HiRez Poll Pink Floyd - DARK SIDE OF THE MOON (50TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION) [Blu-Ray Audio (Dolby Atmos)]

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

Rate the BDA of Pink Floyd - DARK SIDE OF THE MOON (50TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION)

  • 7

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 5

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 4

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 3

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 2

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 1: Terrible Content, Surround Mix, and Fidelity

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    43

edisonbaggins

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Aug 13, 2015
Messages
10,448
Location
Wherever I May Roam
Isn't the Parsons 4.0 mix proof that it still 'works' with more extreme seperation?
Parsons' mix holds together great.

It also uses exactly zero heights or surround backs, center, or anything other than the fronts and the surrounds. Just goes to show that using all Atmos channels to their aggressive utmost for a satisfying mix is completely unnecessary.

While Guthrie's mix isn't as aggressive as Parsons', it also doesn't need to be. We can listen to the '73 Quad, if desired.
 

GOS

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 23, 2013
Messages
19,849
Location
Central Illinois
OK gang. I received my massive box today. I popped in the BDA.....

I'm not going to lie, this is an absolute monster of a mix, in Atmos. I just almost cannot wrap my head around how amazing this sounds. I'm talking, at super high volumes, this thing is just dumb good. I prefer how this sounds to any other version.

Shocked.... it's a 10.
 
Last edited:

Tres Discrete

701 Club - QQ All-Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 2020
Messages
722
Location
United States
OK gang. I received my massive box today. I popped in the BDA.....

I'm not going to lie, this is an absolute monster of a mix, in Atmos. I just almost cannot wrap my head around how amazing this sounds. I'm talking, at super high volumes, this thing is just dumb good. Not even close to any other version I've heard.

Shocked.... it's a 10
Why lock such a great disc in such an expensive box?! Why? 😭
 

fredblue

Surroundophile Extraordinaire
QQ Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
28,101
Location
London, England
e.g. "Money" 7.1.4 waveforms:

View attachment 90308

Channel order is LF, RF, C, LFE, Lss, Rss, LS, RS, TLF, TRF, TLS, TRS

Note: if decoded in 9.1.6 the extra channels are silent (WF, WR, TLM, TRM)
bah, come on.. seriously this is their best use of Atmos for this track? it's pathetic! 😡

legitimately eyeing up a "5" or "6" for this most criminal underuse of the possibilities of Atmos. ugh! 🤷🏻‍♀️
 

fredblue

Surroundophile Extraordinaire
QQ Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
28,101
Location
London, England
Parsons' mix holds together great.

It also uses exactly zero heights or surround backs, center, or anything other than the fronts and the surrounds. Just goes to show that using all Atmos channels to their aggressive utmost for a satisfying mix is completely unnecessary.

While Guthrie's mix isn't as aggressive as Parsons', it also doesn't need to be. We can listen to the '73 Quad, if desired.
let's be fair, the old Quad used zero Heights, no Surround Backs and no Centre channel because none of that existed back in the 70's.

we know only too well Quad's limited to "just" 4 channels and yet Parsons Quad is more inventive and active and makes more intelligent and dare i say artful use of the musical material than this Atmos rendition.

now Guthrie had all the opportunities afforded by Atmos, not just the extra channels beyond Quad but all the possibilities of placing objects in a truly immersive soundfield, including up above the listening position and for my money he blew it.

i'm only streaming on Apple Music, so you can spin it anyway you want but to me the Bass is wooly and overblown and there's far too little happening above and all around you for it to be anything other than an unadventurous 4-channel mix with some sound effects occasionally emanating from above.

it could and should have been so much more of a showcase for Atmos.

"3" for musical content,
"2" for fidelity,
"1" for the Atmos mix.

a "6".
 

inspclouseau

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2023
Messages
263
Location
SW Montana
One thing that was fun listening to only C, LFE, sides and heights was that you can clearly understand the little spoken inserts, vs. them being kind of buried in the mix. That's what you see, for the most part, on the screen shots I included, in those channels (vs. an instrument or something).
When listening in the new 5.1, were the spoken bits at least more pronounced/clear over the other 5.1's? Even though we know what is said in every single 'word' over the years..geezuz,,, we're getting so old old now...;)👌 Whatever happens..please never get rid of DTS master surround! Just keep it too!
 
Last edited:

fredblue

Surroundophile Extraordinaire
QQ Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
28,101
Location
London, England
Not owning this box, it is very worth hearing others opinions for sure. If ever we do get that stand alone BR, it will be played for the new 5.1 mix as we are tapped out on gear and room! Love the quad version on Immersion too though..a LOT!
playing the Quad right now and i can't sugarcoat it, to me it totally knocks the 5.1 & Atmos into a cocked hat.

the Quad made superb use of the limited technology of the time.

now there is no excuse for the (imho) underwhelming nature of the Atmos.

i so wish another engineer had been given the opportunity..
maybe not Steven Wilson, as he is seemingly burned out on the album?

although i just know SW would have made more creative and inventive use of the Heights and Rears (and actually used the Centre channel as well, of course!) 😅
 

perzon57

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
1,838
Location
Norway
playing the Quad right now and i can't sugarcoat it, to me it totally knocks the 5.1 & Atmos into a cocked hat.

the Quad made superb use of the limited technology of the time.

now there is no excuse for the (imho) underwhelming nature of the Atmos.

i so wish another engineer had been given the opportunity..
maybe not Steven Wilson, as he is seemingly burned out on the album?

although i just know SW would have made more creative and inventive use of the Heights and Rears (and actually used the Centre channel as well, of course!) 😅
I'm listening to the Atmos from Apple Music right now in glorious 7.4.4, and no way is the quad better than this, to me at least. ;) But have to admit that I'm a little drunk at this time.🙃
 

fredblue

Surroundophile Extraordinaire
QQ Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
28,101
Location
London, England
I'm listening to the Atmos from Apple Music right now in glorious 7.4.4, and no way is the quad better than this, to me at least. ;) But have to admit that I'm a little drunk at this time.🙃
i'm very happy for you, even though you must be quite tipsy or you'd be opining about those precious Height channels barely being used for anything other than some sound effects and the odd synthesizer! 😅😂
 

AYanguas

900 Club - QQ All-Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2020
Messages
914
Location
Segovia, Spain
This Atmos mix sounds good for sure.

But, in my opinion, it represents a missed opportunity to have done much better.

I don't mean to say it should be like Yello-Point style ping-pong. But I think we all miss some more effects that would not necessarily make a different sound scene to which purist and non-purist fans are used to it.

For instance, the emblematic Clare Torry vocals, could have be put (in some verse) changing the location, or panning from above to floor as the emphasys/level is decreasing, We could think about some other emblematic passages that would benefit with some additional locations/movements/pannings.

There is a real improvement in immersion feeling when the mixer uses the Wides locations. But, of course, this will only be perceived by some couple of us that have 9.1.4. So why bother?

This mix still sounds good because it is a very good balanced Quad, thanks to using the Rears instead of Sides. There are really some additional good effects with the voices in “Speak To Me”, and the sound effects in “On the Run”. But there are …. so few effects like those during the whole album, that I have to be disappointed.

Do you remember the Atmos mix of Riverside, that is mainly frontal sound during most of the album, and it needs just a different levels (Decreasing fronts and/or increasing sides and the rest), to appreciate more immersion?

The same criteria could be applied here, and “Dark Side of the Moon Atmos” is mainly Quad and it needs more to appreciate more Atmos.

I’m afraid I cannot vote here. I don't know if it's good to abstain. I have only the streaming version. Perhaps a TrueHD would increase my enjoyment, but too expensive so far, even for the emblematic “Dark Side of the Moon”.
 

PissedOffPeoN

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
212
Location
MO
soo is this mix just alan parons quad with james guthrie added speakers to expand it a little? I have been listening to this and the immersion one and they sound very similar. Though the atmos has more bass then the quad.
 
Top