Pink Floyd - DSOTM - SACD Review/Discussion Thread

Re: DSOTM: M/C SACD vs UK Discrete Mix

Thanks, Jon. Though I don't have the AP mix to compare it to, my impressions of the SACD pretty much follow yours, with a few exceptions:

1. The levels are healthy, but I'm at about -14 on my Denon 3802, which is about where Hoffman-mastered stuff and good orchestral CDs sit and far above where I need to set the usual overcompressed and overlimited CDs I have. So for me the SACD levels are at a more usual "audiophile" level and not overly loud.

2. I can understand why you miss the more dramatic delayed vocals' movement in "Us And Them" (my favorite track, too!), but even from your description and without hearing the AP version I have to say that I find the mix here very musically satisfying, as if the vocals were moving through the air like dispersing smoke. Another mileage-may-vary point. I also thought the mix on "Us And Them" was generally excellent, perhaps the best on the album.

3. The things you noted as muffled didn't strike me that way, but I'll listen harder for them the next time around.

Great review, Jon! Many thanks.

 

Just listened to most of the part formerly known as "side one" and "Money" again on the Mch SACD and I'm still in love.

On the other hand, I also just ran some tests on four redbook versions of "Money" I have in the collection: the early Toshiba-EMI CD supposedly made from the "Pro Use" tape (copied from the original master?), the MFSL UD-I, the Echoes version, and the new SACD redbook layer. (I don't have a way to rip the SACD layer. I'd love to know how.)

Here are the figures I got in Sound Forge:

DARK SIDE OF THE MOON: FOUR REDBOOK VERSIONS
Peak, RMS average, Peak-to-RMS-average range (greater is usually better in this last number, since it means the dynamic range is wider--that's assuming the untampered-with master tape has the widest range)

Echoes compilation
-2.2 -16.3 = 14.1

SACD Redbook
0 -14.2 = 14.2

MFSL UD-I
-4.9 -21.5 = 16.6

Toshiba-EMI (made from "Pro Use" tape)
-2.8 -22 = 19.2 Please ignore these results--see below.

The results are very interesting, and suggest that the SACD Redbook layer and the oft-maligned Echoes mastering are compressed/limited to roughly the same degree, albeit probably in different ways.

The MFSL UD-I has a significantly wider dynamic range than the new SACD redbook layer or the Echoes track. It's also cut at a rather low level. If you had your volume levels set for the MFSL, the new SACD would seem very loud indeed.




The Toshiba-EMI CD has by far the widest dynamic range. Perhaps Ken McAlinden could do the math and tell me what the percentage change is (I'm very rusty with logarithmic scales ). At any rate, it's a big difference between this CD and any other mastering. NOTE: please ignore the results for the Toshiba-EMI DSOTM. I had forgotten that this mastering job uses pre-emphasis, so the results from my straight rip are essentially meaningless. Sorry!





Jon, could you run a peak/average RMS check on the 2ch SACD "Money" to see where it stacks up in all this? I don't think Cool Edit Pro generates the same numbers Sound Forge does, but it might give us an idea.

 

Looks like I may have to get the new LP and just record to my computer and make my own CD out of it.

Actually, I'll have to get the SACD too even though I can't play the SA layer yet.

Joel

 

Hi Joel, I'm also in Baton Rouge and thought you should know that none of the Wal Mart's, Target's, etc in Baton Rouge have the SACD yet. Looks like we have to wait until Tuesday

Best,

Chris

 

Those numbers are certainly interesting, but I'd be careful about jumping to conclusions. Here's why: Peak levels on any given signal will vary if there is any phase shift, such as is applied with filtering. For example, if you take a square wave and then limit the bandwidth by applying a filter you will see "overshoots", possibly quite large ones, at the start and end of the waveform. So the filtered version would appear to have higher peaks than the unfiltered one, but that doesn't mean it has more real dynamic range.

 

I got mine at Meijer yesterday for $15. I listened to the SACD stereo in headphones last night, beginning with a brief a/b with the LP. This is actually the first time I've compared an LP with an SACD and preferred the SACD. It's good.

I just listened to most of the 5.1 mix (in "quad") tonight, and I like it. In some ways I think it may be more faithful to the stereo mix than was the original quad mix. It is a surprisingly un-gimmicky mix. Yes, things do move around and there are sounds from the rear, but overall the mix just gives the impression of hearing the music with more breathing space. It sounds very relaxed and dynamic in an un-forced sort of way. (I missed a little bit of punch here and there in the front, compared to the stereo mix, but perhaps that's just my setup.) My only little quibble: At the end, where there's a bit of talking after "The lunatic is in my head", on the stereo mix the talking is out of phase, which makes it really sound like the talking *is* in your head. In the new mix it's just placed in the rear. Doesn't have quite the same eerie effect. A very small nit to pick, I admit.

For anyone who cares, the stereo mix has a little bit of soft, easygoing tape hiss - what folks around here tend to think of as "the good stuff". The multitrack mix doesn't seem to have any; but I didn't hear any evidence of de-hissing artifacts either, I'm glad to say.

Anyway, a very successful reissue, and a bargain at the same price as the regular stereo CD.

PS: Did anyone else notice the little bit of crosstalk from another (classical?) session that is heard at the very end as the "heartbeat" is fading away (in the stereo mix)? Being curious, I pulled out the LP, and I can just barely make out that it is indeed there on the original, though if I hadn't known about it I would never have heard it through the surface noise.


By the way:

"DSD Audio" indicates SACD
3/2.1 indicates three front plus two rear plus sub, i.e. 5.1 surround mix.

 

Not the Target, or any other store I know of! Those clerks take their sweet time with old stuff we want. They waste no time in getting the brand new releases out there, though.

 

I haven't seen a single one, Wes, not in Hastings, Best Buy, Circuit City, Zia, fye, Target, Wally World, nowhere!

 

Steve,

You are correct that the new surround mix gives a much more "open" listening area, as opposed to a discrete-type placement of instruments. Maybe the "boys" did not like the fact that the guitars were so exposed in the rears on the Alan Parsons mix. To me, it is facinating to hear the guitars so distinctly on the AP, yet the overall mix of the SACD is more natural.

This SACD is going to win over a lot of fans who are not keen on multichannel. They could not have picked a better title (non-fab) that will sell M/C SACD players. Sony knows what it is doing.

This is a great experience, and the best part is that it is selling for the same price as a CD!! Finally a good value from the record folks.

DVD-A/SACD debate aside, this is an outstanding way to promote multichannel to the masses. Even those who buy it with stereo only playback in hand, it will gnaw at the back of their minds that if they "upgrade". they can hear the 5.1 mix.

Hopefully, they will buy universal players
I can't wait to hear from the rest of you guys when this is officially out there. Woo-Hoo!!

 

Yup, it seems like the ones with the most luck are all back east for some reason. Hell, I actually made a half hour trip to another city(Ogden), to see if Target, Wally world, Shopko, Circuit City or even Best Buy would have it. They all said, "Sorry, it should be here Tuesday."

Well, I tried................Tuesday it is then.............


-Wes

 

To everyone,

It's WORTH the wait. You'll get one!!

 

Got mine at Wal-Mart today.Listening in stereo SACD,a lot more detail in the clock and bells in Time.Thats as far as I've got.My players not MCH,wish it was.

 

Just another data point to consider, really. I know that EQ in general can give misleading dynamic range information: if there's a sharp presence peak, for example, the snare hits will be louder and thus peak higher. But I'm not sure about the overshoots you mention. The peaks can't go any higher than 0 db without clipping. And the average RMS level wouldn't be affected by the filtering you describe, would it? I suppose a filtered version (do you mean the anti-aliasing filters, or regular EQ?) that was mastered at a low level could artificially inflate its peak values in the way you describe, but when I look at the peak levels and listen to those peaks, I hear what sounds to me like real dynamic variation. I always use ears and software, relying on the former more fundamentally, and in every case I can remember, the peaks and average levels I hear correspond to what I'm seeing on the waveform.

 

Gardo,

Beautiful, compelling review! Have you had a chance to check out the 2 channel SACD layer for those of us without Mch?

L.

 

Thanks for the kinds words, Louis.

Alas, no, but I hope to soon. I almost did last night, but I just had to hear some of that Mch mix again. Even got the wife to sit down and listen to about eight minutes worth. She's usually not very sensitive to soundstaging, but this time she could very easily hear and track what was going on, even when it was subtle. She commented on the clarity and ease of the sound as well.

 

OK, time for me to weigh in briefly as I just got this one home.

In a word, amazing!

I haven't listened to the entire thing through, but was able to sample the MCH mix and stereo SACD tracks enough to form an opinion.

First off, the 5.1 mix: Sound very open, no tape hiss, but no NR sound either. The mix was not distracting at all, rather very enveloping and well balanced. You can definitely hear much more detail in the instrumentation as a result of the new mix. There's a lot of stuff buried in there!

2Ch SACD: Equally good. I had the MFSL UD2/1 CD on hand to A/B. The SACD wiped the floor with the MoFi IMO. Bass is much tighter on the SACD, instrumentation seems as though a piece of fabric was lifted off the speakers. Vocals have a real smoothness, and when compared to the MoFi, there was a blatant PCM-sound to the midrange. I'd never noticed it before, because I had no good analog source to compare it to.

I've never thought the newest remaster/20th Anniversary sounded bad, maybe a little more detailed than the MoFi in the midrange, but a little "harder" sounding. Now with the SACD, I think I have the best of both worlds. Much better clarity than the MoFi and the tighter bass of the current remaster.

More detailed listening to follow tonight......

 

Where are those little 'tick' sounds that are supposed to be on the stereo master? I mean, I'm sure there in there on the new SACD, but does anyone have the specific timings where they're audible?

I hope someone understands what I am asking for!

FFF

 

Yep!
I was looking for the legend to show DSD 2.0, it failed too do so.

Enjoyed the review, Steve Graham.

 

Two-channel is not optional on SACD, I don't bother looking for any kind of confirmation.

 

OK I'm convinced - great posts guys!

I have ordered the DSOTM SACD through Play.com @ £8.99.

Seems it will ship from the USA "when stocks arrive". I expect it will take a few days...couldn't resist at that price!

Based on the reviews and comments here, I can't wait!

 

I was speaking in general terms about the effect filtering can have on a waveform. (Square waves come to mind because it's very easy to see the effect of phase shift on a square wave: The square wave's flat top occurs because an infinite series of harmonics combine with just the right amplitude and phase relationship to the fundamental. If you introduce any kind of filter that delays one part of the frequency spectrum relative to the rest then immediately the waveform is no longer flat on top.) You are right, nothing can go above zero dBfs, of course. But if we assume that everything was kept below clipping, you'd see a difference in the peak-to-average ratio, which could lead to the false conclusion that the filtered version had greater dynamics.

I don't mean to turn this into an esoteric thread-crop. The reason I mentioned it was that the numbers quoted might seem to lead one to think that the new SACD under discussion here may be more compressed than some of the others mentioned. I only mean to say that the numbers alone aren't enough to draw that conclusion.

(BTW, this issue about overshoot caused audible problems with some early players. They did not take the effect into account when designing the system, so when certain disks came along that were recorded right up to the maximum level permitted, those player would clip hard because they had no headroom to deal with the overshoot.)

 

Thanks.

Gee whiz, I seem to have fallen into a serious spate of misreading things. Sorry about that.

 

Not having a 5.1 setup I am looking forward to hearing the fold down of the multi-channell mix as a sort of 'alternate' mix to the stereo mix. Are there any cool bits of guitar, vocals etc. that are on the fold-down but not on the original stereo mix? Of course the original stereo mix is THE mix but I would likew to hear some of the stuff that was mixed out.

Shine On,

Chris

 

Chris,

The 5.1 mix on a MCH SACD cannot fold down to be listened to as a 2.0 version. The 2.0 DSD version on the new SACD is a transfer from the original 2 channel master mix.