Pink Floyd Dark Side comparison?

Has anyone heard or compared the MFSL version of Darkside (released inthe 80's I think) vs the new re-master by Jamse Guthrie in the EMI "Discovery" or "Experience" editions CDs?

The newer versions are a lot cheaper and may benefit from todays more advanced technology, but MFSL versions have been reference standards for years.

I am looking to pick up one or the other so any input would be appreciated.
MFSL the reference standard for years? Are you kidding? The standard MoFi is not particularly good in any of its iterations. Both an early German pressing and British Harvest just slay it. The MoFi UHQR is quite, quite, nice. But again, the Japanese Pro Use half speed wipes the floor with it. Get yourself a nice copy.
Yes, Toshiba, I think, Japanese Pro Use. The same with Wish You Were Here. But it will cost you.
OK. But I was asking about the comparison of the EMI newest remaster vs the MFSL edition.
Marty's right, the MFSL versions are lousy in the context of others.

I'll probably buy the new EMI for comparison to the rest of my DSOTM collection but I'm not really optimistic about it.

For me the original UK and US pressings are the gold standard. My other favorites include:

EMI EMS80324 (Japan)
HARVEST 1C06205249Q (German Quad mix)
HARVEST 8556731 (UK Centenary release)
EMI EMLF97002 (Japan) This is the "pro series" copy alluded to earlier

I think the guy is asking about CD versions and getting answers in vinyl....:-)

I have the new remaster and the Mofi version on CD but I haven't dome a comparative listen.

Certainly the new CD had a nice balance of detail and smooth sound...indeed it sounded very warm from memory it would appear to be the "best" CD version.
Went ahead and ordered the EMI 2011 versions (CD, NOT VINYL!!!!), as Amazon had them for about $10 each, execpt the Wall.

Also found a source on Amazon that had MSFL Darkside (this is manufactured in Japan) for about $40-50 used. Since its used, there is no penalty to previewing the sound and returning it if I am not happy. A new one for $300-400 is insane and if you open it you eat $250 in depreciation.
MFSL CD is OK, in my opinion, nothing more. But I didn't compare it to newer editions, only to vinyl. That was kind of funny indeed.
have mofi cd, sacd hybrid, 94 remaster, 2011 remaster....the differences are fairly minor...although mofi has the most bass...a bit overipe for me...but some enjoy this....

Do you also have the original 80's version? Curious to know how much different the re-masters are from that version.
yes...80s mofi v....for 10 bucks u can get 2011 remaster...not a quantum leap but out
My first impressions of the 2011 CD remasters are that they are fairly detailed and a little more natural and 3D sounding, but slightly laid back vs my memory of prior CD versions. I have not done a direct comparison yet.
The new EMI versions are totally new mix, from the multitrack masters, mixed by James Guthrie. The old pressings would represent the best the old mix can sound, while the new stuff is what the band would do today with current technology. Better dynamics, etc

Just occurred to me rereading the entire thread that there are two discussions going on: one is the mix, if you like the old (Alan Parsons) vs new (James Guthrie), and two: which lp transfer got it closer to the master tapes of the Parson's mx. I am betting viridian has it right on the old mixes. Now I would like to know how good the new Guthrie remixed remastered LP is in the Immersion set of Dark Side. If anyone has heard that, speak up!

You all have heard the SACD Dark Side in 5.1? Like yes/no?


We are talking CD, not LP FYI.

My post got started because I wanted to replace my 80's US version of Darkside with either the new remasters from Guthrie or the MSFL re-master. Due to the cost, I just decided to order the re-masters and listen to them vs the 80's version. If I like them I may stay fat dumb and happy. The MSFL version is a bit pricey, even used (new is just insane) and unless it stands up and walks on water vs the new re-masters, I don't think I'll bite. I also want the other versions of Wish You Were Here, Animals, and the Wall so getting the re-masters makes some sense due to their consistency.

The other option is the Japanese SHM versions but they are also out of print and quite pricey. But no doubt sound very good.
also...the experience ed.comes with stellar show @wembley 74....ive had fm copy for years so this is a nice upgrade
Well, I had a chance to compare the new Guthrie remaster with my original 80's issue, and was somewhat dissapointed to find out the 80's issue still sounds better. Detail, sounstage, and air is better on the original. You can more clearly hear the dubbed in voices and their position in the sound field is more precise, as are attacks on drums and guitar strings. The dymanic range is broader, with the impact of the bells and chimes significantly higher in level. Its like they were using more compression in the re-master. I was surprised to say the least, as I had exactly the opposite impression of Animals. My 80s version is almost unlistenable compared to the 2011 re-master.
Puzzled, which was better, 80s or new version? At the beginning you state the 80s is better but at the end you say the 80s is unlistenable compared to the 2011 remaster?
I'm sure there is a typo somewhere?s

WRT Darkside, the 80's version is better IMO. More detailed, better dynamic range. I forgot to mention that the re-master has a more enhanced bottom end compared to the 80's version. For example, the heartbeat at the beginning is more pronounced.

My last comment was in reference to Animals. In that case the 80's version is inferior to the re-master, and for me the 80's version of Animals was unlistenable. The new remaster of Animals is quite nice.
I only have the MSFL version from the 80's....and as I said I haven't compared that however Dhl93449 you need to consider there at least two other CD versions of DSOM...the early 90's remaster and the 30th anniversary version which was a SACD hybrid. Both of these will be dirt cheap to buy.

I find it strange the new version isn't better but I suppose these things are subjective but considering a lot of original CD's were badly mastered I find it a surprising result.
I am not sure I'd agree with you the 80s version is better than the current version. James Guthrie is a friend of mine and his work is stellar, as well as the band had a lot to say about it. Are you sure there couldn't be some other reason you have this impression? Subtle level differences of 1/2 dB or less (you really need precise level matching) could account for some of those comments. Also, decisions about the mix by the band could change where certain elements are positioned or their prominence-so what you consider is worse may be a different decision by the band then vs now. Most of us on this end have no idea how happy the band/engineer was with the original and often I have heard engineers say "I wished I could have fixed that but we ran out of time". What we consider as perfection may be a mistake in their view. Its hard to quantify earlier vs later brush strokes by the artist. So not saying that you are absolutely 100% wrong but don't want the rest of the Audiogon to accept its not as good without listening themselves. I KNOW James would be horrified to think someone thought his work was worse-he worked on it for a year plus.
Its just my impression, playing both versions back to back on my system (B&W 804s, HSU sub, Parasound JC1 (2) power and JC2 preamp, CA 840c feeding digital to Bryston BDA-1 feeding the JC2).

I did not mess with the levels, as the level of compression between the two versions seems to be different, so what level do you pick to standardize on? The bass on the re-master is more enhanced, but things like the bells/chimes in "Time" just don't jump out at you in the re-master like they do in the original. This may not be a bad thing for some listeners, its just that I prefer the enhanced dynamics over the re-master's more reduced levels. Also, space and air around vocals and esp the background recorded vocals and sound effects seem to be a bit muted in the remaster. Maybe its because the master tapes are getting so old now and some details are beginning to fade? These things are not killer issues, and the re-master still sounds good in any case.

I did find "Animals" was much better in the re-master, and found that "Wish You Were Here" was about a wash to slighlty better in the remaster. The bass enhancement is really impressive in the pre-amble to "Welcome to the Machine" compared to the original.

And please understand (as most do) this is my opinion and I would be the last to suggest others should not listen for themselves. What I value with regards to sound imaging, depth, air etc. may not be shared by others with other systems and hardware.

Finally, I applaud folks like Mr. Guthrie in trying to make a music classic even better. We do appreciate his work. Now if someone like himself would re-master the Blind Faith album, I would be happier.
"I find it strange the new version isn't better but I suppose these things are subjective but considering a lot of original CD's were badly mastered I find it a surprising result."

That was exactly my presumed opinion before getting the Guthrie re-masters. I assumed that my 80's version would be inferior to both an MFSL version or the 2011 remaster. But after comparative listening, my opinion changed. I think it may have something to do with two competing factors. The early versions suffered from immature technology, but the master tapes were quite a bit younger and fresher. The later remasters have the advantage of better digital technology but now have to deal with tapes that are many years older. Just guessing, of course, but we all know magnetic tape ages, even if kept in temp controlled vaults, 40+ years is a long time.

I was surprised that the re-master did not exhibit larger differences, or improvement. All I can say is make the comparison for yourself. If you don't have an 80's version, then the point is mute as the re-master sounds quite good on its own.
the real draw for.dsotm is the surround sound mixes for those that care to indulge...i would agree with Dhl.assessments...the new stereo mix is not a quantum leap from previous releases...however I dont own the 80s non.mofi version...i tend to listen to the 03 hybrid...that being total agreement with new Animals remaster...extremely well.done
I have heard the whole suite of Darkside in the boxset this weekend and love the 5:1 mix the best. I think Guthrie did a superb job. I can't wait to play them at a soundcheck on our arena rig. I know everyone adores the Parsons mix, but I really do love the new remasters. I especially love Us and Them and Gig.
The Best record of DSOM is (SMAS-1-11163)
"Rainbow" label.
So what is the very best sounding DSOM cd IYO?
I do like the recently re-mastered "The Wall" cd. Deeper sounding with more air and seperation. Dynamics are a little softer but that is fixed by level matching. At the same spl the new version sounds very nice. Can't wait to try "animals" because the original is ok in the car but not in the home. Meddle is also better. Any comments on "wish you were here"?
Ignore my last post. Found the other thread.

Tone Audio magazine does a very detailed analysis of the recent remasters and how they compare with previous incarnations.
Ben: Nice article on the whole idea behind the immersion discs....