new Pink Floyd 2011 remasters?

[7+1]

Originally Posted by IIIrd

My DSOTM says mastered by James Guthrie & Joel Plante @ Das boot recording 2011,

Not Mr Sax.

I stand corrected.... sorry about that.

[doorknocker]

I got 'Animals' yesterday and what a huge improvement it is sonically to earlier CD versions! Drums sound much better now in the 'warm 70s'-style that always was Nick Mason's forte. I couldn't stand the sound of the drums on the earlier CD I had, it was very thuddy/cardboxy. The kick is very nice as well.

In general, the album sounds way more powerful but not overbright to my ears.

[sat159p1]

Originally Posted by doorknocker

I got 'Animals' yesterday and what a huge improvement it is sonically to earlier CD versions! Drums sound much better now in the 'warm 70s'-style that always was Nick Mason's forte. I couldn't stand the sound of the drums on the earlier CD I had, it was very thuddy/cardboxy. The kick is very nice as well.

In general, the album sounds way more powerful but not overbright to my ears.

Did I get a wrong discs or what?.. Could you please download my samples (above) and compare to your version. My is painfully bright.

Brightness always brings up the details. Everywhere, but God, this is just pain on my ears... (the new remasters)

[doorknocker]

Originally Posted by sat159p1

Did I get a wrong discs or what?.. Could you please download my samples (above) and compare to your version. My is painfully bright.

Brightness always brings up the details. Everywhere, but God, this is just pain on my ears... (the new remasters)

There's ZERO relation to the new Remaster. What you posted is indeed painfully overbright, maybe some mp3-'Enhancement' going on?

I compared the 1992 remaster of 'Animals' to the new version yesterday and the latter is brighter indeed. But that's fine because I always thought that the old version was very dull and flat sounding. Maybe that's part of the reason I never really got into the album before.

[madcap8465]

Just got done listening to Wish You Were Here SACD. WOW!!! Better than the quad mix. One of the best if not best 5.1 SACD's I've heard.

[t4ckleb0x]

Originally Posted by madcap8465

Just got done listening to Wish You Were Here SACD. WOW!!! Better than the quad mix. One of the best if not best 5.1 SACD's I've heard.

Literally came here to say the same thing. Could not believe how good it was. The 5.1 was masterfully executed and I have never heard a recorded acoustic guitar like the one on Wish you were here after the radio fade in.

[mljung]

Originally Posted by t4ckleb0x

Literally came here to say the same thing. Could not believe how good it was. The 5.1 was masterfully executed and I have never heard a recorded acoustic guitar like the one on Wish you were here after the radio fade in.

...and for those of us that just listens to stereo, has the 5.1 SACD and the new stereo remasters been mastered with the same "tonality".

I'm asking since the 1992 Doug Sax of Wish You Were Here I have, although it generally sounds good, I still find it a little harsh sounding here and there...

::
Mads

[Keith99]

Of all the old Floyd albums "Animals" always stood out mix wise as being below quality (to me anyway). This is the one I would get again

[sat159p1]

Originally Posted by Keith99

Of all the old Floyd albums "Animals" always stood out mix wise as being below quality (to me anyway). This is the one I would get again

What do you mean?

I think that "Animals" is one of the best (if not the best) Pink Floyd record in terms of mixing and mastering. FULL, FAT SOUND is what comes to my mind when I try to desribe it.

I found The Wall and DSOTM too "picky" and not "glued" well, but maybe it's just my imagination

[Adam Dempsey]

Originally Posted by sat159p1

What do you mean?

I think that "Animals" is one of the best (if not the best) Pink Floyd record in terms of mixing and mastering. FULL, FAT SOUND is what comes to my mind when I try to desribe it.

Originally Posted by Keith99

Of all the old Floyd albums "Animals" always stood out mix wise as being below quality (to me anyway). This is the one I would get again

See my post #17. i.e: excellent remastering relies on an excellent transfer from the best possible source, as opposed to a reliance on processing.

[GoldMember]

i just bought a brand new sealed copy of the 2011 Digital Remasterd Vinyl, Wish You Were Here,
and compared to my old super rare 1975 Colombian Blue cover,

the first Guitar, on Wish You Were Here, What a dissapointment,
Doug Sax hates Pink Floyd?

Who Made The Pink Floyd 2011 Digital Remaster for Vinyl ?

[Jim Williams]

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll save my money.

Seems this remastering game the fading record co's are doing is just marketing, again.

Maybe I'll get my nephews to burn a disc of it for me. It ought to be worth a blank CDR.

[Paul Gold]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

Seems this remastering game the fading record co's are doing is just marketing, again.

Maybe I'll get my nephews to burn a disc of it for me. It ought to be worth a blank CDR.

Pretty funny! Complaining about the demise of music while plotting to steal it. Research purposes only of course. Just like porn.

[Jim Williams]

Originally Posted by Paul Gold

Pretty funny! Complaining about the demise of music while plotting to steal it. Research purposes only of course. Just like porn.

Yep. Just like Pete Townsend.

[neilwilkes]

Originally Posted by sat159p1

Guys I see that we are talking about two different things. Because this year brought to us two boxes. One with all studio albums, that I was talking about, and the second one is only DSOTM box (DVD-audio, higher sample rates, few CD & DVDs)

Hate to nit-pick, but there are no DVD-Audio discs in the Immersion Box Sets.
What you do have is a BD disc and a couple of music DVD-Video discs.
These are not good, asthey only hold Dolby Digital audio at both 448 kbps and (spec illegal) 640kbps Dolby Digital - somewhat laughably described as "high resolution Dolby Digital" which is the biggest oxymoron I have seen in a long time.
DVD-Audio was designed for lossless audio, not the DVD equivalent of MP3.

EDIT.
Getting back on topic, the new remasters are not good to my ears either. Far too hypercompressed and/or excessively brickwalled.
The modern master of the superb Parsons Quad mix is also poor - the bootleg DVDA sounds better.

[mljung]

Originally Posted by neilwilkes

Getting back on topic, the new remasters are not good to my ears either. Far too hypercompressed and/or excessively brickwalled.
The modern master of the superb Parsons Quad mix is also poor - the bootleg DVDA sounds better.

Really - Pink Floyd and hyper-compression, is this really true Pink Floyd have always been known for their dynamic work - What were they thinking, I thought the loudness war was over

I'm asking myself - when will full resolution remasters appear - I'm not necessarily talking about higher bit-rates or sample-rate, although it would be nice, but simply "Full Dynamic Remasters" - that should be the new selling point!

::
Mads

[sat159p1]

As I remember, the new remasters was NOT hyper compressed. And more, it was even less RMS than the Harvest edition. So I don't know what are you talking about. Anyway, they sound quite harsh to me (in terms of spectrum).

[mljung]

Originally Posted by sat159p1

As I remember, the new remasters was NOT hyper compressed. And more, it was even less RMS than the Harvest edition. So I don't know what are you talking about. Anyway, they sound quite harsh to me (in terms of spectrum).

But still you make it sound like it's not full original dynamics!?
Anyhow the harsh tonality is another typical remaster plague - why can't they make just make it right

Since you mentioned Harvest edition [the label] I come to think about the Neil Young Harvest album that was remastered with sweet sound in the so-called NYA-ORS edition, now that's the spirit...

::
Mads

[Cheebs Goat]

Just chiming in. I got the 2011 DSotM vinyl. It distorts so badly I can't make it through a side. Even my wife who knows nothing about any of this technical distortion stuff can't make it through a side. The whole thing doesn't really pump or splat like a typical loudness war offering. Instead it grinds. It is covered in a layer of brutal "harsh" that grinds all the way to the center of your head. It is just this side of being run through an overdriven guitar amp.

It's just...bad. Can't comment on the digital versions. This is just the vinyl.

[Jerry Tubb]

I really enjoy the DSOTM SACD Doug Sax mastered a few years ago.

We used it as one of the handful of discs we used to tune my room back in 2004.

JT

[GoldMember]

Originally Posted by Sounds Great

Is somebody doing this stuff to purposely discredit vinyl?

I while back I bought a 4 disk McCartney compilation set on vinyl. Absolute garbage, threw it in the trash.

dont know, but the reissue of In Da Gada Da Vida (the limited colored vinyl) compared to the original
makes me think something is wrong with the world today.

[dreambeats]

Personally-if I know, that the record is remastered i loose the interest to listening to it. But thats just me.

[GoldMember]

Originally Posted by dreambeats

Personally-if I know, that the record is remastered i loose the interest to listening to it. But thats just me.

old times, when Vinyl has the only thing.... & digital wasnt born.

every country received a Master Tape copy, usually 1/4" 15ips,
each Mastering Eng. in Every Country had to make an unique Vinyl Master... "to cut the Vinyl Master" to make the stampers.

the "same record" sounds totally different, from different countries...
also, different countries have different equipment... Scully, Westrax,Neumann, Ortofon, etc...

Stampers last +/-1000 copies, if record sales where more, a new Vinyl master had to be done....
usually sounds different.

i have compared many records from arround the globe, same song,
they sound totally different...

each country has a different mastering.
it gives me more curiosity... But thats just me.

[haryy]

Originally Posted by sat159p1

OK. So here we go, my friend ripped me "Sheep" from that new 2011 Animals remaster. I've done comparision between my CD of Animals (Harvest). By the way... this is my absolutely fav album.

Now, what do you want first - good or bad news?

New remaster is 1dB RMS quieter than an oldie (about 17,5 vs 16,6 dB)! - so they didn't went thru loudness war thing - I think it that lower RMS has something to do with tonality.. and this is IMHO a bad news, that recording is just over-presence-hyped. God, that sound like +4-5dB more upper frequencies than original recording...

Didn't hear other songs/albums.

I am sorry for mp3 samples, but they're just for quick comparision.

The creator of the new master should make an ear surgery and install a permanent +5 high shelf filter. He's deaf.

[dreambeats]

Originally Posted by GoldMember

old times, when Vinyl has the only thing.... & digital wasnt born.

every country received a Master Tape copy, usually 1/4" 15ips,
each Mastering Eng. in Every Country had to make an unique Vinyl Master... "to cut the Vinyl Master" to make the stampers.

the "same record" sounds totally different, from different countries...
also, different countries have different equipment... Scully, Westrax,Neumann, Ortofon, etc...

Stampers last +/-1000 copies, if record sales where more, a new Vinyl master had to be done....
usually sounds different.

i have compared many records from arround the globe, same song,
they sound totally different...

each country has a different mastering.
it gives me more curiosity... But thats just me.

I did not know that. Most of all I would like to hear unmastered "Master Tape"-just digitalized with good converters ( i don't have a tape machine).
I think that it does not need to be mastered nowdays. Digital systems can play almost everything as it is.
But then, record companies want to make old records sound as loud and bright as modern ones...-this is where i loose the interest.

[GoldMember]

Originally Posted by dreambeats

I would like to hear unmastered "Master Tape"-just digitalized with good converters.

... the 2011 UK Digital Remaster Vinyl of "Wish You Were Here" is the closest thing to unmastered "Master Tape" digitalized with good converters.

[Adam Dempsey]

Originally Posted by haryy

The creator of the new master should make an ear surgery and install a permanent +5 high shelf filter. He's deaf.

Explained in my post #17 (here) you'll learn that the Animals album remaster is a far more accurate reproduction, and from the original master tape. The initial CD release was not and was deficient in HF.

[dimag333]

Originally Posted by sat159p1

OK. So here we go, my friend ripped me "Sheep" from that new 2011 Animals remaster. I've done comparision between my CD of Animals (Harvest). By the way... this is my absolutely fav album.

Now, what do you want first - good or bad news?

New remaster is 1dB RMS quieter than an oldie (about 17,5 vs 16,6 dB)! - so they didn't went thru loudness war thing - I think it that lower RMS has something to do with tonality.. and this is IMHO a bad news, that recording is just over-presence-hyped. God, that sound like +4-5dB more upper frequencies than original recording...

Didn't hear other songs/albums.

I am sorry for mp3 samples, but they're just for quick comparision.

JEEEEZZZZ as a guy with an albatross flying over the battersea station tattooed on his arm the reissue songs like dog shit

[sat159p1]

Originally Posted by Adam Dempsey

Explained in my post #17 (here) you'll learn that the Animals album remaster is a far more accurate reproduction, and from the original master tape. The initial CD release was not and was deficient in HF.

So the engineers back in 77 were deaf.

[Adam Dempsey]

Originally Posted by sat159p1

So the engineers back in 77 were deaf.

The initial CD release (early 80's) was mastered without having the 1st gen master tapes and via lesser converters than today.