Dismiss Notice
We are making some updates and reconfigurations to our server. Apologies for any downtime or slow forum loading now or within the next week or so. Thanks!

Pink Floyd Discovery Box is here...

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by TONEPUB, Sep 16, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Myke

    Myke Listening

    And vinyl. :help:
     
  2. rpd

    rpd Senior Member

    Location:
    Nashville
    Great

    I'll grab the 2011 Obscured today.
     
  3. TSmithPage

    TSmithPage Ex Post Facto Member

    Location:
    Lexington, KY
    Without digging through the previous 38 pages of this thread, are there any reviews/comments about the newly remastered Final Cut vs. prior versions? That would probably be the one outside of the immersion sets I'd be most likely to buy again if there was noticeable improvement.
     
  4. Myke

    Myke Listening

  5. quicksrt

    quicksrt Senior Member

    Location:
    City of Angels
    TFC was mastered twice (not including the version with Tigers Broke Free), both with different but fine results. I doubt a 16/44bit CD will ever get any better than those two CD issues.

    IMO, In order to get a better "Final Cut" one would need to go DVD-A, SACD, or Blu-Ray. Knowing that this is an audiophile favorite, and one of the best sounding rock recordings, I would bet it gets a Blu-Ray or Hi-Res one day not far off. It has high-resolution written all over it.
     
  6. Aghast of Ithaca

    Aghast of Ithaca Forum Resident

    Location:
    Angleterre
    Nice one. I'm going to buy this on your recommendation.

    One thing, though. Did I read somewhere that the lyrics of Pigs (Three Different Ones) have been 'censored' on the 2011 remaster? Have they bleeped the 'f***ed up old hag' or something...?
     
  7. Lyle_JP

    Lyle_JP Forum Curmudgeon

    Location:
    Danville, CA, US
    More Division Bell

    I'm not hearing any real compression on this track like some of the others. The midrange is similar as well. But once again, the top end is noticeably diminished. In fact, when I first went to listen to this track, I honestly forgot which CD I had left in the tray from earlier. So I thought to myself, "Perfect, I won't know what I'm listening to and I can't bias myself." Yet within 30 seconds, I just knew I was listening to the 2011 disc. It was like a thin blanket had been laid over my tweeters. When I popped the disc out, sure enough, I was right.

    Some may call this EQ warmer, but I find that I really notice (and miss) the rolled-off high frequencies. They seem to give more life to this particular song.

    What a great suggestion, as it turns out! There is a noticeable difference to me here. The volume differences between the two are subtle, yet when the song comes roaring back on the Columbia, there's more energy there. It's a real goose-bump moment. It sounds rather constrained on the 2011 disc.

    Here's something else I found interesting, and lends itself to the idea that there is some compression at work here. The Columbia disc frequently peaks at 100%, whereas the 2011 disc never goes above 87%. Yet the average volume on the two discs seems virtually identical to me. I though I would have to turn down the Columbia disc to volume-match them, but that never was the case. By just leaving the knob alone, they sounded very closely matched. However, it's impossible for me to say for certain, since I'm not switching back and forth between two inputs, but using a single player and swapping discs instead.

    At the end of the day, I like the Columbia better. I think the Discovery edition has lost too much top end, but some may appreciate its "warmer" qualities. I would like to point out though that nothing about the Discovery edition is particularly "bad" (well, except maybe the vocals on "Freedom"). When compared with other remasters we've been subjected to recently (*cough* UMe Stones *cough*), I think Guthrie and company did a stand-up job.

    Oh yeah, here's one more thing. It has nothing to do with sound quality but, I really prefer the CD booklet that comes with the Columbia disc. Way better artwork on the inside. Sure, I can appreciate the heavier card stock on the Discovery edition, and the desire to make it more like all the other booklets in the series, but I think that even if I liked the sound of the Discovery edition more, I would keep the Columbia just for the booklet.
     
  8. chargrove

    chargrove Single again.

    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX
    Yes, I thought that immediately upon finishing the new versions of DSOTM and Animals. I agree completely.

    I really find it hard to believe that people are saying this redbook version of DSOTM is by any means wonky or something. I think it smokes.
     
  9. Lyle_JP

    Lyle_JP Forum Curmudgeon

    Location:
    Danville, CA, US
    Nothing missing on my copy. If anything, that lyric is clearer than it's ever been. Were there samplers sent to Classic Rock radio stations with this edited, perhaps?

    (Are there even still any Classic Rock radio stations left?)
     
  10. Masza

    Masza Forum Resident

    Location:
    Finland
    The old EU EMI version doesn't have much treble also. And IMO the 2011 remaster has as much treble as that EMI CD, maybe even a bit more. How can we be sure which is closer to the master tape, old Columbia or old EMI pressing?

    These are the waveforms for the track 7, Take It Back. First 2011 remaster, then 1994 EMI pressing: http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/9003/tdbb.jpg

    Actually, now when I look at that picture again, I see that there is some limitation in the 2011 remaster. Maybe the reason why AMLOR and TDB are little quieter than the older albums is that they hard limited them a little bit but then didn't raise the volume so that the peaks would hit 0dB
     
  11. quicksrt

    quicksrt Senior Member

    Location:
    City of Angels
    Seriously, most of us are not looking for a version that sounds like the master tape does.
     
  12. Lyle_JP

    Lyle_JP Forum Curmudgeon

    Location:
    Danville, CA, US
    How many of us even know what the master tape sounds like? I'm guessing it's a number between zero and... zero.
     
  13. Masza

    Masza Forum Resident

    Location:
    Finland
    Yes, but I was just thinking that if the Columbia CD has treble boost how could it have the 'right' sound in it?
     
  14. Lyle_JP

    Lyle_JP Forum Curmudgeon

    Location:
    Danville, CA, US
    Is the Columbia CD boosted, or are the EMI/Discovery CDs cut? I don't know. Do you?

    I only made it clear in my review that I was comparing one to the other, and that the Discovery version sounds like it has less top-end than the Columbia. From my perspective, that made it "missing". In an earlier post, I stated that the Columbia version is the only one I have heard for 17 years, and that I am naturally biased towards it. I said that in the interest of full disclosure. In fact, I even used the words "I'm not sure I trust my own judgment" at one point.

    My observations are just that: One man's observations. I hope they are useful to somebody. I am not a sound engineer, or professional music reviewer. I'm just a guy who digs music.
     
  15. rontoon

    rontoon Floydian Archivist

    Location:
    Highland Park, USA
    They are very useful and appreciated. I hope you don't mind but I posted you Animals and Meddle reviews on another forum... and credited you of course. :righton:
     
  16. quicksrt

    quicksrt Senior Member

    Location:
    City of Angels
    Interesting observations, will note these differences when I compare. Much better written then your earlier post.
     
  17. Masza

    Masza Forum Resident

    Location:
    Finland
    I understand. It's good that people share their opinions. You told how the Discovery compares to Columbia and I told how the Discovery compares to EMI :)
     
  18. Lyle_JP

    Lyle_JP Forum Curmudgeon

    Location:
    Danville, CA, US
    Don't mind a bit. All of my posts are royalty-free. :)
     
  19. Lyle_JP

    Lyle_JP Forum Curmudgeon

    Location:
    Danville, CA, US
    I'm really not trying to start anything with you (though I do feel like you have been with me once or twice), but which post would that be, exactly?

    I have only tried to be helpful and answer questions related to the past available versions in the most accurate and detailed way possible, and give my (admittedly amateur) observations on some of the current CDs I have acquired.

    Is there something I can clear up that was confusing? Is there something I can expound upon in my reviews that you found lacking? I'd really like to if I can.
     
  20. reddyempower

    reddyempower Forum Resident

    Location:
    columbus, oh, usa
    I, too, will be buying Animals on the strength of your review. If you has asked me 2 days ago, I would have said my uk needledrop was all I needed.
     
  21. jonboy71

    jonboy71 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Oxnard, CA
    Animals is it for me too. I was hoping for something more on TDB and AMLOR but it doesn't sound like it's there. I'll be getting all the Immersions as they come out, so I still have my fingers crossed they will do an Animals one but in the meantime I'll go ahead and pick up the remaster at Target.
     
  22. JeffMo

    JeffMo Give The Gift of Music!

    Location:
    New England
    Good one!
     
  23. Leigh

    Leigh http://orf.media

    It sounds divine. I'm amazed at how much better it sounds than the old CD I have which is an early pressing. Just beautiful!
     
  24. rockclassics

    rockclassics Forum Resident

    Location:
    Arkansas, USA
    I for one appreciate you taking the time to listen and post your opinions here. I don't have all of the various versions of each album to compare. But this does help me to decide which of the 2011 discs I might want to consider buying.
     
  25. LeeS

    LeeS Martini Time

    Location:
    Atlanta
    On first listen, WYWH sounds a bit like the Mastersound in terms of clarity on the high end but I need to do a proper comparison.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine