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

[Ken Stuart]

What does it mean for a recording to have 'rhythm' and 'drive' in some way *separate* from the musical performance itself?

It means that the recordings allow (or don't allow) those aspects of the performance to be manifested in the living room of the listener.

Your question is equivalent to asking "What does it mean for a window to have 'transparency' in some way "separate" from the appearance of the outside scenery itself?"

 

[LanceJ]

If a recording has transparency & detail I'm confused about the need for these other nebulous elements being mentioned. "Transparency" indicates an UNaltered sonic event; "detail" refers to the small (but important) parts being reproduced.

So to me, a system that exhibited these two qualities is capable of accurately reproducing a musical event. Sounds like a good system to own!

If the recording also had rhythm and drive it seems like something artificial is being added.

LJ

 

[Lee Scoggins]

But for three, if terms have no reference meaning

Steve, The main reason Harley has defined these terms along with other audiophiles is so there IS a reference meaning. If you are a scientific bent, though, you may be disappointed as there is no precise technical measurement. For instance, timing is not measured in picoseconds or anything like that. It's more of a subjective feel that critical or trained listeners develop. At Chesky, the whole team picked up on things over time as experience levels grew. Attending other sessions and interacting with other groups also enhances the ability to hear certain subtleties in the performance.

Of course, the musical terms are similar in nature and are also used by our team. The engineers, if you will, use the audiophile subjective language but when communicating certain things we would play two different samples for musicians and get their feedback on what they liked/disliked about each.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Heck, forget about remixes. Isn't changing what the master tape sounds like, which is what remastering engineers routinely do, a form of performance as well? Isn't that the *art* of it? Mastering engineers talk about being 'faithful' to the OMT, but in fact they, including Mr. Hoffman, are rarely offering a flat transfer of the source tape.

The best mastering engineers try very hard to do just enough, even if "just enough" means a completely flat transfer of the tape. The worst mastering engineers very easily do a whole lot, and probably would be better off remixing to achieve whatever effect they are going for. The goal should be to present the final mix in the best light possible on whichever medium is targeted (LP, CD, SACD, DVD-A, 8-track, "Cassingle", whatever). To do this right for an archival release, it should be done in the context of previous releases, especially from the time of the recording's origination.

Regards,

 

[Lee Scoggins]

The best mastering engineers try very hard to do just enough, even if "just enough" means a completely flat transfer of the tape.

That's a good summary.

The first rule is try to do no harm.

That's in part why I think the best goal should be to replicate what is occurring live in the studio. If you try to mix for a certain end user, you get into all sorts of trouble if the needs change down the road with new formats. If it's an album like DSOTM, you need to try and do a flat transfer of the final analog mix if possible.

 

[Steve_AS]

"What does it mean for a recording to have 'rhythm' and 'drive' in some way *separate* from the musical performance itself?"


It means that the recordings allow (or don't allow) those aspects of the performance to be manifested in the living room of the listener.

Your question is equivalent to asking "What does it mean for a window to have 'transparency' in some way "separate" from the appearance of the outside scenery itself?"

The proper analogy to what *you* wrote would be if I had said 'the window has great color and three-dimensionality'. Actually, the *window* has neither. It's the scene outside the window that has them. It would be entirely proper, on the other hand, to say the window is transparent -- that property *is* quite separate from the scenery outside; it's a property only of the window. And it would seem that that's what you mean about recordings as well -- the 'drive' and 'rhythm' you speak of are components of the performance (though 'drive' remains a purely subjective term);you're saying the recording is transparent to those. It is, however, difficult to know if that's really true, unless you can compare it to the master tape or the live performance.

 

[Steve_AS]

The best mastering engineers try very hard to do just enough, even if "just enough" means a completely flat transfer of the tape. The worst mastering engineers very easily do a whole lot, and probably would be better off remixing to achieve whatever effect they are going for. The goal should be to present the final mix in the best light possible on whichever medium is targeted (LP, CD, SACD, DVD-A, 8-track, "Cassingle", whatever). To do this right for an archival release, it should be done in the context of previous releases, especially from the time of the recording's origination.

'Just enough' will always be a subjective call, and two fine remastering engineers may well disagree on what 'just enough' is. If a remix is a 'performance', then so is this.

 

[Steve_AS]

If a recording has transparency & detail I'm confused about the need for these other nebulous elements being mentioned. "Transparency" indicates an UNaltered sonic event; "detail" refers to the small (but important) parts being reproduced.

'Detail' would then be analogous to optical 'resolution': a measure of how small a difference between two adjacent objects can be discerned.

 

[Steve_AS]

Steve, The main reason Harley has defined these terms along with other audiophiles is so there IS a reference meaning. If you are a scientific bent, though, you may be disappointed as there is no precise technical measurement. For instance, timing is not measured in picoseconds or anything like that. It's more of a subjective feel that critical or trained listeners develop. At Chesky, the whole team picked up on things over time as experience levels grew. Attending other sessions and interacting with other groups also enhances the ability to hear certain subtleties in the performance.

If Chesky picked up on these things in a consistent way, it should be possible to define what these things are, and how to achieve them, in a more objective way.

As for Harley, he demosntrates that merely collecting his own takes on audiophile jargon into a glossary, doesn't necessarily help make it any less subjective. It's not 'more of a subjective feel' -- it *is* a subjective feel.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

As for Harley, he demosntrates that merely collecting his own takes on audiophile jargon into a glossary

The glossary has value as it was defined by a community of audiophiles and sound professionals. These descriptions have proven to be valid by many high end companies in designing audio gear and by record labels in achieving better sound. It is both subjective and value added.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

I finally listened to the multi-ch version on my new Japanese copy. I must say that I think James Guthrie did a nice job. The recording seems more "open", ambience is there, and some nice panning of non-musical elements, but for the most part, the music stays firmly rooted at the front. *This* to me, is a very nice example of how to do music surround sound correctly. It should *add* to the presentation and take nothing away from the original recording.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

The recording seems more "open", ambience is there, and some nice panning of non-musical elements, but for the most part, the music stays firmly rooted at the front.

I played it for the 20th time or so yesterday and I was still blown away by how clear everything was.

This has become my favorite demo for friends, since everyone knows and loves the music.

I think big titles like this are the key to getting more people on board.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

I agree, with my 2nd thought being that hopefully there is now a plan to (slowly) go back and remaster the rest of Pink Floyd's catalog. I think one key to SACD and DVD-A succeeding and thriving, is not just one or two "specialized" discs, the but entire back catalogs of bands being put out.

 

[Ken Stuart]

Actually, since someone else has revived this thread, I'll comment that I have now listened to the SACD layers of this release (I came across a used Sony SACD player that was available inexpensively due to a malfunctioning LCD display).

My impression of the stereo SACD layer is that the same problems exist as with the redbook layer, albeit with more clarity and "air".

However, the multichannel SACD mix is significantly better sounding than any previous version of the album, especially in the case of the more famous tracks, such as "Time" and "Money" where the increased clarity, dynamics and ambience are most apparent.

I find it all the more unfortunate that the original engineer (Alan Parsons) was not called in to assist in a consulting role. This could have been done within the existing "political" constraints by having Guthrie remain the head of the project, but allowing Parsons to express what he was originally attempting to accomplish.

This would have been very helpful in the case of the more "minor" songs, in which Parsons was directly responsible for creating many of the sounds himself, and for which surround effects were directly recorded onto the multitrack master tape 30 years ago (e.g. "Any Colour You Like" and "Us and Them").

But, I will probably play the SACD multichannel mix in the future when I listen to this album.

PS It is my strong hunch that the original multitrack master tapes are in better condition than the original stereo mixdown master tapes. In fact, I think it highly likely that a stereo foldown of the SACD multichannel mix would sound better than the stereo SACD layer...

 

[Lee Scoggins]

However, the multichannel SACD mix is significantly better sounding than any previous version of the album

I find that the stereo layer is significantly better than any previous release as well.

On the multi-channel release, the way that Us and Them moves over the listener to the back channel during the echo sequences is just amazing. This is one of the better applications of multi-channel, in fact, that I have heard.