Pink Floyd RSD 2018 (mono Piper)

The people my comment were directed at will appreciate it. The rest can have a nice day

 

There was a mono vinyl re-issue of Piper by EMI in 1997. EMI re-issued a few titles on vinyl only to celebrate EMI`s 100th anniversary (and the bands 30th), if I recall correctly. I was in England that summer and saw all of titles on display together.

These were not allowed to be (commercially) exported, by the way, as they were supposed to be a treat for loyal EMI buyers in the UK.

The re-issue was on black vinyl. Colored vinyl versions are pirates and more than likely sourced from CD.

I have a copy myself but have nothing to compare it too, sounds good to me though !

Pink Floyd - The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn

 

I got them in US in 1997 so not sure if there were different UK versions. I had Animals, DSOTM and WYWH. I thought they were great. That is my fav pressing of Animals

 

Should be the same, they found there way over here anyway I have no doubt. EMI also released re-issues of other legacy artists on their roster at the same time.

 

Not to but in but doing a sound quality comparison of a stereo pressing to a mono one is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison.

 

The new reissue blows away the 1997 mono reissue. Those 1997 reissues were not very good they were all digitally sourced and were thin and harsh sounding. If you like the mono version the new one is very good, but still leaves something to be desired compared to a mint original which are becoming impossible to obtain.

 

Well, I bought a copy from Banquet’s initial stock. Arrived looking fine. Took me a bit to open it up and my copy isn’t the best. Had an edge warp that hopped the arm, but I mistakenly had it at 45 rpm. At 33 it’s not enough to disrupt play. I gave it a clean but it still has a few marks and isn’t quiet. I love the sound though, very detailed.
I’m not going to bother returning it though, it’s not like they have replacement copies.

 

Not really interested in getting involved in stereo vs mono argument, however just a couple of points, I have played it with both stereo and dedicated mono carts, and some of the issues with certain tracks are mitigated with a mono cart, (and my stereo cart is a fine line Ortofon, while my mono is a budget Audio Tecnica). On my copy of the RSD mono it sounds like Scarecrow is on the verge of breaking up, as if the tape is in poor shape, but this could be my copy and/or set-up. Also the sibilant quality of Gnome is lessened with a mono cart.
Just my 2 cents worth.

 

Bet you a UK mono first pressing that he won't get that! "What have music forums come to...".

 

For those in the UK Truck records in Oxford still had a few copies in stock.

 

Thanks. Is not the new one digitally sourced as well ? Mine is not thin, it has big bottom end. I guess I will have to find someone with the new issue and compare.

 

Most new reissues sourced from master tapes are first captured onto a digital format and then put onto vinyl. This goes for the best pressings being done by MOFI, Analogue Productions, etc. I'm glad they are doing it because each reissue can sound as good as last one. Despite what you hear, they can capture the full ambiance of tape into hi-res digital if they do it right. With respect to the 1997 Floyd releases, I can say that Animals is incredible. I like it better than original.

 

I've got no real problem with hi-res sources if they're mastered well, but I can't think of any recent MoFi or Analogue Productions releases that have a digital step. AAA is kind of their shtick.

 

AP’s stereo Pet Sounds was digitally mixed, IIRC.

 

I

Im pretty sure they are making digital masters now and that is what is going onto vinyl. The vinyl sounds still better on most systems than the digital source because people dont own $250k DACs.

 

Incorrect. Almost all MOFI and AP reissues are all analog, with no digital involved. Go to their sites and read up on it. They'll use digital files if it's the only option. You are correct that most masters being made now are digital, but in the case of original releases mastered on analog tape, the best reissue companies (MOFI, AP, Intervention, Rhino) are hiring the best mastering engineers in the business to cut directly from those tapes, and it shows. Also not sure what a six figure DAC unit has to do with the way vinyl sounds?

 

It was mixed analog to tape from digitally synced stem tracks (vocals from one tape, music from another).

 

Yup. That sounds right.

 

Hate to break it to you, but most studios use $2-10k ADCs. I don't even know of a $250k "DAC" a studio would use. Most audiophiles have access to DACs as good or better than many studios.

 

Incorrect.

 

“Most Audiophiles”? As in “the majority of people” who claim to be a vaguely defined term? Highly doubtful.

 

He was saying that the DAC the engineer uses to cut the digital files to vinyl is likely better than the consumer-grade DAC you would use to play back digital files at home, so the digitally sourced vinyl would still sound better on most home systems than playing back the file that was used to cut it.

 

Ok, fine, ONE. I have that release. It sounds very good, even with its 16/44 limitations.

 

OK, but that also depends on a lot of factors like is the vinyl setup better than the consumer-grade DAC? It's still silly to worry about the quality of the DAC used to cut a digital copy of a master tape to vinyl, when the digital middle man could (and should) be cut out all together. Mastering engineers and labels have worked hard to convince the record buying public that cutting records from digital files has improved sound quality and that there are things that just "can't be done" in the analog realm. It's almost the same arguments that were used to claim that the CD was "perfect sound forever" in the 80s. I read that as "I'm too busy/lazy to do it in analog because I'll have to rewind the tape a lot and start over if I screw up." Unless the tape is damaged, put it on a deck , run it through some tubes and cut a record. Don't futz with it.

 

I have it and I agree. It is impressive.