Page 1 of 3

Pink Floyd - Animals

Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 12:01 pm
by Stone Free
What is considered the best CD pressing of this?

I was listening to Last.FM which although it has low audio quality 128KBit/sec I like the unpredictability of radio. Whenever a song comes on that I actually own then I go and get the CD and listen to that instead as I only have 1Gb per month and would rather not waste my bandwidth playing stuff I actually have.

Anyway the song Sheep started playing, and so I went and grabbed my 1992 remaster and put that in. Instead of it sounding better it actually sounded worse and more muffled, so it must have come been ripped from a better CD pressing.



Peter

Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 12:12 pm
by Beatlesfan03
I've never had any issues with the Sax remasters (I've heard the 97 Sony and the 2000 Capitol which I think are clones from the remasters Sax did back for the Shine On box in 92) and I always considered those definitive. Some of the real experts might chime in with their preferences.

Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:47 am
by krabapple
Beatlesfan03 wrote:I've never had any issues with the Sax remasters (I've heard the 97 Sony and the 2000 Capitol which I think are clones from the remasters Sax did back for the Shine On box in 92) and I always considered those definitive. Some of the real experts might chime in with their preferences.


The most recent one isn't a clone of the Shine On -- the levels are different (higher) . It sound fine.

Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:45 pm
by Beatlesfan03
krabapple wrote:
Beatlesfan03 wrote:I've never had any issues with the Sax remasters (I've heard the 97 Sony and the 2000 Capitol which I think are clones from the remasters Sax did back for the Shine On box in 92) and I always considered those definitive. Some of the real experts might chime in with their preferences.


The most recent one isn't a clone of the Shine On -- the levels are different (higher) . It sound fine.


When you say most recent, do you mean the Capitol? Also, and I think we discussed this before, are the 97s Sony and the 00s Capitol the same?

Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:12 am
by krabapple
Yes and yes.

Pink Floyd - Animals

Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 9:21 pm
by britre
Having had all the CD versions of this which is to say the Jap pressing, original US, UK CD, ect... the remaster is quite good and I would recomend that only secondary to vinyl of course :)

In fact all the newer remasters are very good sound wise as technology has improved since the advent of the shiny small silver record. I would suggest as a serious fan you replace all your old versions with the new remasters including the SACD Dark Side

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:04 am
by Andreas
britre wrote:I would suggest as a serious fan you replace all your old versions with the new remasters including the SACD Dark Side


...only if you avoid listening to the redbook layer.

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:44 am
by krabapple
Andreas wrote:
britre wrote:I would suggest as a serious fan you replace all your old versions with the new remasters including the SACD Dark Side


...only if you avoid listening to the redbook layer.


THe DSD layer also has a notably different sound from previous remasters -- some on Hoffman's forum found they prefer one of the older remasters (IIRC there are at least three other distinctly different sounding versions). So it's a matter of taste, as always.

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:41 am
by MK
Andreas wrote:
britre wrote: In fact all the newer remasters are very good sound wise as technology has improved since the advent of the shiny small silver record. I would suggest as a serious fan you replace all your old versions with the new remasters including the SACD Dark Side


...only if you avoid listening to the redbook layer.


But what about the new improved tech-nol-o-gee? Excessive compression and bad EQ is always good with new equipment!

To be fair, Jamie Tate claims the redbook is similar to the DSD layer, but as much as I like Dark Side, I'm not buying another fucking remaster that's incrementally better than the rest. And I can do without Animals, which is boring as shit. "Ooh yeah, listen to the harmonics (jerking off)...Now for some Rush..."

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:44 pm
by krabapple
I suppose it comes down to how audible the compression/level difference between the two layers is. They are *certainly* measurably different in those regards, as shown by Stereophile's investigation (results that I've confirmed independently for myself).

Jamie Tate claims Stereophile got it wrong; did he ever provide his evidence for that?

Re: Animals -- what harmonics? The Rush comparison makes no sense. The only one even slightly interested in showing off technique in PF, by the time of Animals, is Dave Gilmour...and he's no Alex Lifeson (thank god).

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:32 pm
by MK
I should rephrase that as PINCH harmonics. It's been awhile, but listen to "Dogs," which some say is the best track (I prefer "Pigs"). Personally, the solos are boring. Yeah, Gilmour plays some pinch harmonics that are 'purty' but it's still dull. I like some of his shit, but he's done his share of soulless work.

I know Rush ain't Pink Floyd (for starters, ambience plays a bigger role with Floyd, they're not out there to impress themselves), but I bring them up because of the "soloing" (or wankery) involved here.

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:20 pm
by Patrick M
MK wrote:I should rephrase that as PINCH harmonics.

Not a big ZZ Top fan?

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:59 am
by MK
They had some good singles. Enjoyable in a meat n' potatoes way.

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:24 pm
by krabapple
Jeff Beck do much for you? He's always pinching.

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:05 pm
by MK
Ooh yeah, Jeff can pinch me anytime.

Seriously, there's nothing wrong with using pinch harmonics. Gilmour can craft some gorgeous sounds, but as a soloist, he can be repetitive and dull, and he doesn't come up with anything interesting on much of Animals. Conceptually, it isn't interesting either. Roger's cynicism is getting old, and regurgitating Orwell isn't too impressive, even in the times we're living in now.

As for Jeff Beck, well, I like the Yardbirds, but I'm not crazy about his solo albums, especially those God-awful fusion records (nothing against fusion).