Dark Side of the Moon: 4.0 vs. 5.1

Dark Side of the Moon – 5.1 SACD mix vs. original 4.0 Quadraphonic mix

Gee, where do I begin? I must say that the SACD is absolutely stunning. The resolution was far and above the DTS CD I was using for comparison. Comparing the SACD to a DTS CD containing the original quad mix was hardly a fair contest. Of course, my aim was to compare the two mixes, ignoring the obvious sonic gap. That’s easier said than done. The resolution of the SACD could not be ignored. It made the lossy compressed DTS CD sound positively thin by comparison.

However, with a bit of willpower I was able to overcome my drop-jawed amazement and concentrate on the individual mixes. I synched up both discs and was able to switch between them in real time. This made it very easy to pick out differences.

One thing that became quite clear very early is that the new 5.1 mix, compared to the original 4.0 mix, has much, much more bass. I mean, the bass was obviously pushed way up in the mix. The bass is so thick and heavy at times that it masks intricate details and tends to muddy the vocals. The drums were also pushed up in the new 5.1 mix but not to an overpowering level. I feel the drums are at a more appropriate level in the 5.1 mix. Although the bass was a tad shy in the 4.0 mix, I feel that it was brought up too much for the 5.1 mix (gee, I wonder if Mr. Waters had a say in this).

As for general presentation, on the whole, I would term the 5.1 mix to offer more of a “wide stereo” presence with surround elements, as opposed to the 4.0 mix, which is just the opposite – a surround mix with stereo elements. These differing approaches both work amazingly well for different reasons, and sometimes for contrasting reasons on different songs. I’m trying to stay away from writing about song-by-song or bar-by-bar comparisons for fear of getting bogged down here, but what you end up with is some songs sounding more airy and open in either mix. In other words, the differing strategies seem to achieve this same result depending upon the individual song. Okay, okay, I’ll throw in one example. I find the original 4.0 mix to offer a more airy and open presentation for “Speak To Me” and “Breathe” while I find the 5.1 mix to offer the same for “On The Run”.

What has to be THE major difference in the two mixes (and this ties in with the differing approaches described previously) is that the 4.0 mix is mostly discrete while the 5.1 mix is mostly blended. Personally, I love super discrete surround mixes because it makes it very easy to identify and dissect the individual elements of the recording. I find that exercise fascinating, but it does not always (though it does a lot of the time) lead to the most satisfying listening experience. What happens in this case is that some of the sparser arrangements tend to sound thin, unfocused and overly fragmented in the 4.0 mix while they sound more cohesive and natural in the 5.1 mix. This works both ways, though, because some of the more elaborate elements will sound thick and congested in the 5.1 mix while they sound sharp and clean in the 4.0 mix.

A lot of the time, the 5.1 mix does sound very open and involving. It seems to me that perhaps some undesirable effects may have been employed to achieve this. I can’t be sure, but it seems some additional echo/reverb or perhaps front/back digital delay was added to the footsteps in “On The Run”. The end result is very satisfying, but sounds markedly different from the 4.0 mix. I had a similar feeling (with an opposite reaction) when I was listening to “Great Gig In The Sky” on the SACD. Clare Torry’s voice seemed to suffer slightly from a diffusion not heard on the 4.0 mix

Another obvious difference between the two mixes is the use of the center channel in the 5.1 mix. I’m not a big fan of center channels, generally, but I must say this time it was used to great effect. It never draws your attention to it but succeeds in really anchoring the image. On at least a couple of occasions this works too well. A passage that might otherwise be freely floating about is found “stuck in the middle”. However, for a vast majority of the time, I find the center channel in the 5.1 mix to be a great addition.

One thing that is certainly prominent on both mixes is the tape hiss. It is a great relief to know that they didn’t NR the life out of the 5.1 mix. One good thing about the pumped up bass in the 5.1 mix is that it helps mask the tape hiss a good percentage of the time where it can otherwise be heard on the 4.0 mix.

I must say that I was very apprehensive about the new 5.1 mix since I’ve always adored the original 4.0 mix. I can say with a sigh of relief that I welcome the new mix, and as it stands on its own, it is an incredible piece of work. However, I won’t go so far as to say it relegates the original 4.0 mix to obsolescence. On the contrary, I think the two mixes deserve to exist hand-in-hand, each offering unique, contrasting and revealing views on this classic record.

Finally, I would just like to map out my preferences, song-by-song, between the two mixes:

1._ _ _ _ Speak To Me (4.0)
2._ _ _ _ Breathe (4.0)
3._ _ _ _ On The Run (5.1)
4._ _ _ _ Time (5.1)
5._ _ _ _ The Great Gig In The Sky (TIE)
6._ _ _ _ Money (5.1)
7._ _ _ _ Us And Them (4.0)
8._ _ _ _ Any Colour You Like (4.0)
9._ _ _ _ Brain Damage (4.0)
10._ _ _ _ Eclipse (4.0)

That works out to roughly half the songs in favor of the old surround mix, and half the songs in favor of the new surround mix. This reflects my true preference for each and I did not intend for the balance to come out this way, but I’m glad that it did. It helps illustrate how the differing approaches to mixing this album have succeeded in different ways. They are both treasures, each deserving to be enjoyed and marveled over.

this is why I feel all the old quad mixes should be preserved and I thank those who do.

But does it still work with the Wizard of Oz as well

From our earlier discussion, it was apparent that each of was referring to a version we'd not yet heard--in my case, the quad version, in yours, the SACD. You are now one up on me, so I've got to get the quad version and then we'll be on equal footing.

Seriously, though, it sounds as if we agree a lot on the approach of the 5.1 mix, in the sense that it was more "surround," and less "discrete" (if those two things can co-exist). When the center channel doesn't play the role of masthead for the music, the chance of the listener entering the center of the music seems to grow--at least on this disc.

From all the raving about the quad disc, it apparently provides the gutsy "discrete" sounds that the 5.1 mix finessed away. Pick your poison on what's "better," but I've lilked both. That's one of the reasons that I mentioned in the HFR review that, despite how superb this one is, wouldn't it be neat to try again with an aggressive center channel, though this time in DVD-Audio. That is still not a diminishmnet of what I consider to be the the single most important multichannel disc yet made. When I hear Sergeant Pepper's or Abbey Road, then that title might have competion. Not until.

But what should be happening even now is the planning for other Pink FLoyd releases, particularly since we've now seen how welll their music lends itself to a surround mix..

Great, great event in this little hermit's hobby of ours. It's the only type of event that promises to lead us from our hermit's homes.

Nick Satullo

Right on Nick! Your comment stating that the original mix "the gutsy 'discrete' sounds that the 5.1 mix finessed away" is right on the money. You've gotta hear the 4.0 mix. Both are exceptional, but the 4.0 mix cuts to the bone. Nick, please give me a holler and I can set you up with the DTS CD. It will kick butt over the SQ vinyl deal you're trying to get set up.

Jon, I've changed my mind. I just went back and did another run through and I do prefer the 4.0 mix of "Us And Them" over the 5.1 mix. The sparseness I referred to actually works in the song's favor. The 5.1 mix is a little heavy-handed here and interferes with the delicate nature of the track.

Also, I can't make up my mind over which mix of "The Great Gig In The Sky" I like better. I like the 5.1 mix because it brings the instrumentation forward, but I prefer the 4.0 mix because the vocals are a lot more well defined and delicate. I'll call this one a tie for now.

I imagine the 5.1 review sessions by the band members went something like this.

Dave: It's hard to hear the little voices, move them up in the mix.

Roger: It's hard to hear my bass guitar and Dave's voice sounds too clean, bump the bass way up so it starts to obscure his voice.

Both of 'em got their wish.

For those who are testing the 4.0 vs. 5.1:

Do you have a dedicated Quad setup as well as a dedicated 5.1? I ask, because both standards have different requirements for the positions & angles of the speakers relative to the center listening position.

I have found that with 5.1, very precise imaging can be achieved if all of the angles and measurements are done carefully.

To my ears, the new 5.1 mix has the appearance of being fully discrete in a 3D enviroment. What do I mean by that?

Take the previously bashed Us & Them > Any Colour You Like (In my opinion, these tracks played together are the best of the best regarding the new mix):

The vocal repeats in U&T start in the front, then cascade past the listener into the rears in such a way that you can almost reach out and touch the voices as they fly by.

This flowing cascade of repeats extends into Any Colour You Like, as each repeat of Rich's synth comes out of a different spot in 3D space, such that you can hear all of the repeating portions discreetly as they flow by. The truly breathtaking moment happens as the synth comes back into the mix as the song builds at the climax.

It seems to me that the 5.1 ITU standard can position a sound to such a high degree of precision, that to confine the sounds to a single speaker (The original discrete quad idea) would be to confine it to the "corner". The only way to bring the sound into the 3D listening space, would be to give the ears of the listener some positioning information with the other speakers. Doing this perhaps creates the feeling of blending that some are describing?

I tried mine both ways and with QUAD headphones albeit the 5.1 no center or sub but still prefer the The 4.0 discreet to me /mc sounds too much like stereo over 5 speakers it is different sounding and is impressive over all but... I still like the 4.0 and my 5.1 of the 4.0 better .. to each their own!
Rob

I have my front speakers 30 degrees from center and the rears 90 degrees from center, placed slightly behind the listening position. All speakers are equidistant from the sweet spot. I've found this to be optimum for both vintage 4.0 mixes as well as newer 5.1 mixes.

Okay the SACD is sonically superior but.....listening to the 2 back to back..........and never being one to mince words when I believe in something.........
This just makes me believe even more that Guthrie didn't get it right. Every single track is better on the original Parsons mix. EVERY ONE! Guthrie was probably afraid of being accused of plagiarism so he veered off totally. The SACD sucks (yes I said that and it is in comparison to the vastly superior mix on the older version) and that is truly what I feel after listening to the Parsons mix. What good is sonics without substance? With this disc it makes me happy that all my speakers are matched and are capable of doing justice to this. You don't need this kind of set-up to play the SACD version because of the limted use of the surrounds and centre channel in comparison. I know what disc I will be pulling out from now on when I want to listen to DSOTM and it won't be the SACD. I hope they don't get Guthrie to do future Pink Floyd re-issues. The goosebumps are back in Us and Them and pretty well in every other track. Us and Them is actually cleaner in this version during the loud parts. You can crank this disc so loud and it still maintains it's composure. I think I am deaf now! And the bass! Much better as well. And the detailing is also much better due to the discreteness. I have heard things that weren't apparent on any other version including the Guthrie mix. I know I am going on but I get excited about such things. I think most of you that have done this comparison know the feeling. I will probably only be using the SACD now for comparison when I have other people over. "Okay here is the SACD version of XXXX and here is the Parsons version of the same thing". People with any degree of musical eptitude will say "Wow what a difference" when they hear the Parsons version. I was skeptical. Hearing is believing.

Guy,

"The SACD sucks..." is a bit harsh. You have to understand that the SACD is more of a compromise mix that an old fashioned QUADRAPHONIC 1970's presentation.

Unfortunately, the "quad" word still conjours up a bad feeling in the hearts and minds of record companies and audiophiles alike. To hit them over the head with a swirling surround specatcular may have been asking for a bit much.

That being said, I agree with you that I (personally) prefer the Parsons mix to the SACD, but the SACD has a more modern sound to it.

While I would have applauded a re-release of the 1970's mix on SACD or DVD-A, we as surround supporters have to be thrilled that a highly publicized surround release such as this came out at all!!

We who have heard the AP mix can look at the SACD as a completely different presentation, which it is. You can't kill James Guthrie for his work, because it stands on its own as a separate entity. This will become the surround version that the "rest of the world" will hear, and that is a fact.

The few of us who have the AP mix have the rare oppotunity to have something that the rest of the world will never hear.

The SACD does not suck, it is just a different "flavor", and as in the case of ice cream, some like Vanilla, some like "Cookies & Cream"!

:-jon

Well it's "Any Colour You Like" and I Know Which One I Prefer unless you have "Brain Damage" or are "Eclipse"d by Marketing types

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Well it's "Any Colour You Like" and I Know Which One I Prefer unless you have "Brain Damage" or are "Eclipse"d by Marketing types [/quote]
:rollin: Clever, Very Clever!:rollin:
0] Rob

Well, the new SACD does have its fans.

Check the new Top 50 SACDs poll over on www.sacdinfo.com/favorites.php?page=1

The new Dark Side of the Moon Multichannel SACD is the # 1 selection there according to almost 200 SACD listeners.

As for the mix, don't forget that a) Pink Floyd selected Guthrie to be the remix engineer on this disc and b) they participated in the decisions about the new Multichannel mix.

If you check the release story about the album, you'll see a quote from Roger Waters praising the mix. So he certainly likes it.

At the end of the day, the musical artist/group has the final say on these things.

Huh? What does the SACD poll have to do with comparing the AP mix to Guthrie's?

Anyway, the new surround mix is incredible in its own right. If there were no previous mix to compare it to, I'd be falling all over myself singing its praises. Even compared to the original AP surround mix, the Guthrie mix manages to hold its own in many areas. I like them both for different reasons. Jon is on the right track when he likens them to different flavors. One isn't necessarily better than the other, they're just different, and we can all pick which flavor we prefer. Personally, I like mixing my flavors!

But then, if you held a gun to my head and made me pick one to live with for the rest of my life, I'd choose the original AP mix.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>As for the mix, don't forget that a) Pink Floyd selected Guthrie to be the remix engineer on this disc and b) they participated in the decisions about the new Multichannel mix.[/quote]
I Stiil Stand by what I said much earlier .. That Alan Parsons should have done the NEW Mix... <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/embarassed.gif ALT=""> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/ohwell.gif ALT=":\">
0] Rob

Guy,

I am with you. I prefer the AP mix, trust me.

If the band members of PF are annoyed with AP, and/or if they are/were having a major disagreement with him for "taking too much credit" for the original DSOTM, there is 1) <strong>NO WAY</strong> they would have wanted his mix released, and 2) would have proclaimed Guthries mix superior whether they thought that or not.

Bottom line is that they could have released a horrible mix of DSOTM, and the CD/SACD would <em>still</em> have sold a ton and topped any list......................unfortunately.

Jon,
That's it exactly. We could debate this forever and there would still be those that would see it a different way. So I guess this is my last post on this particular thread.

I'm sure the reason Waters likes the Guthrie mix so much is because he can now hear himself playing the bass more clearly, just like he wanted. As an added bonus (from Water's point of view, who presently hates the other members of Floyd) Gilmour's vocals are not nearly as clear since the pumped-up bass helps obscure them. The sad fact is, the "enhanced" bass succeeds in stomping much of the delicate nuances that made this recording such a joy to listen to in the first place. I have found this to be true on the SACD (both m/c and stereo) and the LP. This is my biggest complaint about the new release.

Okay I said I wasn't going to post on this particular thread again but I have to agree that a lot of detailing has been lost. Could also hav something to do with the fact that there is more in the mains in the Guthrie than in the Parsons. The Quad has the instruments spread out more of course resulting in more detail.

I see from the brain damage Web site that in this months Sound and Vision magazine that Alan Parsons is supposed to have critiqued the James Guthrie Mix. I just dont have access to that magazine but would love to see his comments on the Remix and maybe what he would have done instead.
Maybe someone out there could summarise for us ?