DVD-A of Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon at last!! - Page 6

I think most of what you have seen comes from people that don't own the SACD. I haven't heard both but I can't imagine the DVD-A would be preferred by me. I have seen many posts of individuals having both that prefer the SACD. Surely you don't dispute Pink Floyd didn't like the Alan Parsons mix which is why it isn't the current release. I don't dispute many prefer a free mix to a $15 mix.

Chris

I listened to both versions again last night (my neighbor must be tired of it by now) and I still prefer the DVD-A version. I fully recognize that this may be due to my player (Denon 2910) as I seem to prefer all DVD-A discs to SACDs. The sound from the DVD-A version has more "life", the separation seems to be cleaner, and I prefer the .1 addition over the SACD. I'm no purist, I just appreciate good sound.

What I'd really like, no - LOVE, would be to have "Animals" remastered!!! I'd pay a lot of money for that one.

Not true. Most posters I'm referring to have heard BOTH & prefer the DVD-A (or DTS or 8-track, or LP.....) of the original mix. I have both & it is no contest. It being free has nothing to do with it.

Chris,
Not sure how you can say you wouldn't like the DVD-A if you have not heard it.... I have both and will categorically state that IMHO the DVD-A is much better. Price does not matter, I would have paid more for the DVD-A than I paid for the SACD would it have been a marketed item.

I don't know for a fact as I have indicated. What I do know is that I love the SACD version and I am 54 and have heard the 70's version of this album and always thought it was over rated, not bad but certainly not worthy of high praise. The SACD is far and away the best version I have heard.

Chris

Why are you even commenting when you haven't even heard the DVD-A! Give me a break. Most of us have both the SACD and the DVD-A. They are different enough to make it worth having both. Some songs i prefer one over the other. It really a tossup for me. For example, on the DVD-A i like "Money" much better better than the SACD. They fudged up the last guitar solo on the SACD where it seems too low in the mix.

I start with the assumption that the artists know how they intend their music to be presented. Of course this doesn't mean I will always agree with the artists, but that is absolutely the mix I want to listen to thoroughly before deciding the artists don't know how to present their own music. I have no idea how to dispute your "recording expert" and his analysis of the music but doubt he has a better understanding than James Guthrie and Pink Floyd of how to present this 30 year old music.

Chris

How are you concluding "most of us have both the SACD and DVD-A"? I only heard the 70's quad version in the 70's, I refused to buy it since I didn't like it. I did waste lots of money on quad in the 70's and there wasn't much available then and I only bought the SACD based on reviews of the new mix. I have a pretty good basis for my opinion, but I would like to get my hands on the DVD-A. I asked my son to download it since he knows how to do it, but 70's music isn't of much interest to him and I will get it if he goes to the trouble.

Chris

I have them both, and I think the DVD-A blows the SACD out of the water.

I honestly don't understand how you can have an adamant opinion on a piece of recorded music that you've never listened to.

The DVD-A being "free" has nothing at all to do with my opinion of its sound quality.

I don't believe I have indicated I am adamant, just that I have heard the 70's incarnation of this mix and the SACD. I haven't seen you but I have seen millions of human beings including Jessica Alba, and I feel it is safe to say even if I see you, I will find Jessica Alba more attractive. I am not adamant she is more attractive than you are, just pretty damn sure about it.

Chris

I dunno man, I think I'm a "looker", if I do say so myself.

Now it seems your eyesight and your hearing may not be very good .

Chris

You come off more as a troll than anything else.

A better example would be you saying that you are certain that Jessica Alba's sister (if she had one) would be no where near as attractive as she is, even though you have never seen her (or you seen a picture of her when she was 9 years old).

That makes no sense to me at all. Without seeing Jessica Alba's sister, I would give her a reasonable chance to be more attractive, although I would certainly put the odds at less than even. A troll with 4,350 posts would be something of a surprise to most.

Chris

Sorry, but I feel that the SACD's sound quality is FAR superior to that of the DVD-A. And that is immediately obvious to me, on my system.

If you prefer the mix of the DVD-A to that of the SACD, that's great, but to claim it has better sound quality than the professionally produced SACD is silly.

I prefer the DVD-A mix, and overall prefer its warmer, more analog-like sound (compared to the SACD). The SACD is no slouch, of course; it is a stellar performer and clearly has a better s/n and fr than the DVD-A. Just a preference for the DVD-A (and I can play it in my car DVD-A player, which counts for points). Dunno, maybe also cuz it's so bootleg, who knows. I will not enter into an SACD vs DVD-A thing here, though; 1) it's irrelevant (two different mixes entirely), and 2) both formats are wonderful and bring me much joy.

Jessica Alba has no sister; she is one of a kind. A droid, in fact.

Word. I'm shocked you would make such a judgement without comparison. Must be a Republican...

FWIW, I have both, and the DVD-A absolutely smokes the SACD in sound quality on my system. I don't see the majority preferring the SACD, either.

Yikes! Bringing politics into a conversation- Now that's a sure way to to nose dive a thread into the ground!



But for what it's worth, I also find the DVD-A mix superior to the newer 5.1 SACD mix.

Wow, you guys are really beating up on me, even accusing me of being a Republican. This all started because somebody asked if this would likely ever see a commercial release since some of us can't figure out how to download it. I said it was unlikely because Pink Floyd didn't want it released and from what I have read, the SACD mix is better. In addition, I have read an Alan Parsons apology for the mix, citing lack of resources and time to do better but that he did the best he could with what he had. I will concede the Quad 8 version is likely inferior to any DVD-A version and of all the formats I have spent money on, Quad 8 was probably the silliest although I actually thought that format would be around a while at the time. I think Hybrid SACD is a great format, my all-time favorite audio format. I have read of technical complaints about SACD and DSD, but I can't hear any problems with the format and don't understand the technical issues. I think DVD-A is great also. I am sorry to hear Jessica Alba doesn't have a sister, after one like her, her parents should have had several more.

Chris

Chris, it sounds like you heard the quad mix in the 70's on 70's quad equipment. That alone is enough to nullify your comparison, but there is another huge problem. Capitol in the US only issued a Q8 of the quad mix, but it was made from a poorly SQ decoded source! It truly sucks, and in no way represents the true discrete quad mix. I'd highly suggest getting a copy and listening before judging. It certainly could be that you will continue to like the SACD version, that's fine. I had a copy of the quad version made from a laser turntable decoded through a Tate 101a, the best ever SQ decoder, and thought that the SACD mix, while cleaner, didn't reflect the type of material well in a surround environment. This new DVD-A is incredible. The SACD is better, but not by a lot than the stereo mix sent through a Dolby PLII processor. You definitely don't get that impression listening to the Parsons mix. Some prefer a modest surround mix, and that is what Guthrie did, and for them, great! Others who like more aggressive presentation, which I think Pink Floyd material begs for, will probably give the nod to Parson's mix. Personally I'm very grateful both are available.

All kidding (and DVD-A vs. SACD arguments) aside, I can honestly say that the DSOTM DVD-A is perhaps the most significant file I've come across on the net in the last decade or so.

I enjoy both of them: Jessica Alba and her sister, I'll take them both .
Honestly, I've listened to them both and enjoy them both. Very good mixes, both of them. I prefer the DVD-A, just like the mix better. I wouldn't argue with anyone who thinks the sacd is better, that's their opinion...it's very subjective. To say the sacd is better without hearing the DVD-A is like saying Budweiser is better without ever trying Sierra Nevada.

Without getting into a debate about dynamic range (maybe that wasn't the correct term from an engineer's perspective), SACD vs. DVD-A, let's assume that the the recording engineer is correct.

Not sure how this translates into sound perception. Listening to both versions, my ears hear better fidelity with SACD.

Could be my equipment (doubt it), could be the recording, who knows. Like I said I prefer both versions for different reasons. But the DVD-A version for DSOTM does not "sound" better to me, and I prefer MLP over SACD for most recordings.

I agree that compressed formats and what a recording engineer can do with it can significantly affect what one hears, there are sereral DTS 96/24 recordings that sound better than the MLP counterparts. Perhaps the SACD version od DSTOM is sweetened up for the effect, and the MLP version is true to the orginal recording. I can believe that, isn't that the point of the release? It still doesn't sound better to me.

I think the main take home message is that the DVD-A is not just some random bootleg available on the internet. Its a very real and professional production that deserves praise or, in the least, a listen before passing jugement. I am very thankful to have both.

Chris, if you actually get to listen to it THEN let us know how you feel about it.

I should have it in a few days and will listen to it. I am aware it is a really cool bootleg.

Chris

I just listened to this recording last night for the first time and am very impressed! I haven't re listened to the SACD version yet but from memory this version is much more aggressive! I think the way it was meant to be. Many of the "noises" come from the fronts and then blends to the back. The SACD does the opposite. The "noise effects" mostly come from the rears. The SACD has that remastered quality. More dynamic range and cleaner...I still liked this version as much. Eric

As someone stated, I like both.
The cool factor here is having both to listen to, and that I still like this
recording after all these years so very much.
I guess it's just burned indelibly in my brain, somehow co-existing along with
the uncool stuff from the early 70s like getting married/drafted/divorced/Nixon/war, etc.
Yeah, there's some memories there.

I do have the DVD-A now and I do like it. It plays fine in my Samsung DVD-HD841. Both SACD and DVD-A are great, I would never have thought a bootleg DVD-A could be this good. My preference for the SACD stands, but I would have been happy with this surround presentation as well. I would rate the SACD 9/10 and DVD-A 8/10 at this point. Time will tell which one gets the most play over the years. I have maybe 50 commercially available DVD-A's of lower quality than this bootleg. Lots of wow factor for the only Pink Floyd album I like when playing the DVD-A. My preference for less showy surround effects when listening to music could account for my SACD preference. I can find no fidelity shortcomings with either disc considering the source recordings. Listening to the music in the presentation Pink Floyd prefers also means I begin with a bias. How anybody could state this blows the SACD out of the water isn't clear, but if some serious Pink Floyd fans find the DVD-A far better so be it.

Chris