Pink Floyd Dark Side comparison?

Dhl93449,
Puzzled, which was better, 80s or new version? At the beginning you state the 80s is better but at the end you say the 80s is unlistenable compared to the 2011 remaster?
I'm sure there is a typo somewhere?s

Sgr

WRT Darkside, the 80's version is better IMO. More detailed, better dynamic range. I forgot to mention that the re-master has a more enhanced bottom end compared to the 80's version. For example, the heartbeat at the beginning is more pronounced.

My last comment was in reference to Animals. In that case the 80's version is inferior to the re-master, and for me the 80's version of Animals was unlistenable. The new remaster of Animals is quite nice.

I only have the MSFL version from the 80's....and as I said I haven't compared that however Dhl93449 you need to consider there at least two other CD versions of DSOM...the early 90's remaster and the 30th anniversary version which was a SACD hybrid. Both of these will be dirt cheap to buy.

I find it strange the new version isn't better but I suppose these things are subjective but considering a lot of original CD's were badly mastered I find it a surprising result.

Dhl93449
I am not sure I'd agree with you the 80s version is better than the current version. James Guthrie is a friend of mine and his work is stellar, as well as the band had a lot to say about it. Are you sure there couldn't be some other reason you have this impression? Subtle level differences of 1/2 dB or less (you really need precise level matching) could account for some of those comments. Also, decisions about the mix by the band could change where certain elements are positioned or their prominence-so what you consider is worse may be a different decision by the band then vs now. Most of us on this end have no idea how happy the band/engineer was with the original and often I have heard engineers say "I wished I could have fixed that but we ran out of time". What we consider as perfection may be a mistake in their view. Its hard to quantify earlier vs later brush strokes by the artist. So not saying that you are absolutely 100% wrong but don't want the rest of the Audiogon to accept its not as good without listening themselves. I KNOW James would be horrified to think someone thought his work was worse-he worked on it for a year plus.
Brad
Brad

Brad:
Its just my impression, playing both versions back to back on my system (B&W 804s, HSU sub, Parasound JC1 (2) power and JC2 preamp, CA 840c feeding digital to Bryston BDA-1 feeding the JC2).

I did not mess with the levels, as the level of compression between the two versions seems to be different, so what level do you pick to standardize on? The bass on the re-master is more enhanced, but things like the bells/chimes in "Time" just don't jump out at you in the re-master like they do in the original. This may not be a bad thing for some listeners, its just that I prefer the enhanced dynamics over the re-master's more reduced levels. Also, space and air around vocals and esp the background recorded vocals and sound effects seem to be a bit muted in the remaster. Maybe its because the master tapes are getting so old now and some details are beginning to fade? These things are not killer issues, and the re-master still sounds good in any case.

I did find "Animals" was much better in the re-master, and found that "Wish You Were Here" was about a wash to slighlty better in the remaster. The bass enhancement is really impressive in the pre-amble to "Welcome to the Machine" compared to the original.

And please understand (as most do) this is my opinion and I would be the last to suggest others should not listen for themselves. What I value with regards to sound imaging, depth, air etc. may not be shared by others with other systems and hardware.

Finally, I applaud folks like Mr. Guthrie in trying to make a music classic even better. We do appreciate his work. Now if someone like himself would re-master the Blind Faith album, I would be happier.