Pink Floyd - DSOTM - Holy Grail

6. It sounds better.

 

It looks nice but it isn't DSOTM to me.

 

I have the MFSL but have never heard the BT. I guess I would have to hear them side by side to appreciate the difference. I'm a bit surprised that MFSL would have gotten the formula wrong on this title, considering it's ICONIC status. This would be one title no company with audiophile status would want to screw up.

 

Pardon my asking, and there's probably a million different threads on this very question, but are there any differences in mastering/sound between the Black Triangle and the non-TO Harvest Blackface? Anyone have any preference between the two?

 

I have both Black Triangle (non TO) and the UK Harvest Black Face (non TO) and they sound the same to me. They also have the exact same peak levels in EAC logs. BT is likely in shorter supply thus the higher demand.

 

I own the MFSL UD (Japan) & 1992 Shine On box versions. I prefer the Shine On version.
+ SACD for surround.

 

+1. The two discs are digitally identical. They were both pressed in Japan. They were both pressed by CBS / Sony Records, Shizuoka Prefecture, in that country.
I'll leave you to do the math.

 

As others here have already said, they are the same mastering and digitally identical. Some people hear differences between pressings (for example CDP vs non-CDP or Black Triangle vs Harvest), but I most certainly do not. And no matter what, ripping the discs onto a computer eliminates all perceived pressing differences.

 

My findings too.

You can drive yourself crazy imagining such differences. I had a ranked stack of 'AJA' disks once, in order one to 6. Eventually I was more careful, and used the computer too, and ended up with 5 identical discs and one of the 'bright' early mastering that only really showed up in careful A-B-C listening.

 

Mike, the differences have been stated (a)by more than one member here and (b)are very clearly written and described by those that can hear the pressing differences. This is hardly "imagining" when strangers claim to hear the same audible differences.

 

I've kind of been digging the non-TO/ with CDP these days for the extra punch -- less atmoshpere than the non-TO/non-CDP (note: I only listen to side 2). I have a different system, smaller room (hey, it's Japan), near field listening, and play stuff at lower volumes these days, so that makes a difference.

 

My thoughts on the topic:

I've owned the called for many as the "holy grail" it was an original non TO non CDP on matrix Black Triangle a marvelous copy indeed, but I couldn't hear a big difference between it and my MFSL. That's because I own a very modest system, that's why I decided to pass it on to someone who could hear those differences, more than me.

The first time I did heard my MFSL I felt it very nice, it was a saturday afternoon, I was on my car a Jeep Wrangler equipped with 6 speakers including a sub-woofer, the experience was great indeed, the sound was just perfect to me.

I bought my BT some months later and did the comparison, but again I couldn't hear a BIG difference.

In the other hand I do believe in many people here, to me are the people to follow, is why I am here, and they say that the non TO and non CDP is the way to go, and I believe them, indeed! One thing is that I can't hear those differences and another very different is that they do not exist.

The same criteria I have applied to many CD's, LP's I do own, sometimes I can feel what I have read here, some others don't. Other example I can quote is the David Bowie's Ziggy Stardust, I have about 9 different pressings of that and I have three of my favorites in which the sound is very similar to me.

Back to the DSOTM, the non TO and non CDP is for far much more scarce and valuable that one non TO but with CDP on matrix, I want to believe that is not only due its scarcest but due about its sounding and this is not only for collector's thing.

Of course that you want to compare the peak levels and such things, but to me is your ears what you may obey not only stats flowing through some software, its of course my very humble opinion.

 

Ok, just listened to the sacd and heard the "Ticket to Ride" part for the first time.
WTF? How did that happen?

 

The black triangle DSotM was my very first "audiophile" purchase. I grabbed a CDP one off eBay about three years ago for $40. I was never super satisfied with it, but never complained about it because it was the "Holy Grail" and would "never sound better." Then, I got a good deal on a MFSL (good deal meaning LESS than $100) and gave it a shot, thinking that if it wasn't good; I still had the really nice packaging.

For all that talking about being less "natural," "musical," "crankable," and "not-making-my-ears-bleed-ability;" I find the MFSL to be a MUCH better mastering job than the flat (in a negaive way) BT. I understand this forum's fascination with flat transfers, but there's a reason we all go cuckoo for Steve Hoffman's mastering work. It's not about the TOOBZ or even the original master tapes. It's about his use of EQ. If he didn't EQ the way he does, none of us would have ever heard of him. Sad, but true.

For tl;dr readers, I like the MFSL better.

 

I now have the Black Triangle and the '93 version and will soon have the MFSL.

I can't wait to do a comparison.

 

Some of the DCCs and AFs are flat transfers.

I agree that the "flat transfer" or "master tape" thing can be a bit much around here. I just want the one that sounds best coming out of my speakers.

 

I have the made in Japan black face Harvest (1st US pressing), CP35-3017 and CDP 7 in the matrix. Doesn't sound too shabby!

 

Listening to the Black Triangle on my Wharfedales.

It sounds really good.

 

(Disclaimer: these are my PERSONAL opinions and any content is not meant to offend or demean directly or indirectly any members of this an other forums )

My choices are two:

1- Unreleased Alan Parsons Quad mix on DVD-A ,
now that Rhino is back in "Quadtastic" mode , there could be a chance for a miracle, but PF management would nix it though.And I can't fathom why the blokes at PF don't want to release the AP mix. Oh, well...
The SACD 5.1 is a waste of plastic. I was so upset that sold mine without even listening to it halfway through. Flat limp sound, totally wasted opportunities for Surround action, e.g. "On the Run" the steps panning only Left to Right??? Hello!!??? you have an extra stereo pair behind you!!!!....
They thought "let's play it safe and make an extended Stereo mix instead of a real surround mix for the majority of folks who have a typical system of 5 small speakers and a subwoofer-and keep away from such shameful examples in early Surround mixing that include...pannning...ugh!!!".
What a shame.
I get a much better Surround field by playing my MoFi LP through 96K+ DPL II Music on my Pioneer!!!


2- MoFi LP. Even though mine has a 50 second playable gash during side 2, the sonics on this are incredible. You really can't judge EQ ing , guys , cause none of us heard the master tape when it was done, so we have no point of reference. Maybe the master sounded more like the MoFi one because I trust those guys ears more than others.
Theirs are the most natural sounding LPs I have ever owned. And i have heard EMI UK pressings that sound great.

 

I have many copies of this disc. They all seem the same to me; it is only the collector in me that wants the 1A1 crude matrix with the 3500 Yen obi.

 

Yeah, that's what Mobile Fidelity was all about.