Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon - Analysis

This is really neat, thanks for sharing it. I too am going to seek out that 1984 EMI and have a mids party of my own.

 

In the spectral analysis it is all about the shape of the curves, yes. Not the vertical position of the curves.

If I normalized the volume the shape of the curves would remain unchanged. For instance if I plotted the 2011 Guthrie Immersion redbook CD as a new line it would appear in all the graphs exactly the same shape as the 2001 blu-ray (ie, the purple line) just up the chart a couple of dB, probably two hash marks up. This is because EQ "moves" were the same for hi- and lo-rez Immersion versions. That is what the charts are meant to show.

Normalizing would not change the information the charts are trying to convey, what parts of the spectrum have more energy. As in; whether the bass and/or treble are more prominent compared to the midrange, relative to the other masterings. All normalizing would do is place all the curves on top of each other at the center of the chart and make it harder to read.

The waveforms are meant to tell you about the volume. If I normalized the clips for those screenshots it would destroy that information and make them worthless.

 

Folks have asked me to include vinyl versions in these charts before. I feel that there are too many variables in vinyl playback to be confident we're capturing the actual information in the grooves. (By contrast we know we've gotten the bits off the CDs perfectly.) If we did the exact same LP using three different cartridges we'd likely get three different curves on the charts.

I'm not saying you shouldn't listen to your LPs, enjoy them! Just that it wouldn't be appropriate to include them here.

Besides, everyone knows the Harvest -3/-3 is better!

 

THANK YOU for this. No comparative discussion would be complete without the kind of rigorous objectivity this data provides... an invaluable tool when it comes time to leave personal preference behind and boil it right down to factual observation. You just made an OCD audio nut and Floyd fanatic very, very happy!

Oh — and hi-res 2011 Guthrie PCM for the win!!!

 

I ONLY mentioned level matching for spectral differences graphs. They are supposed to show the differences in samples' spectra based on frequency, however, the spectra should be comparable & the easiest way to do so, me thinks, is to make the analyzed samples equal in perceived loudness (using track ReplayGain values for the original samples). This way when you take one of the tracks as your reference the spectral difference graphs will show more accurate quantitive values, IMO.

 

You're welcome. It was fun to do!

That the Sony pressed Black Triangle is a train wreck of a mastering, and the West German pressed EMI wipes the floor with it, and everyone should line up to buy my inventory of them for big bucks!

Seriously though, my intention was to show the relative dynamics and spectral balances of all the known Dark Side of the Moon masterings. Those being the two major mastering tools. Give folks some information to help better understand what they hear.

My intention was NOT to tell anyone what to like. I realize that runs counter to the usual threads here, but there it is.

 

Nope, normalizing will not change the shape of the curves one bit.

 

Thank you for your hard work on this.

 

Of course, not the curve shapes, but the accurate dB values of boost/attenuation based on certain frequency.

 

That's what the shape of the curves tells you.

Hang on, let me see if I can do this before I leave for work in 15 minutes.

 

You're finally feeling me, aren't ya? There is no rush though, you may need to carefully think it over.

 

OK, what I did was; I have a column in my spreadsheet where I sum the channels. I simply added the ReplayGain values I had to that equation. These are values from scanning the actual five minute clips.

They are:

Money - 1983 Sony
RPG Track Gain: +0.62 dB

Money - 1984 EMI
RPG Track Gain: -6.46 dB

Money - 1985 Capitol
RPG Track Gain: -1.19 dB

Money - 1988 MFSL
RPG Track Gain: -0.47 dB

Money - 1993 Sax
RPG Track Gain: -5.18 dB

Money - 2003 Guthrie
RPG Track Gain: -6.00 dB

Money - 2011 Guthrie-RedBook
RPG Track Gain: -6.04 dB

Money - 2011 Guthrie-BluRay
RPG Track Gain: -4.29 dB

Money Normalized Version:


Money Original Volume:


Money Normalized Version:


Money Original Volume:


This does not change anything about what the chart is telling you about the relative spectral balance. Just moves all the plots on top of one another. If you think it tells you something different, you're reading the charts wrong.

 

Nope, just showing you that what you're suggesting is meaningless.

 

Thanks for putting all this together. It's great being able to search out and find detailed info like this (if only this stuff existed for all band/album releases!!).

 

Much more meaningful to me now, thx

 

I'm surprised how close 1993 Sax and 2003 Guthrie are, considering how different they sound (to me).

 

I prefer having them normalized too. It allows me to see the differences better.


Again, thanks for all of your work. I would like to do this myself, but I’m a lazy hopeless geek.

 

^ exactly, we don't need to see gain in spectrum differences' comparison.

 

I thought the new remaster sounded a little dull in comparison to my 1984 emi, your finding bear this out. One thing is very nice about the new one is how unsquashed it is. Seems to be a trend starting

great analysis

 

Foobar whats your favorite mastering?

 

I strongly doubt the accuracy of these EAC values. The 2011 version is very obviously more compressed if you look at the wavforms, but for some reason it gets a better DR value?

 

Nicely done, foobar! Now that I know that Audacity exports spectral data, I'll try and do the same the next time I do an A/B comparison thread.

 

foobar2000, once again a great thread/post. Thank you for this. I always look forward to contributions from you and Vernon. As time and patience allow, keep 'em coming!

 

foobar2000, thanks for this excellent work and comparison. It shows, at least to me, why I am not a fan of the 2011s. Major boost in the low end, and drop off in the midrange when compared to the Sax or the original. To me, the 2011s have a nice smooth high end, but a bloated bottom end that loses the detail and definition of the Sax. I'll happily stick with my Shine On box.

Thanks again for an excellent education and validation of my ears.

 

Foobar, Im ignorant on this. Since your knowledge here seems unvaluable, please tell us what would you recommend for a vinyl and cd purchase.