Did I get ripped off? 2012 DSOTM Re-issue

[macdude]

I bought this: http://www.ebay.com/itm/PINK-FLOYD-DARK-SIDE-OF-THE-MOON-2012-IMPORT-PINK-VINYL-QUAD-NEW-/300845063584?pt=Music_on_Vinyl&hash=item460bc35da0

I searched for info on this release before I bought it but did not see anything negative until after I paid. From what I did find, discogs does list a 2012 SQ re-issue. Also, the fakes appear to have a marble finish, which this does not. I also found what appears to be a price tag on the cover. I took that as re-assuring.

Anyone have any input?

 

[macdude]

Turns out I did. The seller was nice enough to refund my money. Today I bought an original UK SQ copy in fantastic shape, with the inserts, for $75. I have a few friends who deal in records for a living. I mentioned I was looking for a quad copy of DSOTM and lo and behold he had one. He even cleaned it on his Nitty Gritty for me. Still haven't had the chance to listen to it, sadly.

 

[Q8]

Wait, someone made a fake repressing of the Australian SQ? Is it even SQ? WOW.

 

[macdude]

That's all I could tell. It had all the signs of the fake from the italian page describing it. I haven't sent it back yet, so I could try it in SQ. The sound quality in stereo wasn't bad but it wasn't spectacular. There was a repetitive wooshing sound throughout one side. However, I've never heard a colored LP that didn't have noise.

The label looked like it was scanned. It also said nothing about 2012 like the auction stated. It also said both "Made in Australia" and "Made in USA." on the back. Strange. The cover was like cardstock and extremely flimsy.

 

[Q8]

If it decodes in SQ I may be interested in having one for the heck of it

 

[geoffcb]

After reading somewhere on the forum about decoding SQ, I discovered the Aussie pressed pristine copy of DSOTM I got from a friend (for $5) is SQ.
I tried "Pro Logic IIx Music" and I reckon it decoded pretty well. I don't know how accurate it was, but I got vocals steered nicely to each channel. Sure sounded better than 2ch stereo!

Geoff

 

[macdude]

This one definitely isn't SQ. I listened to my new, original copy first and then put the pink one on. No way it's anything but stereo.

 

[jaybird100]

After reading somewhere on the forum about decoding SQ, I discovered the Aussie pressed pristine copy of DSOTM I got from a friend (for $5) is SQ.
I tried "Pro Logic IIx Music" and I reckon it decoded pretty well. I don't know how accurate it was, but I got vocals steered nicely to each channel. Sure sounded better than 2ch stereo!

Geoff

It will decode, but the rear channel placements won't be accurate. Pro Logic II will do a better job with QS/RM recordings, with accurate rear placements. I have a QS copy of DSOTM, pressed in Japan by Toshiba/EMI, and it sounds amazing in PL II.

 

[geoffcb]

It will decode, but the rear channel placements won't be accurate. Pro Logic II will do a better job with QS/RM recordings, with accurate rear placements. I have a QS copy of DSOTM, pressed in Japan by Toshiba/EMI, and it sounds amazing in PL II.

Thanks for that. I didn't realise SQ and QS were that different. Shame modern AV decoders couldn't have had SQ/QS decoders. Wouldn't have been hard.
Anyway, I have a DVD-A Quad DSOTM and the SACD. I think the quad mix is better (except some very low bass is missing).

Geoff

 

[jaybird100]

Thanks for that. I didn't realise SQ and QS were that different. Shame modern AV decoders couldn't have had SQ/QS decoders. Wouldn't have been hard.
Anyway, I have a DVD-A Quad DSOTM and the SACD. I think the quad mix is better (except some very low bass is missing).

Geoff

Including actual SQ or QS decoders in modern surround equipment wouldn't be practical, since those systems are no longer being used to produce new recordings. Digital technology makes keeping things discrete much more advantageous. QS recordings happen to decode quite well using Dolby PL II, but SQ doesn't quite decode correctly. Minor point these days, except for those of us who still have records in those systems.

 

[Q8]

Some people would even say including PLII is a waste of space.

Now that you could include SQ or QS on one DSP chip, it wouldn't be that cost or space prohibitive.

 

[Quad Linda]

Although I agree, 10 cents times each piece is more than manufacturers want to spend. It's all about greed and economies of scale, not about making the best piece.

Don't blame the messenger.

Some people would even say including PLII is a waste of space.

Now that you could include SQ or QS on one DSP chip, it wouldn't be that cost or space prohibitive.

 

[jaybird100]

It isn't only that, Linda, but the fact is there isn't any new material being released in those formats, and with the exception of enthusiasts like us, it wouldn't appeal to enough users to make it worthwhile. Cost notwithstanding, that alone makes it impractical for such a chip to be included. The other question is, who holds the licensing rights for both formats?

 

[Quad Linda]

It makes sense to leave SQ out, but QS and a vario-matrix capability would be dandy for synthesis. Although, having sold modern surround gear, most folks buying it could care less about music, let alone surround music.

It isn't only that, Linda, but the fact is there isn't any new material being released in those formats, and with the exception of enthusiasts like us, it wouldn't appeal to enough users to make it worthwhile. Cost notwithstanding, that alone makes it impractical for such a chip to be included. The other question is, who holds the licensing rights for both formats?

 

[geoffcb]

It makes sense to leave SQ out, but QS and a vario-matrix capability would be dandy for synthesis. Although, having sold modern surround gear, most folks buying it could care less about music, let alone surround music.

Yes, I must admit I tend to listen to music in its native format nowadays. So if it's stereo, I listen in stereo. It was only the SQ vinyl that I thought might sound better in PLIIx. It does, even if the steering is incorrect. I don't own any QS to compare. I listen to most surround formats using discrete digital sources.

I suppose most people buying surround gear want it for the booms!

Geoff

 

[jaybird100]

It makes sense to leave SQ out, but QS and a vario-matrix capability would be dandy for synthesis. Although, having sold modern surround gear, most folks buying it could care less about music, let alone surround music.

Pro Logic II does a pretty effective job of synthesizing surround from stereo as well. I always mention to my customers how music can be enhanced by the surround processor in the receiver, and then I play something to demonstrate it. I doubt adding QS Vario-Matrix capability would make much of a difference there. Besides, I have no clue who holds the licensing rights to it now that Sansui, as we knew it, no longer exists.