Pink Floyd - Dark Side Of the Moon and The Wall On CD

I prefer the orig Columbia version with the annoying click. Where's Dave? He's done some research about it.

 

I'll take the SACD Red Book layer over any MSFL and even my prized Harvest copies.

By the way, the DVD from Classic Albums on DSOTM is superb.

 

I really like the 97 Columbia release, second to the MFSL. It is definately worth buying if you can find one. Unless you happen to find one in a used cd shop, the internet may be difficult as most sellers don't differentiate. Check the used listings on Amazon, there are a few sellers that list release dates and labels. Good luck.

 

Thanks guys, I called the shop and it's on hold for me!

LOVE this place!!!!!

 

According to this original post list I would choose in this order if possible, but it's not neccesary for quality sound in these 2 particular albums cases.

DSOTM:
1. Toshiba/Emi/Harvest CP 35-3017 (Japan)
2. Capitol/Harvest CDP 7 46001 2 (US=UK=Japan?)
I'm willing to speculate that all versions that have the CP35-3017 on them are most likely the same mastering.

The no thanks list.
3. MFSL
4. Shine On Box (US)
5. 20th Anniversary Edition (EMI=Capitol?)
6. Capitol/EMI CDP 0777 7 46001 2 5 (remaster from 1992, US=UK=Japan?)
7. SACD redbook layer

The Wall:
1. 50DP 362 CBS/Sony (Japan)
2. CBS/Sony 48DP 5007~8 (Japan)
3. Columbia C2K 36183 (Japanese = US version = Canadian)
I don't know about the Japan, but my guess is yes as both the Canadian and US. pressings are the same and they are fine IMO.
4. CBS 88485 (Japan)
Haven't heard this one (CBS above), but I'd be willing to take the gamble on this one which would also introduce some other countries pressings with the same catalog number.
5. Harvest CDS 7 46036 8 (UK if there's a secondary reference to one of the catalog numbers above)

The no thanks list.
6. MFSL
7. Shine On Box (US)
8. Capitol/EMI/Toshiba/Harvest 7243 8 31243 2 (remaster from 1994, US = UK=Japan=Canada?)

 

These Pink Floyd threads always get me mixed up. So many people believe that 3-4 remasters have been done since the 'Shine On' period, and yet no one has any real evidence for this, and on top of that all of the current CD releases have '92/'94 remastering copyrights. This is the time period when the entire catalog was done by Doug Sax (Shine On box in '92, the remainder in '94).

As far as sound quality, the current remasters almost never make the top of the 'best sound' lists. People seem to prefer this or that first pressing from Japan, etc etc...IMO, all of the current remasters are worth owning, and they are EASY to find. The '92/'94 DSOTM sounds excellent, and the current SACD is incredible. My Harvest/EMI '94 'Wall' sounds great too. I have an older CBS/Sony 'Wall' (48DP 5007) that I feel is inferior, with thinner sound and less dynamic range.

WYWH also comes up a lot, with the first Japan pressing generally considered the best. I have this and I agree that it sounds excellent, but it also sounds identical to my later W.German pressing, and it's not markedly different from the current '94 remaster. Personally I prefer the mini-LP since it includes a few moments of silence between 'side 1' and 'side 2.'

Then again, I haven't done any serious level-matched tests with any of the above, so I may be fooling myself. Is anyone level matching when they make their comparisons?

- joe s

 

To set the record straight...in the US we have the Shine On box set which was the first set of remasters of Sony titles. Then Columbia remastered their catalog (WYWH-Momentary Lapse) in 1997. Then Capitol took over the rights of those titles and reissued them under their label and used the 1997 remasters despite what the back cover copyright date says. This was confirmed by James Guthrie himself and there is a huge thread on this in the archive.
BTW- Final Cut was just remastered again this year.

Take a look.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=16075&highlight=pink+floyd+capitol

 

I've done an extensive level matched comparision between the 48DP and the MFSL. IMO the MFSL is superior, except for two tracks ("Don't Leave Me Now" "Bring The Boys Back Home"). I would say that, overall, your description of the 48DP is fairly accurate...but it does come close to the MFSL in some other spots.

There are so many diverging opinions on The Wall and DSOTM (most agree that the gold CD of WYWH is the one to get) that there is only one way (the most expensive, most time consuming, and most aggravating way) to make an informed decision - listen to all the recommended versions and decide for yourself.

 

You forgot to mention that this is the most fun way to determine which sounds best. I have't found all of the above versions, except the Shine On box and Toshiba black triangle DSOTM. I have fun just picking one of the different versions and just listening to it without making comparisons. I have come to appreciate each one of them for different reasons and would never part with any of them. You might have to spend some time looking, but it's fun to find them and most of the time they are relatively inexpensive. Now, if we could just figure out which version of Animals is the best...

 

Ok, so there was a new remastering done in '97 for the Columbia titles, and these are the ones currently in print on Capitol, even though the Capitol's credit the older 'Shine On' remaster. It's hard to keep all of this straight. Luckily the '94/Shine On era versions sound great, so I'm not in a hurry to get the 1997's.

Does the '97 WYWH include the pause between sides 1 and 2?
I'm wondering whether the mini-LP uses this mastering or the '94 or something else altogether.

- joe s

 

I figured out which Animals I think is best, but your mileage may and probably will vary.

 

Yeah, I "forgot" to mention that. Seriously though, it is fun - up to a point. When you're trying to come up with the best version of a couple hundred albums (with an average of 3-4 candidates for each), it can turn into a serious time/money committment, and then it starts to feel a lot like work. For many albums, it would be a relief if I knew for sure version "A" was the best and then I could just hunt that one down. I think that's why a lot of people visit this board (looking for that sort of information) and that's why I like Steve's work - in most cases, it's a "one buy" decision.

If you're talking about sonics, I somewhat agree. Many mastering decisions are a compromise...an overall inferior version may have attributes that the overall superior version doesn't have. If applicable, I make a CD-R compilation of the best sounding tracks from each version I have. Although I generally hold on to all the versions, I know that I'm not going to play most of them (hence the compilation).

But (wouldn't you know it) many times the version that some consider the best is very hard to find/expensive...like the black triangle DSOTM you mentioned. I'm just waiting for someone to sing the praises of the gold "eternity" CD, which is even more elusive.

 

The Gold Eternity disc is awesome Dob! It's the same as the CP35-3017 BT.

 

I did some more listening to the SACD Red Book layer. I still like it a lot but I wish to change me mind in favor of my Harvest disc. There are passages that seem more transparent.

I also had an opportunity to hear the DSOTM SACD on a XA9000 and Maggie 20.1 speakers. The bass quality on the recording is superb and there is oodles of detail on the SACD than even I get on my Maggie system. Of course the 20.1s are $12K a pair. Some day maybe...

 

I guess I should have been a little more specific. Pink Floyd is the only band for which I own multiple copies of cds. Unless I know Steve has been involved with a cd, I rely on the hard work and suggestions of forum members like to help me nail down the best version of any other albums. So, thank you

 

I would love to hear your opinion. Please?

 

Apparently the 1997 Sony remasters have the same James Guthrie/Doug Sax credits as the Shine On era remasters, minus the 92/94 copyright date...

I still find it hard to believe that the same titles were remastered twice in a 5 year time span, and by the same people. Isn't there at least a possibility that the only change in the '97 versions is the packaging??

- joe s

 

In my a/b comparisons of the original Harvest UK Animals cd vs. original US Columbia CD, the Columbia CD had better sound. I felt so strongly about this that I even got rid of my orig UK Harvest CD which I had searched for. I have not compared the columbia disc to any of the many remasters though.

 

I have both the Columbia and Capitol remasters, and I agree. I listen to the original Columbia release the most frequently, but I am still looking for the original Harvest disc.

 

Back in 1997, there was a HUGE article in ICE magazine about the remastering project and the stickers on the Sony 1997 remasters say "Newly reamasterd" (or something like that) Again these 1997 remasters are the current Capitol remasters except for the Fianl Cut which just got re-remastered.

 

I think the tag line was 'Digitally Mastered Under the Band's Supervision'. I did a little web sleuthing, and apparently this is the exact same line used by Sony in '94 for the release of the same titles on Mini Disc. I suppose it's possible that a separate mastering was done for the Mini Disc format at the same time as the Shine On remasters, which might explain the copyright on the current Capitol versions. Or maybe in 1997 they really did go to the time and expense to remaster these yet again, under the band's supervision no less. Who knows.

I subscribed to Ice at that time and I do not remember any 'huge' articles on this issue, although I seem to recall some space devoted to this topic in the CD Watchdog column. I don't remember any of it being conclusive, but then again it was 7 years ago...

In any event, when I first picked up the mini LP 'Animals' I thought it sounded different (and better), but I eventually decided my ears were playing tricks on me. Maybe this is the '97 version after all. I'll have to play my mini LP of the Wall again and see if I hear any differences there as well.

- joe s

 

Be careful when comparing mini-LPs...depending on country of origin, they can sound different from each other, not to mention different from the regularly packaged CDs - even if they supposedly have (or appear to have) the same mastering.

A while back I compared the Japan mini-LP of Black Sabbath Paranoid to the UK mini-LP version. There was a substantial difference - the UK version had more bass and was much smoother. I had expected the Japan version to sound "slightly" better, which is usually the case.

I also frequently hear a difference between regularly packaged Japan CDs and their US CD counterparts (which almost definitely have the same mastering)...but many people think I'm off my rocker.