Disco de Pink Floyd: “Dark Side of the Moon [Gold Disc]”

Studies have been conducted on the success of Pink Floyd's classic, best-of-the-best "Dark Side of the Moon." Some results are as follows:

*One in every 20 people under the age of 50 in the United States owns a copy of this album *Dark Side remained on Billboard's 200 album chart for an amazing 15 years straight and then for another two when it was remastered back in 1994 *It is currently the most successful album ever with upwards of 40 million copies sold world-wide

Now the question... WHY? Why should one album by a band back in 1973 have such outstanding achievments and admiration even today? Perhaps because of the time period. Look at other albums released the same year by bands like Led Zeppelin, King Crimson, Rush, and the Doobie Brothers among several others. This was the year of rock perfection. Or maybe it was because of the rave for concept albums. Or the simple, yet unforgettable album cover.

More likely it was the band's chemistry and ability to make jaw-dropping, awe-inspiring, thought-provoking music. This is Pink Floyd at its collective finest, with everyone contributing. Unlike the band in 6 years, Waters did NOT do everything. Gilmoure took a huge chunk of the music-writing, laying down the chord progressions on "Breathe," "Time," and "Any Colour You Like;" the singing on the album's best songs, Water's conceeding to David's far superior voice; and pumping out what would later be hailed as some of rock's most influential lead-guitar riffs on "Money" and "Brain Damage." Wright got in on much of the writing as well with his keyboard contributions on "Breathe," the symphonic "Great Gig in the Sky," "Us and Them," and the amazing keybpard licks and effects on "Colour." Mason, who rarely contributed, put in his efforts on "Speak to Me," "Time," and the Waters-less "Colour." Finally, Roger Waters put down most of the album's music, laid down all the bass-lines as usual, thought up the album's concept, and wrote all the lyrics. If that's not enough, he made himself heard on "Brain Damage," "Eclipse," and the chorus of "Time." Anyway you put it, THIS is the true Pink Floyd; all contributing, all acknowledged.

The band's titanic success was continued on later albums like 1975's "Wish You Were Here," 1977's "Animals," and 1979's "The Wall," although by that time the band had begun to fall apart from Waters' power obsession. By 1983, the band had slipped to a Water's-solo-project version of itself, with "The Final Cut," and finally a break-up. But never would the band see the success or experience the musical genious of "Dark Side of the Moon." So pop this in, take another listen, and remember- even if you don't believe the hype- after this album, music would never be the same....

This new remaster of Dark Side of the Moon is a wonderful sonic treat. The subtle sound effects and rich tapestry of sound is now surrounding you in DSD 5.1 glory (if you have an SACD player) and the clarity is outstanding. I read where they went back to some original "un-pre-mixed" tracks that hanever been heard "first-generation" by any of us before. Very nice...

...BUT...

I have a few beefs, some minor, some major.

1. The song breaks are in the wrong places. Generally they take you not to the next track, but a few seconds before the real song break takes place. It's REAL aggravating. Oops...

2. The mix seems to me to be subtly different from what I'm used to (I never had the 92 remaster, only the original LP and CD releases) and in some cases, I'm afraid it's noticably different (inferior?) Most notably is "Great Gig in the Sky" where the wonderful vocal solo is relegated to the background, fighting for attention with the organ. This is somewhat mitigated by the surround mix, but on a standard CD player it was noticable, and a little irritating. Since I do a lot of listening in the car, I'm just not sure I wouldn't prefer the original CD to this there. Or I guess I could just burn the old vinyl copy onto CD (see below)

3. I'm sorry, but the title of this album is "Dark Side of the Moon", not "THE Dark Side of the Moon" as it says on the spine of this reissue. Serious proofreading error, imho. Maybe it's intentional, to distinguish?

4. Nice new cover art, but the original was perfect. I wish that the book had been reversible, so you could have the original cover image. (btw, I didn't like the change they made in 92 either) I know it's nitpicking, but back in the days when album art was 12" square it wouldn't have been.

Ultimately, it's worth getting if you're a fan of the album, and if you're not a fan of the album...what is your problem? But to my ears, as a CD, this does not surpass the High-quality Vinyl Original Master Recording from Mobile Fidelity that I listened to in the 80s (on a really good turntable and stereo). Unless of course, you must have surround. And if you must, you MUST hear this. The 5.1 mix is exhilirating, and not as obnoxious and "un-musical" as others I've heard. I give it 4 stars, because the SACD portion definitely gets 5, and the CD gets about 3, so I split the difference.

When I saw TDSotM was being released yet again I rolled my eyes. How many times do albums need to be re-released these days? Evidently a lot. The record industry is grasping at the edge of the quick sand pit in an attempt to remain relevant and with no less than 15 $150 +/- box sets, based on a SINGLE album being released this year alone, one has to wonder what they are thinking. These releases are excellent, sure, but who has money to burn on so many single album box sets? In terms of relevancy, high quality packaged media (CDs/DVD/BD in this case) will be great additions to anyone's library for some time, yet they treat these releases as if they HAVE to get them out this year or it will never happen.

I am not a huge Floyd fan. I can't tell you what riff comes from what song, what vocal echoes where but I can tell you I enjoy their music immensely. When I saw that this release was coming I was going to take a wait and see approach but when I saw there was a Blu Ray included, which would be an uncompressed version of the Guthrie 5.1 mix, uncompressed original stereo, uncompressed original quad mix and an uncompressed version of the '73 stereo set as well, I jumped on it. Also included are the little films that played during the live shows in '74 and '75 which are nice additions. My only complaint there is that you can only listen to the 5.1 mix or the 2011 during the video clips.

The uncompressed audio is as close to, or better than, vinyl in terms of quality without the scratch of the needle or possibility of skips.

In terms of video quality on the videos (both DVD and Blu Ray), I think it was all originally recorded on 16mm film, which means you will see a ton of grain. This is normal and not really something that can be corrected without losing detail. You see pristine quality 16mm film representation on the video, which is awesome. The grain isn't AS apparent on the DVD, but it is there.

One question I've heard is "have they blown the mix out with over zealous use of dynamic range compression?" The answer I have come up with based on listening tests is that the only thing they've done between this release and the original CD release is bump the volume and not really done much to tweak the dynamics too much. They have retained the dynamics so highs are high and lows are lows. They've also only bumped the volume enough to give it a volume closer to today's releases WITHOUT taking it above the line and causing distortion. There is no distortion on these albums due to dynamic range compression.

For those of you wanting actual numbers, if you've seen Pleasurize Music's dynamic range tool (use your favorite Internet search to find them), here's how it breaks down on the CDs themselves:

CD1 - DR10

CD2 - DR9

CD6 - DR11

For the record, as CD1 is the album remastered (2011 remaster) we can compare the numbers for the Dynamic Range to the numbers for the original 1983 release, the SACD release, the 2003 remaster CD and 1993 remaster. According to the unofficial DR database, they break down like this:

1983 - DR10

1993 - DR10

2003 - DR9

2003 SACD via stereo downmix - DR11

So what about those "really cool" collectibles? They are, in a single word, a waste. Do NOT buy this set for the marbles, the scarf or the other collectibles. They are nice but not worth the price of admission. The two books, as another reviewer stated, should have just been dropped into a single book.

The CD packaging is poor at best. The way they set it up is that only 4 of the 6 discs have hubs on the base of the box. The other two discs, Disc 5 and 6, have their own cardboard sleeves. My biggest issue is that the CD locking mechanisms on the box are chintzy. They are difficult to release the CD, but they also didn't do a good job of keeping the discs on the hub during shipping! Makes no sense. I'm doing with this what I did with my Derek and the Dominoes box, I'm taking the discs out and putting them in slim jewel cases completely.

Why would someone want to own this? The only reason I wanted it was the uncompressed Blu Ray. Does that alone make it worth $110? NO. I bought it because I REALLY had to have the Blu Ray, but if you can live with just the SACD release (which contains the 5.1 mix and remastered (2003) stereo), then don't bother with this. Doing a comparison during listening to the SACD, the 5.1 mix on the BD doesn't really seem to have more clarity in actual listening tests than the SACD. Of course, if you don't have SACD capability but have a Blu Ray player and a good surround setup, you might find the $110 worthwhile.

You might also wish to own this for the rare tracks on disc 6, which are really interesting but still, with this disc and the Blu Ray disc it probably isn't really something that anyone other than a hardcore Floyd fan should try to save up for. The Experience Edition has CD1 and CD2 included, which is the best buy for most people, unless you already own the live show, in which case neither edition holds any value for you.

The way this actually should have been released is in a set with JUST the discs and a nice book and it should have been no more than MSRP $70 tops. The marbles are stupid, the scarf isn't much of a scarf, though the photos and books are nice, they could have been condensed for sure.

I'm happy I bought it, as I love the uncompressed versions, but at the same time anyone who has the SACD version has a pretty close representation of what's on the Blu Ray disc in that regard.

EDIT 10/2/2011- I've found one thing I am disappointed in with regards to the Blu Ray version of the album. In order for you to listen to these mixes you HAVE to turn on your TV. Unlike just dropping the CD into the player, if you just drop the Blu Ray into your player you will just hear the same audio loop endlessly. If I wanted to watch the video clips and such, fine, no problem I need the TV on. But to listen to just the music you still have to turn the TV to be able to choose what it is you will be listening to. I didn't drop any stars for it, but as I'm annoyed by it I thought I would mention it here for other potential buyers.

Being a Pink Floyd fan, I have purchased every version of this album since it was released 30 years ago.

By far the best version is the SQ Quadraphonic LP version, but as far as the stereo mix goes, the original UK Harvest CD (made in Japan) is still the high point.

Ten years ago, the fine engineer Doug Sax made a valiant effort, but it is clear listening to that XXth Aniversary Edition CD that the original tapes no longer have the same dynamics they originally had (magnetic analog storage slowly loses it quality).

Nevertheless, I decided to give this new 30th Anniversary CD a try. I should mention here that this is only a review of the standard stereo tracks - I don't yet have an SACD-capable player.

However this release doesn't make me want to run out and buy one. My worst fears have been realized as once again, the overall mix of the album has been lost in favor of "resolving power", ie the ability to hear little details. The problem is that after applying techniques to bring out such details, the engineers have done nothing to restore the original mix of the album.

The result is like a starving artist's copy of a Rembrandt painting - it sounds something like Dark Side of the Moon, but when you hear the real thing, you realize that it is only a faded imitation.

The problem is that few people these days have access to what it actually sounds like. Almost no one listens to their LP versions, and only a handful of people are lucky enough to own the original UK Harvest CD. Furthermore, it seems clear that the engineers of this 30th Anniversary Edition haven't listened to the original, either.

Interestingly, the original engineer, Alan Parsons, asked to be involved in this 30th Anniversary Edition project, but was shut out. It would seem that future listeners suffer as a result.

PS My qualifications: I am a California state certified Studio Recording Engineer. One of my instructors was the original engineer for the drum recordings for "Dark Side of the Moon". I compared the 30th Anniversary Edition, XXth Anniversary Edition, and UK Harvest CDs using AKG K240 Studio Monitor headphones (as used in many studio recording situations over the past 20-30 years).

I'm listening to Great Gig In They Sky - Disc 2 - and felt it necessary to put in my two cents. Disc One is the familiar studio version all nicely dressed up in a new remaster - it's got some sonic differences over past versions although I've never been unhappy with any copy of Dark Side Of The Moon be it vinyl or CD.

Soooo - my reason for writing is just to say how cool it is to hear a great sounding show from 1974 with the complete DSOTM. The version of Great Gig In The Sky is quite fantastic. The whole thing is great - a real treat! Don't pass it up!