Pink Floyd – Wish You Were Here 50th Anniversary – the ultimate edition of this album? Review (Vinyl, CD, SACD, Blu-ray, 1975- 2025, stereo to Atmos)

[Jean.Francois]

Hello,

Wish You Were Here is the ninth studio album by the British band Pink Floyd, released in 1975. It was recorded at Abbey Road Studios in early 1975, shortly after the massive success of The Dark Side of the Moon.

For this review, you will find 22 versions tested.

If you want to experience the mix with the original tonal character, it is best to choose the original vinyl version (the one tested here is from 1975) or the 4.0 mix available on the Blu-ray editions.


All recent versions, starting with the 1984 CD, feature different tonal balance and spatial imaging, evolving from a less clear mix to the 2025 edition, which is the clearest and most precise.

The comparison of the frequency spectrum for the track “Wish You Were Here” between the 1984 CD and the 1975 vinyl clearly shows a significant increase in low frequencies on the CD edition.

A comparison of the spectrum for “Wish You Were Here” between the 1984 CD and the 2025 Blu-ray highlights a marked increase in high frequencies on the Blu-ray edition, resulting in a clearer presentation than the CD version and aiming to come closer to the original sound.

As a result, the first CD edition introduced a substantial boost in low frequencies, and in the years that followed, subsequent remasterings progressively emphasized the high frequencies in an effort to restore greater clarity to the overall album.

This ultimately comes down to personal preference, but this new 50th anniversary Blu-ray edition remains the clearest and most precise version since the 1984 CD release. The Blu-ray includes the 24-bit/192 kHz stereo version, the original 4.0 mix, as well as the 5.1 and Dolby Atmos remixes. While these newer mixes offer a more balanced tonal presentation, they lose some of the originality that defined the 4.0 mix.

Spatialization for the 4.0, 5.1 and Dolby Atmos Mix.


However, the 2025 vinyl editions show a quality issue around 15 kHz (red zone), likely due to a problem with the cutting heads, which would require adjustment to achieve the level of quality found on other vinyl productions.

Find all the samples in high resolution to listen to and compare the different versions, as well as all the analyses and measurements of each of the 22 versions here (link).

Enjoy listening,

Jean-François

 

[Snoopy]

They also reversed the channels in the atmos mix. Very noticeable in „wish you were here“

The radio snippets are coming from the wrong side in the atmos mix.
(Quad , stereo and 5.1 are fine)

 

[Albert Dagger]

They also reversed the channels in the atmos mix. Very noticeable in „wish you were here“

The radio snippets are coming from the wrong side in the atmos mix.
(Quad , stereo and 5.1 are fine)

Yes, it seems the entire mix is mirrored (all left channels swapped with the corresponding right channels). It’s obviously fine but sounds odd if you are familiar with the previous 5.1 and the original stereo. It’s noticeable every time there is some hard panning. Also in the intro of Welcome to the Machine for example.

 

[Karmacoma]

Very interesting to have comparative measurements of recently remastered albums, thank you.

 

[tineared]

This disc was delivered to me yesterday and I am looking forward to listening to it tonight
I have high hopes

 

[Karmacoma]

Hello,

Wish You Were Here is the ninth studio album by the British band Pink Floyd, released in 1975. It was recorded at Abbey Road Studios in early 1975, shortly after the massive success of The Dark Side of the Moon.

View attachment 497248

For this review, you will find 22 versions tested.

If you want to experience the mix with the original tonal character, it is best to choose the original vinyl version (the one tested here is from 1975) or the 4.0 mix available on the Blu-ray editions.


All recent versions, starting with the 1984 CD, feature different tonal balance and spatial imaging, evolving from a less clear mix to the 2025 edition, which is the clearest and most precise.

The comparison of the frequency spectrum for the track “Wish You Were Here” between the 1984 CD and the 1975 vinyl clearly shows a significant increase in low frequencies on the CD edition.
View attachment 497249


A comparison of the spectrum for “Wish You Were Here” between the 1984 CD and the 2025 Blu-ray highlights a marked increase in high frequencies on the Blu-ray edition, resulting in a clearer presentation than the CD version and aiming to come closer to the original sound.
View attachment 497250


As a result, the first CD edition introduced a substantial boost in low frequencies, and in the years that followed, subsequent remasterings progressively emphasized the high frequencies in an effort to restore greater clarity to the overall album.

This ultimately comes down to personal preference, but this new 50th anniversary Blu-ray edition remains the clearest and most precise version since the 1984 CD release. The Blu-ray includes the 24-bit/192 kHz stereo version, the original 4.0 mix, as well as the 5.1 and Dolby Atmos remixes. While these newer mixes offer a more balanced tonal presentation, they lose some of the originality that defined the 4.0 mix.
View attachment 497252 View attachment 497253 View attachment 497254
Spatialization for the 4.0, 5.1 and Dolby Atmos Mix.


However, the 2025 vinyl editions show a quality issue around 15 kHz (red zone), likely due to a problem with the cutting heads, which would require adjustment to achieve the level of quality found on other vinyl productions.
View attachment 497255


Find all the samples in high resolution to listen to and compare the different versions, as well as all the analyses and measurements of each of the 22 versions here (link).

Enjoy listening,

Jean-François

I've been on your site, i have problems using it using Firefox on Android.

 

[Jean.Francois]

I've been on your site, i have problems using it using Firefox on Android.

Hello,

I use WordPress, what problem are you having? I don’t have any issues with Chrome on Android or Firefox on PC.

 

[jhaider]

Interesting. It came in Friday but still haven’t had a chance to listen.

The Atmos mix is also on Apple Music, FYI. But the disk has the other stuff and it’s also reasonably priced.

 

[Joe Smith]

My favorite Floyd album - so simple, timeless. Enjoying listening to the early demos and bits and pieces on Spotify. Considering buying the Blu-Ray, not sure if I'll do that or not, as I have the 2011 Guthrie CD version and am perfectly happy with its sound and mix. Looks like the Blu-Ray package is fairly affordable overall. It was nice to hear the edit of "Shine On" all as one piece, it does work that way too, although the split open/close format from the original album was a pretty good choice.

I got a good chuckle of an article with Nick Mason saying that all of the anti-record company lyric content was somewhat misguided, as in their switch at the time from EMI to Columbia, the band were really the ones doing the screwing...

 

[krabapple]

FWIW a few years ago after analyzing various digital masterings going back decades, I landed on the 2011 'Immersion' mastering of the original WYWH mix -- it clearly had the most dynamic range, as exemplified by the 'thunk' of the closing door during Welcome to the Machine...the loudest moment of the album. (But warning: this means you'll probably crank it to start and then get sonically whacked when that door closes.) You can't see it in waveforms view, but it's also 'toppier' (more treble energy) than some earlier masterings (as Jean-Francois's data show).

Top: 2011 Immersion thunk (96/24) (track RMS -18.6)
Middle: 1994 Mastersound SBM gold mastering (44/16) (track RMS -15.0)
Bottom 1997 remaster (44/16) (track RMS -16.0)

Also note phase inversion of the 1997 vs other two.

 

[danadam]

Which versions have piano in Shine On You Crazy Diamond part III and which don't?

 

[xanalog]

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

In the past 3+decades, I've tried at least 3 LP clones (digital, remastered...) of the original issue, and none compared.
Like Spam, I consider any digital "recreation" of DSoM to be "Ultra-Processed" and not fit for consumption.
[imo and sticking to it!]

 

[krabapple]

You could literally just digitize whatever the best sounding 'original issue' LP for you is, and call it done, without any harm.

 

[Karmacoma]

I've been on your site, i have problems using it using Firefox on Android.

It works like a charm now . I tried several times back then and the pages would stop loading at the middle of the bar, the page of your link was working though, switching to another page was creating that issue.

 

[Noske]

Wish you were here are some of the most profoundly sad lyrics I have had the chance to think about line by line. Each word so carefully chosen.

 

[ClosDeLaRoche]

You could literally just digitize whatever the best sounding 'original issue' LP for you is, and call it done, without any harm.

Agreed. The version of WYWH that I settled on as the best sounding is a pbthal vinyl rip of the Nimbus Supercut. Although I don't listen to much pre-2000's music anymore.

 

[xanalog]

Although I don't listen to much pre-2000's music anymore.

Bingo!
Pre-2000's music is soooo 20th Century!

 

[Descartes]

Thank you for the reviews! Out of curiosity how much work and how long does it take to make these comparisons?
Fabulous work, I try to get the versions with the best dynamic range

 

[Fidji]

@Jean.Francois - thanks a lot for all the great insights. I do collect BR/BR-A discs and your site is valuable source of information

If I may suggest - you have so much expertise on the subject, that it would be valuable to lot of people, if you would also evaluate the recordings also purely subjectively. You know, all the emotional stuff ;-).

E.g. re PF WYWH Atmos on Disc - I did not miss C-Channel being underutilized, James Guthrie was able to do this “better stereo” type of mix that is not really shouting “I AM ATMOS!!!” all over the place. Recording has lot of clarity and Atmos adds mostly the depth and width of screen-side. It is also surprisingly active - sometimes Trinnov shows full 9.1.6 activity. Nice sound, no signs of compression, modern FR with lot of clarity on good MCH setup you will get “big sound”.

All in all - good stuff, lot of content other than Atmos [5.1, stereo, 5.1 with video, etc etc]. I have Immersion Box, but this 50th edition BR is clear buy.

 

[Jean.Francois]

@Jean.Francois - thanks a lot for all the great insights. I do collect BR/BR-A discs and your site is valuable source of information

If I may suggest - you have so much expertise on the subject, that it would be valuable to lot of people, if you would also evaluate the recordings also purely subjectively. You know, all the emotional stuff ;-).

E.g. re PF WYWH Atmos on Disc - I did not miss C-Channel being underutilized, James Guthrie was able to do this “better stereo” type of mix that is not really shouting “I AM ATMOS!!!” all over the place. Recording has lot of clarity and Atmos adds mostly the depth and width of screen-side. It is also surprisingly active - sometimes Trinnov shows full 9.1.6 activity. Nice sound, no signs of compression, modern FR with lot of clarity on good MCH setup you will get “big sound”.

All in all - good stuff, lot of content other than Atmos [5.1, stereo, 5.1 with video, etc etc]. I have Immersion Box, but this 50th edition BR is clear buy.

View attachment 501704

Thank you!
Regarding the center channel, it is indeed used sparingly, much like the wide channels. Its use is an artistic and technical choice made by the sound engineer. In Dolby Atmos music, the center channel is not mandatory: when it is not used, a phantom center image is created, as in stereo listening.
The center channel becomes particularly useful in large-scale systems, especially when the listener is not perfectly positioned at the ideal listening spot. The graph below represents the spatialization in a 9.1.6 configuration.