AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/)
-   Surround Music Formats (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/112-surround-music-formats/)
-   -   Dark Side of The Moon is being re released (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/112-surround-music-formats/3037166-dark-side-moon-being-re-released.html)

drh3b 12-23-2018 02:28 PM

Dark Side of The Moon is being re released
 
I'm assuming that most people here already have it, but DSOTM is being re released by Acoustic Sounds (Analogue Productions). The pre order link is up, but no announced date. $35 like other Pink Floyd and associated Pink Floyd SACD from them.
https://store.acousticsounds.com/d/1...tichannel_SACD
Of course, it will be cheaper to pre order pretty much anywhere else because of their ridiculous shipping charges, once other places start offering it.
Also,the 30th Anniversary Edition DSOTM SACD is still available for less used if you go looking for it.https://store.acousticsounds.com/ima...75452-2428.jpg

Toe 12-24-2018 08:12 AM

We also need to start the Animals 5.1 anticipation thread which is getting a 2019 release and is super exciting!

lknhomeaudio 12-24-2018 08:17 AM

I didn't know this could GET any better sounding?!?!

drh3b 12-24-2018 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lknhomeaudio (Post 57319972)
I didn't know this could GET any better sounding?!?!

In the case of DSOTM, I believe it is just a re release of the 30th anniversary SACD, so if you already have that, no need to get another. In the case of Animals, surround sound improves almost anything, and Pink Floyd especially seems designed for it.:D

Brian Hampton 12-24-2018 08:43 AM

I had not heard the Animals news and I'm excited or it.

I have been collecting 5.1 and 24 96 PF releases.

DSoTM, WYWH, Meddle, The Endless River, The Division Bell.

I hope I can get them all eventually.

Actionable Mango 12-26-2018 02:14 PM

It has a different UPC code than the existing SACD. I'm not sure that is meaningful though.

ti-triodes 12-26-2018 02:23 PM

OK, now what about the already existing 5.1 of Meddle?

Pretty funny- Roger Waters wrote so many songs about the hassles of being a rock musician and spends his life acting like an a-hole rock musician.

sdurani 12-26-2018 02:35 PM

What, no Atmos?

HomerJau 12-27-2018 01:33 PM

What, no quad?

bryantc 12-27-2018 03:07 PM

I still have my copy from 15 years ago. There was also a bootleg available of the original Quad mix around that time. I have that around here somewhere...

sivadselim 12-27-2018 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomerJau (Post 57333880)
What, no quad?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bryantc (Post 57334412)
There was also a bootleg available of the original Quad mix around that time. I have that around here somewhere...


A proper, non-bootleg (without the redundant LFE channel) Parsons quad mix was released as DVD-A and/or Blu-ray with one (or more) of the more recent DSOTM (or complete) box sets.

meli 12-29-2018 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sivadselim (Post 57334580)
A proper, non-bootleg (without the redundant LFE channel) Parsons quad mix was released as DVD-A and/or Blu-ray with one (or more) of the more recent DSOTM (or complete) box sets.

I wonder where that bootleg came from? I mean, it must have come from someone with access to the quad master tapes, right? Maybe Parsons himself? I doubt there were many copies of the quad master just laying around and it wouldn't be easy to secretly make a copy.

sivadselim 12-29-2018 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meli (Post 57343136)
I wonder where that bootleg came from? I mean, it must have come from someone with access to the quad master tapes, right? Maybe Parsons himself? I doubt there were many copies of the quad master just laying around and it wouldn't be easy to secretly make a copy.


Yeah, I believe there was always speculation that he, himself, had something to do with "leaking" it. He may have even said something to that effect in an interview around that time. IIRC, the speculation was that he may have been a bit miffed that he (and that mix) wasn't consulted or involved in the 5.1 SACD mix.

But whoever made the tracks that were released tried to add an LFE channel when they should have just left it 4.0 and let our own bass management configurations create the subwoofer output according to our own in-home settings. The result was redundant low-end info regardless of whether one's speakers were configured as LARGE or SMALL.

Brian Hampton 12-29-2018 01:00 PM

When it comes to PF, I have preferred the 5.1 mix to quad in every case so far.

The quad mix of WYWH sounds like it isn't finished. The quad mix of echoes (as I remember) was also sort of rough sounding.

I'm so opinionated about this I only keep backups of my 5.1 and stereo versions.

=Brian

sivadselim 12-29-2018 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Hampton (Post 57343880)
When it comes to PF, I have preferred the 5.1 mix to quad in every case so far.

The quad mix of WYWH sounds like it isn't finished. The quad mix of echoes (as I remember) was also sort of rough sounding.

I'm so opinionated about this I only keep backups of my 5.1 and stereo versions.

=Brian


What about the DSoTM quad vs. 5.1?

sdurani 12-29-2018 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sivadselim (Post 57344226)
What about the DSoTM quad vs. 5.1?

Prefer the quad mix up to Us and Them. For the tracks after that I like 5.1 mix better.

meli 12-29-2018 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdurani (Post 57344688)
Prefer the quad mix up to Us and Them. For the tracks after that I like 5.1 mix better.

Do you remember, generally, what you prefer about one mix over the other? Like, do you prefer one mix because it uses the surrounds more than the other mix? Or some other reason?

Bill Mac 12-29-2018 06:23 PM

I prefer the quad mixes of WYWH and DSOTM. The quad mixes seem more discrete when compared to the 5.1 mixes. I don't know why but I'm not a huge fan of James Guthrie's 5.1 mixes. But it's really great that there are quad and 5.1 versions of both titles :).

Bill

sdurani 12-29-2018 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meli (Post 57345200)
Do you remember, generally, what you prefer about one mix over the other? Like, do you prefer one mix because it uses the surrounds more than the other mix? Or some other reason?

The Guthrie 5.1 mix is generally more subtle and refined, but I prefer the more aggressive Parsons quad mix on some songs (mostly in the first half of the album). Haven't compared them in years, but since I mentioned Us and Them in my previous post, I'll use that as an example. Parsons has those words circling the room as they repeat: us, us, us, us and them, them, them, them. Each one of those lands in a different speaker. That kind of fun isn't in the Guthrie version. Since studio pop music is a wholly artificial concoction, I'll admit I'm not looking for realism in the stereo or multi-channel or even Atmos mixes.

Brian Hampton 12-30-2018 03:09 AM

I admit I haven't heard the quad mixes in a while. :D

I think part of my liking the 5.1 mixes better had to do with my speaker placement.

I do remember the quad mixes giving me some trouble with my 7.2 setup. If I remember correctly the side speakers were used instead of the rear but that's all changed now that speakers have been moved for ATMOS. My room was built for movies and speaker placement wasn't ideal for either surround music mix.

I don't think I listened to the quad mix of Echoes all the way through... it just didn't sound like it was fully mixed or something. Sounded like an unfinished version. That "rough" mix sound can be fun on occasion when you're used to the polished finished product.

I"m happy to have the option to revisit those quad mixes but if the whole back catalog was done in 5.1 by Guthrie I would be breaking down the door to get it on release day.

When an anniversary version of PatGoD was made the original specs included a SACD with 5.1 mix and Nick Mason said the whole catalog would go to SACD in time. I guess the changing landscape of consumer audio may have thrown a wrench into the plans as Blu Rays seemed to take over from SACD.

=Brian

Bill Mac 12-31-2018 07:07 AM

I'm listening to the Division Bell Blu-ray from the 20th Anniversary box set and the 5.1 mix is incredible! The 5.1 mix from Andy Jackson blows away the 5.1 mixes from DSOTM and WYWH IMO. The depth (width and height), separation, imaging, bass and overall SQ is so much better than DSOTM and WYWH. I know it's a more recent recording. But I wish James Guthrie could have added more of the qualities of the Division Bell 5.1 mix to his 5.1 mixes.

Bill

Bill Mac 12-31-2018 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Hampton (Post 57346406)
When an anniversary version of PatGoD was made the original specs included a SACD with 5.1 mix and Nick Mason said the whole catalog would go to SACD in time.
=Brian

In all honesty I didn't have a clue what "PatGoD" was. Had to Google all Pink Floyd albums to get the answer, Piper At The Gates Of Dawn. I learn something new everyday :).

Bill

Milt99 01-02-2019 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Mac (Post 57352458)
In all honesty I didn't have a clue what "PatGoD" was. Had to Google all Pink Floyd albums to get the answer, Piper At The Gates Of Dawn. I learn something new everyday :).

Bill

People go to extremes at times to simplify an album title with an initialism where a single word of the title is more obvious and sometimes shorter, like Piper.

meli 01-02-2019 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milt99 (Post 57364742)
People go to extremes at times to simplify an album title with an initialism where a single word of the title is more obvious and sometimes shorter, like Piper.

What's the preferred abbreviation for "Ummagumma"?

Tornado Red 01-02-2019 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meli (Post 57366816)
What's the preferred abbreviation for "Ummagumma"?

Umm.....

impetigo 01-03-2019 10:58 AM

Cool that it's being rereleased as it was one of my first MC albums and the one that made me a believer. Too bad the price is a bit high considering the old SACD was only around $15 or less on Amazon when I bought it in 2007 or so.

Slight hijack here, but I've read on some other AV forum that the 5.1 Guthrie mix is perhaps slightly "better" than the one on the Immersion blu-ray, due to the blu-ray having a DSD > PCM conversion that isn't needed for the SACD, and which had some audible effects like increasing the noise, or making it a little brighter overall, etc. Anyone who has both have any thoughts on that?

Stereodude 01-03-2019 11:17 AM

Is DSOTM the audio world's version of Terminator 2 or The Fifth Element? More releases than you can shake a stick at?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sivadselim (Post 57343688)
But whoever made the tracks that were released tried to add an LFE channel when they should have just left it 4.0 and let our own bass management configurations create the subwoofer output according to our own in-home settings. The result was redundant low-end info regardless of whether one's speakers were configured as LARGE or SMALL.

FWIW, removing the LFE channel is a super easy if you're using a playback method that supports multi-channel FLAC files. You can dump the DVD-A image to wave files, prune the LFE channel, and encode the output to a 4 channel FLAC.

sivadselim 01-03-2019 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stereodude (Post 57370382)
FWIW, removing the LFE channel is a super easy if you're using a playback method that supports multi-channel FLAC files. You can dump the DVD-A image to wave files, prune the LFE channel, and encode the output to a 4 channel FLAC.


Yep. IIRC, I did eventually do something similar to that. Ripped the DVD-A iso to 96/24 wavs and re-encoded without the LFE channel as 96/24 PCM to make a 4.0 DAD (I think?). :)

Bill Mac 01-03-2019 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by impetigo (Post 57370264)
Slight hijack here, but I've read on some other AV forum that the 5.1 Guthrie mix is perhaps slightly "better" than the one on the Immersion blu-ray, due to the blu-ray having a DSD > PCM conversion that isn't needed for the SACD, and which had some audible effects like increasing the noise, or making it a little brighter overall, etc. Anyone who has both have any thoughts on that?

I have the DSOTM SACD and the Blu-ray from the Immersion set. I've never done a direct between the SACD and the Blu-ray. I tend to doubt there is any additional noise or brightness with the Blu-ray when compared to the SACD. When I play the 5.1 mix of the Blu-ray I set my Oppo to PCM so there is a DSD to PCM conversion. I do this so my processor can use the onboard Dirac room correction. I honestly think those thoughts are from those that feel DSD (SACD) is far superior to Blu-ray Audio. I'm not buying it ;).

Bill

impetigo 01-04-2019 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Mac (Post 57372594)
I have the DSOTM SACD and the Blu-ray from the Immersion set. I've never done a direct between the SACD and the Blu-ray. I tend to doubt there is any additional noise or brightness with the Blu-ray when compared to the SACD. When I play the 5.1 mix of the Blu-ray I set my Oppo to PCM so there is a DSD to PCM conversion. I do this so my processor can use the onboard Dirac room correction. I honestly think those thoughts are from those that feel DSD (SACD) is far superior to Blu-ray Audio. I'm not buying it ;).

Bill

That sounds reasonable to me. I got the Immersion blu-ray finally but figure I'll just keep both for now since DSOTM is just that awesome. :cool: Of course the ebay seller didn't include the DVD with the MC mixes, but considering the poor condition all the other discs were (aside from the blu-ray with its protective layer/coating), I guess I won't care about that too much. ;)

Now, just need to get the WYWH Immersion blu-ray...


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.