DarkSide of the Moon in DVD A? (1 Viewer)

[John Kotches]

Michael,

Not to mention that if the disc has sufficient space, the DVD-V stereo PCM mix could be as high as 24/96K.

Regards,

 

[Lee Scoggins]

So I pulled out my 25th Anny DSOTM for a listen last night, which is supposedly the best version... or at least equivalent to the MoFi?

Rich,
I actually picked up an older release of the Harvest label CD (from London) and it sounds better to my ears than the MoFi which I also have and the 25th Anniversary also in my collection.
This is one of those "Kind of Blue" deals I think where any new issue may be purchased even if us hardcore fans already have six copies.
As far as system anxiety, I resemble that remark.
I think my next step is a decent turntable rig, since I found that good vinyl is still the best source.
OOOh! Can you imagine Michael Hobson at Classic Records doing Dark Side of The Moon? That would be awesome.
His work on Led Zeppelin is the driving force on my future turntable purchase.

 

[Jeff Keene]

If both would be released, I would buy the SACD.

That being said, I have to agree with John on this argument. Lee, your argument boils down to your belief that a significant number of people care enough about sound quality to buy another copy of this album that everyone on the planet already has solely on the basis of sonics. I wish, wish, wish I could agree with you. But I can't. I believe that less than a hundredth of a percent of the people who like and own this album care even the tiniest bit about spending money to improve the sound over their current CD.

But surround sound? Now THAT'S NEATO. Nevermind that it's important to me to have the best possible stereo version of this album. Most people just want to hear the cash register or the running guy coming from behind them. They don't know why exactly, but it's cool (and it kinda IS).

Comments from above seem to indicate that they are releasing two things. The first is a 30th anniversary improved-sound from the master tapes edition. All indications is, this is just a redbook CD. Do I wish it were instead a Hybrid SACD? You betcha! Would it be worth the money for them to do that? I doubt it, but I'd love to see it. The second project they are working on is a new surround mix of this album. The whole point of this project is surround. They will market it as such. It will have a big purple sticker on it that says 5.1 surround!

Now ask yourself, will they put out a disc that 40 million + people can potentially play in surround, or one that ~ 2-3 million can potentially play in surround?


I really hope I'm wrong. I hope that the fact that they are planning to release a 30th edition CD PROVES that people really will shell out for better sound. But I just don't think so.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I hope that the fact that they are planning to release a 30th edition CD PROVES that people really will shell out for better sound.

I guess they think its a big enough market to cover the costs of the new remaster. We will have to see what happens.

I maintain that if it is good enough leap in sound quality, the critics will rave, and the fans will line up and buy it.

If they do surround on a separate release, that's fine with me too. I will buy it also. In fact, I can easily see separate issues for this title to make the most money for the band and label.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Lee, that's very interesting that you prefer the original CD release, but I wonder how much better it sounds?

You see, I'm still feeling the morning-after effects of the system-anxiety that hit me last night after the final thuds of DSOTM disappeared into the ether. Somebody help me out here: is this recording basically poor (generally speaking, not in relation to the "normal" poor quality of most rock/pop recordings), or does it just sound poorly on my system? As a quick example, I don't think it comes within a mile of the sonic quality of the Stones remasters (I'm talking Red Book layer/not SACD), and those have been mildly criticized by some more knowledgeable than I as sounding little better than previous releases. Just prior to listening to DSOTM, I was listening to the Marley box "Songs of Freedom", and even such earlier tracks like "Soul Rebel", "Duppy Conquerer", "Lick Samba", "Craven Choke Puppy" and "Guava Jelly" sounded either slightly better or at least comparable to me as compared to DSOTM. Not by very much, however, and granted these are not the most taxing of tunes - nothing like the occasional bombast of DSOTM - but I would have expected them to sound much, much worse by comparison.

I guess I'm asking those of you more familiar with a wide-range of recordings and recording techniques to comment on the overall fidelity of DSOTM. Am I chasing a phantom of my youth, a memory of sonic greatness that never really was? Or is there much more magic in this recording than my system is revealing to me?

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Rich,
Please note this is special Harvest edition CD from the UK which is reputed to be done from the master tape, not the safety. It sounds significantly better than the MoFi and 25th Anniversary IMHO.
My belief is that Alan Parsons did a fantastic recording job but was slightly hampered by sonic quality of the 70s pro studio. The low quality CD releases to date have been due to bad 80s and 90s mastering efforts in part due to low sonic quality mastering decks. This is, in fact, why most remasters sound significantly better than their late 80s and early 90s counterparts.
Also keep in mind that as Pink Floyd mixed down many tape effects and microphone feeds to two channels the recording path encountered lots of circuits that degraded sound quality.
Improvements today come from:
1. Cleaner signal paths as some pro equipment mfrs have taken up audiophile views on component quality.
2. Better mastering techniques.
3. Use of high bit rate transfers.
4. Finding a better source tape as David Gilmour suggests is the case with DSOTM.
For those that think I am too aggressive in my support defense of Super Audio, I just read this very sharp posting on the Audio Asylum. This is just a thought & entertainment piece mind you.
In response to a suggestion that both formats are fine...

I have no patience for incompetence. One of the formats of which you speak is dead because it isn't compatible with the 650 million CD players in existence, requires a TV for most folks to operate, has audible watermarking, erroneously targets home theatre fans primarily (not music buyers), can't get distribution in the CD aisle with the music buying traffic, and is selling so poorly, that its marketers are scrambling to add a CD layer, something they admit they have no patent rights for. Guess which one that is?

This last part is interesting: does this mean DVDA group has to wait for the Sony patents to expire before they can modify the DVDA specification? Seems so.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

I have no patience for incompetence. One of the formats of which you speak is dead because it isn't compatible with the 650 million CD players in existence, requires a TV for most folks to operate, has audible watermarking, erroneously targets home theatre fans primarily (not music buyers), can't get distribution in the CD aisle with the music buying traffic, and is selling so poorly, that its marketers are scrambling to add a CD layer, something they admit they have no patent rights for. Guess which one that is?

This is general format war flamebait that has absolutely nothing to do with issues that are specific to marketing DSotM. Is that absolutely necessary for this thread? :rolleyes

 

[Lee Scoggins]

This is general format war flamebait that has absolutely nothing to do with issues that are specific to marketing DSotM. Is that absolutely necessary for this thread?

Michael if you look at the specifics of his quote, there are valid things in here that I echoed in my summary opinion above so in a large sense they are specific to the marketing of DSOTM. The TV issue is real and the audible watermarking issue is also real, for instance.

I just placed this as an example of the sharp words on Audio Asylum, not as a statement of position as I made that perfectly clear.

 

[Justin Lane]

I just placed this as an example of the sharp words on Audio Asylum, not as a statement of position as I made that perfectly clear.

The why even post at all????? I question your motives behind posting someone else's opinion as fact Lee, as this has no relevance to the original thread you have attempted to hijack.

Suggestion for you Lee...why don't you start a new thread of you own about DSOTM coming to SACD? Oh, thats right, there have been not even been rumors of such a release outside of your pining for a SACD.

J

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Justin,

What's a mooncalf?

the vast vast vast majority of SACD discs out there

An estimated 300 or more are hybrids, that's a pretty healthy number, almost as many as DVDAs.

The reason for this in any event was until recently capacity issues in production according to David Kawakami of the Sony Super Audio project. My understanding is that they did this to free capacity for independent labels to do production on hybrids. That seems just good business strategy to me. Sony/Philips is building a grass roots efforts among the pro community and smaller labels...and its working!

This month both Sony Japan and Sonopress opened fully fitted hybrid Super Audio production lines.

We will likely see mostly hybrids going forward.

 

[Kevin M]

Here, I'll throw a monkey wrench into this DVD-A vs. SACD hijacking with one name.......George Lucas!
...there, now the thread is off in another off topic direction.

 

[ReggieW]

Lee.....

I certainly hope you aren't quoting RICH from audio asylum. This DVD-A is dead crap is his mantra....it's very sad to see you've obviously adopted it. Let's clear up some things here........

1. I don't need a television to use my DVD-A's. This argument is gospel over at the audio asylum, and one that is baseless. Do you even have a DVD-A player.

2. I have never heard the so-called audible watermarking on a DVD-A disc and can hear pretty low.

3. SACD is not exactly setting the world on fire either. The idea that SACD is triumphing over DVD-A is another baseless rant over at the audio asylum. Where are Sonys players under 300.00 in large chain retailers like Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and Circuit City.

I am shocked that you used this irrelevant flame heavy post to defend your position. I think everyone here has made very LOGICAL arguments for going with DVD-A for this particular DSOTM release over SACD. It makes sense financially. Period.

Reg

 

[John Kotches]

Reggie,
Now you know better than that. Lee wouldn't possibly quote verbatim someone who continues to spew FUD at a pace that is only eclipsed by the great empire of Redmond Washington.
Let's see who the author of the post is, it's right here
I'll be doggoned, it is Rich.
Whatever is the world coming to?
Regards,

 

[Phil A]

Reggie, how does one navigate the menu on most DVD-As without a video display? If one wants to hear both stereo or multi-channel (or stereo only), a video display is in fact needed. I have a separate small TV for this purpose. Otherwise, it is quite easy to get the L&R channel of a multi-channel miz on something like "Harvest." I have set-up many high-end systems ($25,000+) with DVD-A players and a large portion of the people don't have a single DVD-A disc. Many of them tried a disc like it was a CD (since that is more what they were used to) and returned it since the sound was terrible, and little wonder when they were just getting the L&R of the multi-channel mix. DVD-A has marketed itself for the masses and not as a hi-rez advanced resolution format. If one markets itself as the Thunderbird or Ripple of wines (whether it is or is not is a different story), there will be reactions from many people similar to the gentlemen noted who likely has not heard a good quality DVD-A set-up properly.

 

[ReggieW]

Phil,

Nearly all DVD-A players now have either a GROUP or AUDIO button to switch between the stereo/multi-channel soundtracks. In fact, I just read in a thread here that the new Elvis disc contains no menus whatsoever, so navigating between the tracks is purely dependent on the audio/group buttons. Naturally, you will need a television to view video content on DVD-A discS if you want. I normally do turn on my television once I first purchase a disc because I am interested in seeing the extra content and menu layout. The new REM disc actually has motion menus like a DVD-V, something I had never seen on a DVD-A. As far as marketing to the masses, I agree with you somewhat, but they will have to do this in some capacity if they expect the format to take off. DVD-A will never survive on the charity of audiophiles alone. I toO used to loathe the existence of DD/DTS tracks on DVD-A discs, but now I see the need. It gives individuals surround sound who may not yet have a DVD-A player, hence, everyones argument here for releasing a DVD-A of DSOTM instead of a SACD. Hopefully, the presence of tracks better than DD/DTS will inspire a few people to go out and get DVD players with DVD-A capability. DVD-A certainly has many problems, but so does SACD. One last thing.....The gentleman who Lee quotes IS NOT interested in hearing DVD-A on any setup - good or otherwise....trust me on this.

Reg

 

[Lee Scoggins]

For those that think I am too aggressive in my support defense of Super Audio, I just read this very sharp posting on the Audio Asylum. This is just a thought & entertainment piece mind you.

So I am even criticzing the quote as being too aggressive!

I do hear watermarking, however, so on that we disagree. That is a big problem for the whole industry. It has been proven to degrade the sound.

 

[John Kotches]

Phil,

The only titles I've seen where a TV is required to toggle is on a couple of 1st round titles from EMI, the Al Green Greatest Hits title and I forget the other title that was released at roughly the same time.

I haven't purchased the Crowded House title, so I don't know if their authoring is improved. I'm waiting for the 2003 releases from EMI to find out (The Beach Boys Pet Sounds, Bonnie Raitt Nick of Time and The Band Music from Big Pink).

Other than these very limited exceptions, I have found that every DVD-A title has allowed toggling between the Stereo and Surround mixes with either the GROUP/Group# or AUDIO button depending on whether we are discussing v1.0 or v1.1 spec authored discs.

Regards,

 

[John Kotches]

Lee,

Since you say you hear watermarking, please cite for me:

Artist / Title / Track / Time Indicator

where you hear the watermarking.

If you cite the Tony Faulkner test once more, I'll laugh at you. The test that Faulkner participated in was Verance at its most intrusive settings which in no way reflect what's in use in the field.

Regards,

 

[Rich Malloy]

Now you know better than that. Lee wouldn't possibly quote verbatim someone who continues to spew FUD at a pace that is only eclipsed by the great empire of Redmond Washington.

Let's see who the author of the post is, it's right here

I'll be doggoned, it is Rich.

Whatever is the world coming to?

My name happens to be "Rich", and I believe I'm the only one participating in this discussion who goes by that name. However, I hope it's clearly understood that the author of the post to which John refers is not me, as I don't participate in that forum, I've never participated in that forum, and I never will.

People treat one another like assholes there. And, unfortunately, that seems to be creeping in over here now. So, if any of you attempt to drag me into whatever submental, tit-for-tat, sandbox dispute you're currently engaged in, I'd kindly ask you to leave me out. I haven't the patience for it.

And if I participate anywhere, I do so under my full, real name.

 

[TheLongshot]

Where are Sonys players under 300.00 in large chain retailers like Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and Circuit City.

Considering I got my 755 at Circuit City for $200, I'd say they exist.
Jason