Pink Floyd - The Early Years 1965-1972 Box Set - Realiz/ation (Content, tracks, etc. ONLY!)

Versions 1 through 8 are continuous. The divisions between them sound arbitrary to me, not that any other divisions would be superior, given the nature of the track.

 

Odd then that it is described as the potential soundtrack for a 10 minute film.

 

Well, 1 through 8 sound like a continuous recording to me. What the band might have done to make it fit the running time of "Speak" I have no idea.

 

Sopposedly, this is an audiophile forum. Said that, I can't understand the people in this forum who say there's nothing wrong with the Pompeii remix. I mean, how they didn't hear the 22 dB boost on the 16 kHz band? How they didn't hear the distortion on loud parts? How they didn't hear the abundant and awful digital pops and clics?

 

I've never claimed to be an audiophile (I thought this was a Pink Floyd Early Years forum), nor to have great listening equipment, and I wouldn't know a 22 dB boost from a Cambodian lemon lizard.

I do know when compression or low end is too much, and can kill a listening experience. But by and large, mix is more critical to me than mastering. Thankfully I don't have the ears to hear the abundant awfulness yours do. Must be a drag.

 

It's unbelievable. That CD is truly one of the worst sounding CDs in my very large collection... I don't understand how people can give it a pass.

 

It's so far from the worst-sounding CDs in my collection it's not even funny. I'm not saying you're wrong ~ you guys can demonstrate your point scientifically as well as the evidence of your own ears ~ I'm just happy I don't hear what you're hearing. I've cranked it in my car and in my living room and nothing glaring has jumped out at me yet. Guess I'm blessed to have two systems at the perfect level of mediocrity to allow the blemishes to go undetected.

 

I guess it depends on your frame of reference. Some of my CDs are picked up at punk gigs and are very low quality.

 

And you're saying it sounds worse than those?

 

No. I am comfortable with all the EY discs, but I may have rather low expectations.

 

Just give a listen with a pair of headphones. The problem with listening to music in a car or in a living-room with an average equipment is that a lot of details are lost and you can't hear any difference between a high quality recording and low quality one. In my car I can put a cassette and it will be just fine.
Pink Floyd was a band caracterized by the great attention on details they put (have you ever heard the dental drill on "If"?). Most of these details are only appreciated on a good pair of headphones or a high-end equipment. My critisism is based on the fact that I have listened to most if not all PF recordings on high end equipment and headphones and I am accustomed to the great quality they have. I'm pleased with the new material presented on this box, but for the previous known recordings is a huge step down.

 

Car, home, headphones, computer… it doesn't matter, the high end boost is a real killer for me. Take "Arnold Layne" for instance. The same version is found on the CDs and videos. The video mastering is a bit on the bright side for this recording, but sounds quite good. The CD has an insane treble boost. Same with Emily and other tracks. It's such a large difference that I can't understand how the same exact recording would be EQd so differently within the same set.

 

I will admit that I have not actually listened to the CD as I have been slow in setting up my audio. All the CDs got ripped to iTunes and have been playing on my ipod for months. I genuinely don't think the sound is that bad when I listen to it - it does sound brighter than other versions (including the DVD) and a look at the music in Audacity reveals that it most certainly is VERY boosted at high frequencies by comparison to other PF CDs. I wonder whether the range of experience is down to age-related loss of sensitivity to high frequencies, with the rate of loss being wildly different between individuals of the same age.

 

Bad CD mastering, that's why. The track also sounds fine on the vinyl. And it's no great loss because at last count I have seventeen (!) unique masterings of that song on CD now

This goes to show what I was saying about different departments working on different components of the box, and how we can't conflate them or lay blame at one person's feet

 

I'm not an audiophile and I find it simply appaling.

 

The Pompeii disc was an afterthought, a freebie, wrongly placed in the place where OBC should have been. A disc that was not meant to be there, maybe they were supposed to be scrapped, but somehow got out. I don't know nor do I care, it sounds alright to me..

 

This.

 

I just tried comparing a rip from the DVD of Live at Pompeii with the Obfuscation CD. The DVD runs faster and at a higher pitch compared to the CD. Any idea which is correct? Unfortunately, the home made recording I had of the VHS release of Pompeii with the audio copied from a HiFi VHS machine no longer exists.

Regarding the earliest material in the box, what do people regard as the better CD versions of this material? For example, is the version of Arnold Layne found in the Shine On box Early Singles reckoned to be better? I've never really spent that much time comparing different versions of favourite albums side by side, but now I have worked out how to use the ABX tool in Foobar I've been switching between different masterings of CDs and the differences are amazing.

 

Others will know for sure, but I think the original Pompeii video runs fast.

 

There is a really bad screeching noise* on the surround (stereo and surround mixes) at certain points. I don't know what it is but it's as if there was a problem digitising the audio tapes. It's really unpleasant.

Generally the sound is quite brutal - not compressed or brickwalled, to my ears, but the high frequencies are relentless. It has been discussed a fair bit in this thread. I think the way the drums were recorded lends a weird, not-very-pleasant phasey/holographic sound. There seems to be a lot of bleed across the drum tracks. The way this has been mixed (both the stereo spectrum and the frequencies) really boosts the weird drum sounds. Since Mason goes all over the drum kit, it means one is subjected to a lot of this sound. I really wanted to like it but found it quite draining.

It is a bit more merciful in surround but that vicious screeching is still there.

* Does everyone know what I am referring to? I don't mean the general trebliness - I mean that digi-noise static thing occasionally in the right channel(s).

However, the DVD and Blu-Ray part of Obfusc/ation always contained Pompeii with the new mixes. There were meant to be there and they too sound lousy.

Do you mean the early 2000s DVD release of Pompeii or the DVD in Obfusc/ation?

 

Good point.

 

All of this is irrelevant to the point that people are trying to make. The Pompeii audio received a new transfer and remastering from Andy Jackson, a man I have a lot of respect for. The point is that the end result is awful to the degree where listening to it with headphones is painful. It's screeching and fatiguing. Anyone can profess that this doesn't bother them but that is entirely opinion and contrary to factual evidence. Pompeii was included due to a domino principle screw up that resulted in the removal of other multi-channel material. The questionable secrecy of this project and hubris of its producers is to blame for the numerous audio mistakes on this release.

 

The early 2000s release. Haven't actually played the new DVD / BD version yet.

 

...it's so weird that the guy who engineered Endless River and (I assume) Rattle That Lock was involved in this. It cannot be a simple case of his ears going bad. No way they have. As you say, there must have been so many politics involved in this.

As posnera said, it seems that the 2000s release runs fast.

 

Andy J.'s surround treatment made a real gem of TDB. And as you say, RTL and TER are great. His solo work is magical as well.