Pink Floyd - DSOTM - SACD Review/Discussion Thread

The SACD multi-channel version really brings out the more obscure bits that are more discreet on the 2 channel version.

As I said before, DSOTM played on VH1 Classics the other night and my kids were in the room and it didn't have to censor the beginning of "Breathe" but now with the SACD multi version, I would.

Now you can very clearly and loudly hear "I've been mad for f****g years, absolutely years".

Remarkable.

JohnG

 

Iwent to Borders today and they did'nt have it. Will go to best buy tomorrow, so I can participate.

 

If you listen to the very beginning way up loud, you can hear everything fading in before the heartbeats start, of course.
And, on the stereo sacd, when I listened for the noise which becomes audible at the fade-in, I noticed a distinct 'buzzy' component.

The earlier cds didn't seem to have that same buzz sound,
which is why I wonder just what it is and how it got there on the sacd - on the stereo part of the sacd, at least.


FFF

 

I bought my copy at Best Buy earlier today and so far I'm very impressed with the SACD, but I haven't had enough time to evaluate it much less do an A/B comparison with my MoFi gold ULD-1. I will say this however: It's fairly obvious that Doug Sax was quite aware of the low bass anomally (i.e., on the track Money in the 15 - 25 hz region; ends about 2 1/2 min. into the song). I was uncertain about this before, but it was apparently on the DSoTM master tape all along and not something added when MoFi remastered the material for CD back in the early 90's. [Note: my 18" Velodyne subwoofer is all too familiar with section of music!] Kudos to Mr. Sax & others involved! He managed to hide most of it within the texture of the low bass so that it only modestly draws attention to itself (i.e., with gear that can reach that low). While the rumbling sound is still mildly audible, it never reaches levels distracting enough to resemble severe oscillation.


Cat

 

I still have to do a comparison with my DTS Surround version. Though right off the bat, the SACD being re-mixed as it is, does sound different.
Certain things are much clearer but I can't tell if its the SACD thats bringing it out or the re-mix.

JohnG

 

A review, of sorts, at MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/890499.asp?0cv=CB20

 

Slightly off topic here, but I remember the story of Paul and Linda McCartney being asked to record some random type dialog/talking for the DSOTM record and happily doing so, but their parts were not used on the finished master! Wonder what they said?

Maybe "Buy Red Rose Speedway"?

 

Wow. I'm listening to the SACD 2-channel layer on my Sony SCD-CE775. This is fantastic!

I have to agree with Wes - the MoFi gold does sound smoother, but the SACD has more detail. I now have two DSOTMs to choose from, depending on what I want to hear.

I think it's time to invest on a Sony Dream system just to hear the multichannel mix...

 

Two great reissues in one day...How could this be???

First the excellent "Who's Next Deluxe Edition", well at least Disc One is!

Then there is this beauty...I don't have SACD Multichannel, so my review is strickly on the 2-channel part and it is GREAT! Full of rich detail and a pleasured workout for my ears! I may have to invest in SACD Multichannel just for this one alone! Just when I was so high on DVD-Audio! Note to Warner/Rhino, you guys better get those Sinatra DVD-A's out soon before I jump to the "other" side.

Chris C

 

I thought it was something about Ringo being the walrus but I could be mistaken....

 

I've always been aware of the mysterious music that comes in at the very, very end of the album as the heartbeat is fading out. Some describe it as tones and others as an orchestral piece. Some have even suggested it's a Beatle tune!

In any event, you've always had to turn your system way up to hear it, but on the SACD it comes through nice and clear. I still can't tell what the heck it is but the sounds are much more audible.

 

I have know about this music at the end of the track too but I never have been able to figure out what it is. Did they reuse tapes back then?

Has anyone noticed a humming sound in the background on money? I played it in my dvd player and my cd player and heard this warm humming sound both times.

 

I guess I'm one of the few that was not blown away with this one. Now in all fairness I was in a foul mood last night so maybe I shouldn't have listened or maybe because I'm been fortunate enough to have some truely outstanding pressings. Unfortunately I do not have multi channel SACD capability so my judgment is based on the stereo version.

IMO,it revealed nothing in terms of detail that I have not heard in other versions. The only thing that I can say is that the bass is both better defined and extended than some of the previous versions that I own.

Oh and the cover is an atrocity, the equivalent of painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa. It defiles one of the most recognizable album covers.

 

I have to agree big time with your opinion on the cover. It SUCKS big time. Why change something as classic and stark as the original cover?

 

I kinda like it Beatlelennon65.

Thems some harsh words....

 

Was there a picture of the FRONT cover posted? I only saw the inside. What does it look like?

 

It's been posted Ron but here it is again for you...

 

HEY, NIce!!!!!!!!!!!!!Now i know there's no way to get the wrong one!!!!!

 

I feel the same way. I have now listened to the stereo mix 3 times, twice through speakers, and once though my STAX headphone system, and I was not blown away.

The sound was clear, almost clinical. It didn't sound bad at all, on the contrary, but it wasn't the end all and be all I was expecting.

On the other hand, I did feel that the surround mix provided me with more of a palpable "jawdropping" experience than the 2-channel mix.

I was either expecting much more from the 2-channel mix, or it is just not as "great" as others may be making it out to be. Just MHO.

I am waiting to get my hands on the new 30th anniv. vinyl to see how that compares.

 

I really like the new artwork. They changed the artwork for the 20th anniversary issue as well (although not as drastically). The differences in artwork is one of the reasons I enjoy collecting all the various issues and reissues (different countries, different anniversaries, different formats, etc.)

Anyway, the "stained glass" artwork is unique to the 30th anniversary SACD. The LP will use the original artwork and I'm sure stock copies of the current CD will continue to use the original artwork. The SACD is just an interesting diversion. It's pretty friggin' cool!

 

Not only that, but the original Capitol/Harvest CDs had the title printed on the cover, and of course the MoFi has their typical monkeyed-with cover.

I don't know what the old Toshiba disc looks like. Has there ever been a CD of DSOTM with the *original* artwork?

Ryan

 

I listened to a very little bit of the 2-channel SACD layer last night, comparing it to the MoFi and the Toshiba-EMI versions. From this very limited session with just a bit of the beginning of "Great Gig," I'd say the SACD 2-channel mix is definitely louder (much higher average level) and also a bit more compressed than the other two versions. Clarity was fine, but it did indeed border on clinical at times and had less of the majesty of the other two versions, as well as a little less sense of space and depth.

I listened to a bit of the redbook layer and while it was quite listenable it was not nearly as good as the 2-channel SACD layer, though the tonality was roughly the same.

I need to do more listening before I can say any more. I can say, though, that the multichannel experience is a quantum leap forward, in every respect, from any version I've heard.

 

I think it's OK they change the artwork up. I mean, we have a totally new version of the album (5.1 SACD) so that deserves distinguishment.

Reading others reviews since the Tuesday release, we have some folks that aren't as impressed with the 2ch SACD version as the posters who got their copies early.

I'm still sticking to my original comments, which favor the SACD substantially over the other releases. Now, I haven't heard the EMI '83 release, but consider this. Although it may be a "flat" transfer from the original tape, why does that necessarily consitute the best way to hear the recording. As Steve has said many a times, he doesn't necessarily do a flat tranfer, some EQ tweaking (or other secrets) are sometimes need to bring the best out of the tape. This is what I feed James Guthrie did. There's is no obvious EQ'ing done to me, besides really firming up the bass.

Also, let's remember that the EMI CD used 20-year old analog-to-digital converters. Certainly brand new analog-to-DSD digital converters will be more accurate.

What some describe as "clinical" sounds like an open window to the recording both to me. This may be system dependant. I'd say my system is on the warm side of neutral, so maybe that's why I found the sound on the SACD to be about perfect.

 

I have to agree with SamS. That is exactly how I feel about this release and many releases in general, as far as EQ'ing and what have you. I don't think the SACD sounds clinical at all, and I certainly wouldn't call my system 'warm', but I wouldn't call the system 'cold' either. It is warm when the source material is warm and clinical when the source is clinical. DSOTM on SACD is not cold or clinical, IMHO. Of course, to each his own. I still like the sound of my MoFi UD1 gold, but I don't think I'll be listening to it as much, not with this SACD (and upcoming vinyl release) and the new 5.1 mix.

 

Thanks Larry,
The search starts: NOW!