24/96 Dark Side of the Moon

[wgscott]

I bought The Wall 2011 remaster CD a couple of days ago because I never managed to find my original copy. It doesn't look terrible or sound worse than what I remember, but there is some clipping:

 

 

[blueixus]

Wish You Were is released with 96/24 Stereo on the 7th November (Blu_Ray) so digestible into Computer, then from Pinkfloyd.com

 

"The Wall, which has sold 25-million double sets and has become a cultural and political touchstone over the last three decades, will be afforded the same exhaustive treatment on February 27, 2012, with deluxe packages including a 7-disc 'Immersion' set and a 3-disc 'Experience' edition. A collectors' Vinyl LP will also be available, as will various digital formats"

 

[wgscott]

For those of us who will probably never own a blu ray player, is there any indication of a (legal) way to get the higher-resolution two-channel versions of these releases?

 

[blueixus]

Does not seem so unless Chris C can lobby his mate at the record company.

 

Frankly it seems stupid for them not to see the potential BUT as long as they can sell the Immersion releases to mugs like me for mucho dollars they will be OK. My guess is that they will appear when the Immersion sets have exploited the immediate market.

 

Why the downer on Blu-Ray, it may not be an apple thing but it does look fine on a big TV, and through my cinema system Films sound really fantastic...

 

[labjr]

If you look on amazon it appears The Wall immersion set will include 7 discs. 6 CDs and 1 DVD. No mention of 24/96 files with that set like the other two immersion sets. Thus, it would appear there is no high resolution versions with this set. Maybe that will change before the actual release date. But I wouldn't count on it.

 

I wonder how Sir Paul McCartney got it right with uncompressed, high resolution remasters of his albums. But the members of Pink Floyd, who seem like technical perfectionists, don't seem to get it.

 

 

 

[wgscott]

Well, I don't have any blu ray discs and it is yet another box...

 

I'm not really into movies or tv.

 

[ted_b]

"So confused, why would they put standard resolution audio on a DVD? I guess 24/48 is the best we get for the Guthrie remix."

 

The DVD standard does not allow 24/96 if there is to be addtl content on the DVD (and won't fit either). And both lossy 480k and 640k Dolby surround mixes are there cuz some DVD players will only chose one or the other.

 

BUT...at first blush, everything that is on the DVD's (that's not filler or concert material) is also on the BluRay, and in full 24/96...the quad mix, the 2003 5.1 mix, the 2003 2.0 mix.....But Garf, are you saying the 24/96 BluRay stereo (1973) mix is NOT the same one as on CD1 and on the DVD as LPCM? Edit: Oops, note: in both the latter choices the words "remixed in 2011" exist after the "(1973)", on the BluRay the words "original mix" and then no such 2011 wording after "(1973)"). Unbelievable.

 

[goldsdad]

 

 

Click to enlarge

 

 

[gandalf]

I agree here, not all of us have high end surround systems. I would not buy one for the sake of 2 or 10 albums. I do not understand why a stereo version done in the studio wasn't done in 2003. I listened to the 5.1 version, and yes, it's very nice and clear. Now I was reading that there will be a surround mix of WYWH, released on the Immersion box. It sucks, why not a stereo version? I was thinking to start a petition to have new stereo mixes done, too. The Doors remixes sounded so great...Anyone in for a petition? They can release it as a download exclusive or so, I'd buy it!

 

About the box(es)...a very commercial effort. Money earning behind it. Even though some remasters may sound good, I'm afraid that money ruined what should have been. Somebody was posting spectrum analyses showing that the blu ray 5.1 mix is sourced from the DSD source ... and I'm pretty sure it was worked in PCM.

 

[Miska]

I do not understand why a stereo version done in the studio wasn't done in 2003.

 

At least the SACD version has 2-channel DSD version in addition to 5.1-channel.

 

Somebody was posting spectrum analyses showing that the blu ray 5.1 mix is sourced from the DSD source ... and I'm pretty sure it was worked in PCM.

 

So it's the SACD-version? (I have that already)

 

Right way to do it would be of course to mix it in analog and then record it in DSD, especially since it's sourced from analog recording anyway. I don't know if this have been done that way.

 

But at some point I've got understanding that for example Genesis set have been done in analog table -> Sonoma.

 

 

[gandalf]

On the SACD there are 2 mixes: stereo and surround. The stereo is nothing but a remaster of the 73 mix, and the 5.1 is the remix.

A good remix on a CD that is mastered right would sound better than any remaster from the old master tapes at 24/96. Hi res helps (i guess)but the source matters more. IMO, no DSOTM master sounde better than the MFSL. Yes, there is pretty much nothing new on that bluray, except the remasters and extra. No stereo remix...WHY only surround?

 

[Miska]

A good remix on a CD that is mastered right would sound better than any remaster from the old master tapes at 24/96. Hi res helps (i guess)but the source matters more. IMO, no DSOTM master sounde better than the MFSL. Yes, there is pretty much nothing new on that bluray, except the remasters and extra. No stereo remix...WHY only surround?

 

Why would good remaster from analog master tape sound any worse than good remix from original analog tapes? Or you mean that the original mix would have been done on a sub-standard analog table?

 

Analog mix -> DSD could sound better than mid-res (24/96) digital mix. Digital mix in DXD with Pyramix is another thing.

 

 

[Manelus]

To my ears, in my system MFSL is better.

Both ripped and played using Linn Klimax DS

 

[barrows]

I think gandalf is suggesting a new mix, from the original analog multitracks, could sound better than a 24/96 transcription of the original analog master. This makes sense, if the analog multi tracks are in good shape: it is possible that they would be in better shape than the 2 channel analog masters, and using the original multitracks and re-mixing now could result in better sonics, especially if first gen multitracks are available. This is the process which is being used for all the King Crimson, re-mixed, high res and MC 40th Anniversary releases-with certain exceptions (by track) for tracks where the original analog multitracks may be damaged or missing.

 

BTW: HiFi + reported the following process for the Genesis re-mixes: analog multitracks to 24/192 To Pro Tools, then transferred to DSD (Sonoma), then converted to 24/96 for mastering (!), "all final files were 96k", then converted to 16/44.1 for CD or DSD for SACD. This info was given in an interview by Crispin Murray who: "co-ordinated the project and did some editing work", and mastering engineer, Tony Cousins. From Hi Fi +, Issue 63. A bit convoluted path perhaps?

 

[Brian A]

Referencing Chris Connaker's new thread on the technical aspects of ripping CDs, DVDs, Blu-Rays etc, with all these new masters all bundled up in a nice consistent package, it’s a great opportunity to compare the sound from the various rips.

 

Can you hear any sound quality difference on your system between 16/44.1 and 24/96 two channel formats? Is it significant, negligible or (gulp) non-existent?

 

 

 

[Garf]

After some time with the Immersion box set, I have to say it is a treat.

 

My only recording of DSOTM is from a 1993 20th Anniversary release, which sounds really comparable to the 24/96 2ch mix.

 

I have spent a lot of time listening to the 5.1 mix with headphones, with jRiver downmixing to 2 channels. I think I like this mix the best of all three.

 

If I had the Mobile Fidelity CD, or the SACD, I wouldn't be as happy. But this fits the bill for one of my favorite albums of all time. I can't wait to do this again in another month for WYWH!

 

 

 

[Manelus]

I received my copy of DSOTM Vinyl yesterday (UE pressing).

Best sound of the myriad of versions I have

Pressing is faultless.

It is a digital remaster, but it sounds way better than the 24/96 BR rip played on the KDS/1. I don’t know why.

 

 

[gandalf]

That is very correct. In all cases where remixes were done, better sonics were achieved. So, my idea is this: why not start a petition to get a stereo remix of DSOTM? The surround one sounds so nice and clear but the issue is that it's 5.1. Downmixing works, you can get something decent, but not what it should be. You cannot treat the channels as stem tracks and mix, because it's already done. So...who's in for this? WE would need maybe couple of thousands of signatures...

 

[labjr]

How about someone use Metric Halo DSP or Protools to mixdown the 5.1 surround tracks into a decent stereo mix?

 

[Brian A]

You mean there is NO plain 2-channel remaster in the Immersion set? Horrors.

 

If so, withholding it is probably part of the marketing plan. It will become available sometime after the December gift giving season.

 

I'll wait.

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

"You mean there is NO plain 2-channel remaster in the Immersion set?"

 

Maybe I missed something previously in this thread but I know there are a few plain 2 channel masters / remasters in the immersion box set.

 

 

CD (16 bit / 44.1 kHz) - The Dark Side Of The Moon (2011 Remaster)

 

The Dark Side Of The Moon, 2011 Master LPCM Stereo mix (English LPCM 24 bit / 48 kHz)

 

The Dark Side Of The Moon Original Stereo Mix (1973) (RAW/PCM 24 bit / 96 kHz) (Original stereo mix engineered by Alan Parsons, assisted by Peter James (1973). Mixing supervised by Chris Thomas. Mastered by James Guthrie and Joel Plante at das boot recording, 2011.)

 

 

 

 

 

[Brian A]

Quoting The Computer Audiophile on Wed, 10/19/2011 - 09:26:

 

“... Maybe I missed something ...”

 

Nope. It was me.

 

Quoting The Computer Audiophile on Tue, 09/27/2011 - 22:06:

“... I ripped the Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon (2011 Remaster - Immersion Box Set) Blu-ray 2 channel 24 bit / 96 kHz version ... I'm listening as I type this and will be comparing the sound quality to my other versions, Shine On Box, 30th Anniversary, and Mobile Fidelity...”

 

With all these new masters all bundled up in a nice consistent “Immersion Box Set” package, I look forward to this review of the various versions. When do you think you will be able to post your impressions? It is also unique opportunity to answer questions regarding the sound of various data densities too, particularly the 16/44.1 vs. 24/96 Immersion Box Set 2-channel versions. Is the difference significant, negligible or non-existent?

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Brian - I posted the article about ripping the Immersion Box Set here -> http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Guide-Ripping-DVD-and-Blu-ray-Audio-Using-Dark-Side-Moon-Immersion-Box-Set

 

 

The sound of the 24/96 2 channel version is stellar.

 

 

[Brian A]

I've read the ripping guide with great interest, although right now I am on the (epic) (interminable!) (#@$%#) task of ripping my CD collection, so ripping other media is later in the future for me.

 

Because of this, I am interested in how much of a sonic compromise the 16/44.1 CD rip is compared to the 24/96 DVD rip. Big difference? Little difference?

 

[labjr]

"The sound of the 24/96 2 channel version is stellar.

 

Yeah, but a 2 channel remix on modern equipment would be better. We could do a better comparison if they provided both new and orginal 2 channel 24/96 mixes.

 

Brian A, Far as I'm concerned 24/96 is head and shoulders above CD quality.