Pink Floyd - The Dark Side of The Moon, 50th Anniversary Box Set

Of the 24 versions of DSOTM I have, I think the MOFIs (a 1979 vinyl pressing with the yellow band across the top, plus a gold CD is one of those fancy lift-out cases) sound by far the worst.

With soft treble and flabby bass, they just sound as if all the stuffing has been knocked out of the music. The same is true of the MFSL vinyl copies of Atom Heart Mother and Meddle (and the gold CD versions of Meddle, AHM and The Wall) I have in my collection. Lovely quiet pressings and all that but no energy. I always thought it would be impossible to get a ā€˜badā€™ version of DSOTM but the MOFI Iā€™ve got comes close.

That said, I would love to hear the MOFI UHQR vinyl from '81, itā€™s supposed to be very good.

1 Like

Itā€™s a weird one but I generally agree with you regarding most of the earlier MFSLs, some are absolutely horrors, although I do confess I like the early Supertramp Crime of the Century and Genesis Trick of The Tail. However, since I got the RP10 I have had to re-consider the MFSL of DSoTM. I used to feel a bit like you, but on the RP10 and Superline it has really started to work and I have found myself favouring it above the others. Certainly I find that the 30th Anniversary sounds ā€œas if the stuffing has been knocked out of the musicā€ - a real disappointment.

1 Like

Yes itā€™s tricky reading other peopleā€™s opinions on pressings, as different (better?) systems really do open up things and make them sound so different. MFSL have generally always worked for me. Thereā€™s definitely something very refined in their mastering which allows me (or want me) to turn it up far louder than other pressings and then the whole sound changes to something special. I can understand a disappointment sometimes, as when I used to have a chrome 250/72 I remember being a bit underwhelmed on certain pressings from any company.

Iā€™ve not got a UK first press and Iā€™ve never heard one but I do love the fourth nd fifth ones I have - and for a bit if variety I like to listen to the EMI/Toshiba Pro-Use, which sounds very different, very ā€œwetā€. Like you I think the 30th Anniversary is overrated, but I rather like the EMI 100.

MFSL are such a funny company. Those 1970s and 80s ones are not very good, especially for the money. Someone I know, whoā€™s a huge Zep collector, bought his MOFI LZII round a couple of years ago as he was curious as to how it sounded (heā€™s not an audiophile) and we were both shocked at just how poor and weedy that particular version was. A bog-standard pre-barcode WEA pressing from the early 80s had far more welly and heft than the the MOFI. Same with the Beatles and Stones MOFIs Iā€™ve heard. Just dreadful.

But I have a 2014 2 x 45rpm of Dylanā€™s Desire and it sounds great, as does a 2 x 45 version of Miles Davisā€™ ESP from around the same time (I think the Miles might be sourced from DSD, but whatever, it sounds wonderful). So their stuff seems to be all over the place in terms of SQ. Whereas Chadā€™s stuff seems to be, like the BN Tone Poets, uniformly excellent-sounding.

I think there may be something about the EQ on the early MFSLs that just doesnā€™t work on certain deck combinations. For example, even the best of them sound distinctly lacklustre on just about any Sondek Iā€™ve tried them on, especially DSoTM. As I say, it took the RP10 and Apheta2 to make me reconsider the MFSL DSoTM, before that it was rarely if ever played by yours truly. With the RP10 I began to appreciate why some rated it so highly. An odd one.

2 Likes

Thatā€™s weird Richard. I certainly know that on my LP12, which is about midway between Klimax and Majik levels, the MFSL sounds uninspiring and overly polite, but everything else I have thatā€™s well-recorded sounds great.

Ah, maybe itā€™s just LP12s! I know none of them have ever really sounded much cop on any of my sondeks. And also they all failed miserably when I compared with Chris Murphy on his similar spec Sondek (Armageddon, Aro etcā€¦)ā€¦

1 Like

Hueman Instrumentality AI-generated a full length video for DSOTM.

So the live vinyl is the same show on the 2011 Experience Editionā€¦?? I canā€™t think of any reason to buy this Anniversary Editionā€¦i"m already donating hard earned cash to see Roger on his ā€œfirst farewell tourā€. Nicks the only one bringing something fresh to the back catalogueā€¦the Saucers are brilliant.

1 Like

I bought my copy ( long since gone ) at the end of March 73. The chap in the record shop suggested I wait till the following Monday as it would be cheaper due to the new VAT being less than Purchase Taxā€¦needless to say I couldnā€™t wait that long!

2 Likes

Iā€™ve an early Harvest CD pressing which I find a bit ā€˜hotā€™ on Time, and not as dynamic as the BBC Wembley, which I really like.

G

For one reason or other, I just never got around to buying a vinyl copy when I was starting to get into Floyd when a student. IIRC, I just couldnā€™t find a good used copy with all of the bits and pieces intact that came with the LP, so just moved on to the other albums which seemed easier to get hold of.

Iā€™ve only got the 20th Anniversary CD reissue in the mini fold out cardboard box so not sure how that would hold up compared to other issues, but remember it sounding decent when played on my olive CDX. Iā€™ve not listened to it in a while, so will give the ripped CD a play tomorrow when workingā€¦

s-l500

If looking for a new / used vinyl issue without spending a small fortune, so not a 1st pressing or the latest box set, which version is worth seeking out?

1 Like

Itā€™s the same for me, they are heavy eqā€˜d. In my system it was also amp dependent. They sound great with 122/150 and not great with 252/300. now with my actual amp I like most of them very much (without the LZ II). Last year I had the chance to get the UHQR Dark Side for a very good price (announced at vg, after cleaning a solid m-) and that was a revelation.

Found this 2011 remaster on Qobuz to compare with my Harvest black label CD rip. Letā€™s see which comes out on top.

G

1 Like

Iā€™ve got the original vinyl I bought when at school and a subscription to stream from Qobuz. Can we have a second award for minimalists please?

2 Likes

Richard I had to look up, MFSL(i.e. my knowledge is limited) but would be really interested to know more about different remasterings. Surely many are aimed at people listening on earbuds where I would expect the optimal mix to be different to that appropriate for typical Naim users. And those original Beatles vinyls had to work on a Dancette as well as on a radiogram, so would have involved a degree of compromise in the original mastering., so this is nothing to do with compression.
Does anyone therefore know what the brief to remastering engineers is ? And arguably, itā€™s different for different types of music.
Is there a case for a hi-fi version and an ordinary version? Again Iā€™m talking about the mix not the resolution. But if that was the case, surely the industry by now would have seized the opportunity of a premium product.
Prompted by radio 3s building a library I have been listening on Qobuz to 1942 and 1954 recordings of Beethovenā€™s ninth which have, of course been remastered. Various recent remasterings of Frank Zappaā€™s albums into Hi-Rez format do not seem to have changed the fundamentals. But I found the latest issue of Revolver, one of my favourite albums, unlistenable. I remember when the CD version was first issued, and it was wonderfully fresh and an absolute delight. I can see thereā€™s a lot of discussion about that album. Nearly all of it surprisingly positive.
So my question is, who are these remasterings aimed at, what are they trying to achieve? And is it possible for one version to please everybody on a huge range of equipment?

Itā€™s a fair question, but one I fear has no simple answer. If weā€™re talking CD then improved technology saw a spate of 20bit and then 24bit remastering. Unfortunately, at the same time, there was general raising of the apparent ā€œloudnessā€ and corresponding reduction in dynamic range in order to make a particular CD sound ā€œbetterā€ because it was louder - see various articles online discussing the ā€œloudness warsā€ for more about this.

As for vinyl, the increase in demand for good clean copies of back catalogues has doubtless seen an opportunity for remastering. Sometimes, itā€™s done well, and other times, not so well. Combine that with tapes that only degrade with time and play and you end up with remastered and re-cut reissues that often donā€™t sound as good as the originals. Of course, thankfully there are exceptions to this and certainly the work of a number of engineers such as the late Doug Sax, Kevin Gray, Bernie Grundman, Chris Bellman, Ryan Smith, Miles Showell, Ray Staff et al. has seen some superb LPs cut and reissued.

3 Likes

Rooting around the CD shelves, I came across this, Analogue Productions SACD/Hybrid. Forgotten Iā€™d ever acquired itā€¦

Even only redbook layer, I guess I should play it. After all, it is AP - canā€™t be that badā€¦

1 Like

Richard, are you saying that when these famous albums are remastered and reissued in various formats at the same time that the vinyl mix might be slightly different to the CD or streaming mix.

Nope, nope , and nope. Not for $300 with stuff I couldnā€™t care less about. We have an old U.S. release Harvest copy thatā€™s a little noisy, but it still sounds better than the more recent the Bernie Grundman release on Pink Floyd Records.

If they release just the original album alone and it sounds great I might get that.