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

Not in my opinion. I like the extra detail on the SACD.

 

How do you know which one I have?

 

And they are:

1) One is Japan, one is US
2) One had a J Card, one did not
3) ?
4) ?
5) ?

 

So far I've only heard these:
Compared on PC with level adjustments to make better comparison.


A - Black Triangle (first ever pressing)*:
39.9 \ 43.4 \ 70.2 \ 55.2 \ 72.4 \ 44.6 \ 53.9 \ 54.7 \ 61.2
* Using Izotope Ozone5 EQ "De-Emphasis" preset.

B - Harvest (Silver Face):
87.8 \ 94.7 \ 100 \ 97.2 \ 100 \ 99.1 \ 100 \ 96.1 \ 100

C - Doug Sax 1992/3 Remaster (triangle and contour etching):
67.9 \ 69.1 \ 76.9 \ 75.0 \ 96.8 \ 69.6 \ 89.3 \ 75.7 \ 82.5

D - MFSL UDCD-512:
29.3 \ 34.1 \ 39.2 \ 40.3 \ 41.5 \ 56.3 \ 49.2 \ 57.8 \ 52.9 \ 60.0

E - 2003 SACD (CD layer):
34.4 \ 92.4 \ 92.0 \ 93.0 \ 92.7 \ 100.0 \ 84.3 \ 100.0 \ 100.0 \ 100.0

It was pretty hard to make up my mind. On some tracks I preferred one over another.
E is out straight away, too loud and too bright - those clock bells ouch!. I am trying to source the SACD layer in some form I can play, but the CD layer is bad.
D has a bit more bass, but it does sound quite smooth
B is a bit bright, and I don't think it's pre-emphasis as the culprit. I tried de-emphasis EQ and it got real muddy.
A sounds a bit like its froma tape dub in places. Things just don't come through clear enough for me.
C sounded generally quite altogether, every track sounded consistently like the last, in a good way. It may be a little harder sounding that some of the others, but I'd most likely pick this one to play, or maybe the MFSL, depending on my mood.

Sorry, can't really cast a vote as I haven't heard them all. I may prefer the 2011 or the Shine On, or that one that no one talks about, done by the guy who addresses himself by the symbol ' ? '... (I'm kidding).

 

I like the 20th anniversary Doug Sax remaster the best over the Harvest Blackface, MFSL, Bluray and SACD.

 

Okay, I've searched the site over and over and over and come away confused. I have a Black Triangle Toshiba with matrix codes "CP35-3017 31A3 CDP 7 46001 2" and EAC peak levels are 39.9/43.3/70.1/55.2/72.3/44.5/53.9/54.6/61.2.

1) Is this the "holy grail" mastering?
2) The disc shows all the external hallmarks of being genuine but EAC shows no pre-emphasis-- should I be concerned?
3) Is there a sonic difference between the non-cdp and cdp discs?

Thanks for the help with yet another DSOTM question!

John

 

Japan for UK non-TO Harvest "Blackface" for me. It is NOT bright.

CDP 7 46001 2 (CP35-3017 27B1). You know it's NOT bright when it doesn't sound bright on my main rig which has a propensity for brightness.

 

I can't vote because I only have 2003 and 2011 versions (had 1992 Sax but gave it away or sold in 2003 before I knew better!). A good friend has the Shine On box and that version always sounds good on his system. I'm always jealous about the rarities bonus disc in that set.

Question for the experts, are there any other CDs that have had this much of a mastering history?

 

John,

1. CP35-3017 31A3 CDP 7 46001 2 is the "holy grail" mastering. It's the Black Triangles with the TO in the matrix that do not contain the same mastering EAC values. The CDP 7 46001 2 were discs made in Japan for export. the disc which contain the CP35-3017 only in the matrix were Japan for Japan. But still the same "holy grail" mastering present;
2. No
3. I'd like to have someone prove there are! If there are any sonic differences it might be in the imagination, or so slight who really cares. The only people who absolutely must have the non CDP versions are the collectors who are after the very earliest issues.

 

This is a great sounding disc! Of course it should as it contains the original Japanese mastering.

 

Can we do another update to this poll to not include the BR, BF, etc? Talk about a waste of my time with that being the best. How about we try looking for CDs that sound better than those?

 

EAC levels for the original "holy grail" are:

A - Black Triangle (first ever pressing)*:39.9 \ 43.4 \ 70.2 \ 55.2 \ 72.4 \ 44.6 \ 53.9 \ 54.7 \ 61.2
You have the first mastering (holy grail), 2nd issue it would seem. See http://www.pinkfloydarchives.com/DJaCDPF.htm#DSOTMMFSL2
for details.

 

My opinion:

1. Toshiba/EMI CP 35-3017 Black Traingle (TO or non-TO) - the upper frequencies sound smeared/distorted.

2. MFSL (UD1 or UD2) - smiley faced EQ with the bass particularly exaggerated, but the high frequencies are very clean.

3. Harvest "Blackface" - similar problems to 1.

4. 2003 SACD redbook layer - sounds OK to me (but many say that it is limited). I need to listen to this one again.

5. 20th Anniversary - a superb job by Doug Sax. I can't fault this one.

6. 1992 Remaster - this mastering is the same as 5.

7. 2011 Remaster - I'm yet to listen to this one.

In summary, you can't go wrong with 5 or 6. While 1 is considered the holy grail by many, personally I think they are simply wrong and have fallen into the first pressing is always best trap. 2 is just like someone has switched on the loudness button on your amp (if you have one!).

 

I concur with this. The 5.1 SACD layer is the best I've ever heard this album sound (digitally). I think it is out of this world! I haven't priced it lately but whenever I've seen it since release it has been dirt cheap (as low as $10) & readily available. The best music deal on the planet IMO.

 

I thought the grail mastering is a non-TO BF/BT...

So does my non-TO BF contain pre-emphasis? I'm still confused about this. Played it on two systems (main and car) and it sounds the same on both. Thanks!

I don't hear these problems. In fact, the non-TO BF is the cleanest I've heard DSOTM sound on CD. The MFSL on the other hand is bright (now, I happen to like that in this case), but I wouldn't call it more clear than the non-TO. Have you listened to both the TO and non-TO (you lump them together)? Pre-emphasis or no?

See, I love what Sax has done with the Floyd catalog (the way it sounds on the Shine On set, anyway), his is my go-to Animals and so far The Wall also, but DSOTM is where he dropped it I think. The Great Gig In The Sky is just grating on his mastering, comparing it with the non-TO or even the UD is like night and day. And he also has what to me sounds like a definite bass EQ, whereas with the UD we can still fantasize about this possibly being the original master. Now, that bass EQ for me interferes with the presentation in the worst moments, like the two minute intro to Time (after the chimes), to give an example. YMMV

Do you have a BF? You won't need to rob a bank to get one. Or are you rather dissatisfied with it?

 

SACD layer was better than my MFSL.

 

I have a Canadian silver face c2 46001 DSOTM cd. What year/mastering is this?

 

Does it have a RE1 in the matrix anywhere? And is it by DISQUE AMERIC CANADA?

 

I downloaded the Black Triangle version once, and deleted it soon after. Too bright, and flaky upper frequences. I get the feeling people are just trying to protect their "investment". The 2011 is the best sounding.

 

Noooooo, what ever gave you that idea?

 

There's a TO, there's a non-TO, and there's pre-emphasis that doesn't work on some equipment. OTOH brightness is a known issue but not an inherent quality of the consensus best mastering.

Again, I don't understand people getting all upset over the BT. Yes, it the Aston Martin of Floyd CDs. Can you get the same mastering cheaper - no, MUCH cheaper? Yes.

 

The version I heard had been de-emphasised, so should have sounded OK. Still too bright.

 

Cool, one down. But was it a TO or non-TO?

 

No idea. I'd just heard how "great" the Black Triangle was supposed to be, and stumbled across it on the net one day as flacs. I was disappointed, so didn't keep it. Same with the so called holy grail BT Abbey Road. Too bright.

 

The BT Abbey Road is not bright at all.