Pink Floyd in Hi-Res

[0bs3rv3r]

And how is that a problem for you when you already have exactly what you want?

Only that I get this urge to have the latest and best - then have to rein myself into reality again

 

[Newman]

I have a friend just like you but without the self control

 

[Music1969]

I know people are saying it sounds good by ear (dynamic range).

But do we know if the DR for these hi-res versions is better/same/worse than previous digital releases?

Actual DR numbers.

 

[Mart68]

I know people are saying it sounds good by ear (dynamic range).

But do we know if the DR for these hi-res versions is better/same/worse than previous digital releases?

Actual DR numbers.

Yes, there's a thread on Steve Hoffman where some have calculated the DR of these releases. 13 or 14 depending on the album.

 

[Music1969]

Yes, there's a thread on Steve Hoffman where some have calculated the DR of these releases. 13 or 14 depending on the album.

Nice, must be quality remasterings.

 

[xaviescacs]

I recently ripped all my old CD’s so I have much better masters than what is available though the streaming platforms.

The same here. Well spend time.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

There are SACD versions of Dark side and Wish you available, for some time now.
The EQ on these versions is a bit better than original CD's - I reckon the original CD's were just copied from masters made for original LP's without change, so the new versions have a bit more frequency extreme bandwidth compared to original, but as far as sound quality goes, pretty much the same!
I have not seen any true HD versions of the Wall yet.
There is a DVDA version of the Animals available for illegal download! that sounds much better than the LP and CD.
I have original Mobile Fiedelity CD's I purchased many moons ago (I believe to be first editions) - of Dark side, wish you and the Wall which sound superior to everything I had compared them with.
Recently, I came across a "Pink floys, The Wall Rebuild " boxset (4 CD's) that has unpublished material, which to me sounds the version of The Wall!
It is a re-mix, perhaps that's why. and it is in glourious 16/44 !

 

[Mart68]

'Animals' will always be my favourite Floyd album although I am one of the weirdos who really likes 'The Final Cut' too.

 

[Rottmannash]

There are SACD versions of Dark side and Wish you available, for some time now.
The EQ on these versions is a bit better than original CD's - I reckon the original CD's were just copied from masters made for original LP's without change, so the new versions have a bit more frequency extreme bandwidth compared to original, but as far as sound quality goes, pretty much the same!
I have not seen any true HD versions of the Wall yet.
There is a DVDA version of the Animals available for illegal download! that sounds much better than the LP and CD.
I have original Mobile Fiedelity CD's I purchased many moons ago (I believe to be first editions) - of Dark side, wish you and the Wall which sound superior to everything I had compared them with.
Recently, I came across a "Pink floys, The Wall Rebuild " boxset (4 CD's) that has unpublished material, which to me sounds the version of The Wall!
It is a re-mix, perhaps that's why. and it is in glourious 16/44 !

I'm listening to the 24/96 version of "The Wall" on Qobuz as I type. Been out for awhile I believe.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

I'm listening to the 24/96 version of "The Wall" on Qobuz as I type. Been out for awhile I believe.

If it passes "Spek", then it must be.
How does it sound compared to original CD?

 

[Martin]

I am obsessed with collecting different versions of The Dark Side Of The Moon.

I have 12 different digital versions:
1. DSD128 of the SACD
2. DSD128 of the 15ips reel-to-reel tape
3. 16/44 FLAC of the 1992 remaster
4. 16/44 FLAC of the 1972 Alan Parsons previously unreleased tracks
5. 16/44 FLAC of Wembley Live
6. 16/44 FLAC of the 2011 Immersion remix
7. 16/44 FLAC of the original CD release
8. 24/96 FLAC of the Alan Parsons mix from DVD-Audio
9. 24/96 FLAC of the Immersion Blu-Ray
10. 24/96 FLAC of the MFSL UHQR Vinyl
11. 24/192 FLAC of the 15ips reel-to-reel tape
12. 24/192 FLAC supposedly mastered from the original tapes

and 3 different analog versions:
1. The LP I bought as a teen
2. The MFSL original master recording LP
3. The MFSL UHQR LP

My favorites are the UHQR vinyl versions, both the PBTHAL needle drop and my LP copy. The rips from tape are very good, too.

Martin

 

[Snoopy]

My favorites are the UHQR vinyl versions, both the PBTHAL needle drop and my LP copy. The rips from tape are very good, too.

Martin

Got the pbthal needle drop as well and I prefer the Qobuz version. But the same goes for a couple other Needle drop releases of David Bowie, pink Floyd and Beatles albums.

 

[Rottmannash]

If it passes "Spek", then it must be.
How does it sound compared to original CD?

Haven't checked in Audirvana to see if it is true HD yet but sounds great to me.

 

[Prep74]

I'm still waiting on a new release of DSOTM that sounds better than my 1983 Sony mastered CD, from the pro-use master tapes which back then were still relatively fresh.

Anyway, tape degradation aside, it is all in the mastering as 16bits is already higher resolution than the master tape regardless of the marketing BS.

 

[Rottmannash]

If it passes "Spek", then it must be.
How does it sound compared to original CD?

Checked with Audirvana- checks out.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

The problem with all this hires stuff, for me, is that a good copy on vinyl is as good as I realistically need it to be. As someone said Pink Floyd stuff always was well recorded. The CD releases, and the hires versions aren't adding anything significant to my listening experience, when I am totally honest with myself.

Well if you are happy, then that's what matters.
BUT, we (mean I ) haven't been!
Pink floyds stuff may have been well recorded, but my god , they were not released well!
Anyone having listened critically to the sound quality available from LP or CD of Animals, should know, it was bad.
It was such a heavily layered, angry album, that a lot of it just got lost on badly released formats.
Even the new Hi-Res version still leaves some to be desired.
The new attempts to clean up the mix , compressions used and general equalization , have improved the newer versions, the Hi-Res bit is just a cherry on top!
It is the re-mixing, re-mastering that's doing the heavy lifting in newer releases - Hi-Res or not, I am happy they are doing it.
I have now heard the new Hi-Res versions, they are better for sure.

 

[David Harper]

I've got DSOTM on a hybrid CD/SACD disc and I've tried switching back and forth between layers (a PITA) and I don't hear any difference but that's just me. Maybe I don't know what to listen for. Or maybe the time it takes to switch renders the comparison impossible.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

I've got DSOTM on a hybrid CD/SACD disc and I've tried switching back and forth between layers (a PITA) and I don't hear any difference but that's just me. Maybe I don't know what to listen for. Or maybe the time it takes to switch renders the comparison impossible.

As I said before the hi-res thingy is just the cherry on the top.
I reckon the reason behind what you have discovered (or not discovered) is the fact that both the CD version and SACD version have come off the same mastering (re-mastering?).
Now go an compare the CD version at hand, with an original CD only version of the same, see if they are the same too.