I did NOT know that. I know three people here actually take my opinions seriously enough to at least try my recommendations. I guess perhaps there are four now? lol I just hope that people will at least give me the credit of not having any hidden objectives. I know that some well-regarded reviewers may tend to extoll the virtues of a new vinyl reissue, if not for anything, to encourage the vinyl revival movement. But I am just a consumer and I have to call 'em as I see 'em, even if that means fewer audiophile reissues. And as I mentioned many times, I think less-than-the-best sounding version is fine by me, especially given that the best sounding versions are almost impossible to find (especially at a reasonable price and with a reasonably listenable condition). Besides, the sheer availability and pressing quality of these audiophile reissues are enough reasons to buy them. Honestly, at some point, who cares about THE best sounding version if the slightly-less-than-best is outstanding enough? Oops, sorry to go on and on again.
Don't stop sung...this is good chit.... I'm gonna play my DSOTM right now, in honor of your scholarship and research on the subject. Unfortunately, both pressing and turntable are far from perfect, but one can always hope...
The EMI reissue IS INDEED excellent! That one reveals details that some of the other pressings do not reveal as well. Especially if you have a tube (or "tubey" solid state) system, I would highly recommend the EMI reissue. Also, if you have a solid state system, I would highly recommend a Mo-Fi or a Wally cut, as they tend to sound a bit "warmer". Heck, this is a GREAT recording -- I think one can truly enjoy it and marvel at it on just about any pressing.
Sung, make that 5 if you have not included me in the 4 above. I make a point of reading your posts based on your knowledge and the tremendous amount of research that you do. I ALWAYS find your advice authentic and well intentioned. Please don't get disheartened and keep those insights coming.
Interesting-- that's the opposite of what I've found. The DSOTM to me always seemed to reflect a greater improvement from the standard MFSL release than did any of the other seven titles. The Sgt. Pepper UHQR I always thought sounded thinner and more one-dimensional than MFSL 1-100.
Gosh, Colin, your words REALLY mean a lot to me. Thanks so much. I can't say that I am "right" but I at least TRY to do "right". And for me, that means actually listening to the various pressings that I have (and if I don't, then try to acquire them within reasonable means), and giving the most honest report as I can muster. I actually enjoy comparing different pressings and if someone else can save some money and time by my efforts, I feel as if spending a few extra bucks and hours is well worth it. Heck, I even buy extra copies of what I think are sonic bargains (for me, that means $20 or less for a record which truly is a keeper in any collection) so that I can offer it at my cost to the Forum members. I could be presuming too much here but I think Eddie and Scott will vouch for me on this one. I will have one of these at-my-cost sale of records here on this Forum within a week. I just need to bribe my girlfriend to take and post the pictures of the records (since pics ARE worth a thousand words when it comes to LP covers, etc.). Argh, I wish I were not technically challenged. I will also do an eBay auction, but I think those records will fetch much higher prices than I think they are worth sonically. I have about 10 "valuable" records still sealed, for example. I would not put those records up for sale here, because I think the Forum members deserve records that sound great for the money not records that have collectible value. Cheers!
Sung, your advice is always important to me, and I believe it is also very valuable to this forum. I don't think anyone does not believe you - at least they shouldn't. You, Ben, Tommy and Peter (and of course Steve) are my "go to" guys when I want the real scoop on the best sounding pressing of an album I can't listen to myself. Many of us have never heard a A3/B3 DSOTM (I know I haven't). It helps to hear from someone like you who has! I still think the UHQR is killer, but then a lot of people have not heard that one either. Doesn't mean I'm wrong or right - it's just my informed opinion, based on the information I have at the time. Anyway, results are also dependent on what you value in reproduced sound and the system and the room - that's one of the reason's why Tom Port has changed his mind on what's the best pressing over the years. Anyway, I do believe your findings are as valid if not more so than anyone who posts here because of the amount of time you have put into your passion of deciding for yourself what sounds best! If you find an extra A3/B3 DSOTM and decide to sell it, I would very much be interested in purchasing it. And if I find another W1 Decca Who's Next, I'll let you know.
Japanese CD take note, guys. this is one of the only times you'll witness Sung praising the virtues of a CD so highly. the original black-faced Harvest disc ('Made in Japan') sounds as good as any vinyl i've heard. then again, i am not familiar with all of the myriad vinyl editions listed in this thread.
You are ABSOLUTELY right, Randy! BTW, I am REALLY enjoying the records that you were kind enough to share with me.
Sung, Your pressing comparison results are almost dead on with mine in many cases, except I don't have the guts to advertise mine(or the writing skill). BTW, what do you think of the first pressing UK QUAD(which has QUAD inner sleeve, A2/B2)? I actually like that one a lot. To me, it is second only to the 2nd Uk pressing.
It is not. The UHQR uses the British mix down tapes, the 120gr. uses the American mix master (yeah 2 different mix down master's)! I had a talk with Alan Parson's a couple CES's ago and he confirmed that this was indeed true.
Hey, if my memory serves me correct, I seem to recall that the 30th anniverary pressing advertised by Acoustic Sound that it was the first time the original master tape(work parts) was ever used......
I think folks just like to participate. They do that by stating what's best of the things they've had the opportunity to hear, otherwise they'd have nothing to say, and that just wouldn't be any fun. It's nice to see how everyone's experiences stack up. When someone's experience involves a lot of different copies, or copies which would logically be the best candidates for top sound, I think those posts carry added weight...like Sung's. If we only took the best and tossed out everything else, we'd be losing a lot of copies that are reasonably good, and for a lot of folks that's all they'll ever need. Threads like this help shed some light on the relative merits of different versions, and that helps people get a handle on what might best fill their needs whether their objective is a cost-no-object copy or just something that'll sound reasonably good without breaking the bank. So while the point of the thread is to identify the best, the participatory nature serves to identify the good as well.
I concur 100% with every word. I guess I just felt a bit frustrated (partly 'cuz I had not eaten anything all day) repeating the same thing over and over, lol. I also think that I may not have reacted so violently had the original question posed on this thread were something like "recommendations for a great sounding DSOTM on vinyl?" But the question was which is the BEST, and I guess I got carried away because only one pressing was being recommended by each person without any comparisons to others. No biggie ... I have eaten now and I am under control again.
Mike, please DO post your OPINIONS more. Ya gotta SHARE your thoughts. If you think I am wrong on this, just go ask your S.O. LOL! Regarding the UK Quad, I have mixed (pun intended) feelings about it. On a positive note, it sounds excellent. As you noted, the sound quality is only a half step below the A/3, B/3. (BTW, I just moved my listening room to a different room and I can't seem to locate anything any more; when I find the UK Quad, I will post the dead wax matrix, as I can't recall it right now). On a negative note, it has a different mix and because I must have listened to this recording a thousand times, the different mix annoys me sometimes. I don't mind something new or different but some parts actually sounds not right to me. At least it sounds great.
Sung, Count me in for the sale. Make sure it is after next Sunday as I'm going to Vegas to se the Beatles LOVE show. PM me if you get the chance. Thanks.
I actually found my EMI Harvest last night and it is the A 11/B11 - 1. I'd filed it away after one of my cats, who died since, scratched the rear cover a little once. It has quite a full sound and was quieter than I remembered actually. The grandfather clock sequence at the start of 'Time' played cleanly on the pioneer/stanton combo. I'm bidding for a Canadian currently. The posters are different to UK in that the Pyramids are green tinted and the band poster uses different photos. Regards,
Hi Sung. I'm curious. When listening to the UK Quad D.S.O.T.M., did you listen to it on a quadraphonic receiver, preferably a Sansui QRX model? (Boy, I feel like a snob now) I really enjoy the UK quad, but I haven't heard the A/3, B/3 pressing. I had a US Harvest that I sold after acquiring a minty MFSL. I like the MFSL a lot, but, on a similar thread with the CBS Half Speed 'Wish You Were Here', I prefer the Quad mix. And, to chime in with other forum friends, I always look forward to your detailed posts about various pressings. As stated earlier in this thread by Senior Member John, with respect to DSOTM, and this could probably apply towards Who's Next, Led Zep IV, among others, this is a subject worth bringing up many times over (my apologies, I didn't quote that better). After all, it's Dark Side of the Moon were talking about. Cooler than television. Finally, there's still a lot of wiggle room in some of these debates. This forum has allowed me an excuse to spend a lot of money on various pressings of the same recording. The more I learn, the more I realize the 'country of origin' rule is only a slight fundamental and you have to invest in a case by case basis ($$$$$) Point being, I'll do my best to save any forum member some cash, because in return, I've probably spent more than I ever should on music, but I've also avoided some big, costly purchases from reading the Steve Hoffman Forum. Now, how many times do I have to agree with Peter and repeat myself in saying that a 70's Canadian pressing of Led Zep III is The ONE?
I inadvertantly left out Mike (mikelakers) from the list of people I have learned so much from on this forum, along with Zloch and several others. Thanks to all of you for adding to my education!
Hello Chanty. Thanks for the reply. Regarding whether I listen to the UK Quad in stereo or quadraphonic, I do not have a quad receiver. I am a two channel vinyl guy through and through, as many of you already know, with some CD exceptions (several DCC and Audio Fidelity CDs mastered by our leader and several others including a Japanese no-Terrell-Owens (no "TO") DSOTM, Enya Shepherd Moon, etc.). I do not even own a SACD or DVD audio player. I even watch my movies at home in two channel (although I think certain movies can sound "better" in surround sound, if the sound engineer and movie producer/director intended it to be heard that way in the first place). The problem I have with quadraphonic is that most (if not all) of the non-mono music that I am interested in were originally recorded/engineered/mixed, etc. with two-channel consumers in mind and the quads were "audiophile reissues" remixed to fit a new technology fad of the times. Although some of the quads were actually remixed by the original engineer or another skillful engineer, the problem that I hear in the remixes is that a few of the isolated parts just don't seem "right" or they seem unnaturally "tweaked" in two or four channels (as I analogized before, like trying to fit a square block into a circular hole). That is the reason why I never ended up buying a quad receiver for my system after being tempted to do so. BTW, my UK Quad copy is cat. no. QHVL 804 (as opposed to the two channel cat. no., which is SHVL 804) and has dead wax matrices ending A/2 for Side 1 and B/1 for Side 2 (i.e., second lacquer and first lacquer, respectively). Regarding the Mo-Fi DSOTM, I must have had several copies of this one over the years (although now I only have one Near Mint copy that I broke the seal of and played all of two times), and I agree that it sounds excellent, especially if you have a large enough listening environment and play it at a relatively decent volume to let all the detail come out. Only in direct comparison to a UK A/3, B/3 or a Japanese Odeon blue-triangle, can one hear the freshness, clarity, punchiness, snap, additional detail, dynamics, imaging, etc. missing from the Mo-Fi vinyl. IMHO, the "sonic gap" here may actually be greater in certain respects than the "sonic gap" between a Mo-Fi Led Zep II and a Led Zep II cut by Robert Ludwig on both sides (i.e., what we here at the Forum commonly refer to as a double-RL cut). Regarding bringing up the subjects of DSOTM, Led Zep II, etc., I agree with you (and John) 100% that they are worthy of repeat discussions (and besides, the Forum gets new members all the time who may not have been around the last time we discussed it and who may find it difficult to locate the previous threads). I enjoy discussing those LPs, almost as much as listening to them (well, maybe not quite). What I enjoy even more is discussing them on this Forum WHILE listening to them. lol. If not anything, bringing those LPs up again for discussion inspires me to pull them out again for another listen. It never ceases to amaze me that each new listen amazes me how great those recordings are. They never get old -- they just get more classic. Regarding the country of origin rule, I agree that the rule is a decent rule of thumb with many many exceptions (50%?). If a skillful mastering engineer had the original tapes for the very first runs in the country of origin, however, the chances are at least 90% that that original pressing cannot be beaten. That is actually when I apply that rule of thumb the most. BTW, I do not have a 70's Canadian pressing of Led Zep III, and I guess I will seek one out. For now, I really enjoy my two UK plum/reds (one side on one copy is better but the other side on the other copy is better, lol) both of which have one of the earliest stampers. Cheers!
My picks are.... Well, first off, a friend of mine and I sat down and listened to several various pressings of DSOTM,. His top pick is the Holland White vinyl version, and mine leaned towards the EMI 100th anv edition. We both felt that the MoFi UHQR version was very good, better than the standard MoFi. The UK version we listened to was a second pressing, and it had a bit of a softer presentation than the previous 3 mentioned. We both felt the 30th anv was of the lot we listened to the lowest ranked version. Versions that we have, and yet to compare are a Japanese Pro USe, a German pressing and a the one from the Box set with the center sticker. If we can find a decent US pressing, and also a nice Quad (preferably UK I am told), then we can round out a full comaprison of known decent pressings , although I am sure there are others that could be added to the list. If I add any more DSOTM to my collection, my wife will kill me (then auction all of them off)!
