Dude, calm your ass down, and please expound upon what you're talking about.
As in, what format (hybrid what)etc...
As in, what format (hybrid what)etc...
Yes the new remasterd Dark Side Of The Moon SACD 5.1 Hybrid does sound quite good. But after 64,000 remakes of this album does any true Floyd fan really care to own another version of DSOTM???
Where are the MoFi "BEATLES" SACD's at???
That's when I'll get excited!
P.S. There is NOTHING "LIMITED EDITION" about this FLOYD sacd, don't wanna have others bidding $35.00 on ebay for a $13.00 cd that every Walmart has 15 copies of collecting dust.
I'm not really sure (keep meaning to do that big test with all the versions I have on CD)that the new hybrid adds much to the available redbook versions,if that's what we're talking about.
The Mofi version is not far off if at all albeit more quietly mastered.
In fact Stereophile reported this disc flawed in terms of redbook..........
SACD is a different matter which I don't have the equipment to comment on....
I read an article/interview about the guy who did the new disc re-master. Based on what he said, the new one should sound better. Like the late Beatles and other late 60s stuff, DOTM was supposedly recorded by linking multiple 4-track recorders together and bouncing tracks (layering tracks upon other tracks, meaning some tracks were not first generation at mixdown). This guy apparently got ahold of all of the seperate tracks, synced them together in the computer, and doing so made a new master instead of using the old one which included bounced tracks. I am not sure if this was done on the 2-channel mix or only the surround mix, but it seems like a lot of attention was paid to detail in this version. If the above is true, it *should* sound better than previous versions (assuming he did a good job)
I bought this cd a while back, it is much better than my old redbook copy. I agree with Kr4, and bought it for the multichannel only, as he said: "it is reason enough". After listening to it in multichannel I could care less which other format sounds better than the other, none could even hope to compete. This type of music is a multichannel blessing which brings new life to an old tired recording that never did much for me unless played in my car.
I still prefer the Mobile Fidelity UDCD517 (made in Japan)disc to the cd layer of the newest release of Dark Side of the Moon.
The mofi is at a lower recording level, but I can compensate for that with the volume control. If things keep going the way they are with the hybrid releases and as my collection of them grows, it is likely I'll buy an sacd player to compare that layer. Not very interested in surround at this point.
Ben, I should have been more clear I guess. It is a great rock album, I never liked it on cd except in the car. I did enjoy it on LP when I had a Turntable. A lot of older rock I own gets much more play in the car, this cd sounds much better on the hi-fi than the old 2 channel redbook copy I had lost interest in and the multichannel has brought it back in the house so to speak. I could put up with some more multichannel Floyd without to much of an arm twist.
Listened to this today, I had never run my system in 7 channel mode. I spent the whole day yesterday setting the system up from scratch. My new room is set up on the long wall, (27 ft.) with the new 7 channel setup, Room depth is now 22 ft. in this setup. All 7 speakers are now 11 ft. from the center of couch (there is no real sweet spot) so I used this point as one. This is a great multichannel mix, My wife even came in and listened (she never does this) and was blown away. Also listened to Beck and Frankie goes to Hollywood multichannel sacd's, these are a "10" on the scale. Well, gotta go cut the grass.
Hi Eagle...the MoFi version is probably softer because it hasn't been compressed as much in the masterng. Despite their faults, that was one of the areas where MoFi usually got it right.
And Ben...the article that I mentioned above was in an HT magazine and it was all about the surround mix, so it probably didn't apply tot the two channel. The guy needed to have everything seperate so he could pan them to different channels. He couldn't make do with multiple sounds sharing one track. I can't say I care much about the surround / 5.1 thing (and I don't see myself getting into it anytime this decade), but it was an interesting read. Most of it was about how hard he tried to keep the "feel" og the original album while transferring it to multpile channels.