Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: DSotM Again (Read 11247 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

DSotM Again

Here are the samples I talked about when I was asking if anyone knew the mastering source for the '92 remaster of Dark Side of the Moon.  This first one is taken from one of the older Capitol releases.  The high-end was a bit exaggerated on this release, so I brought it down to match the '92 release (Cool Edit Pro's Parametric EQ; High Shelf Cutoff at 18kHz, +3dB; Center Frequency at 6kHz, .6 Q, -5dB).  There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it, right?...

Note:  These are LAME compressed wav files compressed at 320.
-Tim

Audio/Music Geek Since 1997

DSotM Again

Reply #1 –
...but now listen to this one.  This is from the '92 remaster.  Other than the LAME compression, I haven't altered this file in any way (well.. and the fadeout).  Take a good listen in the right channel at about 6.5 seconds (it helps to use headphones).  There's noticeable tape degradation.

So, can anyone help me figure out if this '92 version was remastered from the original master tapes?  Perhaps someone can post up a sample from the same section of Money from the 2003 remaster?
-Tim

Audio/Music Geek Since 1997

DSotM Again

Reply #2 –
I don't have the problem on the gold edition and on the SACD (CD part).

DSotM Again

Reply #3 –
I think you should rather use some lossless audio compression instead of LAME...Visit FLAC site for information and the FLAC encoder.
(As lossy compression might introduce artifacts not originally present in the music.)
Life is Real...
(But not in audio :) )

DSotM Again

Reply #4 –
Quote
I think you should rather use some lossless audio compression instead of LAME...Visit FLAC site for information and the FLAC encoder.
(As lossy compression might introduce artifacts not originally present in the music.)


I actually noticed the problem when I was evaluating the uncompressed wavs, not after I compressed them.  I even did a quick A/B test to hear how close the compression sounded and heard no clear audible difference.

But for argument's sake, here are the same two samples in FLAC form.

Also, it's worth noting that I've since listened to a few other copies of the '92 remaster, and the problem was evident in those, too.

This is the old Capitol release...
-Tim

Audio/Music Geek Since 1997

DSotM Again

Reply #5 –
...and here's the remaster.
-Tim

Audio/Music Geek Since 1997

DSotM Again

Reply #6 –
I haven't ABXed all that much, but I think this is the worst I've ever tried. Not in the sense that it was hard to ABX, rather the opposite as I got 16/16 in no time, but I felt sick when doing it. Best described as a dizzy and uncomfortable feeling.

I'm not really into Pink Floyd, but for some reason I expect their CDs to sound perfect. The kind of CD I would want to try on a really expensive setup.

Reading threads on this forum, has made me sceptical about anything with "remaster", "enhanced" and so on, printed on it.

DSotM Again

Reply #8 –
Interesting; it's obviously there in the 1992 version (I also own this edition and checked my archived FLACs). For anyone with a different mastering, this is the portion of the song at approximately 2:56-3:00 in.

  Note that this is in the 1992 remastering ("Shine On" Boxed Set & 20th Anniversary Edition, I believe), which has been touted as having both good dynamics and relatively little noise. This is clearly a major flaw, and seems like a good argument for the Mobile Fidelity version.

DSotM Again

Reply #9 –
Quote
If you want samples from the SACD, let me know.


Sure.  Samples from any other version would be very welcome.
-Tim

Audio/Music Geek Since 1997

DSotM Again

Reply #11 –
Quote
If you want samples from the SACD, let me know.

You mean CD-layer of Hybrid SACD or SACD analog output?

DSotM Again

Reply #13 –
Could you grab those from SACD analog output?

DSotM Again

Reply #15 –
Quote
I do not own an SACD player.


Dang.  It would've been nice to hear what the SACD layer had to offer.

But I think both the SACD and CD layer boast being "remastered from the original master tapes," so a sample from the CD layer would still be good.  The same 13 seconds I posted (about 2:52-3:05) is plenty.
-Tim

Audio/Music Geek Since 1997

DSotM Again

Reply #16 –
Could you post last 30-40 seconds of Eclipse?

DSotM Again

Reply #17 –
According to Stereophile, the SACD layer is more dynamic than the CD one. The difference between the RMS levels is 2.4 db. http://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/index.html

I recall also that you must not post more than 30 seconds from a given song.

DSotM Again

Reply #18 –
Quote
Could you post last 30-40 seconds of Eclipse?

Hmm... The last 41 seconds are only silence.

Umm... Just noticed that I am not allowed to post any samples from Money, as there already are (other) 30 seconds posted in another thread.

DSotM Again

Reply #19 –
Quote
Quote
Could you post last 30-40 seconds of Eclipse?

Hmm... The last 41 seconds are only silence.

Umm... Just noticed that I am not allowed to post any samples from Money, as there already are (other) 30 seconds posted in another thread. 

Maybe I have different 30 last seconds from yours? 

Ok, could you post 1.30-2.04 part of Eclipse then?
Maybe there is something to hear...if to increase volume... 

EDIT:spelling

DSotM Again

Reply #21 –
Yes, I've not listened to all this, because I don't have this album, but you should decide what part of the tracks you need to upload, and use only these 30 seconds for further testing, if you don't like the parts that are already online here.
You can also divide them into three times 10 seconds.

DSotM Again

Reply #22 –
Quote
According to Stereophile, the SACD layer is more dynamic than the CD one. The difference between the RMS levels is 2.4 db. http://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/index.html


I read that article a little while ago.  There's some definite hard limiting/clipping going on with the CD layer, which I'm not too crazy about.  I mean, it's one thing if people are doing that to all these new rock albums (not like there's much in the way of dynamics there anyway), but you just don't do that to a classic album like this.

Quote
I recall also that you must not post more than 30 seconds from a given song.


Sorry about that.  I just needed that specific time frame to showcase the error.  There wasn't any noticeable loss in the first 30 seconds, but it was very obvious just at the end of the sax solo.  And I knew 30 seconds had already been posted elsewhere, so I tried to keep it so I could just show where the problem was.  Hence why it was only about 13 seconds, and why I faded it out at the end.
-Tim

Audio/Music Geek Since 1997

DSotM Again

Reply #23 –
You can always contact the members who posted the other samples and see if they agree about all replacing what's posted with a different part, or ask them if they agree to shorten their files so as to give you some of their 30 seconds

DSotM Again

Reply #24 –
Quote
Sorry, but there already are other 30 seconds of Eclipse posted. I am not allowed to post another range.


  If necessary, I have no compunctions about pulling my uploaded samples, but you might want to PM ChangFest. Feel free to replace that original upload with a new one, or to pull the file from that thread and upload the other sample here!

  I think this is ultimately a more useful discussion since the differences between the mastering on the samples we posted in the other thread were not that noticable to my ears once the volume differences were eliminated.