Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon - Merged Topic

name that tune
Post Reply
Guest

Post by Guest » 04 Jan 2010 20:59

I guess that recordings vary with pressing releases as well as with variations on sound engineering.

Brightblack...its you who are being melodramatic...chill out, re-read and please refrain from getting thy knickers in a twist. The album is great no-matter what version, and some may well be better than others but to suggest that any form of deliberate dullness was engineered in is plain nonesense, not melodrama. There's no attempt at name dropping, its simply coincidence that I have direct knowledge of the mastering of the album (at least in one of its incarnations) from a friend in the industry. My early noughties recording is fine. No dullness whatsoever. I'm sure others have copies which are different.

This isn't limited to Pink Floyd of course. There are plenty of other albums where the first issues are great and later incarnations are not so great, both on the same label of the same (so say) recording but sourced from different years and vice-versa

Stone
senior member
senior member
Posts: 935
Joined: 22 Jul 2008 01:16
Location: Deadwood

Post by Stone » 04 Jan 2010 21:12

The solution to "dull" sounding records (especially Floyd)...smoke a doobie...or a double dram of 18yr old Glenfiddich will dobbie do...

paulgolding
member
member
Posts: 94
Joined: 04 Aug 2009 17:57
Location: thanet

Post by paulgolding » 04 Jan 2010 21:27

Stone wrote:The solution to "dull" sounding records (especially Floyd)...smoke a doobie...or a double dram of 18yr old Glenfiddich will dobbie do...
mmm . . the glenfiddich option tempts me :D

chosenhandle
senior member
senior member
Posts: 346
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 16:49
Location: Minneapolis

Re: dark side of the moon

Post by chosenhandle » 05 Jan 2010 15:29

wintermute wrote:
They all sound dull to me. I've got a copy of the safety master of Dark Side on 15 IPS 2 Track Open Reel. That's the way to hear that LP..:)

But the story I was told by the folks that had the safety master is that it was originally a hissy recording. My open reel version does have the hiss, but the imagery blows the pants off any re-release that I've ever heard. For the LP, they just rolled off the high end. For the reissues, I would imagine they used some form of noise reduction on it.
any chance you will be having a listening party anytime soon? I would be there in a heartbeat just to hear that album on 15ips tape! Bet it is mindblowing!

rito25
member
member
Posts: 160
Joined: 29 Apr 2009 19:31
Location: Delaware

Post by rito25 » 05 Jan 2010 15:48

My normal US pressing sounds fine. Also any chance you can make a hi-fi rip of that master in 192khz/32bit audio? How different can it sound?
Could they have dolby'ed the sound? it would explain alot.

wintermute
senior member
senior member
Posts: 753
Joined: 09 Nov 2002 03:48
Location: Ajax, Ont

Re: dark side of the moon

Post by wintermute » 05 Jan 2010 17:39

chosenhandle wrote: any chance you will be having a listening party anytime soon? I would be there in a heartbeat just to hear that album on 15ips tape! Bet it is mindblowing!
If your up in the Toronto area at any time, just let me know.. I'd be more than happy to spool it up for ya...

Pitts
member
member
Posts: 104
Joined: 15 Mar 2009 21:01
Location: Arboga, Sweden

Post by Pitts » 05 Jan 2010 17:39

Hi... :)

I bought myself an Russian pressing of the LP and it sounds great. I was very surprised to find out that they had the technique to do good pressings on LP's... :D

wintermute
senior member
senior member
Posts: 753
Joined: 09 Nov 2002 03:48
Location: Ajax, Ont

Post by wintermute » 05 Jan 2010 17:46

rito25 wrote:My normal US pressing sounds fine. Also any chance you can make a hi-fi rip of that master in 192khz/32bit audio? How different can it sound?
Could they have dolby'ed the sound? it would explain alot.
I've done that for myself already... It's very close, but the hiss does mess up the digital rip somewhat. The music sounds fine, but the hiss is a synthy hiss...

Dolby? Perhaps, but I was thinking more along the lines of Cedar or the likes..

tubelicht
member
member
Posts: 189
Joined: 14 Apr 2009 19:54
Location: Fryslân The Netherlands

Post by tubelicht » 05 Jan 2010 19:40

Bigears wrote:Dull? :?...most certainly not! I have the 180g vinyl version (30th anniversary edition) and it blows the CD recording into the weeds. Not ultimately as bright (ie harsh) which is a good thing.

What cart are you using?
This is the edition i own also and it sounds like crap.
When i put on the album "wish you were here" that is in a bad state and worn out i hear more details and more high sounds.
13 years ago i did buy an eligal pressed cd in poland and even that sounds better than the lp. Even the mp3's i did make of that cd sounds better. Worst 22,50 euro i ever spend on a new album. I will look further for an old pressing.

Guest

Post by Guest » 05 Jan 2010 22:19

This is the edition i own also and it sounds like crap.
..well all I can tell you is that the one I have sounds great...no dullness whatsoever, so who knows why the difference?

tubelicht
member
member
Posts: 189
Joined: 14 Apr 2009 19:54
Location: Fryslân The Netherlands

Post by tubelicht » 05 Jan 2010 22:36

Havent found out where my copy is pressed but maybe its the components they use to make the plastic from.
I dont know iff one of you have an old pickture disk but they did sound bad also because the plastic is softer.

solidstate9
junior member
junior member
Posts: 6
Joined: 30 Nov 2009 17:22
Location: Calgary, Alberta

Post by solidstate9 » 05 Jan 2010 22:41

When I picked up the 30th anniversary DSOTM CD/SaCD I put it on and immediatlely questioned how it could sound so poor compared to the original vinyl. It sounds dead compared to both my 70's vinyl CDN pressings. My CD player is very good in case you are wondering; Simaudio Moon Supernova, and my vinyl rig is modest in comparison; Musichall MM5 & Yaqin MS12b phono stage.

EdAInWestOC
long player
long player
United States of America
Posts: 1356
Joined: 03 Feb 2004 01:39
Location: Glen Burine, MD USA
Contact:

Post by EdAInWestOC » 05 Jan 2010 23:23

solidstate9 wrote:When I picked up the 30th anniversary DSOTM CD/SaCD I put it on and immediatlely questioned how it could sound so poor compared to the original vinyl. It sounds dead compared to both my 70's vinyl CDN pressings. My CD player is very good in case you are wondering; Simaudio Moon Supernova, and my vinyl rig is modest in comparison; Musichall MM5 & Yaqin MS12b phono stage.
The manufacturer does not always have sound quality in mind when they release. That's where the audiophile reissue business came from in the 70s and 80s. A lot of stuff coming from the major manufacturers was mediocre to say the least.

It is a business first and a lot of people don't care about ultimate sound quality. A lot of people don't have the equipment to tell the difference.

It amuses me when people bad mouth the audiophile labels and talk about how great the original releases were. They must have lived in a different dimension.

Ed

LPspinner
senior member
senior member
Posts: 566
Joined: 29 Dec 2005 19:51
Location: That big rock south of the equator...

Post by LPspinner » 05 Jan 2010 23:24

Hi Guys.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough in my earlier posts, besides the variations between the different regions, localized pressing plants and mastering processes some of you may be listening to SQ Quadraphonic pressings while others are listening to plain vanilla stereo recordings. Have a look for SQ Quadraphonic logo somewhere on the cover. If there is an SQ Quadraphonic logo on the cover this may well be the reason for the less than perfect sound.

The SQ Quadraphonic system was supposed to be fully compatible with stereo playback equipment; more often than not SQ Quadraphonic was not entirely stereo friendly. It is the nature of ambient and spatial details to have minor phase variations between the all the channels involved, it is these minor phase or time variations that allow our hearing to differentiate between Left, Right, Front and Back. Unfortunately any phase difference between an SQ Quadraphonic signal in the Left Rear and Left Front (or Right Rear and Right Front) would result in signal cancellation when an SQ Quadraphonic LP is played back on a normal 2-channel system. These phase differences become more pronounced as we move up the frequency spectrum and so the signal cancelling effect becomes more prominent at higher frequencies, particularly in the 3 to 8 KHz range where our hearing is most sensitive.

It is my opinion that it is the cancellation of these spatial ambient details under stereo reproduction that is the main cause of the dull sound. Look out for a stereo specific recording of the DSotM record and see if you still get the dull or empty sound that you are getting from your current version of the disc. My Japanese pressing of DSotM is marked clealy as a stereo pressing and it sounds amazing.

Oh, and be carful with the CD versions as well, some of these were also mastered from the tapes that contained the SQ Quadraphonic encoding.

LPSPinner.

EdAInWestOC
long player
long player
United States of America
Posts: 1356
Joined: 03 Feb 2004 01:39
Location: Glen Burine, MD USA
Contact:

Post by EdAInWestOC » 05 Jan 2010 23:38

LPspinner wrote:Hi Guys.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough in my earlier posts, besides the variations between the different regions, localized pressing plants and mastering processes some of you may be listening to SQ Quadraphonic pressings while others are listening to plain vanilla stereo recordings. Have a look for SQ Quadraphonic logo somewhere on the cover. If there is an SQ Quadraphonic logo on the cover this may well be the reason for the less than perfect sound.

The SQ Quadraphonic system was supposed to be fully compatible with stereo playback equipment; more often than not SQ Quadraphonic was not entirely stereo friendly. It is the nature of ambient and spatial details to have minor phase variations between the all the channels involved, it is these minor phase or time variations that allow our hearing to differentiate between Left, Right, Front and Back. Unfortunately any phase difference between an SQ Quadraphonic signal in the Left Rear and Left Front (or Right Rear and Right Front) would result in signal cancellation when an SQ Quadraphonic LP is played back on a normal 2-channel system. These phase differences become more pronounced as we move up the frequency spectrum and so the signal cancelling effect becomes more prominent at higher frequencies, particularly in the 3 to 8 KHz range where our hearing is most sensitive.

It is my opinion that it is the cancellation of these spatial ambient details under stereo reproduction that is the main cause of the dull sound. Look out for a stereo specific recording of the DSotM record and see if you still get the dull or empty sound that you are getting from your current version of the disc. My Japanese pressing of DSotM is marked clealy as a stereo pressing and it sounds amazing.

Oh, and be carful with the CD versions as well, some of these were also mastered from the tapes that contained the SQ Quadraphonic encoding.

LPSPinner.
SQ (CBS), QS (Sansui) and ABC Command Quad were all matrix encoding schemes where out of phase signals were used to more-or-less create the rear channel information. To some extent the out of phase information can have cancellation effects but it is more common to create a different spacial effect where placement and soundstage differences are interesting.

The CD-4 LPs had more significant issues. The presence of a 30kHz carrier and the modulated rear channel difference information created a situation where tradeoffs had to be made. IIRC the highest recorded frequencies had to be capped to around 15kHz after which there was a steep roll off.

In practice there was another problem where extreme low frequency content tended to modulate the 30kHz carrier information. If you listen to a CD-4 LP you may notice a distinct lack of extreme low bass and higher frequencies.

Tracking onto and extracting useful information at 30kHz was a bit of a technical challenge in the early 70s. Actually pressing all of that onto a vinyl LP was a technical possibility but a lot of trade-offs were made to get four channels.

It never worked very well. Sorry about getting off topic...

Ed

Post Reply