Pink Floyd - Wish you were here LP/sacd--sound muddy to you?

I actually think the album has always been on the muddy side. Back, when I was young, I always boosted the treble a little. Outside of some effects and guitar, most of the soundscape stays pretty much in the middle with mild panning. If I still had tone controls or an eq, I would boost the treble a little. Am I the only one who hears the same thing?

DSOTM and Animals is much more of a pleasing soundscape experience (even with Animals boxy production)

 

yea not sure about the original pressing, but my doug sax remaster lp and sacd sound "dull" "nuetered" "soft" "too smooth"

those are some adjectives id use to describe the sound. if you bought the wish you were here immersion the 5.1 mix there has slightly more treble than the sacd.

 

I have the current SACD and it does have slightly more treble. However, that could be due to my cartridge, etc that makes the big difference vs the sacd

 

Hmmm, my 2011 Doug Sax vinyl pressing has the right amount of treble to my ears....I sure wouldn't want to add more. Although, I prefer my early US pressing which sounds wonderfully smooth.

 

Yes
I was and continue to be disappointed with the AP SACD.
It’s not terrible but not great either IMO.
Muddy is the word.

Edit; having said that, I haven’t played since I got my DAC, maybe it’ll open things up a bit

 

Veiled is the word I use. Apparently has something to do with the master tape being fairly warn.

 

Caught between the 94 Mastersound (brighter) and old UK Harvest for this one-just the right amount of 'mud'
Both give a slightly different presentation.
Wasn't a fan of the SACD.
LP-Good with the 1981 US 'Barry' green label so I haven't gone further

 

One would think that the mastering engineer could try to correct some of the Veil thru eq

 

Hi Sigma - not doubting you at all, but do you have a source for this that I can read? I’m very interested in learning more. Thanks.

 

I wonder if this has something to do with each system as well. I have a cheap setup and my DSOTM 30th and Neil Young's Harvest 2009 version got this "veiled" quality while others say those sounds great. My Wish You Were Here 2011 sounds really nice and open compared to these.

 

As strange as this sounds, I have an Israeli pressing that sounds great. Very quiet vinyl and it sounds very sharp (not sure if that's the most accurate term, but it's the best I can come up with after only 2 cups of coffee).

 

I may try to seek out of of the Columbia half Speed mastered editions

 

I have the original vinyl and it sounds fine. Well recorded vinyl always sounds better than sacd anyway. To me. I like sacd sound as its close to a vinyl style but ill take decent vinyl any day. I play this original uk release at dsd256 and theres no mud.

 

I have the Sax remastered LP and I agree that it's not that great but the SACD is fantastic to my ears. Now, granted I always listen to the 5.1 mix now, but back when I first heard it I listened to the stereo mix and it blew me away.

 

I only have a 1981 vinyl pressing right now. Muddy would not be how I would describe it. Sounds very good to me.

 

Actually (I think) Wish You Were Here and Animals have a similar less clear sound compared to Dark Side. Animals sounds even more muddy than WYWH.

 

Similar feelings here:

Which "Wish You Were Here" Do You Want?

 

The 2011 vinyl is dullsville but 1st and 2nd UK issues are sublime- the complete opposite of muddy.

 

I have the 1994 'super bit mapped' Gold disc, the 1997 remaster, and the 2011 Immersion 96/24 mastering. While their DR meter readings are similar (not identical), it's clear from checking out the waveforms, and listening, that the first two do not have quite the dynamics the Immersion version does.

They are three different masterings. None are 'brickwalled' , but the waveforms of two earlier ones are clearly 'fatter' than the Immersion (the Gold SBM being the 'chubbiest'). The highest peaks on the album (like the 'thump' near the end of 'Welcome to the Machine', one of the two loudest moments on the album) stand out more distinctly on the Immersion waveform than in the other two. It is not just a matter of overall level...you can't transform the Immersion to either of the others just by 'normalizing' its loudest peak to digital maximum. This means either the earlier two have more compression, or are bassier , for whatever reasons, than the Immersion. (The SBM has a bunch of scattered peaks hitting maximum, often an indicator of digital compression. The other two don't)

Maybe as a result, the Immersion mastering is very clear, not muddy, and the bass is tight but not lacking...even on the title track, where the low bass sounds 'flabby' on the other masterings. It's my go-to version. (Couldn't care less about vinyl.)

 

Having first heard 'Wish you Were Here' in its original vinyl Quadrophonic mix, the term "muddy" has never been uttered in the same sentence as that title, from time immemorial.

That said, the stereo mix has never sounded as good as the Quad in any format, and the SACD is fatally flawed from the start. One would be better off with a well-remastered CD, such as the EMI-Japan [ TOCP-54530 ] issued in 2O12

 

What made the SACD fatally flawed from the start?

 

The SACD is simply a DSD conversion of the PCM master

 

Just remember that they screwed up the mastering when this was first cut. When you cut at half speed, you have to EQ differently, which they failed to do the first time. They re-cut it with proper the EQ and recalled those screwed up first pressings but they are still out there.

 

So? That won't affect the sound. Which PCM mastering does the SACD use?

 

The Qu

The quad isn't muddy, but to these ears, it's not a great mix and I still prefer the stereo. Same goes for the much newer 5.1 remix. The definitive surround mix of this album still hasn't been made.