View Full Version : Pink Floyd audiophile recordings
magiccarpetride
26-10-2010, 21:20
One often hears how Pink Floyd albums are regarded as being of the audiophile quality (since they were dedicating a lot of time and effort while recording/mixing and mastering them in the studio).
However, my impressions so far confirm that only "Wish You Were Here" offers good sound, while pretty much all of their other albums from the '70s at least sound very bland, boring, if not even dull.
What's up with that? Am I using wrong masters of "The Dark Side Of The Moon", "The Wall" etc.? How come "Wish You Were Here" sounds so superior to their other albums from that era?
On original vinyl, DSOTM and WYWH are pretty terrible, the first because of the recording technology not being up to the demands of the musicians (hums, some distortion and hisses, brought out more the better the cut and CD transfer), together with the oil crisis ruining all but the first pressings and WYWH just plain bland. I thought the original vinyl cuts of The Wall (TML - mastering lab on all four sides) were very good and far better than subsequent EMI cuts. Radio 1 played a master of WYWH at the time and the sound of this even via FM radio (little compression then) was superb as I remember.
IMO, the best way to hear these three albums is via the excellent Doug Sax CD remasterings of the early 90's. To me, much of the dynamics and sparkle missing on the vinyl and early CD transfers is retained. Having said that, the original CD of WYWH I sent to Snapper sounded better just before I sent it off than I remembered... The Wall sounds pretty good on all the CD's I've heard of it.
These recordings, certainly the earlier ones are "audiophile" because of the age of the people regarding them as such (50 upwards). The effects were outstanding back then and the recording engineers did the very best they could with tape loops etc (no sampling/sequencing here as far as I know), but I really don't think the recordings were anything huge to bother about, except possibly an early cut of The Wall, or its Doug Sax CD mastering.
Animals is my fave Floyd album and the CD sounds dreadful..the original LP is way better..I hope for a decen remaster of Animals sometime.
The Grand Wazoo
26-10-2010, 23:18
I always thought the vinyl of Animals sounded deep dark & dreadful - maybe it's just my copy. Despite all that, I love the music though.
michaelhigh
27-10-2010, 05:45
Early Floyd 1967 makes it for me. Them and Tomorrow.
I have the original LP of DSOTM, as well as the original CD, MoFi LP, SACD and DVD-A of the Alan Parsons quadraphonic mix. Of them all, I rate the SACD as sounding the best with a powerful, grunty and detailed mix. It certainly doesn't sound dull.
I also agree that Animals is deserving of remastering treatment. Hope someone takes it up as a project.
The Doug Sax remasterings c1991 should give it to you as straight as possible (and I do know what DSOTM should sound like, as I played the Dolby A copy-master we had at KJ many times way back when).
Animals is one that I never really "got" at the time and my unloved CD is the original release. Time foe a re-appraisal methinks...
Re "The Wall" on vinyl - try to find an early pressing with "TML" on the lead out of all four sides - better IMO than the Japanese pressings too, of which I have a copy.
Hmm, I have a very early release of The Wall on vinyl and there is no 'TML' on the lead-out.
Rare Bird
27-10-2010, 11:04
I love Floyd but i'm sorry to say i dislike with a passion DSOTM & onwards
serendipitydawg
27-10-2010, 12:21
Lots of opinions here about DSOTM
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=96168&highlight=dsotm
magiccarpetride
27-10-2010, 17:15
I love Floyd but i'm sorry to say i dislike with a passion DSOTM & onwards
I'm not too crazy about it either, it's just that people keep pushing it as if it's the Holly Grail of audiophile recordings. I'm sorry, I just can't hear it that way. All the versions I've heard thus far sound dull to my ears, almost like someone threw a thick wool blanket over my speakers.
I saw a SACD version in my local HMV yesterday. Perhaps that's the ticket? But I don't like SACD, because I can't rip it to FLAC.
On the other hand, "Wish You Were Here" is capable of giving me lots of sonic pleasures...
The red book layer of DSOTM on SA-CD sounds strange to me, as if the sound has a coat of rubber on it. Those clock strikes on "Time" just sound awful compared to the earlier CD's and, well, clock bells/chimes in real life (I have enough of 'em dotted here and there... :mental:)
The only way the SA-CD mix sounds better than the stereo one is because they found and went back to the original multi-tracks, digitised them and re-mixed from scratch, thereby taking away an analogue generation that may have been played a few times too often. This is clearly audible on many of the Beatles' recordings - say, "Naked" compared to the original release of "Let It Be."
magiccarpetride
27-10-2010, 18:24
The red book layer of DSOTM on SA-CD sounds strange to me, as if the sound has a coat of rubber on it. Those clock strikes on "Time" just sound awful compared to the earlier CD's and, well, clock bells/chimes in real life (I have enough of 'em dotted here and there... :mental:)
The only way the SA-CD mix sounds better than the stereo one is because they found and went back to the original multi-tracks, digitised them and re-mixed from scratch, thereby taking away an analogue generation that may have been played a few times too often. This is clearly audible on many of the Beatles' recordings - say, "Naked" compared to the original release of "Let It Be."
I also have a much praised Japanese super quiet virgin vinyl rip of DSOTM, which to my ears sounds awful. And exactly the thing you're talking about, those clock bells sound so bloody muffled.
As for the Beatles remasters, I find them sounding way better in the 24-bit format (the infamous USB Apple 'stick'). Let It Be Naked sounds weird to me -- the air is absent from the recordings. As if they somehow recorded it in a vacuum (I know, physical impossibility, but whoever did the cleanup of the LIB tapes for that project went way overboard with noise elimination).
Never liked LIB Naked, prefer the 24-bit remaster by a huge shot.
I haven't heard "Naked" until Alex lent me his set, but the dry sound is as it would have been in the studio, reverb added in the Phil Spector production. I like the immediacy of the naked sessions, this sounds far more like "live" to me, as you might hear a small group playing in a pub or similar intimate venue. Just my view of course.
The remastered discs have had gawd knows what done to them, by the engineers' own admission in interview. I don't think it works too well on the early albums (I keep wanting to buy an early 60's record player to play them on (maybe the AT6 with Stanton would be ok through the existing stereo ;))), but from Sgt Pepper onwards I reckon they've done a good job, accepting the fact that the original CD's are probably "straight" transfers...
magiccarpetride
27-10-2010, 20:13
I haven't heard "Naked" until Alex lent me his set, but the dry sound is as it would have been in the studio, reverb added in the Phil Spector production. I like the immediacy of the naked sessions, this sounds far more like "live" to me, as you might hear a small group playing in a pub or similar intimate venue. Just my view of course.
The remastered discs have had gawd knows what done to them, by the engineers' own admission in interview. I don't think it works too well on the early albums (I keep wanting to buy an early 60's record player to play them on (maybe the AT6 with Stanton would be ok through the existing stereo ;))), but from Sgt Pepper onwards I reckon they've done a good job, accepting the fact that the original CD's are probably "straight" transfers...
Have you tried the hi-rez (24-bit) remasters? They have more life to them than the dithered-down 16-bit CDs.
The only way the SA-CD mix sounds better than the stereo one
Erm, I've been listening to and commenting about the SACD stereo mix. I don't do surround in any way. The SACD is the best DSOTM I've ever heard, but I only care about the SACD layer, not the CD layer or some rip to FLAC.
Have you tried the hi-rez (24-bit) remasters? They have more life to them than the dithered-down 16-bit CDs.
Out of genuine interest - honest - how have you compared them?
magiccarpetride
28-10-2010, 21:18
Out of genuine interest - honest - how have you compared them?
Must say that I was extremely skeptical at first. I mean, 24-bit/44.1 kHz? The only difference is in the word size? That couldn't possibly result in better sound, right?
Nevertheless, my ears are telling me a different story. I put the 24-bit remaster on, and all of a sudden all these tiny details become more noticeable. Where there was once a little bit of a noise in that corner, I'm now hearing a previously unnoticed quiet piano chord slowly dying its sweet death.
Listen to "Words of Love", 16-bit version, and then 24-bit version, side by side: on the 24-bit version you clearly hear the hands clapping. On the 16-bit version, instead of hands clapping, you hear some percussive device, but it's not clear that these are human hands. It could be a pair of wood blocks.
Little details like these, make the listening session sooo much more enjoyable. Not to mention the overall increase in softness -- less sibilance in the vocals.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.