Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon - Analysis

Yes. As does the early Japan version of The Wall.

 

I've certainly never seen concrete facts about who mastered these. This lets the speculation run rampant. . . .

 

I don't follow your logic?

Because the Black Triangle sounds just like the vinyl, there is no way the CD could be from an EQ'd vinyl master? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Because the CD sounds just like the vinyl it is more likely to be from a vinyl master.

 

Isn't it that tapes that are EQ'd for vinyl are done so, so that once they are cut they sound differently than the tape? Or am I mistaken?

 

The variance or accuracy of pre-emphasis is not the point. Mastering moves were made.

Claiming that it was a flat transfer is the same wishful thinking that folks make about our own hosts work and he has repeatedly stated that is not the case.

 

My understanding is that they are EQ'd because vinyl can only handle so much in the extreme frequency ranges.

Admittedly I've never cut a vinyl record though. . . .

 

Normalizing the volume in these graphs is doing the exact same thing that should be done in any critical listening comparison of different masterings or hardware components. You get the volume “matched” as close as possible to focus on the differences that matter (i.e., things you can’t control) - not the volume, which you can easily change.

And no one here has said they hate the graphical interface. Foobar has done great work.

 

1. By "flat transfer", I meant no EQ applied. Obviously "mastering moves" are always made because that's the definition of mastering. You're being redundant by not specifying what sort of "mastering moves" you're referring to.

2. Read my post. I'm not the one who claimed it was a flat transfer. I said that I read somewhere that it is a flat transfer and that I have to go find where I read that. That is not the same thing as me definitively claiming that it is a flat transfer. I purposely worded my post the way I did so that it would not be confusing or imply that it is actually a flat transfer. I guess I SOMEHOW still wasn't being clear enough.

3. Why is it being a flat transfer "wishful thinking"? When did I once claim that a flat transfer was necessarily desireable? I would guess that most of the time the master tape is unfinished or could be made to sound better. But it being a flat transfer is neither desireable nor undesirable. It is what it is, independent of your opinion of it, and especially irrelevent to your opinion of people who hold an opinion of it. If it's a flat transfer, then it's a flat transfer. If it's not a flat transfer, then it's not a flat transfer.

 

I dunno, I would say that pre-emphasis does not count as a mastering move. It's like using dolby on a tape. The EQ is meant to be un-done before listening.

I'm in 100% agreement with you here though. Highly doubtful it was flat.

 

That's what I thought too, but your graphs show that the 1983 mastering still has ultra low frequency information. So if we are correct in our assumption, then it would be logical to conclude that the source tape had not been EQ'd for vinyl.

 

OK, fine, but that has nothing to do with your earlier logic that because the BT sounds just like vinyl it must not be.

 

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=210229&postcount=150

Apparently the Toshiba is actually a flat transfer of the master tape?

 

You may be thinking of RIAA equalisation - all records have treble boosted and bass cut when the record is cut. This is to keep the treble above HF noise that is more noticeable than LF noise, and to keep bass modulations from getting too big - so in a sense you right, equalisation is applied because the vinyl can only handle so much. BUT the phono stage of you preamp includes an inverse equalisation network so this is all nulled out. You musty remember that this eq is applied automatically, and is not something applied by the engineer to tailor the sound of the record.

What we are looking at in these graphs is a different type of eq in that the engineer or producer is making deliberate changes to the frequency response to correct deficiencies in the master tape or maybe just to please his/her own taste. eg it is widely believed here that MFSL routinely applies smiley eq that boosts bass and treble, and superficially makes the sound "better".

 

I didn't say it sounded "just like the vinyl". I said it sounds very close to the vinyl so it seemed reasonable to believe that it was possible that they were sourced from the same tape

 

I purposely didn't mention the RIAA curve because that's a 40 dB swing from low end to top end. If the Toshiba black triangle tape had the RIAA curve applied to it, we all would definitely be able to tell by listening to it. I get annoyed when I hear that mastering when it's not de-emphasized, let alone with a 20 dB bass cut and a 20 dB treble boost on top of it.

 

That was not me saying that a flat transfer is always desireable. That was me saying that a flat transfer of Dark Side is desireable because of Alan Parsons' consistent superior EQ choices. You guys really have to stop putting words in my mouth. It's causing way too much confusion.

 

The first Japan (50DP) CD of The Wall does not have pre-emphasis.

 

Getting the volume the same clutters the graphs and loses the relative volume of each mastering. For me (and of course I may be alone), it is easier to see the equalisation differences when the graphs are naturally spaced out by their different volumes. Each to his own. I see no need to volume equalise for a graph.

 

I haven't seen mention of this Rolling Stones article, It's a must read for all "Dark Side" aficionados.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/n...loyd-revisit-dark-side-band-tensions-20110928

 

If moving things closer together the more identical they actually are is cluttering the graph in your view, then yes, that's what happens.

But that's not what we're comparing here, is it?

But they are only spaced out to the extent their volumes differ. If spacing is what you want, wouldn't you be served best by seven separate graphs, all normalized?

The volume normalization corresponds to what you'd do when you were really listening. You'd set the volume by ear for each mastering, not to a fixed level.

 

No, RIAA is never recorded to tape. It's applied at the last minute by the cutting amplifier.

We're talking about a cutting dub. Where when the first mastering for vinyl is done they record everything the engineer does, so everytime they need a new lacquer cut they don't need to call in a mastering engineer. That can include "moves" the engineer does to improve the sound, and other moves done to keep the needle from bouncing out of the groove. Like rolling off the extreme frequencies, or summing the bass to mono.

We cannot be sure that each deviation on the graphs is due solely to an engineer twiddling a specific knob. Many things can affect the spectral balance - the condition and/or generation of the tape, the tape machine alignment, the console, etc.

 

OK, fine, I accept your correction.

Still makes no sense at all to state that the CD sounds "very close " to the vinyl therefore it wasn't made with a vinyl cutting master tape. It would make it more likely to be from one.

Not saying all the evidence points to that, just that your logic doesn't jive on that one point.

 

I didn't "put any words in your mouth" just quoted your exact words with no comment.

You really need to stop trying to weasel out of every comment you make.

 

Yes it does. 50DP-361/62 & 48DP 5007/08 are digitally identical and both have it.

The first release of The Wall was a Japan made marketed in Europe Harvest CDP-7-46036-8 that does not have it. It preceded the 50DP by a year. Has an entirely different mastering.