DSOTM 2016 Remaster on Vinyl

[Reverend Johnny Heathen]

I have the 2016 re-issue the OP refers to and for the princely sum of $35.00 I paid for it, I can't fault it. That said, I'm not a fan and don't know any other releases intimately enough to compare. I view it as an entirely historical piece and as such, I've probably spun it twice... All in all, if it's not your favourite album and the price is right - I'd say go for it.

 

@Chigurh

Edited November 8, 2016 by Hi-Fi heathen

[ZEN MISTER]

IIRC  the Mofi issue was the first and only time that the master tapes left the U.K.  I have the UHQR and the 'standard ' issue Mofi , plus early Oz vinyl, and Japanese first pass Cd.

They are ALL excellent. If you have not heard the UHQR on a high res system, well, life goes on.

In the meantime, grab any edition you can get and go with the flow. Well done Chigurh, groove on down, and watch out for The Pink Floyd Experience when it hits town next June. They do it like it will never be done again by the originals.

Billy.

[Hergest]

Well I haven't heard the new remaster either but I will bung my oar in.

 

Most of my Floyd albums are UK pressings, not original with the exception of The Wall and Final Cut but they are very very good. Every Floyd remaster I've bought over the years has been utter crap compared to what I first bought as bog standard releases. The worst culprits by a country mile were the horrible late 90's re-issues with the magnifying glass on the front cover. I'm a sucker though as I kept on trying Floyd re-issues.

 

The anniversary editions of WYWH and Dark Side of recent times I also found junk with nothing more than exaggerated and unnatural bass and treble and I vowed after wasting my money on these never to bother again.

 

However.....last year, the year before? Finally a double album of Division Bell came out with the proper length tracks compared to my original blue single album. Positive reviews here lead me to buy it and blow me down, it was excellent so my ears and wallet were open again.

 

Last weekend I bought Meddle in the series mentioned by the original poster, analogue remastering, quality pressing etc and it is very, very good and to be honest I can't fault it when put up against the other copies I have which includes a late 70s UK pressing and a MOFI both of which have had a lot of play and are starting to show their use so a dead quiet, quality mastering and pressing of Meddle is more than welcome.

 

So the next time I go to the record shop I will buy the new edition of Dark Side Of The Moon. If available then Animals, The Wall, WYWH etc will be bought at the same time. I love Floyd's music and never tire of playing it.

[LogicprObe]

20 hours ago, ThirdDrawerDown said:

as an aside, and a purely personal opinion, I think every re-release that has bullshit as bull**** is bullshit.

 

Bullshit.

[ZEN MISTER]

Chortle!!!

[James Moore]

I have the 30th anniversary edition of DSOTM and it sounds incredible. I got the 2016 issue of Ummagumma and it sounds good enough for me. I also got More 2016 issue but yet to listen.

[metal beat]

More 2016 Euro reissue sounds very good - never heard it previously thou.  Sounds better than Piper and Saucer.

 

The best sounding is Obscured by Clouds - sounds amazing.

 

from then on I have UK and German pressings, which sound great, so the desire to buy the same Floyd albums are zero.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Metamatic

[stevoz]

On 06/11/2016 at 10:46 PM, michaelw said:

the 2011 was cut from a digital transfer.

 

this appears to be the same transfer, just under a new label, pink floyd records.

There is a robust discussion on this very matter in progress on Audiokarma, because most who bought it over there believed it was a new remastering. One guy, dfungi, has been ringing people in the biz, people connected with Sony and even Bernie Grundmann's studio, and getting hung up on and emails going unanswered. He can't seem to get a definitive answer. It's all very sus, but it appears your info may prove to be correct michaelw. It's weird though, because some people have been saying that the 2016 issue sounds so much better than the 2011....... So, I think my search for an original pressing of DSOTM continues......

[michaelw]

hi steve,

 

one wonders what the big secret is.

record companies seem to go out of their way to obfuscate the provenance of their releases.

 

i think a friend has bought the 2016 dsotm.

will check.

maybe even compare with my early nz, early uk, emi100 and 30th ann editions ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[eltech]

On ?7?/?11?/?2016 at 2:15 PM, stevoz said:

I don't have a vinyl of DSOTM, but I have the SACD , it sounds ok but not as good as I expected

I've heard the SACD on a top of the line Sony SACD player and it sounded fantastic to me. Everything sounded natural and there is even lots of audible tape hiss so they didn't use noise reduction.

 

I think the MFSL CD sounds excellent also.

 

 

[stevoz]

16 minutes ago, eltech said:

I've heard the SACD on a top of the line Sony SACD player and it sounded fantastic to me. Everything sounded natural and there is even lots of audible tape hiss so they didn't use noise reduction.

 

I think the MFSL CD sounds excellent also.

 

 

I should rephrase a bit to say that it did sound ok and quite satisfying, but at the time I was judging it against 'Brothers In Arms' Dire Straits SACD and 'Goucho' Steely Dan SACD, which I consider both to be quite brilliant, especially in 5 channel format. Also that hiss you mention, although an actual positive, may have swayed me a little to the negative. Looking forward to an original vinyl copy though.

Edited November 14, 2016 by stevoz

[michaelw]

is the brothers in arms sacd good ?

i heard a fancy xrcd version and it was ass !

bright and thin, we just wanted to turn the volume down.

Edited November 15, 2016 by michaelw

[stevoz]

2 hours ago, michaelw said:

is the brothers in arms sacd good ?

i heard a fancy xrcd version and it was ass !

bright and thin, we juts wanted to turn it down.

I have the 20th Anniversary Hybrid SACD of 'BIA' (2005) and it is outstanding. The 5.1 mix is brilliant, sit in the 'sweet spot' and the experience is great......refined, immersive and dynamic. .....and it's usually quite cheap, eg here: http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Brothers-In-Arms-Dire-Straits-2005-SACD-NEW-/131988322356?hash=item1ebb1df834:g:DLIAAOSwKfVXK81d $13.00 with free postage!!!

Edited November 15, 2016 by stevoz

[eltech]

13 hours ago, stevoz said:

Looking forward to an original vinyl copy though.

 

Sure, I own three including the UK issue. All near mint condition. But going by memory I prefer the CD. I played an Aus pressing a week ago, and though it was nice, gotta say, dont spend too much on a copy. I think the MFSL CD is more satisfying. The bass is louder on the CD and less compressed IMHO.  - probably how it sounds on the master tape. SACD is probably the best, but you have to have a good SACD player to get the full effect. The vinyl is a little bit more compressed and a little bit quieter bass, again IMHO. Perhaps these new 2016 vinyl reissues are the best way to enjoy on vinyl at a reasonable price.

 

the world has gone a bit whacky with the internet. I got all my Pink Floyd on Vinyl in the late 1990's. A good NM copy was about $15-$20. Can't believe people are now asking hundreds. Its madness. IMHO  if you wanted to buy all the Pink Floyd original LP's in mint condition you really would be better off buying a very good $800 SACD player and the SACDs. Same cost, and the SACD wont wear out.

[eltech]

2 hours ago, stevoz said:

I have the 20th Anniversary Hybrid SACD of 'BIA' (2005) and it is outstanding. The 5.1 mix is brilliant, sit in the 'sweet spot' and the experience is great......refined, immersive and dynamic. .....and it's usually quite cheap, eg here: http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Brothers-In-Arms-Dire-Straits-2005-SACD-NEW-/131988322356?hash=item1ebb1df834:g:DLIAAOSwKfVXK81d $13.00 with free postage!!!

I suppose you know Brothers in Arms was recorded digitally on a 16 bit 44.1 or 48khz machine (cant find out definitively what frequency)

 

I'm not saying the SACD sounds bad, just chatting.

 

[Newman]

39 minutes ago, eltech said:

I suppose you know Brothers in Arms was recorded digitally on a 16 bit 44.1 or 48khz machine (cant find out definitively what frequency)

 

I'm not saying the SACD sounds bad, just chatting.

 

 

Yes, they would have used this baby. Adjustable 44.1 or 48k hence no-one would know which Fs was used without accessing the tapes or talking to the engineer. If indeed they even used one particular Fs exclusively. IIRC Knopfler was so dismayed with the way the way that instrumental sounds and tones on Love Over Gold would fade right before his ears on repeated playing during recording/mixing/mastering, that he realized analog would never preserve the sounds he created.

 

Probably among the best recording machines, analog or digital, available in the day. Shame.

 

Also probably the reason that new masters of this album have the potential to retain the full original brilliance. With analog masters, your best hope was that someone digitised them before age set in.

[stevoz]

2 hours ago, eltech said:

 

Sure, I own three including the UK issue. All near mint condition. But going by memory I prefer the CD. I played an Aus pressing a week ago, and though it was nice, gotta say, dont spend too much on a copy. I think the MFSL CD is more satisfying. The bass is louder on the CD and less compressed IMHO.  - probably how it sounds on the master tape. SACD is probably the best, but you have to have a good SACD player to get the full effect. The vinyl is a little bit more compressed and a little bit quieter bass, again IMHO. Perhaps these new 2016 vinyl reissues are the best way to enjoy on vinyl at a reasonable price.

 

the world has gone a bit whacky with the internet. I got all my Pink Floyd on Vinyl in the late 1990's. A good NM copy was about $15-$20. Can't believe people are now asking hundreds. Its madness. IMHO  if you wanted to buy all the Pink Floyd original LP's in mint condition you really would be better off buying a very good $800 SACD player and the SACDs. Same cost, and the SACD wont wear out.

Check my signature below.......I have a good SACD player. $1300 worth (didn't cost me that much though!). So I might, I say might, buy more Floyd SACD's, but I've gone off digital since returning to vinyl, so it's a big might. If the 2016 re-issue LP's turn out to be the goods (and not just a re-release of the 2011 re-issues), I'll probably go down that path. Cheers....

Edited November 15, 2016 by stevoz

[eltech]

5 minutes ago, stevoz said:

but I've gone off digital since returning to vinyl,

Yes they do sound a bit different, and if your digital rig sounds vastly different to your vinyl rig, swapping between digital and analogue can cause some time to get used to each one.

 

8 minutes ago, stevoz said:

I have a good SACD player

 

I probably should have said that I was talking about a top of the line Sony ES, or top of the line Marantz SACD player from the early 2000's which perform very well.

 

[stevoz]

13 minutes ago, eltech said:

Yes they do sound a bit different, and if your digital rig sounds vastly different to your vinyl rig, swapping between digital and analogue can cause some time to get used to each one.

 

 

I probably should have said that I was talking about a top of the line Sony ES, or top of the line Marantz SACD player from the early 2000's which perform very well.

 

Not nit picking eltech, but you don't rate the Cambridge Audio Azur 650BD?

[David.M]

2 hours ago, eltech said:

 

Sure, I own three including the UK issue. All near mint condition. But going by memory I prefer the CD. I played an Aus pressing a week ago, and though it was nice, gotta say, dont spend too much on a copy. I think the MFSL CD is more satisfying. The bass is louder on the CD and less compressed IMHO.  - probably how it sounds on the master tape. SACD is probably the best, but you have to have a good SACD player to get the full effect. The vinyl is a little bit more compressed and a little bit quieter bass, again IMHO. Perhaps these new 2016 vinyl reissues are the best way to enjoy on vinyl at a reasonable price.

 

the world has gone a bit whacky with the internet. I got all my Pink Floyd on Vinyl in the late 1990's. A good NM copy was about $15-$20. Can't believe people are now asking hundreds. Its madness. IMHO  if you wanted to buy all the Pink Floyd original LP's in mint condition you really would be better off buying a very good $800 SACD player and the SACDs. Same cost, and the SACD wont wear out.

Based solely on sound (& forgetting cost) the UK vinyl (at least 1st, 2nd & 3rd presses I have) are substantially better imo than the SACD (stereo DSD layer), dynamics, tone and bass are all better though at least to my ears the SACD EQ is close/identical to the UK vinyl.  The MFSL vinyl is nice & quiet but was mastered with a different EQ to the original (& I assume the MFSL CD would have the same LP EQ).

If someone wanted a good analogue LP I would suggest an early UK, say from 3rd-5th press onwards which can be found n/mint for reasonable $.  My A3/B3 3rd is only ever so slightly less in the bass compared to the A2/B2 & A3/B2.

[eltech]

18 minutes ago, stevoz said:

Not nit picking eltech, but you don't rate the Cambridge Audio Azur 650BD?

I havent heard it Steve. I can only comment upon that which I have heard.

[michaelw]

21 minutes ago, stevoz said:

Not nit picking eltech, but you don't rate the Cambridge Audio Azur 650BD?

 

it's a decent machine.

i have a 652bd and it's good with music

but not as good as my old marantz cd-23 redbook cdp

 

[eltech]

4 minutes ago, michaelw said:

but not as good as my old marantz cd-23 redbook cdp

Vintage player strikes again.

[stevoz]

Damn it!! Bloody Marantz!   Nah, I'm happy with my 'modern' Azur. It's all good.

[michaelw]

it's not bad ....