• QuadraphonicQuad welcomes you and encourages your participation! Treat all members with respect. Please keep all discussions civil, even when you have a strong opinion on a particular topic.

    Do not offer for free, offer for sale, offer for trade, or request copies or files of copyrighted material - no matter how rare or unavailable to the public they might be. We do not condone the illegal sharing of music. There are many places on the internet where you can participate in such transactions, but QuadraphonicQuad is not one of them. We are here to encourage and support new multichannel releases from those companies that still provide them and as such the distribution of illegal copies of recordings is counter-productive to that effort. Any posts of this sort will be deleted without notification.

    Please try to avoid discussions that pit one format against another. Hint for new users: make liberal use of the search facilities here at QuadraphonicQuad. Our message base is an incredibly rich resource of detailed information on virtually all topics pertaining to surround-sound. You will be surprised at what you can find with a little digging!

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

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

Rate the BDA of Pink Floyd - DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

  • 6:

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 4:

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 3:

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 2:

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 1: Poor Surround, Poor Fidelity, Poor Content

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    153

zimmy

Well-known Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2014
Messages
136
Location
Sweden
Back to DSOTM:
This "Quad" is a Sonic masterpiece. It gets my second 10 vote (along with Abbey Road 5.1)
I loved the album when it came out and couldn't get enough of it. Then it's legendary status grew and songs like "Money" were played to death on the radio. Too much of anything can make you sick.
I purchased a legit standalone demo version nine months ago but forced myself myself to wait.
A recent QQ review whetted my hunger so it was time to see why this has remained near the top of the polls. Is it over hyped or can it really be that good?
The first thing I noticed was that I could really crank up the volume. That is a big + for me.
There is exceptional low bass. I'm surprised that there is no LFE channel.
On the run is done perfectly. I wish AP had done a quad version of Welcome to the machine in the same vein. It would have turned out much better than the one we got.
I feel that the lead guitar on Time is a little hot but perfect. Gilmour really wails. It's right in your face.
Money is a delectable feast of tasty guitar. You get rythym guitars out of both surrounds and lead guitar from the front. Then the lead guitar panning to all 4 corners. Awesome!
I like Us and them but lyrically maybe a little heavy
Any colour you like really picks me up. Sounds pinging all over the place. Richard Wright and Gilmour are everywhere. Excellent!
Brain damage hits home a little to hard for me but that's a personal issue...
Eclipse is a perfect ending. The backup vocalist's shine.
10
I have read several times on this site that the quad mix is better on DSOTM and WYWH. Unfortunately i have problems playing the Quad version from the BD or the DVD but i have it as flac files so i can play it at least. But the thing is that i have enjoyed the 5.1 version so i have not done any comparision before as i realised that i have to listen to the whole album and not just bits to make an proper examination of the differences. You can call it that i have been lazy if you want :) .
But after these "attacks" on the 5.1 version i finally did an comparision and i have to agree that the quad is better.
I can actually not understand how you can make an new 5.1 mix and fail as you have such an good base by just listening to the quad version.
Myself i prefer WYWH to DSOTM so i am right now happy to have discovered an better version than the one i have been listening to since the Immersion boxes came. I also discovered that i can make my Atmos speakers work if i play the disc from an ripped dvd on an external harddrive. Strange that this would do the trick but it certainly made the records one step better just by this discovery.
 
Last edited:

Scott65

701 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Nov 2, 2015
Messages
750
Location
Tasmania, Australia
I have read several times on this site that the quad mix is better on DSOTM and WYWH. Unfortunately i have problems playing the Quad version from the BD or the DVD but i have it as flac files so i can play it at least. But the thing is that i have enjoyed the 5.1 version so i have not done any comparision before as i realised that i have to listen to the whole album and not just bits to make an proper examination of the differences. You can call it that i have been lazy if you want :) .
But after these "attacks" on the 5.1 version i finally did an comparision and i have to agree that the quad is better.
I can actually not understand how you can make an new 5.1 mix and fail as you have such an good base by just listening to the quad version.
Myself i prefer WYWH to DSOTM so i am right now happy to have discovered an better version than the one i have been listening to since the Immersion boxes came. I also discovered that i can make my Atmos speakers work if i play the disc from an ripped dvd on an external harddrive. Strange that this would do the trick but it certainly made the records one step better just by this discovery.
I prefer the quad mixes, but if the only mixes that existed were the 5.1 mixes, I would have been happy with them.
 

zimmy

Well-known Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2014
Messages
136
Location
Sweden
I prefer the quad mixes, but if the only mixes that existed were the 5.1 mixes, I would have been happy with them.
I totally agree, as i said i have enjoyed the 5.1 track since i bought the Immersion box years ago. So i don´t agree with the talking about that the 5.1 track is crap. I just wished that they had listened more carefully to all the wonderful things that the quad track brings and did an similar thing with the 5.1 track. I don´t know if they felt that it would be some sort of copyright problem to do that or they just didn´t like discreet audio in surround
 

sjcorne

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
2,619
Location
Southern NY
Yeah but the Quad existed LONG BEFORE the 5.1 so theoretically the 5.1 should've kicked the quad s ass...but yet it doesn't!
Which is 'better' is a matter of opinion, but one of reasons that quad is more 'discrete' or adventurous is because it was mixed to be compliant with the SQ matrix system. Engineers doing quad mixes for labels that issued their product on SQ vinyl (EMI, Columbia, etc) had to follow certain guidelines to ensure their mixes were SQ-compatible - one such rule was that you couldn't have the same sound coming from all four speakers at once.

Guthrie's 5.1 mix was done for SACD, so he could place sounds/instruments in any location or # of speakers he (or the band) wanted. The funny thing about modern surround formats is that even though they offer infinite separation with no limitations, they also give mixers the freedom to be 'conservative' with their surround mixes.
 
Last edited:

jaybird100

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 27, 2006
Messages
1,057
Location
Pembroke Pines, FL
Which is 'better' is a matter of opinion, but one of reasons that quad is more 'discrete' or adventurous is because it was mixed to be compliant with the SQ matrix system. Engineers doing quad mixes for labels that issued their product on SQ vinyl (EMI, Columbia, etc) had to follow certain guidelines to ensure their mixes were SQ-compatible - one such rule was that you couldn't have the same sound coming from all four speakers at once.

Guthrie's 5.1 mix was done for SACD, so he could place sounds/instruments in any location or # of speakers he (or the band) wanted. The funny thing about modern surround formats is that even though they offer infinite separation with no limitations, they also give mixers the freedom to be 'conservative' with their surround mixes.
If you're saying the quad mix was done to be compliant with SQ, does that mean the Japanese QS version is a different mix than the SQ? As for the Alan Parsons quad mix, compared to the James Guthrie 5.1 mix, give me the quad every time. I'm still not convinced that a center channel is necessary for music.
 

sjcorne

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
2,619
Location
Southern NY
If you're saying the quad mix was done to be compliant with SQ, does that mean the Japanese QS version is a different mix than the SQ?
I've wondered about that myself - been trying to locate a copy for sensible money for some time now.

Cai Campbell hypothesized years ago that it's the same mix, but sourced from a decoded 4-channel master (like the US Q8). So the lineage would be Discrete 4-Ch Mix -> SQ Encoder -> SQ Decoder -> QS Encoder. If that's true, it must sound awful.
 

jaybird100

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 27, 2006
Messages
1,057
Location
Pembroke Pines, FL
I've wondered about that myself - been trying to locate a copy for sensible money for some time now.

Cai Campbell hypothesized years ago that it's the same mix, but sourced from a decoded 4-channel master (like the US Q8). So the lineage would be Discrete 4-Ch Mix -> SQ Encoder -> SQ Decoder -> QS Encoder. If that's true, it must sound awful.
I have the QS LP, and it sounds better than the SQ version. More defined separation in quad, and it sounds awesome without decoding, too. It is, quite clearly, NOT a re-encode of a decoded SQ tape.
 

MidiMagic

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2010
Messages
291
Which is 'better' is a matter of opinion, but one of reasons that quad is more 'discrete' or adventurous is because it was mixed to be compliant with the SQ matrix system. Engineers doing quad mixes for labels that issued their product on SQ vinyl (EMI, Columbia, etc) had to follow certain guidelines to ensure their mixes were SQ-compatible - one such rule was that you couldn't have the same sound coming from all four speakers at once.

Guthrie's 5.1 mix was done for SACD, so he could place sounds/instruments in any location or # of speakers he (or the band) wanted. The funny thing about modern surround formats is that even though they offer infinite separation with no limitations, they also give mixers the freedom to be 'conservative' with their surround mixes.
Actually, it is impossible to make a single sound come from all 4 speakers at the same level in SQ other than to use a decoder with no logic and no 10-40 blend and pan the sound to center front or center back.

It can be done with QS. The SQ left back signal on a record comes out all 4 speakers equally when decoded with QS.
 

gazzaworcs

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2018
Messages
20
Location
Worcester
My Denon receiver unfortunately won’t correctly play the 4.0 mix. What’s output is just the front channels and the player indicates it’s 2.0. My old Yamaha receiver was able to play it without any troubles. I’ve tested this with other 4.0 discs I have in PCM and there is definitely an issue with the receiver correctly decoding and not with the blu ray player which correctly indicates it’s playing a 4.0 mix. Has anyone else had similar issues ? The 5.1 track plays with no issues.
 

DuncanS

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
4,744
Location
UK
My Denon receiver unfortunately won’t correctly play the 4.0 mix. What’s output is just the front channels and the player indicates it’s 2.0. My old Yamaha receiver was able to play it without any troubles. I’ve tested this with other 4.0 discs I have in PCM and there is definitely an issue with the receiver correctly decoding and not with the blu ray player which correctly indicates it’s playing a 4.0 mix. Has anyone else had similar issues ? The 5.1 track plays with no issues.
Its quite common for that to happen unfortunately - they didn't think about Quad when they wrote the Receiver software, probably never even heard of it :(
 
2
Group builder
Top