Forums dot lukpac.org

Is the gold CD that much better than the regular CD? I'm sure they sound different, but the regular CD was mastered by Doug Sax around 1992, so I doubt it was done poorly. Are we talking about a marginal improvement?

The current 'regular' CD dates from later than that, I think (remastering-wise). 1997, I believe.
This one supersedes the ~1992 remaster, which was the one found in the Shine On Box too.
In between there was the gold CD remaster.

Glad this has been brought up.

I've always been confused about the remastering of the Floyd catalog. For example: "Wish You Were Here," in terms of remaster:

1992 Shine On remaster
1992/3 CBS Mastersound Gold CD
1994 EMI UK remaster
1997 Columbia US remaster
2000 Capitol US remaster

My understanding of the Floyd remasters is this:

1992 Shine On box set remasters
1994 remainder of Pink Floyd albums remastered that were not included in the Shine On set (EMI Worldwide and Capitol US from 67 through 73).
1997 Columbia remasters of their Floyd Catalog (1974 through present)
2000 Reversion of Columbia remasters to Capitol

I would assume that the '94 remastered titles included in the Shine On are the same remastering used for the box, just now made individually available.

The Gold CD was done by Gavin Lurrsen (IIRC) without Doug Sax.

The Columbia CDs used to have a sticker that said "remastered under the band's supervison."

Then the 2000 Capitols which state "1992 Digital Remaster, 1994 Pink Floyd Music LTD." which would seem to jive with the 1994 EMI UK issues (although some of the sh.tv faithful think these are yet another remastering of the Floyd catalog).

In a nutshell, are the Columbia CDs are totally different remastering than their EMI counterparts? To me, it would seem rather silly for Sax to remaster the title again for Columbia when a perfectly good EMI remaster was already out there. I used to have the Columbia WYWH CD until some jackass stole it from my car. I thought it sounded fine (though I like all of Sax's work on the Floyd catalog) though I can't say whether or not it's technically better than the EMI.

I think signs would point to a different remaster on Columbia because I remember reading something in ICE stating that the Columbia Floyd remasters were being held up due to technical issues. I highly doubt you'd have technical issues on an existing remaster. Maybe it was a licensing issue?

Any ideas? This isn't something I lose sleep over, but it has always puzzled me nonetheless.

I was always under the impression that the '97 Columbias were the same as the '94 EMIs. I have no evience of this at hand, however.

Ryan

And *regardless* of all of this, sh.tv seems to prefer the original, mastered-from-copy-tape Japanese CD at the moment.

Hoffman himself prefers the gold disc, and I tend to agree.

I thought the 92/94/97/00 discs were all the same. The only difference is the label and packaging.

Xenu wrote:And *regardless* of all of this, sh.tv seems to prefer the original, mastered-from-copy-tape Japanese CD at the moment.

Yeah. They'll be a different flavour next month.

JWB wrote:Hoffman himself prefers the gold disc, and I tend to agree.

I thought the 92/94/97/00 discs were all the same. The only difference is the label and packaging.

I snagged this off of Pedro's and it does sound really good. A fuller bass sound on this than on Sax's version although his is no slouch either.

Beatlesfan03 wrote:Glad this has been brought up.

I've always been confused about the remastering of the Floyd catalog. For example: "Wish You Were Here," in terms of remaster:

1992 Shine On remaster
1992/3 CBS Mastersound Gold CD
1994 EMI UK remaster
1997 Columbia US remaster
2000 Capitol US remaster


1997 Columbia remasters of their Floyd Catalog (1974 through present)
2000 Reversion of Columbia remasters to Capitol

I would assume that the '94 remastered titles included in the Shine On are the same remastering used for the box, just now made individually available.

Correct. And the 2000 Capitols are the same masters as the 1997 Columbias.

Then the 2000 Capitols which state "1992 Digital Remaster, 1994 Pink Floyd Music LTD." which would seem to jive with the 1994 EMI UK issues (although some of the sh.tv faithful think these are yet another remastering of the Floyd catalog).

They aren't . The only ones that have been re-remastered since 2000 are
DSotM (SACD hybrid) and The Final Cut. Also, from what I understand, the 2000 Capitol "1992/4" credits are incorrect for the discs that were actaully remastered in 1997, and this error has been mentioned in ICE.

In a nutshell, are the Columbia CDs are totally different remastering than their EMI counterparts?

Yes, the 1997s were new remasters. They're all a bit louder, for one thing.

To me, it would seem rather silly for Sax to remaster the title again for Columbia when a perfectly good EMI remaster was already out there. I used to have the Columbia WYWH CD until some jackass stole it from my car. I thought it sounded fine (though I like all of Sax's work on the Floyd catalog) though I can't say whether or not it's technically better than the EMI.

I think signs would point to a different remaster on Columbia because I remember reading something in ICE stating that the Columbia Floyd remasters were being held up due to technical issues. I highly doubt you'd have technical issues on an existing remaster. Maybe it was a licensing issue?

ICE correctly reported the 1997s as new remasters.

]

Those 1997 remasters never made it to Germany. The currently available Wish You Were Here CD in my country is by EMI Records Ltd, and it says "Digital remaster (p) 1992" and "(c) 1994 Pink Floyd Music Ltd".

One easy way to tell is the artwork on the disc. The 1997 version shows a version of the 'robot handshake' graphic . Also, the booklet has more pictures than the 1992/4 version did.

Thanks Krab.

Xenu wrote:And *regardless* of all of this, sh.tv seems to prefer the original, mastered-from-copy-tape Japanese CD at the moment.

Those are the ones with two tracks instead of five right? They seem to be going for an absurd amount of money if you can find them, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong places.

Larkston Zinazpic wrote:Those are the ones with two tracks instead of five right? They seem to be going for an absurd amount of money if you can find them...

The Japan first pressing (35DP4) is highly sought after, but that isn't the only one that is divided into two tracks. IIRC, the first pressing available in the US (not sure if it is made in Japan or not) also has the two tracks. The problem is that there is no way to tell without loading it into a CD player (again, IIRC). Supposedly all the two track versions are the same mastering/digital clones.

Dob wrote:The Japan first pressing (35DP4) is highly sought after, but that isn't the only one that is divided into two tracks. IIRC, the first pressing available in the US (not sure if it is made in Japan or not) also has the two tracks. The problem is that there is no way to tell without loading it into a CD player (again, IIRC). Supposedly all the two track versions are the same mastering/digital clones.

I don't remember exactly where it was said on the SH Forum, but didn't somebody say that 35DP4 also appeared in the inner ring of the CK 33453 in the US two track version?