Are the 2011 Pink Floyd Remasters considered 'definitive'?

Das Boot remastering didn't use any compression on the Pink Floyd remasters.
But using even a bit of EQ will remove some dynamic range. Maybe some and I mean maybe some peak limiting on transients peaks was used. But the squashing would be heard only rarely on peaks.

They may also have tried to match the vinyl sound which some delusional engineer try to do (Hey, this blow doll is just like a real woman. Sure it is guy...) Or you may be allergic to the high frequency EQ they used. The Manley Massive Passive settings goes right up to 26khz. Too much of that and ahhh.....and you will sneeze and cough. It is all tube passive EQ but too much top end is too much top end.

A good engineer will adjust the head azimuth for maxium treble and bass when he puts on a new tape. (We do!) It's wierd but with analog tape (casstte or reel to reel) when you adjust the head azimuth for maximum treble that is the full treble that was recorded onto tape. Some engineers will adjust the head azimuth on a song by song basis. (The 2009 Beatle remasters were done this way) So the extra bass you are hearing could be what was the real amount of bass that was on the tape. The Wall is one the most bass heavy records out there. Why would anyone boost the bass? Mastering engineers have full range speakers 16 - 30 hz. (O.K. our subwoofer is flat down to 10hz but we ahhh.....don't want to miss anything.) So if an album is already bass heavy on your Hi-Fi I can guarantee you it is a lot more bass heavy for us.

Better DACs will produce better bass. Jitter is 3 picoseconds or lower in Reference Studio converters. A Brown Bur3032 is going to capture more of that real analog bass than say a Sony PCM 1630 from 1988.

So the extra bass you are hearing could just be what the master really sounds like. Or.... they may have just goosed the bass to impress the client. It is a good possibility that the mix was not faithfully captured on the analog quarter inch. Perhaps some deep bass was lost. This may have been a half a**** attempt to mmmm....restore it.

limiting was added to the Clash 1999 remasters to match it with the vinyl sound. The engineer noticed that his PCM conversions of the Clash albums didn't sound like the vinyl. The bass had a certain sting to it. He figured out it was a particular setting on the cutting limiter that gave the bass it's aggressive quality. He was able to copy it and apply to the CD. So the moral of the story is: sometimes compression is a good thing.

Personally my view is leave the master alone unless there is a problem with it. But others disagree.

Your hearing is very acute. Perhaps you should come and work for us at Sitting Bear Studios. How does $10 an hour sound to you. That's what I get. And the minimum wage in Ontario is $14.25 an hour.

 

Wait...Dark Side needs EQ applied to it? Oh yea..The mix really sucks. (Sarcasm)

 

Mostly agree sir.

If someone wants to spend $300 on a out of print MFSL CD on Ebay I think that is O.K. And the prices are usually fair. I saw a DCC CD of Eldorado on Amazon for $700. Or was it Ebay? mmmm?

But these are reasonable compared to some prices for OOP NTSC classic Doctor Who DVD's.

Doctor Who - The Mark Of The Rani $2556.98
And no...I am not joking!

 

To be fair, "best" is incredibly subjective. So "best" is really just what I think is the best. For the core albums - which I consider to be Meddle, DSOTM, Wish You Were Here and The Wall - I have my favorites. Meddle - MFSL, DSOTM - MFSL, WYWH - Sony Mastersound, The Wall - MFSL. But you're going to invest a good amount of money into those CDs where the 2016 reissues sound great across the board, are affordable, and still in print.

 

And yet there a more than a few members on here that don't like the recent crop of Pink Floyd remasters. They sound great to me and you sir but taste differ.

 

The Japanese like "air" in their records. It is not uncommon for Japanese mastering engineers to add some 16 khz or 18 khz @ Q of 1 to the PCM master. usually 2 or three db. Not enough to change the sound of the album but just enough to give the album some zip and pepper. (Whatever that is!)

And as I mentioned elsewhere on this thread I have heard rumoured that some Japanese affiliate labels (Toshiba pressed the Beatles stuff) use to ask for their album copies to be in the half inch tape width format at 30 ips with no Dolby A. (A standard pro NR system used since 1966.) instead of the industry standard of quarter inch tape width at 15 ips with Dolby A.
This would explain how so many Japanese CD's sounded as good or better than their overseas counter parts . A half inch tape running at 30 ips wouldn't lose anything on the transfer.

And even compression (properly used!) can tightened up the bass. Or using a desser on the copy tape will clear up any excess sibilance on the vocals or even cymbals. Sometimes the master needs ahhh.....mmmm...work to sound it's best or even...mmm....Just o.k. Japanese engineers know just what to add and when to stop. Whereas North American/Eurpopean mastering engineers do way too much.

MFSL is well known for their use of weird EQ choices. The Beatle records is one example. It is more likely you like their choice of equalization choices than their skill at a good A/D conversion. I always thought MFSL made flat transfers (at least for CD) When I found out they use EQ like Mcdonalds uses salt on their fries I stopped buying MFSL disks. Any MFSL does more than a db or two here or there. And equalization will reduce dynamic range.

But if you like it..Then you like it. But in no way does the MFSL version of The Wall represent the true sound of the master. But maybe some top end EQ is what is needs to really shine. The MFSL of The Wall (Gold disk copy) I have sounds nice. Really sunny and fresh. But again it's not what the band mixed back in 1979.

 

This is completely untrue. You don't know what you're talking about. Older DACs have more trouble with high freqs than low, due to the speed of the transients between the two, and the length of the soundwaves of each.

 

Uggh can we just agree that 'best' is subjective and that none of the various remasters of Pink Floyd's music are bad?

 

You're the one who keeps insisting that the 2011 of the Wall is the best one.

 

I respect your opinion sir but you should know who your talking too. I have been working in a professional studio for over 16 years. And I have heard several reference DAC's over the years:

Sony PCM 1600
Sony PCM 1630
Sony PCM 1650
Brown Bur3032
Cascade 9821
Brown Bur3023 Yes, BrownBur makes converter chips. But what a lot of people don't know is that they make Reference DAC's. Very expensive. They are hand made. Ours 3032 does up to four conversions. For example for the last analog project we did:
PCM 16/44.1
PCM 24/88.2
PCM 16/192
DSD 5
Akai Reference 3000
MSB MHES2017 Reference
PSB Reference Class -2
Less Loss Reference

In have been in the studio business working for my Uncle Jack (half Mohawk brother actually) for almost 17 years and 8 years before that working in other studios learning the ropes. Sometimes for free! And what you have said is true. Really old like the 1610 have the problem but the problem can minimized by getting a higher level. (i.e. ignoring the -3dbfs max peak rule for 16 bit converters.) But better conversion will mean better sound overall. Have you ever
transfered a 2 inch 24 track to Pro Tools? I have...Many times. Something is always lost in the transfer. The bass loses it's aggression...It's character. And in my 17 years of transfering analog tapes including: 2 inch 16, 24, 32 track and 1 inch analog 8 track tapes and quarter/half inch tapes I can tell you that a modern DAC does a better job at holding on to that wonderful analog sound then some old DAC from the early 90's. And that includes the BASS.

How many reference DAC's have you heard?

Please don't tell me my business. Say I am wrong (I might be) but please don't make bold assertions that "I don't not know what I am talking about." I am sure you meant no harm sir but I have worked long enough in the mastering /mixing field not to have the medal, "John at Sitting Bear Studios (website is down) doesn't know what he is talking," to be hung around my neck thank you.

The number one rule in mastering and mixing is to USE YOUR EARS. You are more than welcome to come down to My Uncle's studio in Toronto (Oakville really) and hear the difference between a modern reference DAC and an old Sony PCM 1600. Uncle Jack has a 1600 in his basement and we can always hook it up for a guest to demonstrate my point.

And at home I have an old Toshiba DX900-C VHS HI-FI with a 14 bit processor. And believe me the bass is inferior on the A/D conversions. The DAC is from 1986. But it's a consumer DAC not a professional one.

Don't get me wrong. The Sony PCM 1600 and 1610 are not bad DAC's. Plenty of great disks made on them. When the level is good and digital generations are kept low (The way Steve did it.) but jitter despite your beliefs affects the sound. Back in the 90's most audio studio engineers found jitter to be the major problem in the DAC. But you can't hear jitter! (I hear millions of Hoffmanites screaming) Well yes and no. Jitter is measured in Pico-seconds which are 1/billionth of a second. Of course you can't hear jitter but you do hear the affects it has on the music. Rhythm, timing and phase all get affected.

In Pro Tools HD 13 (we got a free copy because it hasn't been released yet. ) has a jitter function on it. You can actually add jitter to your digital flies. The more jitter I added to a music file the worst the sound got. Trust me, jitter is a real thing. We use a master clock for all our PCM crap so jitter is pretty much nil.

Some of the DAC's in my list are as much as $20 000 USD. The best in the world DACs meant for mixing and mastering studios and for audiophiles with two much money. If you want to start to talk math and digital theory fine...I will bury you with all do respect. But we shouldn't derail this thread. And math gives me a headache sir. Have you heard the difference between an old Sony
PCM 1600 and a PSB MHES2017? When you do then we can talk.

 

It's not my opinion, it's fact. You can write about your background all you want. You're still wrong. Low frequencies are the easiest for DACs to playback.

And I've been buying and listening to CD players and DACs for over 30 years. But that's not germane to the discussion.

 

No...You just want to hit me with ad hominem attacks. LOL

No, it's not my background...It's my job!..It's what what I do for a living. Sorry if my almost 20 years in the field actually transfering analog tapes to digital doesn't jive with your experience of commercial compact disks in consumer converters. I have noooo doubt that with every DAC you ever used the bass on your disks sounds the same. No argument there sir.

And although the fundamental notes for bass guitar and kick are between 32 - 275 hz they have upper harmonics that reach right into the midrange. But you knew that right sir? Most of the detail in bass is in the cloud. You know what that is right sir? It's what us mastering engineers call the mid and upper bass.
(100-250hz) And like I said the upper harmonics for this notes will be in the midrange. You know what I am getting at right? MIDRANGE. That's why you can hear a bass guitar on clock radio. Yes, if the engineer doesn't stop it the CD will go right down to 5hz. And digital does really well with bass. But high amounts of jitter will destroy bass detail and impact. And then there's the FACT of the upper harmonics of the bass being in the midrange. So tell me sir...Does the DAC do midrange the "easiest" too?

I didn't say bass was hard for a DAC. I also didn't say old DACs had a problem with it. You asserted that. I said a modern DAC will do better at conversions than a old DAC including the bass. And jitter will affect the bass too. If I say I run faster than you does that mean I am saying you are a slow runner? No. So when I say a modern converter will do better in the bass than an older one I am not saying that the old DAC converted bass badly...AND YET THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE CLAIMED. This is the problem when you quote mine someone. The quote mining isn't a terminal condition is it?

"Someone call the Web Doctor quick!" (Just a joke)

At the studio reference level you can hear the difference in bass detail with converters. The fact that you can't hear the difference in bass detail with your ahh....DAC's over the years doesn't prove your point. Or do you own a reference converter? Or do you think all converters sound the same? And that's O.K. if you do. You see I actually respect your point of view.

If I came off sounding like a jerk (I sort of am) before or in this post I am sorry. So do you think it's possible for us to have a civilized debate on DACs.( You seem pretty smart.) or would you rather ignore this last paragraph and just continue with our hostile posts?

You see the respectful way you should have responded to my post should have been: "Very interesting Mr. Morris. And although I respect your many years of experience in the audio feild I have to say I disagree. I have been listening to CD's and converters for 30 years and I stand by my observations..."

Or was that too much trouble to be polite?

 

Better DACs improve the high frequencies much more than the low. Better DACs have lower jitter, which affects the high frequencies more than the low. The very steep anti-aliasing filters of early DACs resulted in phase effects which also affected the high frequencies much more than low.

 

I voted for Meddle and The Wall. I also bought Obscured By Clouds, Atom Heart Mother, The Final Cut, A Momentary Lapse Of Reason, Division Bell and Animals. But I do not have the original or other discs for comparison. Meddle I think is better than my '80s Capitol disc. The Wall I think is better than my Columbia C2K. I did really like the MFSL but for car listening, the MFSL is too low in volume, so I reserve that one for headphones listening. The bass on the 2011 The Wall can be a little overpowering. For Dark Side Of The Moon and Wish You Were Here, I was pretty happy with what I already have (Harvest Japan "Blackface", MFSL and Sony Mastersound).

 

You have to seek out those early Japanese pressings... much warmer and natural sounding.
Also, with the final two... just stick with the originals.

A lot of these new ones sound great and I like A Saucerful of Secrets, Meddle, Animals, Dark Side of the Moon in particularly here... but in a lot of cases, it's comparable to the Doug Sax remasters.
Animals being a massive improvement and the definitive version.

 

Funny...mmmm...the 2011 remaster and the 1993 remaster of The Wall sound exactly alike. I am curious. What is about the 2011 remaster of The Wall that "sucks?"

 

I assumed this thread was only about the compact disks. The Japanese versions would be made from copy tapes so the top end would be less prominent and the stereo image would not be as good. However the Japanese engineers love "air" in their releases. And they know just how to put a little 12 - 16 khz on the tape without mucking it up. And if anyone has heard the original Japanese release of Xanadu knows what I mean. It has a certain warmth the other releases just don't have.

 

You know, revisiting The Wall and comparing it to other discs I have (Columbia C2K and MFSL), it really sounds very nice. Yes it is a little louder, yes the bass is a little heavier. But overall I feel like this one has great tonality and maybe it has boosted top end - I'm not sure - but it sounds clearer to me than the MFSL which sounds a bit muted/congested by comparison. I would not recommend the Columbia C2K at all. Volume is too low and there's that glitch on "Comfortably Numb." If you don't care for the 2011 or MFSL, get the WG Harvest.

 

“None” should have been an option.

 

Why didn't you care for any of them?

 

OP bailed 5 years ago.
Hopefully he's figured it out by now

 

I am sorry, that post of mine contained some hyperbole. I do prefer the 80s original CD, but the new one is not really that bad, just too bass strong for my tastes. I can't really stand it, but some people like it.

 

I have been doing some research and apparently your "sucking" comment has merit. When the engineer normalized The Wall in 2011 he authorized OVERS according to some graph I saw on some site I can't remember. Normally I would come to the defense of said engineer and say, "Blah! Blah! Blah! Ad infinitum...." But not this time!

Allowing OVERS is the dirty little secret mastering engineers don't want you to know about. I am not talking about maxing out some Sony 1610 here with inaudible OVERS to get a good digital level during the 16 bit A/D conversion to get a better sound at lower bit levels. Nooooo!
Said engineer is allowing clipping to get the CD louder. Huh? These are CD's not Mp3s! And the amount of extra volume said engineer is getting from this barbaric practice only gives him maybe 1 or 2 db tops. If we are lucky they will be inaudible OVERS. But more and more "remastered" releases are clearly clipping. It is silly and they don't need to do it. Limiting on transient peaks would be preferable.. 99% won't hear it and at least it doesn't litter the disk with multiple OVERS.

Remember the original mix of Vapour Trails. Bass distorted all over the place. Top mastering studios have the most detailed speakers. And yet.....They missed the crazy clipping on Vapour Trails. It is possible that it was distorted like that in the mix. If this was true then the appropriate thing to have done was to call up Geddy and say, "Your mix is clipping real bad all over the place. You
need to remix this. Any mastering I do will only make the situation worse..."
We would have done that. A mastering engineer that doesn't want to offend the client by lying to him about a crappy mix is a bad mastering engineer and should retire. They are not paying you to kiss their hindquarters. If the mix is bad they want to know.

With the 2011 remaster of The Wall the mastering engineer should not have allowed OVERS. Pink Floyd has always had good sounding records and disks. Allowing OVERS is ruining the legacy.
das Boat studios knows better!

 

Thanks. That explains why this particular disc created an earache for me. I thought it was just bloated bass or overly compressed mastering or something similar. Your explanation goes a long way.

 

I wish I could post the link. Now I can actually post links now that I dumped my old phone that had been hacked.

But I see your problem. First off your equipment is way too good. You are hearing too much detail. There should be a knob at the side of your CD player/DAC to reduce the detail. I suggest you turn it to 3 then the 2011 Clipped Wall won't ahhh....Suck as much. LOL LOL

Seriously though...

Adding bass EQ to The Wall would be ridiculous. The thing is a bass heavy mixed already. I could see a little a bit of top end added. Some fresh air at 12 khz perhaps at 2 maybe 3 db, and maybe 1.5 db @ 3 khz @ a Q of 1. Just enough to give it a little spice but not enough to kill it. There is probably some light compression on The Wall. No more than what would be applied during cutting..Sometimes compression is added to make it sound analog or more like the record. Still, this is wishful thinking. I could understand if they checked the cutting notes for The Wall back in 1979 and it said: Do so and so EQ and do so and so limiting. That I could stand behind. But what ever EQ Das Boot used would be small.

Ahhh I miss the days of the flat transfer. Remember when it used to say on the insert, "We have tried to preseve as closely as possible the original sound of the master tape."

The guy at Motown back in 1985 had one year to transfer all the albums to digital. He didn't have time to SMASH anything or pull down the cloud of poor Little Stevie Wonder or reduce the overly bright 60's stereo mixes with EQ. Just taking out pops/clicks and doing da fades. They say he used the wrong mixes. NAH!! By 1974 mono was dead. And by 1985 mono was the distant past. If it hadn't been for Sir Geroge Martin and his insisting that the first four Beatle CDs be in mono I doubt weather any of the mono releases today of old classics would have ever happened.. Martin did open the flood gates.

Back to the topic....They should advertise with some sort of symbol what they have done to album in mastering. For example:

Flat transfer - FTM
* An example would be The original Motown stuff from 1986 or Rough Trade Live (1992)

Light Mastering - LM
Some light mastering EQ (no more than 3 db) and light compression.
tonal balance of the album is not changed.
* Some examples would be: Rush's remastered catalog from 1997. The Beatles 2009 remasters.

Heavy Mastering - FUPM (I would say what FUPM stands for. But ahhh....I think the shoe really fits here.)
Remastering the album to give it a modern sound: lots of EQ and heavy compression is used. Maybe mid side EQ and or midsize compression is used. Or even multi-band compression.

* Some examples are:
The Iron Madien 1998 Tragic Remasters