Pink Floyd of the Moon ... $54.99 ???

[Radmanna]

Hello.

I've heard great things about the SACD recording of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. However, those who have spoken highly of this recording, do not mention if they are speaking highly of the recording when it's being played back as stereo or played back as surround sound. Those that are raving about the Dark Side also do not mention if it's a 20 dollar disk or a 55 dollar disk. Here's an expensive version of this recording:

PINK FLOYD/THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON JAPAN IMPORT SACD

TAS Harry Pearson's Super Disc List! Ranked in the top 50 picks of the Absolute Sound's Buyer's Guide 2009! Arguably the greatest rock album ever released now available for the first time in a Japanese pressing Super Audio CD! Format: EMI Hybrid Multichannel/Stereo Japanese Import SACD ($54.99)

Questions please:

1. I've searched for this SACD recording, and I can not find Dark Side of the Moon in single layer SACD stereo. Does anyone know if this recording is available in either single layer SACD stereo or hybrid SACD stereo?

2. Is it only the multi-channel SACD recording of Dark Side of the Moon, that is getting all the rave reviews?

3. I have a two channel SACD system: Marantz SA-8001 ... Heresy III L/R speakers ... subwoofer. Would the multi-channel SACD recording of Dark SIde still sound spectacular on my two channel stereo system?

4. Fifty five dollars for one CD? What causes this CD to be so expensive? Is it because it was pressed in Japan? Why would a Japanese pressing be more expensive than an American pressing?

5. I've seen the Dark Side being sold at 20 dollars per disk, as shown below. Is the 55 dollar Japanese version that much better than the 20 dollar version?

PINK FLOYD/THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON SACD

TAS Harry Pearson's Super Disc List!

Ranked in the top 50 picks of the Absolute Sound's Buyer's Guide 2009!
Featured as one of the Records to Die For in the February 2005 issue of Stereophile!
2003 Surround Music Award winner for Best Multi-channel Reissue, Best Additional Features, High Fidelity Review Readers’ Choice & Best of Show!
Arguably the greatest rock album ever released now available for the first time in Super Audio CD! This marks the first time Pink Floyd's seminal recording will be presented in full 5.1 surround sound! Since its release in 1973, The Dark Side Of The Moon has sold over 30 million copies and spent an incredible 741 weeks on Billboard's Album Chart.
Format: EMI Hybrid Multichannel/Stereo SACD ($19.99)

Steve

[handrewmoore]

I've got the SACD DTS version of DSOTM, and it is cool sounding but in the end I feel it's more of a novelty than anything. I've also got the quad mix, I find it better sounding than the SACD surround sound version. Both of these versions can be played 2 channel, but pale in comparison to the MFSL DSOTM. IMHO, having 5 versions of the album, the best experience comes from the MFSL gold disc in good ol 2 channel. Just sounds clear and full, takes you away to another world. The other versions make you aware of their presence and aren't as involving.

As to the $20 dollar version vs the $54, the $54 is a Japanese import but is bit for bit the same as the $20. 1s and 0s are the same between the two. Some like the packaging of the imports for collector reasons, I have a few myself, but if you're just wanting the music, save 30 bucks and get the $20 disc.

As I mentioned earlier, I love the MFSL gold disc version, but might be quite a bit more. There is one on ebay going for $800!!, I paid under $200 a few years ago, but have seen it go for as little as $99. Funny thing is, you can usually find the MFSL LP much cheaper, and I like it too.

Not that I'm recommending it, but I've downloaded the MFSL gold disc version from Demonoid in FLAC, I compared it to my gold disc and they are identical. I ripped my gold disc in EAC to FLAC and it peaks out exactly like the torrent on Demonoid. Demonoid will probably have every version of the album, you could use it to test drive each disc, then buy the one that you like the best.

[handrewmoore]

Just don't start a thread on the differences between the various versions of The Beatles albums, I've got 7 different versions of Abbey Road for Christ's sake!! It's a disease...haha.

[Dennie]

I'm going to agree 100% with Handrewmoore! The 1993 MFSL Gold Ultradisk II is hands down, the best. I too paid under $200 for it and think it is one of the best digital recordings I own. I also have the $20 SACD and it is a very good recording also and I have the Quad disk and it may be a step above the $20 SACD, but I don't see many of those for sale. A lot of people swear by the $20 disc and say it is the best recording they have heard. I don't think they have heard the MFSL Gold disc and understandably so, for the price, it should take you out to dinner, pour the wine and make you breakfast in the morning. LOL

Get the $20 one and enjoy it, as many people do. I should add, I've only listened to it in stereo mode. I have a 7.1 system, but have not found a need to listen to it in anything else but stereo. It is a big step above the regular CD.

Dennie

[Mallette]

As to the $20 dollar version vs the $54, the $54 is a Japanese import but is bit for bit the same as the $20. 1s and 0s are the same between the two

Gotta love it. I've just been hitting the high points of this thread as I'd like to get a good digital DSOTM. I'd seen the "Japanese pressing" thing and thought "Well, if it's just the same digital data pressed in Japan, that's just dumb."

Good to hear it confirmed. It's just dumb...

Good to hear about the download, too. I'm into the music, not the packageing or "collecting." Got too much junk already...

Dave

[Boxx]

I have the DSOTM 30th Anniversary Edition. It is reissued as a Hybrid SACD in 5.1. While I will always fall back to the vinyl experience of this album, the SACD is a real experience.... very powerful.

[Mallette]

While I will always fall back to the vinyl experience of this album, the SACD is a real experience.... very powerful.

Care to expand on that? Given DSD has the ability to carry even more information than analog tape, the ability to exceed the vinyl, with it's extreme limitations of dynamics, would be expected. I am assuming there are deficencies in the SACD. What are they?

Dave

[handrewmoore]

I'm not trying to talk for Boxx or anything, but I think this line of discussion will ultimately devolve to a CD vs vinyl argument. I think that horse has been beat to death, beyond, beat down to a bottle of glue!

The SACD version is great, much better than the original release, better than the 20th anniversary edition, I think it's even better than the harvest/ black triangle edition. However, side by side with the MFSL version, the SACD sounds a tad puny and sterile, as most anything does next to MFSL. Now, whether you find that a plus or not boils down to preference. Plenty of folks don't like the MFSL sound. And for those people, I'm sure the SACD is ultimate version of DSOTM. My preference lies with MFSL.

Like Boxx, I prefer the LP to the SACD, especially the MFSL LP. I don't own it but I've got a buddy that does and it's always a treat when he brings it over.

I'll agree that modern formats now have the capability to carry more information than an analog tape. However, it can't carry any more information than it is given, that is, it's limited to as much information that is on the original analog tapes.

[Radmanna]

The 1993 MFSL Gold Ultradisk II is hands down, the best ... for the price, it should take you out to dinner, pour the wine and make you breakfast in the morning. LOL

Get the $20 one and enjoy it, as many people do. I should add, I've only listened to it in stereo mode. I have a 7.1 system, but have not found a need to listen to it in anything else but stereo. It is a big step above the regular CD. Dennie

Thanks everyone for your good advice. Being acronym-challenged, what does MFSL stand for? I don't think I've ever heard of this term before. Is there a place that provides a "directory" of audiophile definitions, acronyms, and terms (i.e., audiophile dats)?

So, I would not be ostracised from the audiophile community for purchasing the 20 dollar multi-channel hybrid SACD, instead of the Japanese multi-dollar hybrid SACD?

[Boxx]

See Above...

[Boxx]

While I will always fall back to the vinyl experience of this album, the SACD is a real experience.... very powerful.

Care to expand on that? Given DSD has the ability to carry even more information than analog tape, the ability to exceed the vinyl, with it's extreme limitations of dynamics, would be expected. I am assuming there are deficencies in the SACD. What are they?

Dave

Oh yes, I can expand on that.. I really didn't explain myself very well.

When I listen to my DSOTM SACD on my HT System, it does sound powerful and is an experience. I have been very pleased with the match up that I have with my McIntosh equipment and my Palladium speakers. Powerful is an understatement.

When I listen to vinyl, in this case, to DSOTM, I use my tube system. With DSOTM (and with most all other albums I play). When played with my McIntosh C2200 tube preamplifier, with two McIntosh 275 tube amp's, employing a pair of McIntosh XRT 18 speakers, the result is pretty impressive.

I conservatively use a Basis 1400 w/RB300 Tonearm/Incognito wired (Dynavector 10X5 MC) as my turntable for now. DSOTM sounds excellent every time I play it. No worries about analog limitations. For some reason, the XRT speakers, with those 32 tweeters, makes up for any shortcomings that analog technology may present. Vinyl played in this setting is hard to describe and very pleasing to hear.

In addition, when I play my vinyl DSOTM album, using my HT system with Palladium speakers (in two channel, with my Music Hall MMF-7/Pro-ject 9 Tonearm/Grado Platinum Cartridge) the end result is also remarkable.

I am not a convert to the thinking that DSD and its abilities is superior to analog (with its extreme limitations of dynamics). "It is what it is" and I like both. So, there you go.... I suppose it depends on how you hear it and how it is delivered to you, that is most important.

I see no deficencies in my SACD at this time.... "Play on...." Boxx

[handrewmoore]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Fidelity_Sound_Lab

Audiophile shmaudiophile. The $20 disc is the pragmatic choice. The $54 disc is the extravagant choice. They're the same.

[Radmanna]

Further comment, to help me understand stereo versus surround. The above pasting of the 20 dollar release is a multi-channel playback. I think I read somewhere, that the 5.1 playback was released in 2007. I also think I read somewhere, that the Hybrid SACD (stereo???) of DSOTM was released in 2003 ... as a 30th year commemoration?

I've read comments that say the (2007?) multi-channel playback is better than the 2003 hybrid playback.

First question: Was the 2003 release of their 30th year commemoration, which is simply described as "hybrid SACD" ... a stereo recording designed for two channel systems?

Second question: If you are only using a two channel system (L/R speaker and a subwoofer), would the (2007?) 5.1 playback of DSOTM provide better music quality than the 2003 hybrid (stereo???) SACD?

Third question: Is there a general point in time (2003, 2004, etc), that if a release ... or re-mastered release ... is simply advertised as a "hybrid SACD", is it safe to assume that the playback is designed for two channel stereo? For that matter, if an album becomes a re-mastered SACD in 2010 ... and if it is clearly DOES NOT advertise the playback as surround or 5.1 or multi-channel ... is it safe to assume that the playback is designed for two channel stereo?

[handrewmoore]

Further comment, to help me understand stereo versus surround. The above pasting of the 20 dollar release is a multi-channel playback. I think I read somewhere, that the 5.1 playback was released in 2007. I also think I read somewhere, that the Hybrid SACD (stereo???) of DSOTM was released in 2003 ... as a 30th year commemoration?

I've read comments that say the (2007?) multi-channel playback is better than the 2003 hybrid playback.

First question: Was the 2003 release of their 30th year commemoration, which is simply described as "hybrid SACD" ... a stereo recording designed for two channel systems?

Second question: If you are only using a two channel system (L/R speaker and a subwoofer), would the (2007?) 5.1 playback of DSOTM provide better music quality than the 2003 hybrid (stereo???) SACD?

Third question: Is there a general point in time (2003, 2004, etc), that if a release ... or re-mastered release ... is simply advertised as a "hybrid SACD", is it safe to assume that the playback is designed for two channel stereo? For that matter, if an album becomes a re-mastered SACD in 2010 ... and if it is clearly DOES NOT advertise the playback as surround or 5.1 or multi-channel ... is it safe to assume that the playback is designed for two channel stereo?

The SACD was released in 2003 as a 30th year commemoration and is a hybrid disc. It has two layers, one in 5.1 and one in 2 channel. It was engineered from the original mix for 5.1 and 2 channel.The confusion might have come from my DTS remarks earlier, the DTS version that I have is a boot that someone did and may be the 2007 mix you are talking about. It can only be played in DTS. For 2 channel and surround for that matter, the SACD is superior. The DTS bootleg running around was mixed from the Alan Parson's quad mix and not the original mix like the SACD. The DTS version is more separated than the SACD, but IMO, does not sound better than the SACD.

To answer your questions, the 2003 release is both a 2 channel and a 5.1 mix, engineered for those purposes. If you are using a 2 channel system the DTS version will not play back but the SACD version will. The DTS version is a popular boot floating around, some were pissed that the SACD version did not use Alan Parson's quad mix for the 5.1 and I believe that this is the only reason for its existence. Go with the SACD for 2 channel or surround sound. I believe that the only SACD version of DSOTM is the hybrid, there may be people that have separated them for bootleg reasons, but any official SACD should be hybrid.

http://www.pinkfloydarchives.com/DUSCDPF.htm#DSOTM1

go to the link above and scroll down for all the info you could want on the official releases.

My personal preference, LPs aside and having the various versions. For 2 channel the order goes MFSL, SACD, black triangle, original release, then the shi**y 1993 20th anniversarry release. For surround the SACD is the best way to go, don't even bother looking for the DTS.

[BusaDude]

Further comment, to help me understand stereo versus surround. The above pasting of the 20 dollar release is a multi-channel playback. I think I read somewhere, that the 5.1 playback was released in 2007. I also think I read somewhere, that the Hybrid SACD (stereo???) of DSOTM was released in 2003 ... as a 30th year commemoration?

I've read comments that say the (2007?) multi-channel playback is better than the 2003 hybrid playback.

First question: Was the 2003 release of their 30th year commemoration, which is simply described as "hybrid SACD" ... a stereo recording designed for two channel systems?

Second question: If you are only using a two channel system (L/R speaker and a subwoofer), would the (2007?) 5.1 playback of DSOTM provide better music quality than the 2003 hybrid (stereo???) SACD?

Third question: Is there a general point in time (2003, 2004, etc), that if a release ... or re-mastered release ... is simply advertised as a "hybrid SACD", is it safe to assume that the playback is designed for two channel stereo? For that matter, if an album becomes a re-mastered SACD in 2010 ... and if it is clearly DOES NOT advertise the playback as surround or 5.1 or multi-channel ... is it safe to assume that the playback is designed for two channel stereo?

First off... Here are a few links that I think you will find useful... The SA-CD.net FAQ and a link on the same site to the DSOTM SACD. And a link to SACD's on Wikipedia. There are many other sites where you can get this information as well. I think the links will clear up any confusion you may have about "hybrid", "multi-channel", etc.

The SACD of DSOTM was released in 2003 for the 30th anniversary of the album. Other than the Japanese Import (released in 2010) of the SACD, that was the only release of the album in SACD form. And, to my knowledge, there was no 2007 release of this album... in SACD or any other format/version.

The 2003 SACD release of DSOTM contains 3 versions of the album on the same disc... making it a "hybrid" disc.

There is a "CD" version (2-channel, 16 bit, PCM stereo) on a layer that can be read/played by a regular CD player.

Then there is a "SACD" stereo version (2-channel, high-resolution, 1 bit DSD format) that can only be read/played on a SACD player.

And finally an "SACD" multi-channel/surround version (5.1 channel, high-resolution, 1 bit DSD format) that can only be read/played on a SACD player.

The CD version and SACD version reside on 2 separate layers, again making it a "hybrid" disc.

Which version and/or layer you listen to will depend on your equipment (CD or SACD player) and how you have it connected (2 channel or 5.1) to your receiver or pre-amp. Some SACD's may only contain a high-resolution, 2 channel track... but many also have a 5.1 multi-channel track.

[Mallette]

I am not a convert to the thinking that DSD and its abilities is superior to analog (with its extreme limitations of dynamics). "It is what it is" and I like both. So, there you go.... I suppose it depends on how you hear it and how it is delivered to you, that is most important.

I see no deficencies in my SACD at this time.... "Play on...." Boxx

Well said. What I percieve you saying is that both are accurate, but provide differing perspectives. That is the core of the debate, though few actually seem to understand that.

In my case, I've been using DBX companders to fix the dynamic range issue since my first one in 1976, a 117 that I still own. I was very lucky to have read a letter in Audio magazine that got me started off right. The writer said "Just increase the expansion until the surface noise disappears at high levels, no more." Over the past 35 years I learned to adjust to the point that it takes no more time than adjusting the volume to restore the dynamic range without any artifacts.

The down side is that when I listen to vinyl at fellow audiophiles homes the compression is painfully obvious most of the time, unless it's chamber music or similar with minimum dynamics to start with.

This history has made me better equiped to understand both sides. Those audiophiles brought up in the digital domain find the raw vinyl process pretty difficult, and those of us from the analog era find the digital process often rather sterile and clinical. The preceding is a gross over simplification, but I believe it contains the basic truths.

Anyway, Boxx, good to find another audiophile who loves it all for what it is...and, as you said, it is what it is.

Just last night I was listening to a DSD recording I made of the Crystal Clear Virgil Fox discs in plain, tube driven stereo and I am certain I would be able to tell where it was "real or Memorex." It's all in the engineering.

Dave

[Radmanna]

The Dark Side of the Moon (Capitol Records 30th Anniversary SACD 1st issue) ... U.S. pressed 30th Anniversary Super Audio Compact Disc remaster. Repackaged with a 20-page booklet with full lyrics, additional photos, and sticker on cover. Remastered in 5.1 surround by James Guthrie. Stereo version also remastered and on the disc.

Being cursed with a mind that uses a dimmer switch instead of an on/off switch, at least the dimmer switch is being turned brighter. Everyone's comments have been very useful to provide a picture of hybrid features.

The links everyone has provided are very useful. A question about the link that handrewmoore provided: How to find similar "re-mastering links" for all the other albums being re-mastered into SACDs. This is a very useful learning tool, and I could learn a great deal by reading the re-mastering chronology of these SACD products. Can anyone share knowledge on how to find similar links for re-mastered SACDs ... just as the link that handrewmoore provided for the DSOTM re-mastering?

Is the link, that handrewmoore provided, from a main website that also provides release dates and their hybrid playback capabilities for other popular SACD re-masterings?

[joessportster]

Man you gotta be kidding. I just looked on the net at the gold disc mfsl and they are really up there I personally never use my CDs they typically set on the shelf unused I prefer vinyl. This thread made me go check my discs as I thought I had bought a few golds in the past and sure enough I have copies of dark side of the moon, and The Wall guess mine will be posted for sale and I'd be happy with quite a bit less. Thanks for the heads up guys. Joe

[colterphoto1]

I paid $15 for a 20th anniversary box edition remastered in 1992. It came with a nice booklet, box, and color cards. I wonder if it's been 're-re-mastered' again for the 30th. This is getting ridiculous when we all need 14 different versions of the same album to feel complete.

M

[handrewmoore]

I paid $15 for a 20th anniversary box edition remastered in 1992. It came with a nice booklet, box, and color cards. I wonder if it's been 're-re-mastered' again for the 30th. This is getting ridiculous when we all need 14 different versions of the same album to feel complete.

M

For the most part, I agree with this sentiment. In fact, when I see the word "remastered" the first thing I think of is compression. Generally the first CD releases of material that was recorded before CDs were mainstream is the best. Beginning in the late 80s and early 90s CDs were compressed so horribly to make them louder that is took all the dynamics out of the music. This was an evolution, and that is why most of the earlier CD releases are better. See the

for a more detailed explanation.

There are a few exceptions though, the SACD DSOTM being one of them. It is very well mastered, the '92 20th anniversary remaster, on the other hand, is compressed and suffers from it. I generally don't collect numerous copies of one album, however, if it is one of my favorite albums like Dark Side of The Moon, I'll ****** up all the different copies just to hear differences. It's not about being complete, it's about enjoying a hobby. There are guys out there that have 10 different turntables and in 3 different systems, and there are guys out there that have 6 versions of The White Album. Is it a bit overkill? Sure, but then again, I know people that think if you look beyond Best Buy for stereos and source material you're trying too hard. I'm just not one of them.