Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon - Best sounding CD (updated)

Haven't heard all the above but my red book by Capital c2 46091 sounds better than my SACD version.

 

So how many people that voted have actually heard all the options?

I'm guessing not that many from looking at the results... I mean how many respondents have the BT? Seems like the responses are tracking with the availability of the samples, right?

Maybe the poll title should be the best that you've heard?

 

Well I for one listened to all the available masterings including the BT. To my own surprise I like the SACD DSD layer best, I feel it comes closest to the tonality of the BT but with the benefit of a better source/transfer.

 

Yes,i'm glad i'm not the only one.Many of my SACD's are no better and in some cases worse than there red book counter parts.

 

The DSOTM SACD is notoriously unexceptional.

 

I had the SACD, but since I did not have a SACD player at the time, I could only listen to the redbook layer. Did not like the way the redbook layer sounded, so I traded it off. Kind of a shame since I now have a Denon SACD. Maybe I will have to acquire another copy....

 

I think the 2 channel and 5 channel layers sound pretty good. The redbook is notorious for being brickwalled.

 

They both sound good, but it's difficult to make this album sound bad! however the Redbook almost succeeds and is probably the worst version.
Personally I much prefer the Quad mix to the 5.1 mix, and I value other versions over the DSD stereo layer as well...

 

It is hard to gauge the preferred mastering of this test as A and C (TO and non TO) are conflated. The "holy grail" non TO black Triangle is a distinct mastering from the TO's (apart from the very early TOs), which was a flat transfer of the Japan Pro Use vinyl dub.

Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon CD - Mysteries of the CD Masterings

 

Sony deliberately 'downgraded' the SQ of the Red Book layer to promote SA-CD.
Sony Fake News; just like when Sony got caught faking movie reviews & putting roots on CD.

So, when comparing the 1st SA-CD release to Red Book, use another source.

 

Does it? The early non TO versions of the B/T were a direct transfer from the 15ips master tape used to produce the Japan Pro Use vinyl records in the 70s, one of the best tape quality of this album. Add to that the masters were less than 10 years old at the time. To my ears the SACD sounds nice but obviously more compressed and limited in its dynamic range.

 

I'll put it this way, (to my ears) many of the remasters sound too goosed in one way or another, whereas the SACD has a well balanced presentation.
The DSD layer of the SACD shows no signs of digital compression (I have a bit-perfect rip). The B/T might be one of the best sounding CD's ever produced, but that doesn't mean it's the last word, in my opinion.

 

To my ears the SACD sounds nice, certainly a bit better than the later B/Ts with the EMI mastering, but a bit more congested than the early one. To me it sounds closer to the 2011 remaster than the early B/T. I rarely play the SACD these days but if I want to hear something different (but not necessarily higher quality) for a change, it is usually the Mofi or the quadraphonic LP folded down to stereo. But sure, we all perceive sound differently and there is no "bad version" of this album (with the possible exception of the CD layer of the SACD) so everybody's MWV.

 

Spent the afternoon listening to five masterings of DSOTM.

1. BT non-TO: Terrific mastering. Warm, full of depth, perhaps a bit mid-centric but not obnoxiously so. Some other posts here have compared this mastering to listening on vinyl and I think that's an apt description. This makes me want to get a copy of the Pro-Use vinyl.

2. MFSL UD-1: Treble feels goosed, mids seem recessed. I don't hear much more detail than the BT despite this being from the master and the BT being from a dub.

3. 20th Anniversary Doug Sax: Bass feels boosted, mix is dense. Harder to discern individual instruments on this mix than with the others. I grew up listening to this one so it's my baseline but I do feel that it's the least revealing.

4. SACD DSD Layer: A technically excellent, balanced mastering that just doesn't feel involving for some reason. I can't fault it in any specific way, it just didn't hit me the way the others did.

5. Immersion Blu-ray stereo mix: On par with the SACD, but more involving to my ears.

In the end for most balanced I'd choose the Blu-ray, for most addictive sound I'd take the BT.

 

I voted for black triangle.

 

I have both and they do sound very similar. The B/T has the edge though, IMO, with a bit more dynamics, detail and consistency right through, ie the vinyl does get further apart towards the end of each side (all relative of course).

Remarkably though, the vinyl is as quiet as the CD at normal listening levels.

 

Receiving the Non-TO Dark Side this week and I'm excited to draw comparisons. Found that sucker for $50... not too bad.

So far I've only compared the Blackface Harvest, the Sax standalone remaster and the 2011.

My thoughts so far is that the 2011 remaster has a stronger degree of clarity that grabs my attention, but the same can be said for the other 2011's in the catalog. Now, the other two aren't bad by any means.

 

I like the made in the USA MFSL. It is warm sounding and has nice separation. The 2011 remaster and the 5.1 sound more sterile to me, even if they are more detailed.

 

Forgot about this thread. I voted for the black triangle. It's one of the reasons I began to seek out different masterings altogether. It's lifelike. It and the Abbey Road black triangle were the drivers for that.

That said I think the '11 remaster sounds great, I thought the '92 (?) Doug Sax remaster sounded great. I can't recall hearing a bad CD mastering of DSOTM, or any Pink Floyd album, to be honest.

 

Wait, isn't the Blackface harvest the same mastering as black triangle? I have a made in Japan Harvest blackface with the same CP 35-3017.

 

Ummmm...maybe the Redbook layer.

The DSD 5.1 layer is phenomenal.

Ymmv, but yeah...running into a Bose surround sound unit, the DSD layer is "winning."

The SACD is my "go to" for DSOTM, over even any vinyl pressing I have.

 

We were talking about the stereo mix. Read my following post.

 

I find it interesting that some people like the Blu Ray versions more or less than the SACD versions. Hey people; those are the same masterings as far as I know. Just one is in DSD format and the other is PCM. The audible difference between the two is on the negligible side.

Both sound pretty darn good to me in both stereo and 5.1. I do have a fondness for the 4.0 mix from the 70s also.

 

It depends… There are 3 Blackface releases. The 1st is manufactured by Sony, the second is manufactured by Toshiba and uses the Sony mastering, but the third is manufactured by Toshiba and uses an EMI mastering. It's all here: Pink Floyd Archives-U.K. CD Discography

The same is true for the Black Triangle, BTW. Some are manufactured with the Sony mastering, some with the EMI mastering. It's all here: Pink Floyd Archives-Japanese Pink Floyd CD Discography

So it comes down to checking the matrix codes to be sure what you have!

 

$50 is not bad value considering that near mint Pro Use LPs sell for over $300. Just make sure that your CD player does de-emphasise CDs with pre-emphasis or if you plan to rip the tracks, de-emphasise it with the appropriate software. There have been several occasions where someone has simply ripped the CD and then wondered what is so special about it when it sounds so trebley.