Thank you for the confirmation. I was sure I read it here that the masterings were different but I wouldn’t have been able to reference the context.
It does not: I bought it when it was first issued. And I'll be honest. Anybody that pays stupid money for a recording knows what they are paying for. I've paid a good amount for some OOP records. So, this isn't a concern of mine.
I have the version that came out several years ago - I can never understand the rationale behind a Limited Edition, just make as many as the market requires rather than fake 'rarity' by dint of low production volumes would be my preference. I wouldn't have paid any more than the RRP at the time - I remain unconvinced by the audio merits of either of the Pink Floyd SACDs - and too be honest, of SACD in general if I'm being frank.
That's what I've read (and heard with my ears) as well. Both are, per what I can find online, sourced from the original analogue master. I'd be curious to see what sources the other poster is getting info from regarding these versions being different.
My copy arrived over here in Great Britain this morning which cost me about GBP £43 including mailing which mostly is V.A.T @20% over the US price so it kinda cost but as expensive as it is it's definitely wanted been a all time favourite album. On my system and only listening from the stereo sacd layer it projects better than my original UK Swindon non remastered regular cd although that is pretty good and sound freer on the quieter passages. There is some 'cuppiness' in the vocals but I feel that's baked in the stereo mix not hearing a version any that was entirely free from it. I'm pretty happy with this re-issue of the 2011 limited edition and appreciate the packaging but everyone's mileage will vary.
The Japanese 35DP-4 is the best version I heard. But you can't really go wrong with any of them. All versions are "ok".
I first heard the WYWH SACD when it was first released, a co-worker bought a copy and he graciously lent it to me for a couple of days. At the time, I only had two-channel capability and I can confirm that it was, and is, the best version of that album that I have ever heard. First time I played it I actually started it and then was puttering around doing other things and it actually startled me back into listening to it seriously. It's just that good. I've also got a standard 80's CD issue, a vintage LP, and the reissued LP mastered by Doug Sax, and the SACD is far and away the best. Even for just two-channel stereo, it is definitely worth $35. I now have 5.1 capability and the 5.1 is even better, but the stereo mix is awesome in its own right.
Not sure exactly what you mean. It certainly has the postcards. It comes in a 16cm x 14 cm book type digipack.
Yeah, I could never understand why that isn't the standard album cover everywhere. The flaming guy seems completely unaware - it's a perfect image.
It's on one of the postcards supplied. I'd have much preferred to be on the cover as it's my favourite album cover.
Despite it being my favourite album cover I'd never realised there was more than 1 image of this until now. Thanks
The mastering credits are the same for both discs. I can't imagine the same guys at the same facility mastered it twice within in a very short period of time. And I certainly can't imagine they went back to the analogue tapes again. Maybe they did some tweaking to PCM master for the SACD, but my guess would be in the conversion from from PCM to DSD and/or then from DSD back to PCM for comparison purposes something changed slightly.
I've read somewhere on this forum that the SACD is slightly less compressed than the CD. The SACD certainly has a very relaxed feel to it which suggests that this may be true.
The redbook layer is a little bit more compressed than most other CD releases. The SACD 2.0 layer is about the same as most other CDs. The 5.1 is a little bit less compressed. Look for the 2011 SACD values on this page: Album list - Dynamic Range Database Although most of the CDs have the same DR, I concluded that the original black face Harvest sounds more natural to me - certainly in the bass range - than the Discovery set version. And the Harvest sounds less murky and veiled than the famous 2-track version. So with all these WYWH releases it’s probably not about dynamics, but more about the overall sound.
Last night I did a level matched comparison between the redbook on the SACD and the DSD. I don't think the redbook is compressed that much. What I still hear is what I posted about in the past; I'm not entirely thrilled with the way the redbook sounds, subtle details are brought more forward and the entire sound is quite 2-demensional and flat. These negative attributes are not present on the DSD, which has great depth and imaging between and to the sides of the speakers, the sound really blooms and has tremendous depth and "holographicness". My speakers are pulled 6-7 feet from the front wall and have nearly that much space from the side walls as well and are in a large listening room, and spatial information in recordings/mastering is one of the real strong points of my system. I also don't think this is a resolution difference as in the past when I have compared redbook/DSD from the same disc (and the mastering is the same on the two) differences are small at best, to non-existent if I am listening blind. Now what remains is what I think of the 24/96 PCM against the DSD but that will be a long time from now
Why even play the redbook? The only time I ever did that was when I was still using a high-end DAC which made the redbook sound better than the SACD but I sold it years ago after buying a better SACD player (which still isn't good enough).
