new Pink Floyd 2011 remasters?

[sat159p1]

I've just seen new, 2011 Pink Floyd remasters at my local music store. Thin digipak'd, don't lik the graphics. I'm wondering if Storm Thorgerson did that, because back of that albums looks just ugly (typography). There's also as a set - purple box containing all studio albums with 2011 remasters, thin digipacks. Kinda looking like last Beatles remasters, but far worse quality.

Saw that James Guthrie made that remasters. Any comparisons to original CD releases?

Just wondering..

[LunchboxHo]

Asked this same question a week ago & got bupkiss..... Hope you have better luck.


I agree -- packaging is pretty bad

[7+1]

Doug sax did the remaster..

Eric Boulanger did the remaster for iTunes.

Both from the lab in ojai.

[sat159p1]

Pretty sure I saw Guthrie credited on Division Bell.

[cdog]

[Adam Dempsey]

Looking forward to hearing them. You can bet Doug Sax was on the case with Guthrie also involved.

Remember, remastering is more often about improving the transfer (if not also finding the best source), rather than post-procesing.

fwiw when I last level-match compared Dark Side of the Moon original CD issue vs the 30th anniv issue, the latter simply sounded like a better transfer and better (less mid-range-y EQ'd-for-vinyl) EQ. Some peak limiting was used but retaining the integrity of the original vision.

Aside from all the extra live tracks and many demos (and likely audio restoration therein) I wouldn't be expecting much different sonically with the studio masters vs the mid-90's remasters (Guthrie & Sax interview: http://www.brain-damage.co.uk/pink-f...ice-mag-2.html), but I'd suspect those original master tapes were re-digitized given good tape storage and converter improvements since then.

[edit: some info via a Nick Mason interview: http://www.brain-damage.co.uk/latest...in-stereo.html]

[fradoca]

I've compared the mfsl cd edition of "Dark Side of the moon" with the latest 2011 remaster.The latter is clearly louder and you can hear some compression here and there.Even looking at the waveform peaks do not reach 0 dB very often but the waveform itself looks more dense like some compression was applied.I hope that the high resolution stereo version at 24 bit 96 khz included in the box-set i've bought will not suffer from this "problem".As soon as i get a blu ray drive i'll be able to extract it and make some
comparison between the various versions.Yes the 2011 sound more clear and defined but even the stereo 88 khz 24 bit sacd dsd rip that float around the net sounds clearly quieter compared to the 2011 version.

[IIIrd]

Originally Posted by 7+1

Doug sax did the remaster..

Eric Boulanger did the remaster for iTunes.

Both from the lab in ojai.

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

Not Mr Sax.

[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)

[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.

[IIIrd]

I have to say I found thew 2011 DSOTM a little dull in comparison to my cd. I don't know which cd mine is but i think it's an 84. Not dull in a bad way as i think my cd is probably a little bright...I would have expected more detail as we're talking about top converters and an anal approach to the job...ie seeking perfection. I don't think James Guthrie strives for less. That said...not loud, which is a good thing.

[mljung]

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.

I wonder why so many remasters focus on upper frequency boost [old ears behind the desk, or..!?] I have the Doug Sax remaster of Wish You Were Here [1992], if this has undergone the same transformation I would run away, it's almost too bright already.
I have quite many remasters of original 70's recordings that just become bright and harsh and loosing so much of their original bloom - it's such a pity.

Brian Eno did take a different [and better] approach in his "Original Masters Series" not trying to make the sound "better" [which for some reason almost always means brighter and louder] but simply by making the best possible transfer of the original masters to the digital format - I wish that was what had been done to Pink Floyd and lots of other of the fine material from the analogue days....

But apparently this approach is the unusual approach

::
Mads

[mljung]

Originally Posted by IIIrd

I have to say I found thew 2011 DSOTM a little dull in comparison to my cd. I don't know which cd mine is but i think it's an 84. Not dull in a bad way as i think my cd is probably a little bright...I would have expected more detail as we're talking about top converters and an anal approach to the job...ie seeking perfection. I don't think James Guthrie strives for less. That said...not loud, which is a good thing.

Hmm does this mean inconsistency in the approach from album to album..?

::
Mads

[doorknocker]

Originally Posted by sat159p1

I've just seen new, 2011 Pink Floyd remasters at my local music store. Thin digipak'd, don't lik the graphics.

Well, I didn't like the fact that the changed the cover itself on the CD/SACD/5.1 remaster from a few years back! That's plain stupid even though the CD sounds very good to my ears.

I also have a fairly recent vinyl reissue that came with all the goodies inside yet I don't own a turntable.....

I might get the new DSOTM for the live disc which makes sense as it's the first time that there is an official live release from that period I guess.

[IIIrd]

Originally Posted by mljung

Hmm does this mean inconsistency in the approach from album to album..?

::
Mads

Why would it? I have no idea about the others. They have done a good job, ie the end result on this album , as it's the only one i've heard, is good. And will have been approved by the band....as will of the others. no point in doing exhaustive disections, best put the cd on a listen to it.

[lowland]

I had a minor involvement with the DSOTM boxset, denoising archive material. The attention to detail with which the project was co-ordinated was exemplary, as one might expect of Andy Jackson the Floyd's long-time engineer. Although I haven't heard the remasters I've every reason to think they would have had at least the same degree of care lavished on them.

[Adam Dempsey]

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...

The original Animals (Harvest) CD release was transferred from a 2nd gen tape and was HF deficient, compared with the actual original master:
"If you put the two (old and new pressings) side by side, you'll positively hear it. In some cases, it's a small difference, if it had been originally mastered well, and in other cases it is quite substantial. Probably the biggest (improvement) of any single disc was Animals. We went back to the original master and it was substantially better, with a lot more clarity and impact, and some actual true presence which the copy tape just didn't have." - James Guthrie and Doug Sax - 1992 - Ice Magazine.

[mljung]

Originally Posted by IIIrd

Why would it? I have no idea about the others. They have done a good job, ie the end result on this album , as it's the only one i've heard, is good. And will have been approved by the band....as will of the others. no point in doing exhaustive disections, best put the cd on a listen to it.

Because yours and sat159p1 experience were so different with two albums discs of the 2011 remaster, I was just thinking loud based on your reports, that pointed in two different directions.
If I had the CD's yes I could just put them on and listen... but I don't!
Anyhow Adam Dempseys comment seem to clarify why the difference is there...


::
Mads

[sat159p1]

Thanks Adam for finding this quote. So I must probably search for EMI remaster of Animals (I remember that one with beautiful printing on the CD, Harvest is only black letters on silver) and hear the difference. For now, the difference for me is big and the new one just sound ice-picky.

PS: Was Harvest edition really a first CD release?

[IIIrd]

Originally Posted by mljung

Because yours and sat159p1 experience were so different with two albums discs of the 2011 remaster, I was just thinking loud based on your reports, that pointed in two different directions.
If I had the CD's yes I could just put them on and listen... but I don't!
Anyhow Adam Dempseys comment seem to clarify why the difference is there...


::
Mads

I understand. Also they're different albums, so the approach could vary . The other thing I should have mentioned, is that I don't know what was done to my cd?, it maybe that the new master represents the master tape more faithfully, and I don't have a vinyl, the master, or the time to delve into this.
Some guy on the steve hoffman forum has had plenty of time on his hands and gone over board as only they know how there....
Suffice to say that if this title is anything to go by then the box set would be worth having. Let's hope remasters of historic stuff like this follow the same pattern.

[807Recordings]

I was reading there is a new Wish you Where Hear SACD about to be released. I wonder how the mastering will be on this?

[Solidtube]

I'd love to hear a 5.1 mix of Wish You Were Here. Maybe they can transfer the original SQ mix into 5.1 surround.

[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)

Sorry, but I have to dive in here.
The Immersion Box Set does *not*, repeat *not* have a DVD-Audio disc in it.
What it does have is a Blu-Ray disc containing the Quad mix, the Guthrie 5.1 remix (both in lossless 24/96 surround of course) and some live stuff & the concert films. It also has the original 1973 stereo version in 24/96.
It also has a DVD-VIDEO disc with what are laughably called "high resolution Dolby Digital" (there's an oxymoron if I ever read one) at a spec-illegal 640kbps as well as the usual 448kbps streams and the 2011 stereo remaster in LPCM at 24/48 resolution
Not even DTS, and certainly not DVD-Audio.

As far as the sound quality goes, I cannot speak for the 2011 remaster (not had time to play it yet) but I can assure you the Quad & 5.1 versions have been done beautifully - not a clipped or limited waveform in sight.

[sat159p1]

Thanks for explaining!

[807Recordings]

Originally Posted by Solidtube

I'd love to hear a 5.1 mix of Wish You Were Here. Maybe they can transfer the original SQ mix into 5.1 surround.

From my understanding the SACD will be a 5.1 mix.

[Jim Williams]

I have questions about this re-release.

Did they use the original 2 track master tapes? Copies? Previous digital masters made from those tapes? Do the tapes exist? Can they still be played? When was that last time they were played and run through an ADC? Which ADC? Bit length?

More often than not, my old Sony 1630 CD's sound better than most of these re-releases.

[Adam Dempsey]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

More often than not, my old Sony 1630 CD's sound better than most of these re-releases.

In what way, would you say? Often those were transfers from second gen (EQ'd for vinyl) tapes.
Apparently Gilmour himself retrieved the correct original masters from Abbey Rd for the mid-90's remasters. (mentioned via one of the links I posted, above).

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by Adam Dempsey

In what way, would you say? Often those were transfers from second gen (EQ'd for vinyl) tapes.
Apparently Gilmour himself retrieved the correct original masters from Abbey Rd for the mid-90's remasters. (mentioned via one of the links I posted, above).

And the fan club for 1630 A/D converters is very small.


DC

[Adam Dempsey]

True, that. (although we always used modified filters). As I mentioned, even comparing DSOTM level matched (Harvest version vs the 2003 30th anniv edition), the latter offers so much more detail and simply sounds less processed.

[Jim Williams]

Originally Posted by Adam Dempsey

In what way, would you say? Often those were transfers from second gen (EQ'd for vinyl) tapes.
Apparently Gilmour himself retrieved the correct original masters from Abbey Rd for the mid-90's remasters. (mentioned via one of the links I posted, above).

Not Floyd per say but many other 1980's releases do sound better in their original formats.

Seems the remastering guys want to add a thumbprint someplace so changes are made to the dynamics, levels, low end, etc. I have some Cream CD's that show stark differences. On the original CD, the reverb tails are clearly heard on "I Feel Free" when they are attenuated on the remasters.

Some are done better, yet with added compression and .1 db full scale levels. That is a production decision that should be either left alone or defered to the artist's vision. Not every classic rock CD needs to sound like Coldplay.

Still, I have questions as to what is the source of all these re-masters? That is never spelled out when it's the major marketing decision for someone to re-buy music they already own. It better be a real good reason. So far, I'm not convinced enough to gamble another $20 to find out.