***Official "Dark Side of The Moon SACD" Review Thread*** (1 Viewer)

[LanceJ]

Jeff: I also don't much like subs for music either--I was just too chicken to admit it in my first post! Movie explosions are one thing (what's an "accurate" one sound like anyway???); music bass is a whole other matter.

LJ

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Would it not be alright just to put the lead voice in the center?

Ed,

Yes, this is a very valid approach but sometimes it might spotlight the vocals.

I think it is hard for me to speculate how effective Clare Torry's brilliant vocal work is without hearing the disc.

I think we will have some answers on Tuesday.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Judging from the LP with the same mix, we are in for a treat...listen to what Steve Hoffman says about the LP version versus even the "early stamper" Harvest UK LP which was the previous champion and the UHQR and MFSL...

In my opinion, in every way this new release is superior. Period. The biggest thing I immediately noticed was the CLARITY. Openness, clarity, transients, clarity, punch, clarity, bass (not overwhelming..it just sounds right) oh...and did I mention clarity? Bells, breathing, cash register, it's just terrific.

Wow! This is high praise from Senior Hoffman.

 

[KeithH]

Lee, I don't buy much vinyl, and I will be buying the Dark Side of the Moon SACD, but I just might have to pick up the new LP. My turntable set-up isn't much (a $300 Sony PS-LX350H with a $100 NAD PP-1 phono pre-amp), but I'd like to hear this LP anyway. Of course, the SACD should be great, plus it will be much cheaper than the LP. Perhaps someone could copy the LP onto an LP-R for me.

 

[Phil A]

Just picked-up my copy of DSOTM. Wal-mart has them out for $14.88. Going to listne in a few.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Phil,

Give us your impression when convenient. The early reports on Audio Asylum and elsewhere (Steve Hoffman, etc.)are strongly positive.

Thanks! I have to go to WalMart now.

 

[Phil A]

Well I just had a chance to play the disc once in multi-channel, once in 2-channel SACD and then compared the 2-channel SACD vs. the stereo CD layer and the MFSL Gold CD on "Time" both in my main system and bedroom system. Details of what is contained in my main system equipment wise can be found here: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...readid=124819. In my bedroom system I have a Pioneer Elite DV-47A universal player, a Sony 444ES receiver and a Sunfire, Jr. sub. The bedroom player is hooked to the receiver in "analog direct" mode and the Sunfire, Jr. is hooked-up in a high-level fashion to the amp terminals and crossed over at about 35HZ to fill in low bass and supplement the Thiel SCS2s which are large bookshelf speakers. Below are some thoughts from my brief listening sessions.

Given the piece of music involved, the multi-channel mix makes excellent use of the channels. I am not a fan of aggressive surround mixes. What I mean by aggressive is where you have items coming from the surrounds just to show there are surrounds used. One can hear the surrounds in use w/o calling attention to itself as in "Music From Big Pink" noted above or Eric Clapton's "Reptile" DVD-A. I would term the use of the other channels on the DSOTM as involving vs. distracting. It simply adds a new dimension to a classic album.

I listened all the way thru the SACD stereo mix 1st on the main system and was amazed by the level of transparency, liquidity, crispness, details on everything from guitars to backing vocals and a rock-solid and well defined bass. I then decided to pick a cut, "Time," and compare the SACD vs. CD layers and also the CD layer of the new disc vs. the MFSL gold disc. Everything was played on my Sony XA-777ES with its Modwright Absolute Truth Mod. A comparison of the CD vs. SACD layer immediately revealed better bass, a less compressed midrange and everything sounding more natural and dynamic. I then played "Time" on the MFSL disc. The MFSL disc is recorded about 5-6db lower is volume level so I made sure I compensated for that. Upon hearing the disc, it was apparent that the new release beats it hands down as far as sense of rhythm, dynamics, wider soundstage and life. The MFSL sound veiled next to the new disc. I would bet that I could go upstairs and grab my old idle $200 Onkyo cassette deck and dbx224 noise reduction unit and record from the new disc onto a cassette tape and it would be better and I would not be at all surprised if I made a copy of that tape and it too was better vs. the MFSL disc.
I then performed the same exercise on the bedroom system to see if the differences could be heard on the more modest system and the answer was yes. The main system is obviously more revealing but the differences were almost as apparent on the lesser system.

In conclusion I would say that for anyone who is a big fan of the music, the new disc is worth the $12-15 you will likely pay for it vs. older CD versions. For those who do not have SACD at this point and are also a big fan of the music, I would say that it at least tempting to buy a low end player to be able to enjoy this disc alone and certainly worth while if there is other software on the format to your liking either currently available or in the pipeline. More releases like this, priced as regular CDs, will certainly help the health of the SACD format.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

And why I am an advocate of 4.1 channel surround.

Hi Lance,
And why I am an advocate of 5.1 channel surround.
8 Linaeum Tower Speakers; 5 1/2" woofer & 2" dipole ribbon tweeter.
8 Sanus Stands; Reference 10" speaker stands with custom top plates.
8 Apature BL-4: interconnects with 4 16gauge silver coated wires with seven layers of insulation.
8' Apature BL-16; 75' (total) 16 16gauge silver coated wires with seven layers of insulation.
3 B&K Amps; 8 channels of 150wpc (4ohm) matched made in the USA power.
3 Lovan Amp Stands; Sovereign line.
3 Vans Evers Power Cords; 30' (total) of single Pandora PC's.

I have done my best, with a limited budget, to properly match the signal path for five (or six) full range channels.
I think the producers of 5.1 movies/music should do their best to take FULL advantage of the 5.1 format.
If possible.
And it was clearly "possible" too do so with this release.
They did not.

I fully understand 'most people' do NOT have properly set up 5.1 systems.
However, I refuse to let this be the excuse used to not make a 5.1 mix the best it can be.

Very few people have properly set up "stereo" systems.
Lacking the ability to produce the infamous phantom center channel (let alone, two channels playback ability too also produce 'surround' information as well).
Would anyone except the excuse of a producer of two channel music, to just 'skip' the phantom channel info (and do only, hard left/hard right, like the early Beatles 'stereo'),
just because so few were properly setup too take advantage of it?

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Thanks for the review Phil A!
Tuesday cann't come soon enough!
Just 'dying' too hear the stereo mix!

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Yes, this is a very valid approach but sometimes it might spotlight the vocals.

I do not have any problem "spotlight"(ing) the "lead" vocal.
This is the "lead" vocals were talking about!
Where they not "spotlight"(ed) in the original?

Lee,
O' happy day's for you!

 

[LanceJ]

Ed: I know what you mean about dumbing down the 5.1 surround format just to make up for people who are sloppy with their system's positioning.

When I daydream about a no-hold's barred surround rig, it IS made up of five, full range & indentical speakers. Either these or these, (with a sub) depending on how optimistic I feel & if my car isn't making any weird noises at the time!

Even if Boston still made my series of speaker, the idea of a 26lb/22" high enclosure teetering on my TV worries me just a tad. And a speaker's crossover (a good one anyway) takes into acount the woofer/mid/tweeter relationship and putting such a speaker on it's side could cause some subtle sonic problems. And it would just look dumb.

Later this year I plan on getting a center channel (probably this one, since its vertical midrange/tweeter array will have smoother & wider horizontal sound dispersion than the traditional midbass/tweeter/midbass configuration) and this subwoofer. I may moan and groan about surround mixing choices, but reality tells me differently.........

Unfortunately, I will then have four different brands of speakers in my system--talk about being a hypocrite! :b But I really want to buy a motorcycle and Celestron 6" mirror telescope--so this "mutt" system will have to do me for awhile. Oh yea--I want a component CD burner too. Stupid expensive audio hobby!!!

LJ

 

[KeithH]

Phil, thanks for the review. I will be looking for the SACD today! Hopefully a local store will have it out already. Anyway, I will be comparing the hybrid disc to the following CDs when I have the chance on the following systems:

Discs
* MFSL
* 20th anniversary disc
* 1992 remaster (supposed to sound the same as the 20th anniversary disc, but I haven't compared them)

Main System
* Sony SCD-777ES (or 'C555ES for convenience)
* NAD C 370/C 270 integrated amp/power amp passive biamped set-up
* Totem Arro speakers

Second System
* Sony SCD-C555ES
* NAD C 350 integrated amp
* Energy e:XL 25 speakers

I will be especially interested to see if I discern differences on the second system. My main system is more transparent, but I have readily picked out differences before on the second system. I can't wait to do some comparisons!

 

[Tomoko Noguchi]

You are all very lucky. I have to wait until next week to get mine here in Japan.

 

[KeithH]

O.K., here's a question. Is the Dark Side of the Moon disc in a cardboard digipak or a jewel case? Please say it is in a jewel case!

 

[Phil A]

Keith - Jewel Case

 

[KeithH]

Phil, whew! Thanks. I am getting tired of all the digipaks being used for reissues (Stones, AC/DC, The Police, etc.). Glad to hear that they got it right with Floyd.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Phil,

Thanks for the excellent review. I especially like this part:

A comparison of the CD vs. SACD layer immediately revealed better bass, a less compressed midrange and everything sounding more natural and dynamic.

I find the midrange of DSD recordings to be very beautiful as long as the mastering is good. Here we likely have both superb, if not state-of-the-art mastering and DSD's higher sampling rate for more transparency.

Thanks again.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Where they not "spotlight"(ed) in the original?

No, they were blended with the rest of the music, as they would appear in real life, not isolated into a monoraul source, seperate from everything else.

 

[KeithH]

Lee, I am eager to read a review of this SACD from you. In particular, I would be curious to hear your views on how the CD and SACD tracks compare to the Harvest CD. As I said in another thread recently, I love the MFSL gold CD, but I just read Phil's review here saying that the CD and stereo SACD tracks are much better than the MFSL disc.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

I disagree. It is much better IMO to create a phantom center

Jeff Ulmer,
What percentage of two channel music playback systems, do you think, are taking advantage of "The Golden Triangle"?
What percentage, do you think, of two channel listener's even know what "The Golden Triangle" is?
What is your listen position in relation to your audio system?
Thanks,
BE.