Pink Floyd Animals in 5.1 Speculation, Now Pricing & Shipping thread starting Page 248

Just watched Roger’s US+THEM movie.

Dave Kilminster is really providing an outstanding solo in Pigs. It looks like he is using a talkbox but it doesn’t add too much to the performance IMO.

 

For clarity, when you say "they sound even better than the Vinyl", you are comparing what's already been made available via the Immersion Blu-rays?

 

The PF studio recordings we have in 24/96 are:
Meddle
Dark Side of the Moon
Wish You Were Here
A Momentary Lapse of Reason
Division Bell
The Endless River

 

plus The Division Bell sessions on CD4 of The Later Years are available in 24bit 96kHz either on download (Stereo) or Bluray 1 (Surround and Stereo).

 

Yes. The source for the vinyl is better than the vinyl created from it, but not by much. I am sure some may prefer the sound of Vinyl, however the high resolution remaster is self-evidently lower generation.

 

I specifically kept my list to the studio releases. Some of the quad mixes are available in 24/96 as well.

 

I noticed that, that's why I didn't mention DSOT (2019) (Audio and Video) available in 24bit 96kHz, Pulse (Video) 24bit 48kHz, Pulse (Video) Rehearsals 24bit 96kHz.

And of course AMLOR is only available in 24bit 96kHz for the 2019 remixed and updated version, AFAIK.

Note: DSOT (2019) (Audio 24bit 96kHz) is available as a download and is not in The Later Years box set.

Note: The Later Years (1987 - 2019) compilation is also available as a 24bit 96kHz download and includes SOYCD, Comfortably Numb and WYWH from Live at Knebworth. Which suggests that an audio copy of Live at Knebworth 1990 is sitting there with a 24bit 96kHz version of CD5. The video on The Later Years is 24bit 48kHz.

All this talk of High Resolution versions, has suggested to me that a 10th anniversary release of Discovery would be nice if it just included 149 24bit 96kHz files.

 

I know I forgot Phil. Occurred to me after I had written the post.

Of course it's a given that Rick didn't contribute much since SOYCD pt. 9, and I wasn't disputing that.

But read my post again. Nick wasn't much more helpful than Rick yet he was allowed to stay in the band. The acrimonious way Roger held the album hostage until Rick signed the contract that forbade him from ever joining Pink Floyd again shows that there was much more going on here than musical differences.

This is my major source, by the way:

Pink Floyd news :: Brain Damage - December 1999 - Mojo Magazine

That's because the band managed to do it, and now people say it with hindsight (and others disagree). Back then it must've been daunting if you have a go without the guy who had naturally taken on the role of leader. I don't see that as a contradiction.

 

Yeah, I thought that Mojo article was common knowledge among Floyd fans. Sorry.

Either way you spin it, all involved must've realized the damage done to the band as an entity, as far as future albums and tours were concerned. Roger didn't care because he wanted to be free of having to compromise his vision, Rick didn't care because he wanted to quit arguing with Roger, Nick kept out of it as much as possible. From the way things read, only David was trying to keep it all together*. (Bob too, I guess, but he wasn't a band member and had no say...)

What I'm trying to say is that things could have gone very differently if the other band members had cut Rick some slack and said, OK, you're not really part of this album, but we'll keep you in as a band member nonetheless, and will help your cause once we're through all this. (Other groups have shown that you can work like that, but of course Pink Floyd had already set a bad example with their treatment of Syd years before...)

* and yes, I know that this also means he was interested in securing his income... as some people have suggested that to be the main reason for reforming PF without Roger. Surely it's part of what drove David.

 

The contradiction is in the perception of some people here, not with Gilmour or anyone connected with the Floyd. When it's discussed here, many people seem to think that Roger didn't really do anything other than write lyrics and play some of the bass parts and start arguments and fire Rick, but then you have Gilmour himself saying that it was actually difficult to do a Floyd album without Roger. My point is that some people really underestimate Roger's importance to Pink Floyd and assume that everything ran smoother without him, which doesn't necessarily seem to have been the case.

 

“Roger was our driving force”, David Gilmour 2003 (DSOTM 30th Anniversary documentary).

 

I think it did once they found a groove to work in without Roger... circa 1988. But of course there was less financial pressure on the band by then, and they became semi-active.

 

The problem is, the people who have decided Roger is the bad guy, have decided. No correspondence shall be entered into.
The people who have decided Dave is the bad guy, have decided. No correspondence shall be entered into.

They were both very important to Floyd as a whole. They both made great music without each other, but it was still lesser than when they were ALL together.

Life is life, choosing the bad guy is a precarious thing to do... no matter where you get your info. I'm certain even Roger and Dave aren't fully aware of their errors in the whole situation, because they are human beings.... we are all fallible, we all have our biases and every day this is proved and proved again.

 

Ok then.... Dave, Roger, cut the childish crap and release our 5.1 mixes. Cheers....

Yes I said our 5.1 mixes .... no they aren't yours, we have paid for your retirements, so give us our friggin music.....

 

YOU!....YES, YOU BEHIND THE PINK MASK!... GIVE US OUR 5.1 LADDY

 

Just finished listening to the impressively remastered OBC. Currently listening to Animals, paused it for a walk to the local corner store and contemplated how prescient an album it is. I wish the band behind this album could get it together for a commorative edition.

 

This thread depresses me. We're 110 pages into it and we're now further from getting this release than before it started. I remember when the album originally came out I held off buying the vinyl or cassette because I was waiting for the Quad 8-track to come out. It was in the catalog and every week I would go down to check and they would tell me that it will probably be here next week. Here we are 43 years later and I'm still waiting. I have money waiting to send them but they're so rich they could care less.

K

 

Here's one worse, I actually had the Quad 8 track of Brain Salad Surgery in my hands, put it back in the racks, never saw it again and the rest is history.

 

Isn't this where... we payin'?

 

They probably could care less, but I'm sure you meant to say that they couldn't care less because of their wealth.

 

I see the Floyd FB page has wished Roger a happy birthday today and mentioned his upcoming Us + Them release. The beginnings of a thaw, maybe?

 

I see pigs on the wing again, for the first time since Live 8!

 

Musical Audio Repurposing using Source Separation MARuSS (the details set out in the Abstract and Planned Impact (below) of this discontinued research project are likely being progressed under NDA by several commercial organisations)

Some, currently in development, can isolate the indivual tracks mixed into a stereo audio recording, there are a few programs that say they can do this already, but still not very well. If Pink Floyd don't release Animals in 5.1, fans may be able to extract their own multitracks and then their own mix in the next few years.

They are also research teams working on adaptations of something like WaveNet from DeepMind. This may mean that having isolated instrumental tracks and feeding them into a program such as this you will be able to create new David Gilmour guitar parts, or Richard Wright keyboard parts.

Abstract

Delivery of audio has become increasingly complex: originally in single channel (mono) or 2-channel stereo format, now surround sound in "5.1" format (5 main speakers plus one low frequency effects channel) is available in many home cinema systems, and many other multichannel audio formats are available (e.g. 6.1, 7.1, 10.2 and 22.2). In addition, new interactive apps allow users to remix musical audio, changing instrument volumes, and music games allow players to control individual instruments. Content creators therefore have to develop new ways to create and distribute their audio content to allow their content to be played back on these multichannel systems, or remixed by users to suit their own tastes.

However, much audio content is still in legacy formats, mainly 2-channel stereo. We therefore need ways to "repurpose" this legacy audio content, converting these into surround sound or to the separate "stems" needed for remixable audio.

The aim of this project is to develop a new approach to high quality audio repurposing, based on high quality musical audio source separation. To achieve this we will combine new high resolution separation techniques with information such as musical scores, instrument recognition, onset detection, and pitch tracking. Instead of aiming at generic source separation, we will develop algorithms designed to match the separation performance to the final target (upmixing or remixing). In parallel, we will investigate perceptual evaluation measures for source separation, remixing and upmixing, and develop new diagnostic evaluation techniques tailored to measure different aspects of the repurposed outcome.

The outcomes of this project will allow music consumers to enjoy their favourite songs in interactive remixing apps and games, even where the original separate "stems" are not available. It will also allow music companies, broadcasters and sound archive holders to provide high quality upmixed versions of their large archive content, for an increasing generation of listeners with surround sound systems in the home.

Planned Impact

Audio researchers in industry will benefit from new methods for upmixing and remixing emerging from the project.

Manufacturers of audio upmixing equipment and plugins, and broadcasters wishing to upmix legacy 2-channel stereo content, will benefit from our new high-quality upmixing methods. Manufacturers of other musical audio effects boxes will benefit from new methods for remixing allowing repurposing of legacy audio content.

Other holders of legacy audio and audiovisual archives, such as the British Library, BFI and regional sound archives, will benefit from the ability to upmix their content for modern audiences becoming increasingly used to surround sound audio.

There is a strong interest amongst both professional and high-end consumer audio users in new methods for unmixing 2-channel stereo content to 5.1 surround sound, leading to a range of upmix (or "unwrap") plugins for systems such as ProTools. These users will benefit from new upmix approaches emerging from this project, either through direct use of research prototypes, or through enhanced software or tools from audio equipment or plugin manufacturers.

Sound artists and composers will benefit from our remixing methods, allowing them to use sounds from mixed audio signals as part of compositions.
Remixing apps are becoming available for mobile devices, allowing users to remix and share audio tracks. Currently these are limited to use tracks where the separated sources are available from the original music label. These remix users and companies would benefit from the ability to remix from the stereo content that they already own.

 

The Pink Floyd FB page wishes Roger a happy birthday every year. We'll see if the mention of his video was a true olive branch when it's finally released. A casual mention isn't quite the same as promoting something.

 

Nick Mason Spills a Saucerful of Secrets Page 2

Mettler: If you don't mind me asking, Animals has already been done in surround, and some kind of release idea was drawn up with bonus materials, right?

Mason: Yes—well, I don't know where we've really gotten to with that one. There's been a disagreement between Roger [Waters, original Pink Floyd bassist/vocalist] and David [Gilmour, Pink Floyd guitarist/vocalist] on some aspect of it, yeah. And, to be honest, I'm just waiting to see when the dust settles.

Mettler: Right, right. But you, obviously, would like to see Animals come out in surround, because that was the first album Pink Floyd recorded in your own Britannia Road Studios [in London, from April-December 1976], and it's an album that had a bit of the punk influence on it as well.

Mason: Yeah. It was fun and interesting to record in our own studios, but we didn't quite have the tech-level of an Abbey Road. The equipment was ok—we had an MCI machine [recording console], and we had a good engineer, Brian Humphries, working with us. But it just probably lacked the sort of polish that perhaps Abbey Road would have brought to it.

Mettler: Well, hopefully, a 5.1 mix of Animals will be able to get through the pipeline, so we can truly get the full "Pigs on the Wing" experience in surround.

Mason: Yes, I'd like that. It could be something.

Mettler: I agree.