The 2011 DSOTM lacked enough high end IMO...it sounded a little too flat to me. I wonder if the new 2016 reissues on Sony sound a little different from the 2011's? Actually I like the Shine On DSOTM CD more today than I did in the 90's. I wish it was a little clearer but it's got nice warmth to it too.
I recently had the opportunity to buy three discs of the European Shine On box: DSOTM, Animals and AMLOR. For DSOTM I prefer the Shine On over the slightly "wooly" 2011 remaster. The latter one isn't bad, but the slightly sharper sound of the 1992 remaster fits the album better. My 20th Anniversary edition (made in UK by EMI Swindon) is identical to the Shine On disc except for "Speak To Me/Breathe" being one track instead of two. Slightly different peak and RMS levels for "On The Run", but everything from "Time" to "Eclipse" is absolutely identical. I'm still figuring out, which "Animals" I prefer, but for now I like the 2011 a tad better. The added bass serves the album well and there is no loss of clarity to complain. For AMLOR the (Austrian) Shine On disc is identical to the 1987 German CD (by Sonopress Gütersloh). No remastering here. The 2011 remaster here has more bottom end, slightly less clarity, but the vocals appear more "natural" to me. It's a tie for me.
Ok, random question. I have a sealed box - and yes I could just open it - but curious which uk version I have - either the first issue pressed in Austria with certificate or the later pressing. Although the barcode numbers read the same, mine looks different to the later edition set (as shown on discogs) Can anyone who has the uk limited edition box (with certificate) post a photo of the barcode? Thanks
I just bought a used "Shine On" box set and I tossed Animals in first because it's my favorite Floyd album and I discovered something interesting. My EAC numbers came in as follows.... 61.9 / 100 / 100 / 100 / 56.3 I understand that the Shine On box uses unique masterings by Doug Sax, but according to Vernon fitch, the numbers on the disc included in both the first and second pressings should be... 39.6 / 100 / 87.9 / 91.4 / 31.7 I'm wondering if this is just a level shifted version, but it shouldn't even exist, so I'm very confused right now because I'm worried that I somehow ended up with a counterfeit box set even though it is obviously worn and looks as if it really was purchased 25 years ago
You'll need to compare matrix numbers in center ring as well. I am not at home or I would post mine for you.
I would appreciate that very much. It appears as though I have a second pressing of the set, but according to Vernon, the peak levels are all wrong. It's a very clear sounding master and louder than the Guthrie. I have the EMI mastering and that sounds muffled in comparison.
I'll get them and post. I've said before The Shine On is the best IMO. Other pressings should be and can be level shifted versions of this transfer.
I checked all of the tracks and the first three, non-Columbia albums all use the standalone Sax remastering. WYWH through AMLOR use level-shifted Sax mastering. I went ahead and ordered replacement discs so that I can get the mastering that was supposed to come with the American releases and I am very happy with those now. I have a complete set of the U.K. set and I'm torn about what I should do with it. Should I keep it just because it's "different" from anything else available on the market (even though it's just level-shifted), give it away to a friend or sell it to an unsuspecting victim??
The Doug Sax Remasters sound much better than the 2011 versions. The latter lack the dynamic range of the former and sound muddy because of it. Same goes for MFSL discs. Their 'thing' seems to be crushing everything they touch, resulting again in less dynamic range and a muddier tone. More Bass though, which i guess is why so many swear by them. For my money nothing beats the Harvest 1st issues. Lovely, detailed sound. Good DR. Doug Sax did a great job though and if you already own them you should be happy with what you have.
I first got into CDs shortly after the Shine On box was released. I never was able to own one but I always admired it. However, until reading this thread I had no idea that it didn't include all the albums! What a bizarre decision.
The box is beautiful, but the choice of albums is arbitrary. No Piper (on which Gilmour wasn't yet present) and AMLOR was so recent it didn't need remastering. Would have been better if each cd represented choice cuts from two albums to paint a complete picture. The Early Singles disc was great, but not available individually. There are no unreleased tracks at all - this was the time when PF wouldn't release anything from the archives (how times have changed...). And the book ends in mid-sentence!
The two important albums WYWH and Animals were such improvements over standard columbia and EMI CDs that it's not even close. Folks were not happy with what they already had. Shine On was revelatory for most discs included. Sorry to disagree again.
I don't think we are disagreeing. Unless we disagree about that! The DS remasters are excellent. I was doing listening tests last night between the box set and the Harvests. I'd be happy with either. My headphones aren't the brightest so anything with a little more high end brings them up to par. If i still listened using Grado's, which tend to be bright already, i might go the other way.
"Piper" wasn't in the box because there were plans to release a mono and stereo version of said album separately,plans that were only fulfilled MUCH later.AMLOR in the box is a new master(which is still only available there)!PF have always regarded their movie soundtracks as not belonging to the catalog,and Atom Heart Mother was thought of to be crap by the band! Ending the book in mid-sentence was PF's way to say that the story was not over yet!
That sounds like a plausible enough theory, but I'm not sure if it's true. At which sentence/portion does it cut off at in the book? I have a late pressing from the U.K. and although I haven't read it from front to back, I've looked at the ends of sentences in the different sections and all of them end properly. It appears as if they discovered the error and fixed it.
Also, "Scarecrow" was on the Early Singles disc so if Piper had been included, it would have been a duplicate track (albeit probably one mono and one stereo). I wonder if that influenced the decision to not include Piper.
Wow, 4 pages of which remaster is better. I am soooo content with my original 80's CD releases, and love it for what it is. Sounds fantastic and the music is awesome. Sorry to sh!t on some of you, but your just paying for the same music, over & over for "minimal" improvement. Go ahead and comment, I've got broad shoulders.
I've been a Floyd fan since Middle school, but only recently have I discovered different issuings of their albums. I found the CDs of Shine On at a 2nd hand store (no book, no box) for a good price and bought it. I wanted to see if I noticed any differences between it and the CDs I've been hearing for the past decade plus. Of the discs included in the set, I feel that the only disappointment is DSotM, which is a bit lackluster, imo. The 20th anniversary disc sounded better, and was my go to until I found a Capitol US CD pressing at the aforementioned second hand store. Besides that, the Shine On discs sound the best to my ears. On The Wall in particular, it seems each instrument is allowed to breathe and has enough space to shine. I've never heard the organ during In The Flesh? sound so good. It feels like the Shine On set plays better on a home stereo, where the dynamic range can be better enjoyed. The standalones (pre 2011) sound better in a car stereo system than the Shine On discs, at least I believe.
So, can anyone say if the UK or US Shine On box sets are preferable? It seems some prefer the UK set, others claim the UK set isn't using the Sax remasters, some prefer the US set but claim DSOTM is "muddy" sounding. I can't make heads or tails of this thread. I don't see any type of consensus (I know, shocking on this forum)
What kind of "consensus" do you want? You already answered yourself: it's about getting all the Sax remasters (at least, the ones in the box) or not. As simple as that. Which ones are the best? The ones you like the most. There's very few instances of PF CD to "avoid at all cost", all the others are good and up to personal taste. Saxes are good. No question. Later Guthries are good too but apparently Saxes generally are (or seem to be) "slightly" preferred here, safe exceptions. Originals or Gold are sometimes preferred to the Saxes and it's a case-by-case scenario, let alone an ear-by-ear one. Even if you read every single PF thread here before purchasing, you would end up with a ginormous headache and no "consensus" about many titles. 'cause there isn't and there'll never be. If I had to buy the box, I'd go full Sax, eventually seeking for some replacements if single titles were a letdown.
Thanks. So, it sounds like the US Shine On would be the way to go in this case, since it seems the UK/EU box may or may not actually contain the Sax remasters.
