Dartk Side of the Moon: Gold CD vs. SACD!

[adamCalifornia]

I've read somewhere on the internet that the
Stereophile magazine compared the Gold CD (MFSL)
to the Super Audio CD, and the verdict was:
SACD sound is INFERIOR to the GOLD CD sound.
Has anyone heard anything about this?
When this article has appeared in the Stereophile magazine?
We are talking here about the 2-channel (stereo) DSD layer on the SACD
(and not the 5.1 multichannel version).

Of course the hybrid SACD contains the Red Book PCM layer as well.

[slackbladder]

Yeah, this was reported when the SACD came out in 2003.
Thing is where can you find that Gold CD? And if you can find it how much will it cost?
Others have said the original quad mix of DSotM by Alan Parsons is superior but what's the chances of hearing that anymore?
To be honest I think it's all irrelevant. It still sounds good on the recent SACD (stereo and 5.1). It certainly sounds better than any other DSotM CD I've ever owned.

[unique]

Originally Posted by slackbladder

Yeah, this was reported when the SACD came out in 2003.
Thing is where can you find that Gold CD? And if you can find it how much will it cost?
Others have said the original quad mix of DSotM by Alan Parsons is superior but what's the chances of hearing that anymore?
To be honest I think it's all irrelevant. It still sounds good on the recent SACD (stereo and 5.1). It certainly sounds better than any other DSotM CD I've ever owned.

i think the only real chance is if a dvd audio was released and they put the old quad mix along with the new 5.1 mix and the original steroe mix, but seeing as it took them long enough to put out the sacd, and dvd audio was probably more popular at the time, it seems we're going to have to wait

there are fan made DTS cds doing the rounds with the quad mixes on them, and the sound quality isn't bad. i own the original quad vinyl which does sound different if played on a normal turntable, but the DTS discs were the only way i could hear the back channels. these were unofficial discs obviously that someone kindly pointed me in the right direction to get (there are some nice floyd fans out there!)

[adamCalifornia]

I've heard to the contrary, that the QUAD version
of the Dark Side of the Moon, is NOT good sonically.
The band did NOT like it at all.
This is the reason why Pink Floyd did NOT consider Alan Parsons
for making the SACD version, and instead they CHOSE James Guthrie,
who was an engineer producing, e.g. "The Wall. Live 1980-1981".
(The NEWEST REMASTER appeared in July, 2005.)
There are some articles on the internet about: James Guthrie,
Alan Parsons, and the Dark Side of the Moon.
In one article Alan CRITICIZES James, going track by track, and
POINTING OUT bad spots and suggesting the ways it should be done.
Also in one of those articles Alan Parsons acknowledges that the QUAD
version was NOT good, because he had NOT have enough time to make
it right. Yes, he himself says it!

Regarding the Dark Side of the Moon on the GOLD cd, there are actually
few IMPRESSIONS of it: American or Canadian, European, and Japanese.
I've read on the internet that the JAPANESE IMPRESSION is SUPERIOR
in terms of sound quality, and costs about $400-$500.
Recently I bought the gold version for $47 (American impression)
in almost mint condition. I like the sound very much, it's very smooth,
soft, and in my opinion, this is suitable for this type of music.

See you on the GOLD Side of the Moon

[unique]

Originally Posted by adamCalifornia

I've heard to the contrary, that the QUAD version
of the Dark Side of the Moon, is NOT good sonically.
The band did NOT like it at all.
This is the reason why Pink Floyd did NOT consider Alan Parsons
for making the SACD version, and instead they CHOSE James Guthrie,
who was an engineer producing, e.g. "The Wall. Live 1980-1981".
(The NEWEST REMASTER appeared in July, 2005.)
There are some articles on the internet about: James Guthrie,
Alan Parsons, and the Dark Side of the Moon.
In one article Alan CRITICIZES James, going track by track, and
POINTING OUT bad spots and suggesting the ways it should be done.
Also in one of those articles Alan Parsons acknowledges that the QUAD
version was NOT good, because he had NOT have enough time to make
it right. Yes, he himself says it!

Regarding the Dark Side of the Moon on the GOLD cd, there are actually
few IMPRESSIONS of it: American or Canadian, European, and Japanese.
I've read on the internet that the JAPANESE IMPRESSION is SUPERIOR
in terms of sound quality, and costs about $400-$500.
Recently I bought the gold version for $47 (American impression)
in almost mint condition. I like the sound very much, it's very smooth,
soft, and in my opinion, this is suitable for this type of music.

See you on the GOLD Side of the Moon

the quad mix was done without the bands permission or input, and it was done relatively quickly. the band weren't happy about this so refused to attend the premier of the album and sent cardboard cutouts ine thier place. so this is most likely the reason why they won't be in a rush to release it

btw. this is interesting

There are a bunch of Pink Floyd collectors who'd kill me if I didn't ask this - Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon LP?

If I recall correctly, that one went out of production at right around 25,000 pieces. We didn't cut enough lacquers to go much past that and here's a piece of trivia for which I could get shot. Did you know that the Dark Side of the Moon master was ruined? Somebody put it on a recorder instead of a playback only mastering deck and a little piece of Super Tramp got dubbed onto the outro of Breath. Big secret, that. Stan had left the company so a redux wasn't gonna happen. Makes me seriously wonder where MFSL got the source for the Dark Side of the Moon CD. Hmmm. It would have had to have been a second generation safety or the digital master I made for the cassette run.

The cassette run master would've been suitable as it didn't have any gawd awful EQ done for the duplication. It was very close in master prep to what the vinyl sounded like with one significant difference. Want some cool trivia? Back in the early '80's digital was a bit unpredictable and flaky which is why we used a very expensive 1" video deck (BVH 1000) instead of a U-Matic type 3/4". I'd get these random ticks and pops which we affectionately called zits.

One night I sat in the studio listening to the DSOM digital copy and was horrified when I heard lots of low level clicks and zit like sounds. So I called my wife to tell her I'd be working till sunup as the approval copy had to go to Alan Parsons via counter-to-counter air ASAP. I turned the lights off so I wouldn't be distracted and sat there all night long with the first DAE-1100 editor and made a few hundred 1 millisecond edits to get rid of those zits I was hearing. Then I made an approval copy cassette for Alan, sent it on its way and went home to sleep for a day or two.

A couple of days later we got a heated call from Mr. Parsons wanting to know, "What the f**k did you do to the master?" I explained that I had done the best mastering job I could and that it compared very favorably to the vinyl and, in fact, I thought it sounded better than the vinyl. Was there some problem? He said that when he had mixed DSOM the desk (console) drove him nuts because every time he muted or unmuted a track or switched an EQ in or out there would be a resulting click or pop. There was no technology to remove these artifacts so he and the band decided to just live with it. He said, "How the hell did you get rid of those pops. I love it!" He was left with a patient explanation that it was proprietary. Man, I almost soiled my pants only to find out that he was very impressed.

So, if you compare the CD with a vinyl disc and those pops and clicks are gone then there's the answer as to which tape was used. Once you know what to listen for they are easy to spot as they occur when parts go in or out or the EQ changes.

from http://www.aurealm.com/violet.htm (near the bottom of page)

[adamCalifornia]

Thanks! Very interesting!
I am still confused and do NOT know how are the STEREO:
Red Book CD and DSD (2-channel) layers related!?

Question 1:
Are both STEREO (CD and DSD) tracks NEW REMIXES by James Guthrie?
(The booklet accompanying the SACD does NOT mention that
the STEREO (DSD -channel or Red Book CD) tracks were REMIXED
by James Guthrie!)

Question 2:
Is the Red Book CD layer obtained via DOWNCONVERTING
the DSD (2-channel layer) to the SBM (Super Bit Mapping) CD layer?

Question 3
Because James Guthrie REMIXED from scratch the 5.1 version using
the original tracks from 1973 (he has NOT used the QUAD version),
THEN he might have DOWNMIXED it to the 2.1 DSD layer.
And then this 2-channel DSD layer might have been DOWNCONVERTED
to the 16-bit/44.1kHz Red Book CD layer?

Question 4:
Or may be he just used the Alan Parsons' STEREO (2-channel) MIX
and it was REMASTED via the DSD system?

There was an article in the Stereophile magazine when they compared
the STEREO tracks, i.e. the Red Book CD and the DSD (2-channel) layers.
I haven't seen it. Perhaps they EXPLAINED there how those STEREO tracks
were produced?

See you on the SACD Side of the Moon

[unique]

Originally Posted by adamCalifornia

Thanks! Very interesting!
I am still confused and do NOT know how are the STEREO:
Red Book CD and DSD (2-channel) layers related!?

Question 1:
Are both STEREO (CD and DSD) tracks NEW REMIXES by James Guthrie?
(The booklet accompanying the SACD does NOT mention that
the STEREO (DSD -channel or Red Book CD) tracks were REMIXED
by James Guthrie!)

Question 2:
Is the Red Book CD layer obtained via DOWNCONVERTING
the DSD (2-channel layer) to the SBM (Super Bit Mapping) CD layer?

Question 3
Because James Guthrie REMIXED from scratch the 5.1 version using
the original tracks from 1973 (he has NOT used the QUAD version),
THEN he might have DOWNMIXED it to the 2.1 DSD layer.
And then this 2-channel DSD layer might have been DOWNCONVERTED
to the 16-bit/44.1kHz Red Book CD layer?

Question 4:
Or may be he just used the Alan Parsons' STEREO (2-channel) MIX
and it was REMASTED via the DSD system?

There was an article in the Stereophile magazine when they compared
the STEREO tracks, i.e. the Red Book CD and the DSD (2-channel) layers.
I haven't seen it. Perhaps they EXPLAINED there how those STEREO tracks
were produced?

See you on the SACD Side of the Moon

based on guthries press release at the time, his intention was to put the original version on the disc alongside the new mix. i haven't seen any mention of a new stereo mix before, and there is no reason to create a new stereo mix. again, downmixing a 5.1 mix to stereo when there is already a stereo mix wouldn't make sense

my understanding is there are two layers on an sacd, one with the normal stereo mix, and the second layer with the 5.1 mix, the second layer being similar to a dvd layer, with the ability to hold more data

have a look at www.brain-damage.co.uk as they have a section on the disc, although they don't get quite so technical as to clearly answer your questions

[adamCalifornia]

Hi! Thanks. So what do the 2-channel DSD and
the Red Book CD layers contain? Alan Parson's
original mix??? So, perhaps the Red Book CD layer
contains the vintage STEREO MIX by Alan Parson.
The DSD 2-channel (Stereo) layer contains
just the REMASTERED (UPCONVERTED from PCM to DSD)
Alan Parsons' mix.
Some sites on the internet strongly say that the
2-channel DSD layer was also REMIXED by James Guthrie.
A lot of confusion.

The article in which BOTH STEREO layers (Red Book CD and
2-channel DSD) are compared is at:
www.digit-life.com/articles2/sacd-dvd-a
"SACD vs. DVD-Audio: High Definition Format Evaluation".
Has anyone read the full article in the Stereophile magazine?
Perhaps the answer is there?!

See you on the CONFUSED Side of the Moon

[Kenny Glasgow]

See here....

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/ar...p/t-31636.html