Pink Floyd Dark Side comparison?

Well, I had a chance to compare the new Guthrie remaster with my original 80's issue, and was somewhat dissapointed to find out the 80's issue still sounds better. Detail, sounstage, and air is better on the original. You can more clearly hear the dubbed in voices and their position in the sound field is more precise, as are attacks on drums and guitar strings. The dymanic range is broader, with the impact of the bells and chimes significantly higher in level. Its like they were using more compression in the re-master. I was surprised to say the least, as I had exactly the opposite impression of Animals. My 80s version is almost unlistenable compared to the 2011 re-master.

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