pink floyd wish you were here CD

I would agree. this is the only one I have now. The gold sounds terrific. However, the remaster from a couple of years ago isn't bad. As to the packaging Sony released their mistake and began reissuing them just as regular jewel boxes. I think they were trying to make them stand out with a "collectable" quality and used the long box size (when you open them up for those who don't know it includes lyrics on the inside as well as a larger reproduction of the cover as a fold out and the CD without a booklet inside) to make it "distinctive". I agree though it was a lousy move. I stored mine, hated the fact that it didn't have the booklet (and kept mine from my other edition) and also disliked the fact that there wasn't anything written up on the album (no sleeve notes).

 

Thanks for the analysis. Although I'll have to figure out what exactly it all means.

By "Japan blackface" you mean the original '83 Harvest with the "mechanical handshake" cover? (ie not the "burning man"?) Interesting that that one would peak so much higher than the "two-track" second Japan issue. And your "UK Silverface" is also an early pressing? I wonder what those stats would look like for the Mastersound?

 

Seems to me that's the definition of compression?

Must be some sort of selective compression. Your example of raising the volume of sounds below -10dB fits exactly with what I described about the guitar sound. The way that one note's decay leaps out at you. It must have been right at the cutoff point for whatever processing was going on. Same for the transistor radio guitar being much louder in relation to the studio guitar. It's really a night-and-day difference when you notice it.

I've never actually used Super Bit Mapping, so I really don't know how it works. From my understanding it's supposed to take 20 bits and reproduce the sound of that in 16 bits. Taken at face value that would mean taking the quietest sounds from the bottom of the dynamic range and moving them up into the range 16 bits can reproduce. Maybe some of the quieter sounds from the bottom of the 16 bit dynamic range also get moved up? As a whole this album does have some very quite and some very loud passages. Maybe we notice the SBM artifacts more here?

 

Just curious, why did you choose to leave out this portion of my quote? Especially the last sentence.

 

Hrm, this info seems to change everytime you relate it. My conclusion is that some misinformation is afoot.

Can anyone else provide a definitive answer? Concentrating just on WYWH for the moment, and ignoring packaging:

Who did the "Digital Remaster (p) 1992"? Doug Sax?
Who did the "Mastersound Gold"?
Who did the "Columbia Records 1997 Anniversary Edition"? James Guthrie? Is this the "band supervised" one?

Do those three represent the sum total of all post-1990 masterings?

I've read through three looong threads here, and it is not at all clear to me.

 

I'm unclear on what price scale grbl is on, but I gather it's on the higher side if it is affecting his purchase decision. I was trying to reinforce what you say about DIDP 50004 being cheap so he doesn't over-spend, not disagree with you. Apologies if I came across that way.

 

Not a problem.

 

I don't know if this tells us anything, or not? These are zoomed in to 1:1 in SoundForge. This is the exact moment the studio guitar comes in on the title track. It represents about 0.02sec of music.

The '85 "Now Made in USA"




The '95 "Mastersound Gold"




What this looks like to me is that initial attack on the far left is boosted up in volume on the '95 when compared to the '85. Yet when the rest of the waveform kicks in the level is the same. Keep in mind on the '85 this track peaks at 0dB (the '95 at -0.2) If the lower level sounds are boosted, and the maximum peaks are the same, would that not be compression?

Can one actually hear something on this scale, or am I grasping at straws?

 

Nothing on the Mastersound is compressed or maximized. There are DCC's that are as "loud" as the Mastersound.

 

Yet, the '85 bargain-bin special has quieter soft passages, with even louder maximum peaks?

 

You are comparing apples to oranges. Pink Floyd's music is just better recorded than any other rock band and is going to be more dynamic.

 

I agree with dongle and am closest to Roland's opinion/description below from what I've heard. The one exception is the US. 5 track sounds veiled and lacking definition in the top end when compared to the Japanese 2 track and the bass sounds a bit over emphasized.

 

Yes to all.

This is the peak levels from the Blackface. Both the USA and the UK discs peaks to 100% on all the tracks.

Track 1
Filename G:\P\Pink Floyd\Wish You Were Here Japan Harvest\Pink Floyd-Wish You Were Here-(01)Shine On You Crazy Diamond (Part 1).wav

Peak level 94.9 %
Track quality 100.0 %
Copy CRC D6BA16D4
Copy OK

Track 2
Filename G:\P\Pink Floyd\Wish You Were Here Japan Harvest\Pink Floyd-Wish You Were Here-(02)Welcome To The Machine.wav

Peak level 100.0 %
Track quality 100.0 %
Copy CRC 1EDD3A57
Copy OK

Track 3
Filename G:\P\Pink Floyd\Wish You Were Here Japan Harvest\Pink Floyd-Wish You Were Here-(03)Have A Cigar.wav

Peak level 95.1 %
Track quality 100.0 %
Copy CRC 40B880F2
Copy OK

Track 4
Filename G:\P\Pink Floyd\Wish You Were Here Japan Harvest\Pink Floyd-Wish You Were Here-(04)Wish You Were Here.wav

Peak level 90.5 %
Track quality 100.0 %
Copy CRC E2B872B2
Copy OK

Track 5
Filename G:\P\Pink Floyd\Wish You Were Here Japan Harvest\Pink Floyd-Wish You Were Here-(05)Shine On You Crazy Diamond (Part2).wav

Peak level 88.5 %
Track quality 99.9 %
Copy CRC 23E38436
Copy OK

 

Interesting that you choose to describe it that way. I find that the veil is over the two-track. It's the finest quality 1,200 thread-count translucent silk veil, that adds a luxurious sheen to everything. In the end that may well be how this music is meant to sound. The '85 five-track feels like that veil is taken away and I see the music better.

Just had a listen to the first half of Shine on both the two-track and the '85 five-track. This time on my elderly Denon 1500 II, to see if analogue de-emphasis made any difference. Same thing, five-track still wins. It's not like the mids and/or highs are boosted, just clearer. I notice more of the little things Richard is doing, but not in that compressed "extra detail" way of the Mastersound Gold. Still smooth, yet clearer. I was digging the extra bass extension on that track. Nick sounded awesome, not in a hi-fi "bass" way, but a more natural punchy drum sound. I do admit that last night on Welcome the bass was on it's way to being heavy handed.

Not meaning to declare your statement invalid or anything. Just highlighting the differences in how we see it.

 

Here is the two-track:

Track 1
Peak level 69.5 %
Track 2
Peak level 83.6 %

Which is more consistent with the early Japanese masterings I'm familiar with. Not used to seeing 100% peaks like on your (even earlier) blackface. You say it sounds a generation closer then the '85 US, which I feel sounds a generation closer then the two-track. I hope I can find one of those blackfaces some day and compare it, sounds like a winner. Does anyone else here have one?

 

I have to say I'm intrigued by your statement, however I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced.

How did you arrive at this conclusion? Listening? If so, what did you compare it with, and how? Computer analysis? If so, what were your results? Marketing hype? Any links to advertisements or interviews? Anecdotal evidence? Steve H. said so? Anything?

I gave some listening impressions of what sounds like compression on a couple of tracks. Dave and Roland seem to agree with me on those points. I also showed a few graphs to illustrate what's happening too. I don't mean to present this as absolute fact, and am perfectly open to opposing viewpoints.

To waltz in, declare a "fact", then skitter away without a word is hardly getting in the spirit of things. . . .

 

I've owned basically all of these, and recently finally got the two track version..

Going only by ear, and ignoring graphs, flow charts, scientfic data, measurements and whatever else, (not that I don't appreciate it when folks post such things) I've just sold all my other copies (including the mastersound) and kept the two track. After extensive listening, It just SOUNDS best to MY ears. YMMV...

 

Maybe one day I'll be blessed and find a 2 Trk in the bins. After yrs of looking, I've yet to see one.

 

I haven't done the extensive comparisons that you guys have on this one, but the controversy has made for some interesting discoveries. I have only 4 different versions of this recording (unfortunately none is this legendary 2 track), and I see the merit in each of them. My preferred one, though, has hardly had a mention in this thread or elsewhere, nor is its exact location of manufacture in the EU mentinoned anywhere in the package. This one is just so much more liquid and transparent than the original Japanese one that I sent to Bencanas recently, as well as the two USA standard 5 track pressings and the Mastersound -- which, to these ears is the poorest of the lot.

 

This might have been mentioned alreadty, but has anyone heard the 13 track CDCBS version? Can someone comment if they have?

 

13-track?

I have a CDCBS copy that was pressed in Japan. It is divided into five tracks and has the same mastering as the U.S. CK 33453 pressings and Japanese 32DP issue.

 

So, which European pressing are you referring to? What is the catalog number and the copyright date? Thanks!

 

Another forum member said it was 13 tracks. Here's the thread: http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=109229

How can it have the same mastering as the US 33453 and the Japanese 32 DP? Aren't those two different masterings?

 

Is this the same CD as the one in the long box?

Paul G.

 

It says "© 1992... Made in the EU... LC 0542" It's a 5 track, black and blue disc with the robot handshake. The back paper piece has 7243 5 29071 2 0 on it with "Made in the EU" on it again, and "Licensed to EMI Records LTD." AFAIK, this could have been made anywhere in Europe.