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

The recording was made bouncing from one 16-track to a second, and if memory serves, both generations were sync'd up to create the 5.1 mix. Thus, one could (incorrectly) consider the mixdown master "third generation".

Nobody actually working in the business considers a mixdown master "a copy of the multitracks". Mixes are performances in and of themselves, and those performances live on the mixdown tapes: the first generation master tapes.

 

No.

 

Then Dave Gilmour lied, mis-spoke, or simply doesn't know wtf he's talking about.

 

His statement was misguided.

 

As I stated in my earlier reply, it actually depends on one's definition of the terminology. I won't offend the mixing artiste by suggesting that what they do isn't creating a work of sonic beauty unto itself. I do this myself in fact. I was just pointing out relative chain of sonic integrity when a new master is created from the original multi-tracks. Obviously analog chain can and often did result in the need to make a production copy of the mixdown master in order to make neccessary EQ adjustments for final cutting. Every time the information on a tape is dubbed to another tape, it is not first gen tape any longer. If one considers a mixdown the true source , then they may wish to call it 1st gen master. But as I said before while this is true, it isn't 1st gen reproduction (tape).

 

It is.

 

Fair enough !

 

Maybe we need some new, more specific terminology.

Here’s what I would call it.

Pre Mastering Dub referring to how many times something has been copied to bounce, edit, add fades, etc...

Post Mastering Dub referring to any copy made from the master.

 

That sounds to me like a very practical suggestion. That would also allow for taking into account whether or not the multi-tracks themselves may have been transferred into copies for utility before the final mixing work.

 

In the end terminology like 'first' or 'second generation' only matters if record companies had set up good administrations with every tape in the vaults correctly labeled. I wonder if this is the case with the Pink Floyd masters after decades of lending, swapping and wearing out the parts.

 

The 1986 BT has the later more common EMI mastering. Not the 'holy grail' but as you say still a nice alternative.

 

I think you are referring to the faint Ticket to Ride instrumental. It is present on every DSOTM CD and LP I've heard except for the early Sony mastered BT CD and the Pro Use LP (both of which used the same tape source).

 

This is probably the definitive resource
The Pink Floyd Discographies Page

 

On CD I have all the below versions, I think I'm good, the most expensice one (SACD) cost 10€ incl shipping.

Harvest "Blackface"
2003 SACD redbook layer
1992 Remaster
2011Remaster

I realize it will be very difficult to give a vote in this poll based on the ones I actually have on CD, any tips on which parts differences could be best heard?

 

The crescendo in Us And Them is a good place to start.

 

Also the start of ‘Time’, with the bells and chimes and clock noises, then the intro with the Rhodes, toms, bass and guitar. I find that everything sounds a little more “real” on the Holy Grail mastering, but YMMV of course.

First 2 minutes or so.

 

As others above have said. To my ears the 'holy grail' version is overall a smoother sound but without the dullness which often accompanies such a presentation. One segment that stands out to me is the drums in the instrumental half way part during Money - the clarity and detail of attack and decays when the volume is turned up a bit.

Btw, as pointed in discussions out several pages ago, the B/T in this poll is invalid as it conflates the 'holy grail' Sony mastering (ie non-TO) with the later EMI mastering (ie TO).

 

And the 1992 Doug Sax remaster is also present on the 20th Anniversary edition but NOT on the 1992/1994 European editions which credit him on the packaging. Confusing eh?

 

I was under the impression the Doug Sax master was the 1993/4 regular edition which came in both old-style artwork design and the updated filled in triangle on the front and multiple real prisms photo on the back. The CD itself has topography/contour lines as artwork on it's top-side.
The Anniversary/Box Set version was a previous version of this, but the later was level adjusted, no?

I've read that 1992=Anniversary=1994, but I've also read the Anniversary is unique, but not really much different to the regular '94 edition. I've read a lot of horse dung too, evidently.

I'm too exhausted from trying to avoid the dumb public and create a social distance around myself all day.

 

all the 92/94/sax are the same 2011 is the next time it got remastered. oh and 2003 sacd but that one is bad.

 

I don't agree. The 2003 SACD and the 2011 remaster are my two favorite masterings with the SACD on top by a small margin. Of course, I am listening to the DSD64 tracks on my 2 channel system so that may make a difference.

 

Some European releases.

Doug Sax: Pink Floyd - The Dark Side Of The Moon (Twentieth Anniversary Edition)
Doug Sax: Pink Floyd - The Dark Side Of The Moon

NOT Doug Sax but level shifted 1985 mastering: Pink Floyd - Dark Side Of The Moon

 

actually i think you are thinking about wish you were here. just looked on the archives and at least in the UK the 93 pressing uses the sax master. the cover claims 92 master and all the peak levels line up w/ 20th/92/94

edit: i'm kinda wrong just looked at the netherlands and there was a 94 release that was the level shifted 85. sorry bout that! but the 93 one is sax too.

and @L5730 you ought to check out the "pink floyd archives" there is very detailed info on all the releases

and most people on the forums agree that 1st press from japan is the best. CP35-3017 but you have to have a cd player that properly handles pre-emphasis correctly. my 2nd choice would be MFSL cd. but as you can see some people like whatever version they own the best. every one of them has their fans. prob why this thread is 46 pages long.

but some have prob never heard the 1st or may not even have a system that can really show it off, so, all good. i had the sax back in the 90's before "upgading" to the sacd which at first i liked better and gave away my old scratched up copy. and then after a "long strange" night i realized there was something wrong with that disc. it didn't sound right. and my uncle which was there had agreed and told me usually the original masters are the best. and so eventually i started researching masterings, which eventually lead me here.

 

Are you talking about the Redbook layer or the SACD layer? Because they sound different with the SACD layer sounding quite a bit better.

 

Ooof blimey!
I recall navigating the PinkFloydArchives pages before. It's like a trip back to dial-up internet


OK, Shine On boxset c.1992 = unique mastering(s).

Pink Floyd Archives-U. S. Box Set CD Discography
Pink Floyd Archives-U. S. Box Set CD Discography
It seems there are a couple of Shine On boxset variant mastering for DSotM, at least.

Shine On boxset UK:
1st edition: 34.9 / 67.9 / 69.1 / 76.9 / 75.0 / 96.8 / 69.6 / 89.3 / 75.7 / 82.5
2nd & 3rd editions: 87.8 / 94.7 / 100 / 97.2 / 100 / 99.1 / 97.7 / 93.9 / 97.7 (similar to '87?)
4th edition: 34.9 / 67.9 / 69.1 / 76.9 / 75.0 / 96.8 / 69.6 / 89.3 / 75.7 / 82.5

Shine On boxset US:
1st & 2nd edition: 35.0 / 69.5 / 69.9 / 77.7 / 75.8 / 94.2 / 70.4 / 91.2 / 75.5 / 83.2
3rd edition: 34.9 / 67.9 / 69.1 / 76.9 / 75.0 / 96.8 / 69.6 / 89.3 / 75.7 / 82.5

Don't know about the 1993 Promo 20th Anniversary, but it would seem all other 1993 on-wards until the '03 SACD hybrid share the same mastering: 67.9 / 69.1 / 76.9 / 75.0 / 96.8 / 69.6 / 89.3 / 75.7 / 82.5. This is credited on the product to Doug Sax with supervision from James Guthrie.

If it wasn't Doug Sax who mastered the widely accepted Doug Sax version, who was it?
Who mastered this: 67.9 / 69.1 / 76.9 ... (regular 1993-2002 release, filled in prism/old artwork design)?

This seems correct, with the exception of the Box Set versions in 1992, and maybe the anniversary promo in '93.

If you are talking about the stereo RedBook (plain CD-DA) and the stereo DSD (SACD) layer, they are basically the same when level matched. There is a quote somewhere suggesting the analogue signal was split and one went to PCM the other to DSD - but that's not strictly the whole picture as the PCM has clearly been peak limited somewhere along the line.
I've had my hybrid disc ripped to files, and now have a DSD capable DAC. Tonally, they are extremely similar. This version is bright and the chiming clocks intro to "Time" is painful. The jangling coins in the till in Money sounds very twinkly.
I'll admit, there is a smoothness to the DSD compared with it's PCM counterpart. My opinion has softened to it a bit, and wouldn't call it terrible. I just never reach to play it because it's too bright for me, and I prefer the MSFL version out of all I have heard.