Best Version of Pink Floyd's "Meddle"

Correction: the TO disc front insert last page and rear insert has no Y3,200 written after Made In Japan

Based on Vernon's site (if correct) then the TO set I have is a 1A1 TO second issue disc in a 2A1 third issue package..... YMMV. We have found some corrections have been needed to his site before.


Before anyone asks - on my system (to me) they all sound the same but I will not discount they might sound differently on another system to someone else

 

Roland- You say the European remaster is level shifted from the BT, the CP32-5032 disc?

But:

54.3 / 38.2 / 68.8 / 62.5 / 28.2 / 53.3 is the CP32
82.2 / 56.5 / 97.7 / 96.8 / 42.8 / 97.7 is the European (EMI 1994 UK) remaster

But the shifts aren't the same for the tracks?

1.514 / 1.479 / 1.420 / 1.549 / 1.518 / 1.833

?

 

Yes, that is correct, the shifts aren't equal. I guess you could say the remastered it track by track, changing the levels (maybe for a more even listening experience), but they used the same original analog to digital transfer, and based on that example, they didn't change any EQ either. It is possible that they made some minor EQ changes in other tracks/parts, but I sort of doubt it, since that version sounds very similar to the original mastering, just a bit louder (but not compressed really).

 

Well, that's a little beside the point. The first Meddle discs were pressed by Sony. We (or at least I) do not know exactly who the person was that did the mastering job. But it seems reasonable to refer to it as the Sony mastering.

It's the same situation as with other PF titles, like e.g. DSOTM. Everyone here seems to have accepted a long time ago that the first CP35-3017 non-TO is referred to as the Sony mastering of DSOTM. Why not do the same for Meddle?

Furthermore: UNLIKE with DSOTM, they did NOT use a different mastering when they started to produce Meddle cds at the Toshiba-EMI plant. So it doesn't matter if it's a TO or a non-TO; it's the same mastering. And this mastering was also used by SONOPRESS and Capitol Jax to produce some cds.

I never said I preferred a Sony pressing. I can't hear the difference between bit-identical pressings, so it doesn't matter to me if I'm listening to a TO or a non-TO of an early Meddle cd. As long as it has the right mastering, I'm happy.

I realize that believing Vernon (who has collected a lot of information) is not mandatory. But until he is proven wrong, I choose to believe him.

If anybody has some solid info that contradicts his research, I'm sure he'll be happy if you passed it on to him.

 

That's because the European remaster is NOT a level shifted version of the CP32 mastering.

The European remaster is a -0.2 dB level-shifted version of the EMI mastering found on e.g. Swindon pressed Silverfaced discs.

I've addressed this numerous times, and presented null-test results, but for some reason nobody seems to read/believe my posts...

 

I have a capital CD with the US artwork and smooth jewel case which has a made in Japan black face Harvest CD in it. I've always wondered if the disc had been switched or Capital had issued made in Japan discs before pressing their own Capital Jax discs.

 

All EMI masterings of Meddle come from the same analog to digital transfer. All of them.

The later EMI (re-)mastering with the 100% peak level on a couple of tracks was created from that digital master, but the volume was changed for each track individually. No EQ changes as far as I can tell were performed.

All these masterings have the same total time and run perfectly in sync.

 

I guess it depends on what is regarded as being the same mastering, and from one point of view you are right.

They were all made from the same analog to digital transfer, as they do run perfectly in sync.

There were no EQ changes as far as I can tell either.

But to make the remaster (or the Swindon Silverface) cancel out with the CP32 you have to make tiny level adjustments within songs.

I won't claim that these tiny level discrepancies are audible, but it does indicate that the remaster is not simply level-shifted but otherwise bit-identical to the CP32. And I sort of thought this meant it had to be considered a different mastering.

Definitions, definitions...

 

P.S:

Maybe my preference of the JPN Blackface Meddle over the UK Silverface and "remaster" is similar to my preference of the JPN Blackface of The Wall over the UK Silverface?

Maybe it sounds better because I have to crank the amp a bit more due to lower peak levels on the Blackface?

Well, it's a theory...

 

Did anybody else notice this?

 

You should try explaining it from my listening seat without computer graphs. I do know what you are speaking of and it is correct. I also know why you prefer the black face over the silver faced pressing, but I think it's better to keep my opinions to myself without the ever right computer to tell me what I'm hearing.

 

Thank you for sympathizing!

And apologies (to everybody) for that last line in the post you quoted coming out all whiney... (it was late, I wasn't completely sober,... y'know?)

Mmm, think I'll lie low for a while, and listen to some mmmmusic...

 

I have the MFSL UDCD 518 and the CD from the Shine On box. Both sound suspiciously like Pink Floyd's Meddle; I can listen to either one in a state of reasonable bliss.

 

Skip the MFSL vinyl. I have a bunch of different pressings, LP and CD. My faves:

LP: UK Harvest
CD: Japanese Black Triangle

 

OK, I'm still a little confused. The current UK remaster is level shifted (by song) from the BT/CP32-5032. I can believe that. But the current UK remaster is also (globally) level shifted from the original EMI mastering (Harvest Records - 3rd U.K. issue). So that original EMI mastering must be level shifted (by song) from the BT/CP32-5032?

 

I know that *some* people want to look at other releases 1st, but I wanted to come back to Meddle.



I don't really understand the early US versions. The highs, OK, maybe rolled off for tape hiss, but the lows? Or maybe it's just a boost in the middle there, for whatever reason.

Capitol (US) remaster, not really smiley faced, just boosted highs for us old folks. I think this one *is* interesting because it seems to follow the EMI remaster, until we get to the boosted highs. (Has the same dip as we approach 10kHz from the low side, and then takes off.) The packaging for both remasters is almost identical. Just a curiosity.

EMI (UK) remaster, which is just level shifted from the original EMI mastering, but it does look different from the CP32, like nemosonic and Dave say, but it is very close to the CP32 mastering. I could be happy with either. Both are very smooth and natural sounding to me.

With that said, if you invert the EMi rem - CP32 curve, the Japanese disc *does* have that 10kHz hump in there, but it's very benign for this CD. Less than 2 dB.

If anyone else has any other versions they'd like to add, I'd need about 3:30 to 4:30 of Fearless.

 

Everytime we look at these the early US Floyd CDs, which are presumably tweaked versions of the Sony, look quite different then anything else. There is no consistent pattern, ie always a boost or cut. We do see these wild swings in EQ, sometimes more then 10dB. It's hard to believe the early US CDs are the flat versions.

Also have to wonder what they were thinking? Rarely does anyone choose them as their favorite.


We saw the MFSL before in Roland's graph, but it'd be nice to see it in with yours. Seems to be one of the MFSL discs folks like best.

 

The CP32 Black Triangle 1A1 non-TO sounds amazing, I prefer this one over any other CD version I've heard. I'm not fond of the MFSL version.

 

I did a null-test between the CP32 and the EMI remaster for the section you used in your graph. After compensating for the remaster being 3.8 dB louder than the CP32, they almost cancel out - except for a tiny remainder of hiss. The hiss sounds very much like tape hiss/white noise, i.e. fairly evenly distributed across the frequency spectrum, but maybe this could explain why your EMI rem - CP32 curve is non-linear (?).

 

This almost goes back to what Roland said, that they are the same mastering. The CP32 has a bit of tape hiss that the EMI doesn't? But they didn't have much (digital) tape hiss removal ability back then, right? Maybe an indication that a different source was used (but not EQ'ed differently) ? The CP32 being a (one) generation later tape?

I am really just guessing, obviously !

 

I'm curious about this inversion test folks do. Not trying to discount it, or stop folks from doing it, but just trying to learn what it really shows you.

On Kevin's graph it looks like a 2dB cut in response at 10kHz on the Emi vs CP32. Now, that could be several things. Extra hiss as Kevin points out. It doesn't necessarily say someone twisted the 10k knob.

But still, if someone did twist the 10k knob 2 dB that should clearly be audible, right? Yet you're saying using this inversion test shows they cancel out.

Have you, or anyone, ever tried to see how different a file needs to be before it fails the inversion test? And what do we hear when it does?

Say, take any version of Meddle. Make a copy of the file and perform an EQ change. One that's just big enough to be audible in an ABX test. Then perform this inversion test. Is it detectable? What do we hear?

 

We hear the European remaster is a level shifted version of the CP32 mastering.

[just kidding Dave! Put that axe away! ...or should I say "Careful With That Axe..."]

 

Arent the Ultradisc 1 and 2 identical?? I was originally going to get an "Ultradisc II" version of Dark side of the Moon", but by all accounts, it was identical to the Ultradisc version, so I got that.

 

Roland, can you please tell me what program you use to get those peak levels? Do I have something on my computer standard that this can be done with? And How long does it take? Thank you.

 

Probably same as everyone here uses that does this: EAC

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/

Takes a few minutes per CD.