"Better" is in the ears of the beholder. I still have my original vinyl pressing, an original CD, and a later Mobile Fidelity CD. They all sound fine. Alan Parsons took the technology available at the time and did amazing work with it, along with the band's wonderful vision for creation of the music. Sometimes remasters can be done well, but I'd say the majority of them done today sound worse than the originals. They are often compressed even more and made to sound "bright" or bass heavy like Beats headphones. No thanks. Seems too many "remasters" done today are simply done to move more product because they know people will blindly buy them. The sad state of physical audio media these days is that a huge amount of what is sold are reissues, not new music. Pity. And there are few audiences coming of age that want to listen to music intently. The only thing many can recall is how the soundtrack to their video games helps get them into the game. Taylor Swift? Is she popular because her music is so good or because she is a "brand"? Jazz? I'd rather they leave what engineer Rudy van Gelder accomplished alone.
I often agree with you about remasters, but with one exception. WHD in Japan does the most incredible work. The very best example I have come across are the Porcupine Tree albums, from the 90's. Coma Divine Live in Rome, Signify, LIghtBulb Sun and a few others are so much better it's hard to believe. I have no idea how they do it. I've A/B'd them with the originals and there's no comparison. Steven Wilson is a great producer and engineer himself, so I wonder how they made his stuff so much better. If you have a chance give them a listen.
@David Mander I think 3 are enough. The Mobile Fidelity one used a gold substrate, instead of aluminum, so it should last forever. I do enjoy playing it on vinyl, just because I can. Brings back a lot of memories.
@@nospam3001 anything done is at the ultimate approval of - the artist. Sometimes remasters are from better sources, if not better A-D conversions. And many remasters might be compared to their original CD release, which may have been from 2nd generation tapes, EQ'd for vinyl (hence less bass and treble than later editions). DSOTM and Peter Gabriel's "So" are two examples.
Years ago I met Brad Miller, the founder and owner of Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs. I asked him what was the most difficult master to obtain. Without batting an eye he answered, "Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon. It came with an armed guard, and you had to log every time that it passed over the heads of the tape machine." Of course, this is paraphrased from memory, but pretty close. The fact that the master was accompanied by an armed guard and that tape passes had to be logged says a lot about the value of such a master. Great video, Paul! I wonder if they remixed the record, or just remastered it. I DO remember watching a remix session in surround of "Lucky Man" by ELP, which came from an original 8 track master. It was quite amazing, but it had also been digitized and this was back in 2002... the process is much better now, too. However, if it's only being remastered, there are better heads now than there were in previous times. If it was a remaster, and they were playing back on an ATR-102 with Flux Magnetics heads, that would explain the more present low end. Also, there are several versions of ATR-102 'custom' electronics that are far better than the original, so combined with Flux Magnetics heads, this would explain a lot. The original 16 track master of Dark Side was copied once to create a Dolby A copy for mixing, which they felt helped the final overall 2 track mix. Alan Parsons was a teenager who had been tape op on Beatles sessions. He claimed that Dark Side was his first "proper engineering gig," and he STILL nailed the recording beautifully. Again...great video, Paul!
I have quite a few remastered CD's. Some are done very well and the difference is obvious and clearly better, but some sound like they added a little bass, maybe, and called it a day.
Star date 3527.....beamed down for a pee.....contemplated how close we are getting digital to sound as full as analogue. Saw the Roger Waters Show (with hired guns, who were incredibly well rehearsed) Played D S o t Moon note perfect, as the final chord faded.....spontaneous applause exploded in the venue, clapping, whistling and cheering and weeping....we knew we had experienced something extraordinarily beautiful perhaps extra terrestrial. Thank you for your presentations....no hype no BS thank you again
Floyd always wanted their music to be a surround sound experience, Paul just confirmed this with his comment about the premier. I only listen to DSOTM on my cinema system played through an early model PS3 in 5.1 SACD. I have a decent quality HiFi as well but 5.1 DSOTM is a completely different musical experience.
There is nothing left of the original 1/4 inch 2 track mixdown master tapes - Dave Gilmour mentioned this in an interview years ago. No oxide left on them. All subsequent remasters came from 24/96k digital transfers done years ago at Abbey Road. Except for surround sound releases, which were *remixed* from the multi-track tapes. Comparing a few editions level-matched, the best stereo remaster in my opinion is the 30th anniv remastered by the late Doug Sax. Early CD editions had lots of mid range as they were from master tape dubs that were EQ'd for vinyl release.
I'm pretty sure that the 30th Anniversary stereo mix was a DSD capture of the 1/4" tapes. Definitely does not sound like 24/96, thought the 50th Anniversary does. I agree the SACD was by far the best.
still have my ticket subs from seeing PF in Berlin back in '71 and '72 . . . long term fan . . . still have the LP, great stereo in my ATMOS HT and it upmixes - DSU- clear and immersive just may have to check out the new mix . . . BC
If i want popps and click, i throw wood on the fireplace and push play on my cd player, just like good old days😂 Vinyl got a sound, cd got its sound, No reason too argue, we all know deep down in the soul cd sound the best🎉
Hi Paul, Thanks for the many informative and useful videos. I take it you are in the Octave Records Studio, and if so, am I correct in saying that you are using ATC monitors? As a long time ATC admirer and user, I must say I'm pleasantly surprised to see ATC monitors in your studio. Keep up the good work. Best regards.
This is the mastering room in PS Audio that Gus Skinas uses. Octave does not use the ATC monitors. Instead, our mix room is built with the apsen FR30s at its core.
I don't think Dark Side of the Moon was an album made to be enjoyed only on the best HiFi equipment of the day. It was made to give people a good sound experience on the broadest range of equipment possible. That is where it got the reputation as a great sounding album. The sound is so manufactured and sculpted ( I mean that in a good way) that HiFi may not even be an appropriate term (what exactly is the recording being faithful to ? after all, it is not a live acoustic performance !). I have actually lost count of how many remasters I have heard of this album - they all sound different but on each that silky smooth sound shows through. The remastered live version released as part of the 50th anniversary is much more interesting than any remaster of the original album.
ALL engineers and producers strive to produce the finest recording they can. I'm going to scream if I hear another hifi consumer talk such utter nonsense!!!#%**!
Sometimes, with the advancement of technology, it hurts the musicality. is just my opinion 🤔 I remember when CDs first came out how horrible they sounded
I have various editions of DSOTM. An original Harvest CD, a 1994 CD remaster that belongs to my wife, a SACD, a 2016 remaster on LP and the live version from the 50th anniversary on LP. They all have differences in the EQ, but not one of them is bad to listen to. It’s pretty much a guarantee that you can choose any version of this album and enjoy it. I’d really like to hear an original LP pressing just to compare, but sadly they are just silly money now.
@David Mander the only other version I’d like to hear is an original pressing. Part of being an audiophile is wanting to experience different masters and deciding which one sounds the best. Not unusual. When a wife is as awesome as mine it’s not silly it’s lucky 🖕
Most of the new, original vinyl discs of The Dark Side of the Moon in 1973 where terrible quality, and it usually took several returns to the shop to get a reasonable one.
I'm very glad to have a pressing of DSOTM 30th on SACD in 5.1. The 50th release is far over priced and can't see myself getting a copy. The SACD from 20 years ago still blows my mind when in surround. Wish I could get hold of 'Wish you were here' on SACD but the scalpers all want +$150AUD (and it's just not worth that to me.)
Hate to step in here, but... We're talking a remaster, NOT remix! If someone is rebalancing tracks from the multitrack, then it's a remix. A remaster means someone is either working with the 2 tracks (stereo) masters, or if that is lost, remastering some form of the mastered tracks.
For these historic works the labels/brands simply call anything and everything a 'remaster'. Look at interviews with Giles Martin regarding the latest Revolver 'remaster'. He literally used modern software to isolate instruments that were mixed down (like backing vocals or multiple tracks of percussion that were on a single track) and then remixed every aspect of the album. Aggressively EQ'd everything, changed the levels of various items in the mix etc. The album sounds terrible and totally unlike the original mono or stereo mixes his father and The Beatles released.
@@evanmcdonnal Of course, things like what Giles Martin did, starts to blur the line between mixing and mastering. However, the 50th anniversary of DSOTM is, in fact, a remaster, done by Joel Plante. I had the good fortune of working with Doug Sax, the original mastering engineer 20 years ago. He was a very opinionated man, and I'd be curious to think about what he thought about these latest masters. Sadly, he passed in 2015.
I think Abbey road studio preserved every materials of the album Since it’s the greatest work of the studio at the time So they can remaster it easily( there are several remaster versions)
Of applicable note: ALMOST 50 years ago, mid ~ 70's, It was announced that the British label was releasing DSOTM on a 4 ~ Channel, Quadraphonic vinyl pressing. Took awhile, had to keep searching, it was an import, finally purchased this, & it DOES have better sound than the Capitol, USA, press, including listening in just 2 channel stereo. Probably rare, today. The major labels were trying to push, 4 channel sound on vinyl. Two formats: RCA Warners, Atlantic, Elektra had a high frequency subcarrier, with better results; Columbia and Capitol used a phase shifting technique.
The question-asker does not understand the difference between a remix and a remaster. And unfortunately the guy here didn't point that out either. The 50th anniversary is a remaster, not a remix. At no point did anyone go back to the multitrack tapes to produce this remaster.
Respectfully, what you just described in this video is mixing and not mastering. I would suggest that if the recording says that it has been "remastered" then it was done to the "mixed" recording, be it stereo, quadrophonic or surround sound or any other final format that is distributed. Mastering audio recordings is a very different process that is usually done with different tactics and goals in mind to achieve very different results. Also, I love your channel
But then, a complete remix and remaster of that recording will certainly sound "different", and in spite of it being cleaner and clearer, it will just not sound the same, and when I listen to my original master LP version of this album (that I bought a few years ago), it sounds EXACTLY like the original recording as I remember it. And that is what I want to hear. Who cares if it can sound better, same issue with George Harrison's remixes of his fabulous All Things Must Pass album. They sound much cleaner, but I find that I prefer the original master CD version I have in spite of the much lower quality.
I have Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab’s version which was released in the late 80s. It’s just okay. They do use the original master recordings. They also released a remastered version of “The Wall” back in the 80s. They did that one justice. I also bought Elton’s Madman Across the Water. It’s really mid bass heavy . Their releases can be hit and miss. The mid 90s Rocket release is way better.
Me too. You can't grab the bass track in a remaster and play with it all by itself. That was a mis-leading illustration of what a remaster is. You have two tracks and that's it.
The vocals on Dark Side always sound somewhat synthetic to me. But when those clocks come in there's no doubt about the clarity of the recording. The clocks were actually recorded in an antique clock shop. It might be unlikely that they all went off at the same time. Probably overdubbed. Dark Side was meant to be a Qudraphonic experience. There IS a dark side of the moon, contradictory to what is said at the end of the music; from the right angle and perspective. The moon is a broken off piece of Earrh. Earth would be around 1/3 bigger in size if not for what happened there. Could a human in regular clothing last 5 minutes on the moon. No..... It looks so welcoming, but it is so forbidding. Many say we've never actually been there because of a band of intense radiation called The Van Allen Belt that we would have to get through. Can we think of any conspiracy theorists? Let's see.......
I ALWAYS fear the results of "RE-MASTERED" How can they improve from the original? (analog??) It would take forever to get it all "perfect". With the right amount of audio processing; there can be numerous tricks performed. But as some sensitive ears commenting here have noticed. Improve What?? I agree with commenter Ross Warren. Time to renew the lease and make a little more money. Today's listener does not know how audio is supposed to sound. Spend a few years listening to classical music without electronic amplification and train your ears to hear pure sound before "dabbling" into electronic sound.
There are two factors that COULD make it better, but don't always. 1. Better analog to digital conversion. The quality of modern converters is way better than in the 80s or 90. 2. Different and potentially better mastering processing (compression, EQ, etc). But the tapes can be old, and the new mastering processing could be done worse than the original.
Remastering the remastered remaster that was remastered from a remaster. And in another 10 years they'll remaster that one... probably with AI. And it'll probably have subliminal messages in it. This is getting out of hand 😂
Disappointed to watch this and read the comments and not see a mention of the incredible recording done by Alan Parsons and his recording team on the original. His “ear” for sound and the use of mics and their placement in the studio as well as mixing tracks using nothing but tape and tube technology in the early days giving us that quality 50 years ago should be the topic of this discussion. Everyone else coming along doing remasters, just doing exactly what you show, playing around with sliders on a digital console in a digital environment I think its a bit of an insult to Alan Parsons. Remastering is not unlike adjusting the tone controls on your stereo to achieve the sound you like/want? Might sound a bit better, but look what you started with.
@@562mjohnson Holy Moly maybe? 🙂 Joking aside, I have a feeling somebody identified them somewhere in the comments, but there are so many comments I can't find it now.
Never heard a bad Reccording of Pink Floyd 😆' love'EM !
Funny how all the equipment is soooooo much better, yet all the truly great sounding albums were made in and around the 70's.
@@smarts99 More accurate mastering? If that's the limit of your sound engineering knowledge you should be commenting.
"Better" is in the ears of the beholder. I still have my original vinyl pressing, an original CD, and a later Mobile Fidelity CD. They all sound fine. Alan Parsons took the technology available at the time and did amazing work with it, along with the band's wonderful vision for creation of the music. Sometimes remasters can be done well, but I'd say the majority of them done today sound worse than the originals. They are often compressed even more and made to sound "bright" or bass heavy like Beats headphones. No thanks. Seems too many "remasters" done today are simply done to move more product because they know people will blindly buy them. The sad state of physical audio media these days is that a huge amount of what is sold are reissues, not new music. Pity. And there are few audiences coming of age that want to listen to music intently. The only thing many can recall is how the soundtrack to their video games helps get them into the game. Taylor Swift? Is she popular because her music is so good or because she is a "brand"? Jazz? I'd rather they leave what engineer Rudy van Gelder accomplished alone.
Completely agree. Most remasters just push up the bass and the vocals at the expense of everything else.
I often agree with you about remasters, but with one exception. WHD in Japan does the most incredible work. The very best example I have come across are the Porcupine Tree albums, from the 90's. Coma Divine Live in Rome, Signify, LIghtBulb Sun and a few others are so much better it's hard to believe. I have no idea how they do it. I've A/B'd them with the originals and there's no comparison. Steven Wilson is a great producer and engineer himself, so I wonder how they made his stuff so much better. If you have a chance give them a listen.
@@OldTooly yes, Steven Wilson and a few others are the exceptions. His work remastering YES and others has been outstanding.
@David Mander I think 3 are enough. The Mobile Fidelity one used a gold substrate, instead of aluminum, so it should last forever. I do enjoy playing it on vinyl, just because I can. Brings back a lot of memories.
@@nospam3001 anything done is at the ultimate approval of - the artist. Sometimes remasters are from better sources, if not better A-D conversions.
And many remasters might be compared to their original CD release, which may have been from 2nd generation tapes, EQ'd for vinyl (hence less bass and treble than later editions). DSOTM and Peter Gabriel's "So" are two examples.
Years ago I met Brad Miller, the founder and owner of Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs. I asked him what was the most difficult master to obtain. Without batting an eye he answered, "Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon. It came with an armed guard, and you had to log every time that it passed over the heads of the tape machine." Of course, this is paraphrased from memory, but pretty close. The fact that the master was accompanied by an armed guard and that tape passes had to be logged says a lot about the value of such a master. Great video, Paul!
I wonder if they remixed the record, or just remastered it. I DO remember watching a remix session in surround of "Lucky Man" by ELP, which came from an original 8 track master. It was quite amazing, but it had also been digitized and this was back in 2002... the process is much better now, too. However, if it's only being remastered, there are better heads now than there were in previous times. If it was a remaster, and they were playing back on an ATR-102 with Flux Magnetics heads, that would explain the more present low end. Also, there are several versions of ATR-102 'custom' electronics that are far better than the original, so combined with Flux Magnetics heads, this would explain a lot.
The original 16 track master of Dark Side was copied once to create a Dolby A copy for mixing, which they felt helped the final overall 2 track mix. Alan Parsons was a teenager who had been tape op on Beatles sessions. He claimed that Dark Side was his first "proper engineering gig," and he STILL nailed the recording beautifully. Again...great video, Paul!
The Steven Wilson remixes of early Yes albums sound fantastic.
THANKS PAUL,🤗 FOR SHARING THIS INFO ℹ️ AND HOW MUCH WE APPRECIATE ALL YOUR EFFORTS TO HELP OTHERS 🤗💚💚💚
A music studio and not a computer screen in sight, that's good to see!
Saw them play it at Hollywood Bowl before they hit it big in the States. Fantastic show!
I have quite a few remastered CD's. Some are done very well and the difference is obvious and clearly better, but some sound like they added a little bass, maybe, and called it a day.
Star date 3527.....beamed down for a pee.....contemplated how close we are getting digital to sound as full as analogue.
Saw the Roger Waters Show (with hired guns, who were incredibly well rehearsed) Played D S o t Moon note perfect, as the final chord faded.....spontaneous applause exploded in the venue, clapping, whistling and cheering and weeping....we knew we had experienced something extraordinarily beautiful perhaps extra terrestrial. Thank you for your presentations....no hype no BS thank you again
Saw Pink Floyd twice the concert in Chicago at soldiers field was especially epic !
Floyd always wanted their music to be a surround sound experience, Paul just confirmed this with his comment about the premier. I only listen to DSOTM on my cinema system played through an early model PS3 in 5.1 SACD. I have a decent quality HiFi as well but 5.1 DSOTM is a completely different musical experience.
There is nothing left of the original 1/4 inch 2 track mixdown master tapes - Dave Gilmour mentioned this in an interview years ago. No oxide left on them. All subsequent remasters came from 24/96k digital transfers done years ago at Abbey Road.
Except for surround sound releases, which were *remixed* from the multi-track tapes.
Comparing a few editions level-matched, the best stereo remaster in my opinion is the 30th anniv remastered by the late Doug Sax. Early CD editions had lots of mid range as they were from master tape dubs that were EQ'd for vinyl release.
I'm pretty sure that the 30th Anniversary stereo mix was a DSD capture of the 1/4" tapes. Definitely does not sound like 24/96, thought the 50th Anniversary does. I agree the SACD was by far the best.
still have my ticket subs from seeing PF in Berlin back in '71 and '72 . . .
long term fan . . . still have the LP,
great stereo in my ATMOS HT and it upmixes - DSU- clear and immersive
just may have to check out the new mix . . . BC
Love that Studer Board…Alan sells and produces an Audio Engineering course..it’s really good
If i want popps and click, i throw wood on the fireplace and push play on my cd player, just like good old days😂 Vinyl got a sound, cd got its sound, No reason too argue, we all know deep down in the soul cd sound the best🎉
Hi Paul,
Thanks for the many informative and useful videos.
I take it you are in the Octave Records Studio, and if so, am I correct in saying that you are using ATC monitors? As a long time ATC admirer and user, I must say I'm pleasantly surprised to see ATC monitors in your studio.
Keep up the good work. Best regards.
This is the mastering room in PS Audio that Gus Skinas uses. Octave does not use the ATC monitors. Instead, our mix room is built with the apsen FR30s at its core.
The 2003 SACD sounds far and away better than the 50th Anniversary or any of the CDs. It hasn't been bettered, and honestly I don't believe it can be.
AFAIK, the thing hasn't been remixed for this anniversary; just remastered.
I don't think Dark Side of the Moon was an album made to be enjoyed only on the best HiFi equipment of the day. It was made to give people a good sound experience on the broadest range of equipment possible. That is where it got the reputation as a great sounding album. The sound is so manufactured and sculpted ( I mean that in a good way) that HiFi may not even be an appropriate term (what exactly is the recording being faithful to ? after all, it is not a live acoustic performance !). I have actually lost count of how many remasters I have heard of this album - they all sound different but on each that silky smooth sound shows through. The remastered live version released as part of the 50th anniversary is much more interesting than any remaster of the original album.
Agreed. I thoroughly enjoyed the live recording.
I seriously, seriously LOVE the "Delicate sound of thunder" sound.
ALL engineers and producers strive to produce the finest recording they can. I'm going to scream if I hear another hifi consumer talk such utter nonsense!!!#%**!
Sometimes, with the advancement of technology, it hurts the musicality. is just my opinion 🤔
I remember when CDs first came out how horrible they sounded
I have various editions of DSOTM.
An original Harvest CD, a 1994 CD remaster that belongs to my wife, a SACD, a 2016 remaster on LP and the live version from the 50th anniversary on LP.
They all have differences in the EQ, but not one of them is bad to listen to. It’s pretty much a guarantee that you can choose any version of this album and enjoy it.
I’d really like to hear an original LP pressing just to compare, but sadly they are just silly money now.
@David Mander the only other version I’d like to hear is an original pressing.
Part of being an audiophile is wanting to experience different masters and deciding which one sounds the best. Not unusual.
When a wife is as awesome as mine it’s not silly it’s lucky 🖕
Most of the new, original vinyl discs of The Dark Side of the Moon in 1973 where terrible quality, and it usually took several returns to the shop to get a reasonable one.
I'm very glad to have a pressing of DSOTM 30th on SACD in 5.1. The 50th release is far over priced and can't see myself getting a copy. The SACD from 20 years ago still blows my mind when in surround.
Wish I could get hold of 'Wish you were here' on SACD but the scalpers all want +$150AUD (and it's just not worth that to me.)
The SACD still sounds better too.
Hate to step in here, but...
We're talking a remaster, NOT remix! If someone is rebalancing tracks from the multitrack, then it's a remix. A remaster means someone is either working with the 2 tracks (stereo) masters, or if that is lost, remastering some form of the mastered tracks.
For these historic works the labels/brands simply call anything and everything a 'remaster'. Look at interviews with Giles Martin regarding the latest Revolver 'remaster'. He literally used modern software to isolate instruments that were mixed down (like backing vocals or multiple tracks of percussion that were on a single track) and then remixed every aspect of the album. Aggressively EQ'd everything, changed the levels of various items in the mix etc. The album sounds terrible and totally unlike the original mono or stereo mixes his father and The Beatles released.
@@evanmcdonnal Of course, things like what Giles Martin did, starts to blur the line between mixing and mastering.
However, the 50th anniversary of DSOTM is, in fact, a remaster, done by Joel Plante.
I had the good fortune of working with Doug Sax, the original mastering engineer 20 years ago. He was a very opinionated man, and I'd be curious to think about what he thought about these latest masters. Sadly, he passed in 2015.
What Paul is talking about is the surround sound mix created for the 2003 SACD. That disc was both a stereo remaster, and remix for 5.1. I
Happy 50th PS Audio 🎉
Was it ever remastered in DSD/PCM and if so by whom, Thanks Paul
It was! In 2003, an SACD remastered by Doug Sax and Kevin Gray was released. Plus, Gus Skinas approved the DSD master!
@@mjibmichaeljacksoninblack8170 To me, the SACD from the early 2000s is the definitive version.
Yep, 2003 30th Anniversary SACD was and is still the very best. Incredible sounding release.
I think Abbey road studio preserved every materials of the album
Since it’s the greatest work of the studio at the time
So they can remaster it easily( there are several remaster versions)
Did they re-mix it, or simply re-master the two mix?
They did a remix as best my info goes.
Of applicable note: ALMOST 50 years ago, mid ~ 70's, It was announced that the British label was releasing DSOTM on a 4 ~ Channel, Quadraphonic vinyl pressing. Took awhile, had to keep searching, it was an import, finally purchased this, & it DOES have better sound than the Capitol, USA, press, including listening in just 2 channel stereo. Probably rare, today. The major labels were trying to push, 4 channel sound on vinyl. Two formats: RCA Warners, Atlantic, Elektra had a high frequency subcarrier, with better results; Columbia and Capitol used a phase shifting technique.
La mezcla cuadrofonica de Alan Parsons se puede encontrar en el DVD y blu ray del boxset Immersion 🙂
@@beat_floyd Thank you.
@@beat_floyd Thank you.
The question-asker does not understand the difference between a remix and a remaster. And unfortunately the guy here didn't point that out either. The 50th anniversary is a remaster, not a remix. At no point did anyone go back to the multitrack tapes to produce this remaster.
It should have had a Steven Wilson mix for its 50th Anniversary, not just yet another remaster.
Respectfully, what you just described in this video is mixing and not mastering. I would suggest that if the recording says that it has been "remastered" then it was done to the "mixed" recording, be it stereo, quadrophonic or surround sound or any other final format that is distributed. Mastering audio recordings is a very different process that is usually done with different tactics and goals in mind to achieve very different results. Also, I love your channel
But then, a complete remix and remaster of that recording will certainly sound "different", and in spite of it being cleaner and clearer, it will just not sound the same, and when I listen to my original master LP version of this album (that I bought a few years ago), it sounds EXACTLY like the original recording as I remember it. And that is what I want to hear. Who cares if it can sound better, same issue with George Harrison's remixes of his fabulous All Things Must Pass album. They sound much cleaner, but I find that I prefer the original master CD version I have in spite of the much lower quality.
Stuck in past.
I have Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab’s version which was released in the late 80s. It’s just okay. They do use the original master recordings. They also released a remastered version of “The Wall” back in the 80s. They did that one justice. I also bought Elton’s Madman Across the Water. It’s really mid bass heavy . Their releases can be hit and miss. The mid 90s Rocket release is way better.
The question was referring to remastering the album not remixing it. I think you got a little confused there.
Me too. You can't grab the bass track in a remaster and play with it all by itself. That was a mis-leading illustration of what a remaster is. You have two tracks and that's it.
Tape sounds better
You say Dark Side is remastered but then you go on to explain what a remix is. These are two very different things.
I’m looking for an explanation from the ps audio dude. How is it he confuses a remix and remaster. These two processes are radically different.
The vocals on Dark Side always sound somewhat synthetic to me. But when those clocks come in there's no doubt about the clarity of the recording. The clocks were actually recorded in an antique clock shop. It might be unlikely that they all went off at the same time. Probably overdubbed. Dark Side was meant to be a Qudraphonic experience. There IS a dark side of the moon, contradictory to what is said at the end of the music; from the right angle and perspective. The moon is a broken off piece of Earrh. Earth would be around 1/3 bigger in size if not for what happened there. Could a human in regular clothing last 5 minutes on the moon. No..... It looks so welcoming, but it is so forbidding. Many say we've never actually been there because of a band of intense radiation called The Van Allen Belt that we would have to get through. Can we think of any conspiracy theorists? Let's see.......
Well you can be record pieces it doesn't even have to be the band sesame musician They're probably use a lot of AI now as well
I guess it’s louder.
I ALWAYS fear the results of "RE-MASTERED" How can they improve from the original? (analog??) It would take forever to get it all "perfect". With the right amount of audio processing; there can be numerous tricks performed. But as some sensitive ears commenting here have noticed. Improve What?? I agree with commenter Ross Warren. Time to renew the lease and make a little more money. Today's listener does not know how audio is supposed to sound. Spend a few years listening to classical music without electronic amplification and train your ears to hear pure sound before "dabbling" into electronic sound.
There are two factors that COULD make it better, but don't always. 1. Better analog to digital conversion. The quality of modern converters is way better than in the 80s or 90. 2. Different and potentially better mastering processing (compression, EQ, etc).
But the tapes can be old, and the new mastering processing could be done worse than the original.
SACD ONLY " . "
Remastering the remastered remaster that was remastered from a remaster. And in another 10 years they'll remaster that one... probably with AI. And it'll probably have subliminal messages in it. This is getting out of hand 😂
Disappointed to watch this and read the comments and not see a mention of the incredible recording done by Alan Parsons and his recording team on the original. His “ear” for sound and the use of mics and their placement in the studio as well as mixing tracks using nothing but tape and tube technology in the early days giving us that quality 50 years ago should be the topic of this discussion. Everyone else coming along doing remasters, just doing exactly what you show, playing around with sliders on a digital console in a digital environment I think its a bit of an insult to Alan Parsons. Remastering is not unlike adjusting the tone controls on your stereo to achieve the sound you like/want? Might sound a bit better, but look what you started with.
‘Edit - tube,transistor technology
Dude what kind of speakers are those up there? Holy moly.
They are the expensive kind, of course. . . .🙂
@@cdl0 yeah but what kind lol?
@@562mjohnson Holy Moly maybe? 🙂 Joking aside, I have a feeling somebody identified them somewhere in the comments, but there are so many comments I can't find it now.
@@cdl0 okay okay I'll admit I was joking. They look like ATCs
@@562mjohnson I have enjoyed the joke, thanks. You can't be too serious about these things. 🙂