Question about Pink Floyd: Wish You Were Here (1 Viewer)

[Greg Johnson]

I was going to purchase this Cd online and noticed there are two versions available. The first is a Columbia Gold CD with no other info. The second is a remastered version done by Doug Sax. Anyone care to opine on which version is better? This was one of my favorite Floyd titles and want to get the best one.

Greg

 

[Joel Fontenot]

I have the earlier CBS release and the Columbia/Sony Mastersound Gold CD, but not the recent remaster now available from Capitol.

The Mastersound Gold CD is actually quite good (it blows the earlier release away), and long out of print, so if you can really get that one, I'd say, go for it.

Someone else may correct me on this, but I think that the current version uses the same master as the Gold release did. All of PF's albums were remastered about the same time, but distribution rights for Wish You Were Here, Animals and The Wall reverted back to Capitol in the US soon after those remasters were done and they ended up getting released on Capitol, including - I believe - the current Wish You Were Here. Columbia just happened to get a Gold CD of WYWH out the door before the change-over.

Joel

 

[Ron Reda]

I'm not sure about the other versions, but I own the gold disc and it sounds great. However, it's way out of print, so check it out on eBay and be prepared to spend at least $40 on it. But, if you're a Floyd fan, I feel it's well worth it!

 

[Rich Malloy]

The inevitable dissenting post...

I've got what I believe is the original CD issue of "Wish You Were Here" (it reads "CBS" on the spine, rather than "Columbia", but there is no date other than the original recording year and no indication of who mastered it), and I also have the Columbia Mastersound disc on CD-R (thanks, Michael!). While there are pros and cons on each mastering, I prefer the original CD issue to the Mastersound gold disc. I burned both discs for a steve hoffman forum regular, and he too prefers the original CD issue.

The mastersound disc is a bit more detailed than my CBS issue, and also mastered at a higher level. I was a bit surprised by this. I don't think the Mastersound is overmaximized-- some of those early CDs didn't use the full dynamic range--but on balance I think I prefer my old version. While not as detailed, it has a warmer, more pleasing sound, and the soundstage seems deeper. It drew me into the music more. But, then, it certainly wasn't as detailed. For example, all of Gilmour's shuffling around and breathing prior to the opening acoustic guitar part in "Wish You Were Here" were more clearly audible on the Mastersound disc, but on the other hand the guitar seemed deeper in the soundstage and the tone a tad warmer (I hesitate to say "more natural") on the CBS. Even though I'd hear some details on the Mastersound disc, I was never really engaged by the sound. Whenever I switched back to the old CBS disc, I'd become much more involved with the music (and really not wanting to switch back). Tough call--it might depend on your system as to which you'd prefer, but as of now, I like my old CBS disc best.

The only other Columbia Mastersound Gold disc I have is S&G's "Bridge Over Troubled Water", and I don't much care for it at all. It doesn't even come close to the DCC Gold disc of "Bookends". Maybe I should give them another chance, but as of now I've stopped bothering to seek out the Mastersound Golds.

 

[Michael Hall]

I've never heard the Gold Columbia disc, but I do have the Capitol remaster, and it sounds great. Miles ahead of the original Columbia CD issue. Everything sounds crystal clear and perfect.

I've actually been on a bit of a tear lately rebuying my Floyd collection with the remasters, and every one of them that I've gotten is light-years ahead of the original CDs.

 

[Rich Malloy]

OK, I did a bit of research, and it seems that my "CBS" WYWH is actually the second CD issue of this title. Here's the list of releases:

Harvest Records - 1st issue
CBS Records - 2nd issue
Columbia Records - 3rd issue
Sony SBM MasterSound (longbox)
Sony SBM MasterSound reissue (packaging differences only?)
Columbia Records 1997 Anniversary Edition
Capitol Records 2000 reissue

So, my impression is that the 2nd issue of WYWH (the "CBS" one) is superior on my system than one of the two Mastersound Gold discs (not sure which one or if they are different sonically). After reading Michael's impressions of the most recent release, "the Capitol Records 2000 Reissue", I'm really keen to hear this one!

But read this thread, and be confused... be very confused: http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...loyd+remasters

BTW, if anyone wants to trade CD-Rs ... REST OF POST DELETED BY ADMIN. RICH, YOU *KNOW* WE DON'T ALLOW THE DISCUSSION OF TRADING OR OBTAINING BOOTLEGGED MATERIAL!

 

[Greg Johnson]

Thanks to all for your opinions. Rich, thanks for doing my homework for me with the link you provided. After reading the link, I think I may just get the 2000 remaster done by Doug Sax. It's 14.99 at Tower Records website. The Columbia Gold CD is an Ebay auction. I guess I didn't want to tell everyone that. It's already up to 18.50 with almost 5 days left. In case anyone is interested, LIVE LINK REMOVED BY ADMIN
On another note, I hope more Floyd titles will be released on SACD or DVD-A. Either format is fine with me.

Greg

 

[Kevin C Brown]

I like threads like this. I used to blindly purchase remasters (and sell the older CDs) not even questioning that the sound would be better. Now I try to compare myself the differences and if I can hear them or not.

 

[Michael Hall]

You might want to check your local Target to see if they have any copies of WYWH, Greg. I got my copy of the 2000 remaster there about six weeks ago for only 9.99. This might have been a sale price or something, but I figured I'd give you a heads up in case you wanted to check it out.

 

[Wayne Bundrick]

It's been said that the 1997 and the 2000 releases are the same as the Sony SBM.

I have the Sony SBM and I much prefer it to the old CBS, which I thought had too much hiss.

On another note, I hope more Floyd titles will be released on SACD or DVD-A. Either format is fine with me.

Amen to that.

 

[TerryW]

Here's my simplistic answer: when I buy a remaster (or any other cd for that matter) I always listen to it for the first time through my Koss headphones (old but still very reliable). The test for me is: does the sound hurt my ears, is it too tinny or is the bass deep, full and rich?

Sometimes I'll a-b a certain section of an album if it sounds drastically different but generally if I'm turning down the volume to save my ears then the disc is inferior.

That being said I own and think the Gold Mastersound cd is the best one out there. If your dillema is financial then pick up the latest version otherwise look for the gold disc.

I also have Sony's gold disc of Boston's debut lp and that is stunning compared to any other version out there. Even the recent best of's have really bad sound compared to it.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

I agree. Much easier for me also to tell the differences with headphones.

 

[Ken Stuart]

I like threads like this. I used to blindly purchase remasters (and sell the older CDs) not even questioning that the sound would be better. Now I try to compare myself the differences and if I can hear them or not.

For me, in a majority of cases, the remaster is worse. I find that remastering 70's rock using modern technology invariably aids the cymbals and bass more than the midrange instruments, which then changes the mix to something not intended by the original mixing engineers.

Perhaps all these remasters are funded by a secret organization of drummers?

 

[Wayne Bundrick]

Does anyone have an opinion of "The Final Cut" remaster vs. the old CBS release? Is it louder and the dynamic range therefore ruined?

 

[Craig Robertson]

I hope more Floyd titles will be released on SACD

anyone know if this is gonna happen?

 

[Chris Brunner]

Wayne,

I just bought The Final Cut remaster a few weeks ago. (I can't believe it turned 20 years old last month!!!!)

To me, and my ears are FAR from bionic, the newer remasterd disc musically sounds MUCH clearer. The only problem I noticed was that hiss was much more prominent during Waters' vocals and was gated off in between. It's probably an issue with the master tapes, but I didn't notice it as much on the original CBS version. Maybe because there was more hiss throughout??

It was nice to revisit it again. Although it's considered a Waters album, Gilmour considerably adds to my enjoyment of these songs. I miss them together.

C

 

[gregD]

More ways to spend your money, Chapter 7,358...

The Mastersound gold disc WYWH is the second-best version I've heard.

The best I've heard - and it's by a small degree - is the Toshiba/EMI Japanese import... I believe it was issued in 2000... came with the mini-LP sleeve, and several printed inserts that replicate the original LP package.

Not cheap, probably not real easy to find... but at least another alternative.

 

[Philip Hamm]

I also have the original "CBS" version of this album on CD, I bought it in 1987. It sounds fine to me, good enough that "remasters" hold no interest, I've never heard another version.

Does anyone have an opinion of "The Final Cut" remaster vs. the old CBS release? Is it louder and the dynamic range therefore ruined?

Off topic... Over the weekend I made a CD of my LP record of "The Final Cut". I have to say, that is probably the single best sounding record in my collection. It's the original Columbia pressing from 1983. Back then Columbia had a good reputation for quality vinyl and pressings. Some record companies were awful - I remember being very happy when Paul McCartney moved to Columbia and I bought the remastered "RAM" which is another fantastic sounding Columbia LP I have of that vintage. Anyway, back to my story... The vinyl is very high quality, the noise floor is very low, and the highs are very clean. My CD of the LP (using the ADC in my Sony MDS-JB920 MD deck) sounds amazing through my home theater system in stereo.

The more I listen to "The Final Cut" the more I like it. I personally think Gilmour's performance on that record is distinctly second-rate, at least compared to something like "Animals". It sounds like the same old "Wall" riffs over again. I was struck by Richard Wright's piano work on "Cut". Really extroardinary for the subtleties of the quiet parts.

 

[Steve_AS]

The current remaster of Wish You Were Here is not the same as the Gold. Sonically, this album has four domestic CD versions (but more than four labels!)

1) original Cd release

2) 'shine on' boxed set remaster (circa 1992), subsequently released as a single disc.

3) mastersound gold

4) 1997 remaster (Columbia)


confusingly the *current* version on shelves, released in 2000, is on a different label from the '97 (Capitol), but is the *same* 1997 remaster, thought the copyright date may say 1994. This was confirmed in ICE magazine by Sax or Guthrie. It is not the same as the Sony Gold.

As for the Final Cut, the current (1997) remaster (and the British 1994 remaster that preceded it) both improve upon the original domestic release.

'Louder' does not necessarily 'ruin' dynamic range; dynamic range is affected if compression has been used to change it.
You can increase loudness up to the 0 dB reference without adding compression, though that is becoming increasingly rare in remasters. ALso, whether dynamics are 'ruined' depends on how *much* compression is used.


Richard Wright does not play on 'The Final Cut'. He'd been fired by Roger Waters during the making of The Wall (he played on tour for that, but as a hired hand). Gilmour's playing on TFC is some of his finest, IMO.

 

[Steve_AS]

For me, in a majority of cases, the remaster is worse. I find that remastering 70's rock using modern technology invariably aids the cymbals and bass more than the midrange instruments, which then changes the mix to something not intended by the original mixing engineers.

This presumes that the often-attenuated high treble and low bass on 70's LPs is what the mixing engineers wanted, when actually, they were more likely to have been compromises made due to the nature of the LP medium. What the mixing and mastering engineers and presumably the artists wanted, was what was on the master tape, not the LP.