are awe-inspiring, no longer scary!

Mike

I read somewhere that the only vinyl LP released in Quadaphonic (4-ch) was something like London Records label. Quite limited in release and UK only. Is that the provenance of yours?

btw, very much agree about the quality and clarity of vocals, even on this DVD-A 4.1. Really, really, sweet pure direct analog from source through amps to 4 floorstanders. Those vocals are awe-inspiring, no longer scary!

Mike

4.0 - no sub unless you use bass management

I read somewhere that the only vinyl LP released in Quadaphonic (4-ch) was something like London Records label. Quite limited in release and UK only. Is that the provenance of yours?

btw, very much agree about the quality and clarity of vocals, even on this DVD-A 4.1. Really, really, sweet pure direct analog from source through amps to 4 floorstanders. Those vocals are awe-inspiring, no longer scary!

Mike

4.0 - no sub unless you use bass management

Yes. The Quadraphonic LP was 4.0. I used the term 4-channel as that was current in the 1970's.

The 4.1 referred to the Alan Parsons re-master from about 10yrs ago, of the original studio 4.0 Pink Floyd.

Sorry if stated that badly.

Mkard

I'm not aware it was ever established that Parsons himself created the 4.1 version that's been circulating for some years now. (Has it really been a decade?) The source was certainly a very clean (or well-restored) copy of his old 4.0 mix.

Meaning, they didn't double the bass in a .1 channel? Good! :D

krab,

The BD has the AP 4.0 mix with no created surround or center channel. I posted wav file jpgs with Frequency Graph Displays over at QQ in the HiRez Poll entry for this disc.

:-jon

just listened to the 4.0 blu-ray myself and must say it sounded fantastic, brought a tear or two too my eyes actually.

meaning, they didn't double the bass in a .1 channel? Good! :d
;)

just listened to the 4.0 blu-ray myself and must say it sounded fantastic, brought a tear or two too my eyes actually.

I popped the DVD into my car's stereo that's able to play in surround, and listened to the AP 4.0 mix. I got chills at the end of 'On The Run'.

I just logged into Rhapsody.com to have a listen and it seems they updated to the 2011 remaster :)

So the DVD[disc3] is lossy DD 5.1 at both 448KBPS, and 640 kbps?

So the DVD[disc3] is lossy DD 5.1 at both 448KBPS, and 640 kbps?

Yes

So has anyone done a careful comparison of the Blu-Ray version of the quad mix to the DVD-A?

So has anyone done a careful comparison of the Blu-Ray version of the quad mix to the DVD-A?

So there is BD version as well? Sorry I haven't followed this thread .

So has anyone done a careful comparison of the Blu-Ray version of the quad mix to the DVD-A?

A careful comparison is not needed on this one having listenened to the DVDA many times. The bluray sounds much better. Less noise mainly. Overall sound is more balanced...

So has anyone done a careful comparison of the Blu-Ray version of the quad mix to the DVD-A?IF you turn off the added LFE channel, then the 96/24 track on the DVD-A sounds just like the 96/24 track on the BD.

Interesting, the 2 previous posts disagree with each other completely. Maybe not straightforward? More opinions?

Frequency plots posted on quadraphonicquad showed what looked like significant treble EQ difference between them...if that's accurate I would expect them to sound different even with the .1 channel turned off

Frequency plots posted on quadraphonicquad showed what looked like significant treble EQ difference between them...if that's accurate I would expect them to sound different even with the .1 channel turned off

Link? I couldn't find this

Link? I couldn't find this

Look for the DSOTM 'Blu Ray' thread.

IF you turn off the added LFE channel, then the 96/24 track on the DVD-A sounds just like the 96/24 track on the BD.

I take it that you have not listened to both. The DVDA is noisy and the Bluray is not for one...or you just mean they are from the same parsons mix?

I take it that you have not listened to both. The DVDA is noisy and the Bluray is not for one...or you just mean they are from the same parsons mix?I meant the content/mix (excepting the added LFE channel). But even just sonics, I found the differences small (can be adjusted away with the slight turn of the treble knob).

QQ link

http://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/showthread.php?15015-Pink-Floyd-DARK-SIDE-OF-THE-MOON-Blu-Ray&p=134063#post134063

I meant the content/mix (excepting the added LFE channel). But even just sonics, I found the differences small (can be adjusted away with the slight turn of the treble knob).

We can agree to disagree then...

FWIW; I think the new release of the 4.0 mix sounds better than the DVD-Audio that was floating around.

I do not fully agree with the all the choices made on the 5.1 mix. But because they went back to original elements I definitely has that audiophile feeling of "having a veil removed" compared with the 4.0 mix. At least to my ears.

I bought the 5.1 Guthrie mix SACD on release. I acquired the 4.0 Parsons mix a couple of years ago. I liked the 5.1 mix when it was released, and found the 4.0 mix to be an excellent alternative (though a bit noisy due to the source), but had never listened to one right after the other, until...

I listened to the 4.0 Parsons and 5.1 Guthrie mixes last night back-to-back from the BD. The 5.1 mix sounds way too tame/safe compared to the very adventurous and discrete 4.0 mix. The 5.1 mix sounds "smoother", like a Phil Spector wall of sound, but does not use the rears, movement from back-to-front or opposite corners, as much as I would like. The 4.0 mix certainly explores and inhabits all four corners.

Some of the instruments sound more raw in the 4.0 mix, which is quite a nice change from the familiar smooth production of the original stereo and 5.1 mixes.

e.g. Us and Them: the echoes of the last word of each line of verse seem to subtly drift from front to back or back to front in the 5.1 mix, but in the 4.0 mix bounce from speaker to speaker around the room, clockwise.

Maybe I'm a sucker for "showing off quad", but I vastly prefer the 4.0 version. I was pondering that the 4.0 mix is as extreme as some of the stereo mixes done for the later Beatles albums (I specifically think of Sgt Peppers), where instruments were panned all the way left or right. Perhaps Parsons was channeling some of whoever was responsible for the Sgt Peppers mixes (I can't figure out whether George Martin as Producer or Geoff Emerick as Engineer would have had the greater influence), especially since it seems the stereo mixes of SP were just as experimental as the quad mixes of DSOTM were, for their day. i.e.: we're writing the rule book on how to do this, so let's push the envelope!

So the next time I am demonstrating/initiating DSOTM for someone, I will use the 4.0 mix.

IMHO, naturally,

shinksma

I take it that you have not listened to both. The DVDA is noisy and the Bluray is not for one...or you just mean they are from the same parsons mix?

I haven't heard the BD 4.0 release but I have had the DVDA for a while. I can believe that the BD version could be less noisy since from the documentation that accompanied the original DVDA leak, all they did was take the original master tapes, digitise them and encode as DVDA (MLP).

For the "official" release they way well have gone back to the same quad mix, digitized the tapes and then applied advanced noise reduction, EQ to the output before releasing them on the BD.

Must see if I can listen to the BD when I get the chance.

Out of interest what lossless compression algorithm is used on the BD? DTS HD MA or Dolby TrueHD?

............from the documentation that accompanied the original DVDA leak, all they did was take the original master tapes, digitise them and encode as DVDA (MLP).Well, they also added the redundant LFE channel. ;)

Well, they also added the redundant LFE channel. ;)

Forgot that but that has never bothered me

Well, they also added the redundant LFE channel. ;)

Forgot that but that has never bothered me

As a self-described bass whore my only question is why don't all discs have redundant LFE channels? :mad:

------------------------


That's a rhetorical question for pseudo-comic relief. If anyone actually answers it... well, I can't help your clueless soul.:rolleyes:

As a self-described bass whore my only question is why don't all discs have redundant LFE channels?Hehe. :D

I'm pretty sure the BD's in PCM 5.1 not DTS HD MA

I haven't heard the BD 4.0 release but I have had the DVDA for a while. I can believe that the BD version could be less noisy since from the documentation that accompanied the original DVDA leak, all they did was take the original master tapes, digitise them and encode as DVDA (MLP).

For the "official" release they way well have gone back to the same quad mix, digitized the tapes and then applied advanced noise reduction, EQ to the output before releasing them on the BD.

Must see if I can listen to the BD when I get the chance.

Out of interest what lossless compression algorithm is used on the BD? DTS HD MA or Dolby TrueHD?

Fom Bluray.com (http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Pink-Floyd-The-Dark-Side-Of-The-Moon-Blu-ray/23971/)

Blu-ray offers three astoundingly good lossless audio options, all LPCM at 96kHz/24-bit. The three choices are 2.0 (the original stereo mix of the album done in 1973), 4.0 (the original quad mix of the album done in 1973) and a 5.1 repurposing originally done for the SACD released in 2003

Fom Bluray.com (http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Pink-Floyd-The-Dark-Side-Of-The-Moon-Blu-ray/23971/)

Blu-ray offers three astoundingly good lossless audio options, all LPCM at 96kHz/24-bit. The three choices are 2.0 (the original stereo mix of the album done in 1973), 4.0 (the original quad mix of the album done in 1973) and a 5.1 repurposing originally done for the SACD released in 2003

Not really necessary to quote you, but it's late and it's the way I started. The question is this:

What is the cheapest price that anyone has found the Blu-ray for? I recall looking a few weeks back and finding it at about $125 USD minimum. Am I missing something? Is it available more reasonably than that? If not, I may wait.

Thanks,

Nick :cool:

I'm pretty sure the BD's in PCM 5.1 not DTS HD MA

That makes sense since there is sure to be plenty of space on the BD not to have to bother with compressing the data even losslessly.

Not really necessary to quote you, but it's late and it's the way I started. The question is this:

What is the cheapest price that anyone has found the Blu-ray for? I recall looking a few weeks back and finding it at about $125 USD minimum. Am I missing something? Is it available more reasonably than that? If not, I may wait.

Thanks,

Nick :cool:

You mean the whole DSOTM Immersion set, not the Blu Ray by itself (which isn't available)?

Google Shopping is your friend there. The lowest price I see is $103 from a place called 'Disc Direct'. After that the next lowest is ~$118. I have no idea what shipping will add to that.

What is the cheapest price that anyone has found the Blu-ray for? I recall looking a few weeks back and finding it at about $125 USD minimum. Am I missing something? Is it available more reasonably than that? If not, I may wait.

You mean the whole DSOTM Immersion set, not the Blu Ray by itself (which isn't available)?

Google Shopping is your friend there. The lowest price I see is $103 from a place called 'Disc Direct'. After that the next lowest is ~$118. I have no idea what shipping will add to that.

As krabapple says, the BD is only available in the Immersion box set. Which will run you north of US$100 right now (I got mine for about $100 by pre-ordering from Amazon as soon as announced).

Eventually the box set will either decrease in value due to oversupply and be found for ~$70 or even less, or will rise in value as supplies diminish and sellers realize they have an opportunity to to extract such higher prices (e.g. current OOP DVD-As from Eagles, etc).

Maybe the BD will be released as a standalone, eventually, but I wouldn't hold my breath over it.

shinksma

Not really necessary to quote you, but it's late and it's the way I started. The question is this:

What is the cheapest price that anyone has found the Blu-ray for? I recall looking a few weeks back and finding it at about $125 USD minimum. Am I missing something? Is it available more reasonably than that? If not, I may wait.

Thanks,

Nick :cool:

Deepdiscountdvd

Deepdiscountdvd

I searched on the Blu-Ray section of that site. Entered the words Pink Floyd, and there were no hits. Are you sure they carry it? Can you reply with a link?

Thanks,

Nick :cool:

^^^

http://www.deepdiscount.com/cd/Dark-Side-of-the-Moon-Immersion-Edition

The package also contains other media besides blu-ray, so I think you couldn't find it due to limiting the search to blu-ray.

^^^

http://www.deepdiscount.com/cd/Dark-Side-of-the-Moon-Immersion-Edition

The package also contains other media besides blu-ray, so I think you couldn't find it due to limiting the search to blu-ray.

Thanks. I'm the last person I'd ever thought would say this, but I'm tired of owning multiple versions of this. I'm sorely tempted, but the only one I'd really want was the Blu-ray. Instead, they package it in a way to ransom the customers into the whole package.

I'm sure I'll probably relent, but $97 is still a lot more than I want to pay for a blu-ray whose content I have spent hundreds of dollars on over the years.

Thanks,

Nick :cool:

I'm pretty sure the BD's in PCM 5.1 not DTS HD MA

I am puzzled here. On Amazon where it lists the disc, it says

DISC 5 – BLURAY, AUDIO+AUDIO VISUAL

-AUDIO: The Dark Side Of The Moon, James Guthrie 2003 5.1 Surround Mix (previously released only on SACD) in high resolution audio at 96 kHz/24-bit

-AUDIO: The Dark Side Of The Moon, Original stereo mix (1973) mastered in high resolution audio at 96 kHz/24-bit

This is the only BD I can see in the set and yet the second audio track is described as stereo. Isn't this the 4.0 mix?

Just wondering.

AFAIK the quad version is only on Disk 3 - DVD 1 in Dolby Digital. I'll try to remember to check when I get home.

AFAIK the quad version is only on Disk 3 - DVD 1 in Dolby Digital. I'll try to remember to check when I get home.

The docs I have seen suggest that th 4.0 mixes on Disk 3 are DD, 480K and 640K, Great AQ but not lossless.

That description used by Amazon (and some other sites) for the blu-ray disc is incomplete. It includes both the Guthrie 5.1 mix and the Parsons quad mix, both in lossless.

Sherbona is correct I just checked my copy. The BD has both the 2003 5.1 mix and the 1973 Quad mix along with the original stereo mix in lossless 96/24.

The only lossless (LPCM) on the DVD is the stereo mix, although I haven't had a chance to check it's sampling rate or bit depth. The Quad and 5.1 mixes are Dolby Digital at both 448kps and 640kps.

Maybe the BD will be released as a standalone, eventually, but I wouldn't hold my breath over it.

shinksma

That if true is a shame since looking at the disc contents that's the only disc I would be interested in since I already have the DVD-A.

As an aside, and only to provide information, the BD is available on the net through the usual sources. It's a 34GB(!) download but for me that doesn't seem quite like the right move;)

Apparently those who provided it did not bother decrypting it's not easily played from the download. You need to either burn it to a BD and then play it or go through hoops to get the content off through some sort of virtual drive software and then remove the BD encryption.

Only for diehards!