What's The Big Deal With Pink Floyd?

[atrocity]

Another tangent.....I would pay good money for some sort of multi-channel version of Floyd's debut album. Wow!!! That would be the most fun....

It fakes up pretty well via PL-II or the Surround Master.

Going in the other direction, the mono mix has enough really blatant differences to make it interesting as well.

 

[privateuniverse]

Going in the other direction, the mono mix has enough really blatant differences to make it interesting as well.

The two mixes are substantially different in places. I always wondered what it would sound like if you synched the two of them up, put the mono in the front speakers and the stereo in the rear. Might be a halfway decent surround experience.

 

[atrocity]

The two mixes are substantially different in places. I always wondered what it would sound like if you synched the two of them up, put the mono in the front speakers and the stereo in the rear. Might be a halfway decent surround experience.

Given that there's at least one missing overdub on the stereo version, you'd get some discrete action on "Interstellar Overdrive"!

Hmmm...wouldn't actually be that hard to do, either...

 

[stevendive]

Another tangent.....I would pay good money for some sort of multi-channel version of Floyd's debut album. Wow!!! That would be the most fun....

It fakes up pretty well via PL-II or the Surround Master.

Going in the other direction, the mono mix has enough really blatant differences to make it interesting as well.

It fakes up well in ambisonic superstereo as well. I might try it with ‘width’ set to 0, which is effectively mono.

 

[jimfisheye]

After being into Quad for the bulk portion of 20 years, and after many, many attempts; I finally scored a half-assed copy of this Q8.
Without much further ado, I can safely say: I still don't really get Pink Floyd. Someone please tell me how these guys were popular?

There's a few tracks from DSOTM that I think are ok: Money in particular. I like some of their 60's output like Arnold Layne.... but in my mind, they're just lazy musicians.
Nothing really stands out as particularly brilliant. I'm sure there's some technical aspects that some people might dig like their ability to play in 7/8 time or whatever but it just seems like lazy, drugged-out hippie music to me.

The mix on the Q8 is typical for the era. Drums up front. Stuff in the corners. Most of the time there's not a lot going on so you get some silent (hissy) channels for much of the songs.

A solid "meh" from me.
Good Surround.
Decent Fidelity.
Uninspiring Content.

Sounds like another story illustrating how bad some of the flawed consumer copies of surround mixes in the '70s came across.

YMMV but I thought the surround mixing on DSOTM was ahead of its time and holds up very well. Heavy use of the rears. The mix works well anywhere in the room, not just the sweet spot. Listen to the bluray copy.

How did these guys get popular?
Think about the average show in the late '60s or early '70s. There was some pretty crude stuff going on! (Those under powered Beatles shows are a ringer of an example.)
So these guys come along with not only very above average audio fidelity but full quad surround mixing for all their live shows! Imagine you've barely heard "high fidelity' at one of your friends with the good system houses or the gear at the stereo shop that you can't afford. You go to this Pink Floyd concert and there's sound the likes you've never imagined and it's swirling around the room coming at you from all directions! And then the visuals stuff for a multimedia affair. People were just floored! You'd go to the show just for the experience even if you had no connection to the songs or arrangements.

Compared to that, the studio releases (only 3 albums - 4 counting Pompeii which was only shown with the quad mix in theaters) might seem underwhelming. But even so they're pretty far ahead of most of the other early surround mixes.

They very much did play a lot of long winded soundscape kind of stuff. And they were masters at it with some very hungry use of technology ahead of its time.

That's my take.

 

[jimfisheye]

After being into Quad for the bulk portion of 20 years, and after many, many attempts; I finally scored a half-assed copy of this Q8.
Without much further ado, I can safely say: I still don't really get Pink Floyd. Someone please tell me how these guys were popular?

There's a few tracks from DSOTM that I think are ok: Money in particular. I like some of their 60's output like Arnold Layne.... but in my mind, they're just lazy musicians.
Nothing really stands out as particularly brilliant. I'm sure there's some technical aspects that some people might dig like their ability to play in 7/8 time or whatever but it just seems like lazy, drugged-out hippie music to me.

The mix on the Q8 is typical for the era. Drums up front. Stuff in the corners. Most of the time there's not a lot going on so you get some silent (hissy) channels for much of the songs.

A solid "meh" from me.
Good Surround.
Decent Fidelity.
Uninspiring Content.

Sounds like another story illustrating how bad some of the flawed consumer copies of surround mixes in the '70s came across.

YMMV but I thought the surround mixing on DSOTM was ahead of its time and holds up very well. Heavy use of the rears. The mix works well anywhere in the room, not just the sweet spot. Listen to the bluray copy.

How did these guys get popular?
Think about the average show in the late '60s or early '70s. There was some pretty crude stuff going on! (Those under powered Beatles shows are a ringer of an example.)
So these guys come along with not only very above average audio fidelity but full quad surround mixing for all their live shows! Imagine you've barely heard "high fidelity' at one of your friends with the good system houses or the gear at the stereo shop that you can't afford. You go to this Pink Floyd concert and there's sound the likes you've never imagined and it's swirling around the room coming at you from all directions! And then the visuals stuff for a multimedia affair. People were just floored! You'd go to the show just for the experience even if you had no connection to the songs or arrangements.

Compared to that, the studio releases (only 3 albums - 4 counting Pompeii which was only shown with the quad mix in theaters) might seem underwhelming. But even so they're pretty far ahead of most of the other early surround mixes.

They very much did play a lot of long winded soundscape kind of stuff. And they were masters at it with some very hungry use of technology ahead of its time.

That's my take.