Pink Floyd - DARK SIDE OF THE MOON [Blu-Ray]

[JonUrban]

From the Dark Side of the Moon Immersion Box Set, please post your thoughts and comments on the 24/96 HiRez audio of this album. Comments on both the 5.1 and the 4.0 mixes should be made in this single thread. Please indicate what mix you are commenting on when you post.

DSOTM BD Front.jpg
DSOTM BD Back.jpg
DSOTM BD Disc.jpg

[JonUrban]

Here is a look at the 4.0 Alan Parsons mix audio wav files as extracted with AudioMuxer from the Blu-Ray Disc:


DSOTM wavs BD.jpg

[JonUrban]

Here is a look at the 5.1 James Guthrie mix audio wav files as extracted with AudioMuxer from the Blu-Ray Disc:

DSOTM 5.1 wav.jpg

[winopener]

Seems they got it right: no visible compression or brickwalling.
BTW, in the SH forum they are starting to rave about the 4.0 AP mix... we already knew!

[Quad Linda]

BD is the ONLY way to listen to DSOTM! Immersion is all you need and the reference for DSOTM. Got home at midnight and stayed up until 5AM listening to the 4.0 Parsons & 5.1 Guthrie on BD. Did some A/B'ing, mainly for tonal differences, since I A/B'ed the Parsons & Guthrie mixes eight years ago. No surprise which I preferred: PARSONS!!! I also played the 5.1 on DVD in my car. I noticed things in the Guthrie I didn't recall on SACD. Things like better cymbal decays and picking things out clearly. This probably has more to do with different equipment than the mix or media. I need to A/B the BD/DVD-V/SACD in 5.1. Also played portions of the 2.0 on BD. Here's what hit me:

1-First time I heard Parsons w/o decoding. That and the higher fidelity really do it justice. Heard lots of things I never heard before, ala upgrading your audio system. Clearer, more time cohesive harmonics were the biggest improvement. My new fave, as I expected.
2-Parsons seems brighter and crisper in the high end. Am I IMAGINING this? It WAS 3AM.
3-Guthrie sounded great. I've waxed enthusiastic on the 5.1 SACD in other threads. With fidelity now (roughly) equal, it pales, mix and TONALLY. They are close tonally w/ same player, disc, system, settings, etc. It hit me that there's a different philosopy in mixing 5.1, opposed to 4.0. Aren't they basically the same thing? 4.0 has LFE is mixed in and a phantom center. 5.1 mixes seem to ignore the four quadrants, which many engineers emphasized in 4.0. More imagining on my part?
4-Parsons has a more "solid" feel with better overall seperation/mix.
5-2.0 seems punchiest and most solid. I synthesized surround on my B&K. Sounded awesome, though the other two are my preferences.

Linda
Could it be that somebody else is looking inside my mind, some other place, somewhere, some other time?

[Old Quad Guy]

5.1 mixes seem to ignore the four quadrants, which many engineers emphasized in 4.0.

That's what I found lacking with many 5.1 mixes at first listen, like the engineer had an embarrassment to put ANY sound behind one in the rear speakers like what Quadraphonic does. So we got in some instances essentially a stereo mix across the front speakers with a little reverb "ambiance" for the rears. This IMO doesn't make for all that great of surround experience (Although I do a have a few SACDs where this sort of mix was fine for the type of music). There are also many ways to listen to music, all equally valid. Many folks are looking for that certain type of feeling one gets from music regardless of channels.

Many mixes sound like the engineer was over their head for surround, never heard any Quad before and were not open to immersing themselves into music/sound. IMO we hear forward not only what we hear in front of us, but equally important what is behind us. You need at least 4 speakers minimum in order to create the 360 degree sound field with equal sound coming from each speaker.

5.1 and 4.0 although cousins to each other are slightly different animals just as Mono and Stereo are different, at least those were my feelings at first. There are also many approaches to surround, the 3 channel Stereo as with the "Living Stereo" titles are really enjoyable. Since we do have 360 degrees to play with, the possibilities are endless for mixing in surround. And since disc space is now larger, more than one surround mix can be on a disc now, along with Stereo/Mono of course.

So now we have new ways how to go that will hopefully all come together from now on, new 5.1 surround mixes (perhaps 7.1?) and the preservation of Quadraphonic music from vintage Master Tapes, along with Stereo/Mono. I'm real happy that we have all 3 of these great mixes all on one disc. Totally cool. This IMO is the way to go and hope that this is THE standard (the inclusion of many mixes in one package regardless of format) for putting out vintage material from any era.

[Quad Linda]

Agreed, OQG! I like all 3 mixes and both Layla's, though I prefer the Scheiber mix on that. Like Italian gravy, aka spaghetti sauce, there are lots of great ways to do it.

Linda
Incredibly Immersed

[elguapo511]

help me out people. how do i appropriately listen to the quad mix disc on a 5.1 sound system? do i just mute the sub?
also, do i need to place these marbles in any configuration to maximize the surround effects?

[Quad Linda]

You can just listen with the sub connected. The 4.0 mix has been coverted with LFE track for the sub and center channel.

The marbles need to be in a triangular configuration, which is why there's three.

Linda

[elguapo511]

"The 4.0 mix has been coverted with LFE track for the sub and center channel"
im confused
so That means it is 4.0mix through 5.1 channels, they simply pit the low low effects in the center and sub?

[BananaSlug]

Don't forget to wrap the scarf around your neck clockwise three times - counterclockwise (anti-clockwise) in the southern hemisphere.

[0tto]

Here is a look at the 4.0 Alan Parsons mix audio wav files as extracted with AudioMuxer from the Blu-Ray Disc:

Jon can you do screenshots with spectral analysis of the waveform?

[Quad Linda]

Yes, the 4.0 is sort of 5.1. The center is in lieu of "phantom" and the sub reproduces the LFE info, derived from the 4.0 Parsons mix.

Banana Slug, there is a corresponding hemispheric shift for the discs themselves, as well. Likewise, the marbles should be spun counter clockwise in the Southern hemisphere.

Linda
Softer Side of the Moon

"The 4.0 mix has been coverted with LFE track for the sub and center channel"
im confused
so That means it is 4.0mix through 5.1 channels, they simply pit the low low effects in the center and sub?

[Bill Sherbon]

"The 4.0 mix has been coverted with LFE track for the sub and center channel"
im confused
so That means it is 4.0mix through 5.1 channels, they simply pit the low low effects in the center and sub?

Since it is quad there will be sound coming out of your front left/right and surround left/right speakers. Also, if your system configured for bass management (i.e., your front/surround speakers are not full range and you have a subwoofer) then the lower frequency portion of the audio will be redirected to your subwoofer.

AFAIK when playing 5.1 music, the audio coming out of a subwoofer in a 5.1 system is more from bass being redirected from the other speakers (bass management) than actual LFE content since LFE is designed for movie audio. But for 5.1 music the sound mixer may throw some content into the .1 (LFE) so that nobody complains about there not being any LFE

[Quad Linda]

That's very true, Bill. In an earlier post on this or another thread, it was listed that there is a center channel on the "4.0 mix" and a ".1" channel created for LFE. There IS a center channel on the "4.0." In effect, it is the 4.0 mix adapted for 5.1. Your explaination is correct for an ACTUAL 4.0 recording.

Sorry to have caused any confusion. I'm not writing clearly. Stayed up getting Immersed until 5AM!

Linda

Since it is quad there will be sound coming out of your front left/right and surround left/right speakers. Also, if your system configured for bass management (i.e., your front/surround speakers are not full range and you have a subwoofer) then the lower frequency portion of the audio will be redirected to your subwoofer.

AFAIK when playing 5.1 music, the audio coming out of a subwoofer in a 5.1 system is more from bass being redirected from the other speakers (bass management) than actual LFE content since LFE is designed for movie audio. But for 5.1 music the sound mixer may throw some content into the .1 (LFE) so that nobody complains about there not being any LFE

[JonUrban]

"The 4.0 mix has been coverted with LFE track for the sub and center channel"
im confused
so That means it is 4.0mix through 5.1 channels, they simply pit the low low effects in the center and sub?

QL, I'm pretty sure you are wrong.

The 4.0 mix is indeed ONLY 4.0. Look at the wav files above. Now, your reciever setup may be taking the 4.0 mix and creating a .1 and a center channel, but there is no fake .1 or C channel on the blue ray. It's straight 4.0.

So, for those with 5.1 systems, your center speaker and sub will be silent (unless your receiver creates audio for these). Because of this, you should have full sized rears to match your fronts, just like the old quad days. Of course, you could listen and get the surround with smaller back speakers, you'll just lose the lower freq's that are in the rears.

[Quad Linda]

I stand corrected.

Linda

QL, I'm pretty sure you are wrong.

The 4.0 mix is indeed ONLY 4.0. Look at the wav files above. Now, your reciever setup may be taking the 4.0 mix and creating a .1 and a center channel, but there is no fake .1 or C channel on the blue ray. It's straight 4.0.

So, for those with 5.1 systems, your center speaker and sub will be silent (unless your receiver creates audio for these). Because of this, you should have full sized rears to match your fronts, just like the old quad days. Of course, you could listen and get the surround with smaller back speakers, you'll just lose the lower freq's that are in the rears.

[Quad Linda]

A solid 10, even if it only had the Guthrie mix! The Parsons 4.0 mix in all it's glory and the pink noise/voice announcements make this one go to 11!

Linda
Immersed with the Dark Side Up

[cupboy]

Oh, so this is why new Blu-ray movies don't come with LPCM anymore, and have switched to dts HD MA. The studios must not like the idea of these boxes being used.

What would happen if I plugged my Sony ES5400 SACD player HDMI into this. Would it give me surround sound without needing a compatible receiver? That might be interesting.

[Analogueghost]

Oh, so this is why new Blu-ray movies don't come with LPCM anymore, and have switched to dts HD MA. The studios must not like the idea of these boxes being used.

Even though the studios hate fun little boxes like this, I don't think it has anything to do with the shift away from LPCM. My understanding of why LPCM isn't used for movies is because it takes up so much more space on the disc, leaving less room for the image and for special features. (And ads.)

In fact, if I recall correctly the main reason it was used at all was to aid compatibility between early Blu-ray decks (which had issues working with the advanced codecs at first) and early HDMI receivers. For instance, my Yamaha HTR-5990 had HDMI 1.2 switching and didn't have any of the later codecs, but it could handle a 5.1 LPCM stream at 24/96 without a hitch.

[The Bright Side]

Hey guys, has anybody A/B'd the quad mix on the BluRay and the underground DVD-A bootleg? It sounds like the BluRay blows it outta the water, but I'd still love to know because... Well, it's 100 dollars... And I don't even have room in my apartment for all the junk in that box.

[MyCuff]

Where did you read that the bda blows the dvda out of the water? I would have thought them very similar other than a .1 channel on the dvda.

[JonUrban]

Jon can you do screenshots with spectral analysis of the waveform?

Here is the 5.1 from the BluRay in Adobe with the Frequency Analysis Display:

DSOTM BD 51.jpg


Here is the 4.0 from the BluRay in Adobe with the Frequency Analysis Display:

DSOTM BD 40.jpg


Here is the 4.1 from the DVD-A in Adobe with the Frequency Analysis Display:

DSOTM DVDA 41.jpg

[0tto]

thanx Jon.
albeit freq. scale in screenshot limited to to 22KHz, from what i see, seems like stream of Parson's
mix on BD is superior to stream on bootleg DVDA release.
looks like during conversion analog to digital there wasn't filtering and signal was captured with
all harmonics above 22KHz. that's realy nice.

[winopener]

Frequency analysis display can't go up to 48?