"Saucerful" on CD - defective??

[danielcaux]

A Saucerful of Secrets

Europe: 86.7 / 70.8 / 82.7 / 86.8 / 86.7 / 89.2 / 54.4
USA: 100 / 98.4 / 93.3 / 95.7 / 89.9 / 94.6 / 75.7

Peak levels are different. Also, “Set the Controls” have a really awkward cut/paste sound in the middle part in the European release. This is not present in the US release.

Ok, Mistery solved! (kinda)

The european EMI pressings of the 90s "remasters" used the same old master of the 80s CDs. Hence both have the edit in the middle of STCFTHOTS.

The american Capitol 90 remasters, used the then new Doug Sax 92 remaster from Shine On Boxset, have better sound and clarity and do not have the edit in Set The Controls.

So if you have a Capitol 1994 Sauceful, treasure it!

[TheFloydian1]

So if you have a Capitol 1994 Sauceful, treasure it!

I've got a question. A lot of you refer to certain remasters by the year, but what year do you go by (sorry if this is a stupid question with an obvious answer)? I realize that there are two dates listed on the back of some remasters. I believe The Wall and beyond is when both years match on the back, but everything before it is different. Here are a couple pictures for better clarification:

[PemmicanHoosh]

The american Capitol 90 remasters … do not have the edit in Set The Controls.

The original tape master has the so-called bad edit. The track wasn’t remixed because if it was there’d be noticeable differences between, say, British and American copies. So whatever’s out there, it will derive from the same basic master tape source.

The Works CD doesn’t seem to have the bad edit. But IF the original Works vinyl LP of the early 80s also has the bad edit, this would suggest the EMI masters were just copied and sent to the US and used, bar some tweaking, as they were. If the original Works vinyl LPs don’t have the bad edit, then it suggests that they re-edited their master copy in the 80s.

I think, but I don’t know, that it is more likely that the 92 remasters were edited digitally from the original ‘bad edit’ source to get an almost seamless join in the song.

As for why it was originally edited, someone suggested it might be because the original master was damaged. It’s possible, but seeing as my ancient A Nice Pair vinyl has the bad edit, I doubt it. I think it more likely that if the tape had been damaged they’d have remixed it from the 4-track at the time as it has, as far as I know, always stood out like a sore thumb to people who aren’t even that interested in these kinds of things.

And really, there’s no doubt the master was edited in 1968 soon after it was made because the original session information shows that the finished take [Take 2] ran for 5:45. So roughly 15 seconds or so has been lopped out of the original master.

My feeling is there must have been something they didn’t like at that point. I think it unlikely it was bad playing, because in the studio they wouldn’t have accepted it as ‘best’, they’d have gone for a third take surely? Likewise, if the mix was badly done at that point, they’d have surely have just wound the 4-track tape back and gone for another mix - got to be easier than making the edit with scissors and sticky tape.

Perhaps it was considered too long? But side one of Saucer is only about 19 or 20 minutes long and would easily have fitted with the extra bit onto one side of an LP.

Finally and on a different point, I know it is said (by DG himself) that he and Syd are on the track, but I can’t believe it. It sounds to me as if there is one guitar, not even a bass. This guitar plays the main riff until near the end, when it improvises a little. But it is on the same track as the main organ, because when it starts panning at the end the organ goes with it. According to the 1967 4-track tape box, organ and guitar (and bass) were recorded onto one track and drums on another, leaving two free for vocals, vibes etc to be dubbed on in 1968.

I don’t see where DG can have added his guitar and there’s just one (to my ears) and it’s on the backing track. Did Rick and David record new organ and guitar, wiping off the organ, guitar and bass originally recorded on that track? Not only would that have been very difficult without any reference material other than the drum track (not impossible, though, but hard enough - and why would you want to?) but it would mean that Syd is no longer on the track. I doubt that happened, as it sounds very laborious to me.

Surely one day someone will sit down and remix it and they’ll be able to tell exactly what is on each track (and who) and why there was a 15-second part cut from the master tape.

[Hudini]

I wish I hadn't given away my "Works" CD, so I could check if the bad edit is there or not. I can't remember if it was there or not, and I believe that I would have noticed it with the amount of attention I paid to listening to Pink Floyd (I can clearly remember that "Brain Damage" and "Eclipse" mixes on "Works" were different from the original, per instance), but now I just can't remember...

As for Syd's and David's playing on the track, I can only hear one guitar in there and I can't be certain who recorded it. I remember Gilmour saying that he wasn't sure whether his guitar parts or parts played by Syd were used in the end, although he was sure that they both recorded parts for the song. So I guess that we will never know. After all, you can't expect him to remember the exact details of every song he recorded, especially a song recorded more than 30 years ago (that is, at the time of that interview I first heard about them both playing on the track).

[danielcaux]

I wish I hadn't given away my "Works" CD, so I could check if the bad edit is there or not.

I gave away my copy too, but fortunately secured a back up CD-R before returning it to the store ...although very badly ripped and burned

Anyway, the glitch is not present in Works.

I've got a question. A lot of you refer to certain remasters by the year, but what year do you go by? I realize that there are two dates listed on the back of some remasters.

In the case of Saucerful you see two dates in the backcover. The first, 1992 is the date when the actual remastering job was done by Doug Sax therefore the text "Digital Remasters" at the side. The second, 1994 is the date when the remastered CD was released individually (as a single disc), two years after it was originally released as part of the "Shine On" boxset. But since the pic you post above is of an EMI version, it's then actually not a 1992 remaster, but an old 80s version, complete with noise reduction and the glitch.

And now that I mentioned the Shine On boxset, I think that's pretty much the key to decipher the whole mess that was done with the Doug Sax 90s remasters and their misplacement in the individual CD releases by EMI.

The Shine On Boxset was appearently a Columbia project (remember that after DSoTM Pink Floyd signed a 25 year deal with Columbia in America, before that they were on Capitol). Columbia and Gilmour were the driving forces behind it, mostly. So in 1992 they had Doug Sax doing popping brand new remasters for the albums that were part of this boxset, which are:

-A Saucerful Of Secrets
-Meddle
-Dark Side Of The Moon
-Wish You Were Here
-Animals
-The Wall
-A Momentary Lapse Of Reason

These were the first albums that Doug Sax remastered in the 90s, and they were originally only available as part of the Shine On boxset, released in 1992.

Some of these albums were then released as individual CDs in 1994, but in two different versions across the Atlantic ocean. In Europe EMI released all seven "remasters", while in America only the early pre-Columbia albums were released as individual CDs by Capitol, that is: Saucerful, Meddle & DSoTM. The problem is that for some reason (legal? economic?) EMI didn't use the 1992 Columbia remasters done by Doug Sax, and instead just re-used their old 80s CDs masters! Capitol on the other hand did use the new 1992 Columbia remasters for their individual releases. And to aggraviate the issue EMI used the same new artwork as Capitol, meaning that the EMI CDs would say "Remastered by Doug Sax in 1992" or "1992 Digital Remasters" when in fact they were not.

This means that by 1994 only 3 albums were individually available in remastered form, and only in America/Capitol: ASOS, Meddle and DSoTM. All the other 4 were just the old 80s versions, despite EMI backcovers telling otherwise.

Then in 1994-1995 Doug Sax remastered the rest of the catalog for their respective individual CD releases:

-Piper At The Gates Of Dawn
-More
-Ummagumma
-Atom Heart Mother
-Relics
-Obscured By Clouds

All these albums where released in 1995-1996 by EMI and Capitol, both using the same Doug Sax remaster (that may be the reason why Remember A Day sounds better on Relics than on Saucerful). None of these were remastered by Columbia in 1992, so there were no issues there.

Finally in 1997 Columbia made available the rest of their 1992 Doug Sax remasters via the 30th Anniversary series, this Columbia re-issues included:

-Wish You Were Here
-Animals
-The Wall
-A Momentary Lapse Of Reason

and this two that were not part of the Shine On box, but possibly were also remastered in 1992, or maybe they were indeed new 1997 remasters:

-The Final Cut
-A Collection Of Great Dance Songs

This was the first time that the Doug Sax remasters for these albums were made available as individual CDs, and were only released by Columbia in America. To this day EMI has NEVER EVER EVER released any of the Doug Sax 1992 remaster versions. All of their regular "remastered" CDs for these 9 albums were either the old 80s versions, or after 2003, 2004 and 2007 the new remasters done by James Guthrie: DSoTM SACD, The Final Cut (with Tigers Broke Free) and Piper 40th.

So that's the long story of why the EMI Europe 90s releases sound so different to some of their american counterparts.

[TheFloydian1]

In the case of Saucerful you see two dates in the backcover. The first, 1992 is the date when the actual remastering job was done by Doug Sax therefore the text "Digital Remasters" at the side. The second, 1994 is the date when the remastered CD was released individually (as a single disc), two years after it was originally released as part of the "Shine On" boxset. But since the pic you post above is of an EMI version, it's then actually not a 1992 remaster, but an old 80s version, complete with noise reduction and the glitch.

And now that I mentioned the Shine On boxset, I think that's pretty much the key to decipher the whole mess that was done with the Doug Sax 90s remasters and their misplacement in the individual CD releases by EMI.

The Shine On Boxset was appearently a Columbia project (remember that after DSoTM Pink Floyd signed a 25 year deal with Columbia in America, before that they were on Capitol). Columbia and Gilmour were the driving forces behind it, mostly. So in 1992 they had Doug Sax doing popping brand new remasters for the albums that were part of this boxset, which are:

-A Saucerful Of Secrets
-Meddle
-Dark Side Of The Moon
-Wish You Were Here
-Animals
-The Wall
-A Momentary Lapse Of Reason

These were the first albums that Doug Sax remastered in the 90s, and they were originally only available as part of the Shine On boxset, released in 1992.

Some of these albums were then released as individual CDs in 1994, but in two different versions across the Atlantic ocean. In Europe EMI released all seven "remasters", while in America only the early pre-Columbia albums were released as individual CDs by Capitol, that is: Saucerful, Meddle & DSoTM. The problem is that for some reason (legal? economic?) EMI didn't use the 1992 Columbia remasters done by Doug Sax, and instead just re-used their old 80s CDs masters! Capitol on the other hand did use the new 1992 Columbia remasters for their individual releases. And to aggraviate the issue EMI used the same new artwork as Capitol, meaning that the EMI CDs would say "Remastered by Doug Sax in 1992" or "1992 Digital Remasters" when in fact they were not.

This means that by 1994 only 3 albums were individually available in remastered form, and only in America/Capitol: ASOS, Meddle and DSoTM. All the other 4 were just the old 80s versions, despite EMI backcovers telling otherwise.

Then in 1994-1995 Doug Sax remastered the rest of the catalog for their respective individual CD releases:

-Piper At The Gates Of Dawn
-More
-Ummagumma
-Atom Heart Mother
-Relics
-Obscured By Clouds

All these albums where released in 1995-1996 by EMI and Capitol, both using the same Doug Sax remaster (that may be the reason why Remember A Day sounds better on Relics than on Saucerful). None of these were remastered by Columbia in 1992, so there were no issues there.

Finally in 1997 Columbia made available the rest of their 1992 Doug Sax remasters via the 30th Anniversary series, this Columbia re-issues included:

-Wish You Were Here
-Animals
-The Wall
-A Momentary Lapse Of Reason

and this two that were not part of the Shine On box, but possibly were also remastered in 1992, or maybe they were indeed new 1997 remasters:

-The Final Cut
-A Collection Of Great Dance Songs

This was the first time that the Doug Sax remasters for these albums were made available as individual CDs, and were only released by Columbia in America. To this day EMI has NEVER EVER EVER released any of the Doug Sax 1992 remaster versions. All of their regular "remastered" CDs for these 9 albums were either the old 80s versions, or after 2003, 2004 and 2007 the new remasters done by James Guthrie: DSoTM SACD, The Final Cut (with Tigers Broke Free) and Piper 40th.

So that's the long story of why the EMI Europe 90s releases sound so different to some of their american counterparts.

Wow. This is a bit confusing...sort of. I think I've got it nailed down, though.

I've got the Capitol 90s remasters of everything (including 2004's The Final Cut, DSOTM SACD, and AMLoR's 2009 re-issue on Capitol), so...am I good as far as having the ones with the best quality? Not sure I'll go for the 2011 remasters, yet.

[my breakfast.]

I don’t see where DG can have added his guitar and there’s just one (to my ears) and it’s on the backing track. Did Rick and David record new organ and guitar, wiping off the organ, guitar and bass originally recorded on that track? Not only would that have been very difficult without any reference material other than the drum track (not impossible, though, but hard enough - and why would you want to?) but it would mean that Syd is no longer on the track. I doubt that happened, as it sounds very laborious to me.

Not sure why you would decide to wipe the guitar track.

To me the song was probably built off that guitar track, which is a telecaster with the tone control rolled right off. That would be the guide track. Remember they had to overdub the high-pitched wah pedal organ lines, the vibes AND the seagulls at some point so I don't see much room for another guitar part.

When the Ummagumma live tapes showed up (in part) the version of Set the Controls was a live take with another guitar part added for some reason.

I could be wrong, but when I was about 16 I got Echoes The Best of Pink Floyd out the library and I thought I could briefly hear another guitar playing chiming chords at one tiny point during the track.

[danielcaux]

I've got the Capitol 90s remasters of everything (including 2004's The Final Cut, DSOTM SACD, and AMLoR's 2009 re-issue on Capitol), so...am I good as far as having the ones with the best quality?

I don't know about the 2009 AMLoR, but The Final Cut 2004 version and the CD layer of the DSoTM SACD were both remastered a lot louder than the 90s CDs, having clipping problems in some parts (sound signal gets distorted and lost). So you would probably want a copy of any of the 90s versions of DSoTM, Capitol being the Sax remaster and EMI being the old 80s Harvest master, both have better sound than the CD layer of the SACD; and any of the 90s versions of TFC, EMI 94 or even better the Columbia 97 remaster, both would have better sound than the 2004 version AND the original songs for that album, without the intrusion of Tigers in the middle of it.

[TheFloydian1]

I don't know about the 2009 AMLoR, but The Final Cut 2004 version and the CD layer of the DSoTM SACD were both remastered a lot louder than the 90s CDs, having clipping problems in some parts (sound signal gets distorted and lost). So you would probably want a copy of any of the 90s versions of DSoTM, Capitol being the Sax remaster and EMI being the old 80s Harvest master, both have better sound than the CD layer of the SACD; and any of the 90s versions of TFC, EMI 94 or even better the Columbia 97 remaster, both would have better sound than the 2004 version AND the original songs for that album, without the intrusion of Tigers in the middle of it.

I do have a 92 Capitol remaster of DSOTM, so I'm good there.

I've only got the 2004 version of TFC. I thought the included Tigers track fit in nicely, actually. Just my opinion, though.

[Wolfpack]

As for See-Saw, I think the problem there may be due to dodgy pan-pots on the Abbey Road mixing desk, causing some extraneous noise on the stereo mix. I seem to remember there being similar problems on the stereo mix of The Pretty Things' S.F. Sorrow album (particularly I See You), which of course was also produced by Norman Smith.

In 'Interstellar Overdrive' and 'A Saucerful of Secrets' (title track), clicks can be heard. In 'IO' it happens when the stereo field briefly and crudely becomes left only and right only. (I like that effect.)

Doug Sax' Saucerful of Secrets is outstanding in sound and I can't imagine how it could be improved upon.

The only flaw I found in the Doug Sax ('Shine On') remaster, is the naked "Sea"-segment of Jugband Blues coming slightly too early and maybe with a shorter fade in. Compared with the 1980s CD. I think that the end of Doug Sax's version of Jugband is less impressive because of this. That brief moment of silence after someone seemingly has pulled the plug out of Barrett's Floyd, and then, after this silence, Barrett's brief foreshadow of his acoustic solo work. I think that silence is impressive.
My guess is that they cut the silence as a way of noise reduction. Or is Doug Sax's timing following some original mix that I'm not aware of?

The European EMI 1994 Remaster of Saucerful uses the old 80's NR'd mastering and sounds awful. The US made 1994 remaster sounds great

That explains a lot. I couldn't hear a difference.

So if you live in Europe and have a copy of the 1994 Saucerful CD that says something like "1992 Doug Sax remaster" on the booklet... well, it's not true, you have been listening to the old 80s CD all this years! And appearently the same is true with the european EMI versions of Meddle

Also 'Meddle'? This is shocking news. I always thought Pink Floyd had a certain quality level concerning their sound and their releases. At least it was a nice dream.
Saying a CD is remastered while in fact it isn't, is cheating the customer. And who knows what will be known later, about the current "Why Pink Floyd" remasters. And who knows for sure if those remasters are really all of the same source, this time?

I now sincerely hope these 2011 remasters are the point zero for everything.

"What exactly is a dream, what exactly is a joke."

Thankfully the audio-fidelity geeks will clarify everything for us in the long run.

Long after almost everyone has bought a copy.

I could be wrong, but when I was about 16 I got Echoes The Best of Pink Floyd out the library and I thought I could briefly hear another guitar playing chiming chords at one tiny point during the track.

It could be the same guitar player doing an overdub. And if there's one guitar, it might be two guitar players doing a section each. Don't know if this applies to STCFTHOTS, it's just theory.

[danielcaux]

Also 'Meddle'? This is shocking news.

And also DSoTM, Wish You Were Here, Animals and The Wall. All of the European EMI "remastered" 90s versions of these albums have been using the old 80s Harvest masters instead.

Around 2003-2004 the regular version of the DSoTM EMI CD changed the old 80s master they had been using throughout all of the 90s for the 2003 Guthrie loud remaster done for the SACD, so that's what you get if you buy the regular "Doug Sax" version now in Europe, the Guthrie remaster.

Around the mid-late 2000s the regular EMI CD of The Wall replaced the 80s master with a new remaster (different to the Columbia Sax 92-97). I think this was the version that had the Harvest logo in the otherwise "empty wall" backcover (no song titles there). That's what's included in "Oh, By The Way".

For Animals and Wish You Were Here they still use the 80s versions.

So I guess that's one more up for team america. There you will get what the label states, mostly.

All the new 2011 Discovery versions should be the same though, just as all "Shine On" versions, european or american, were basically the same too.

[TheLazenby]

I listened to the Immersion "Saucerful", and it didn't sound different than the CD I originally complained about here. If the Beatles can fix mistakes and flaws on their remasters, Floyd can wipe out staticy pans.

[TheFloydian1]

I listened to the Discovery "Saucerful"

Fix'd.

[TheLazenby]

Until next year at least!

When Immersion Saucerful comes out WITHOUT "Scream" or "Vegetable", and we grit our teeth in rage at Gilmour.

[Wolfpack]

Also 'Meddle'? This is shocking news.

And also DSoTM, Wish You Were Here, Animals and The Wall. All of the European EMI "remastered" 90s versions of these albums have been using the old 80s Harvest masters instead.

Have these 1980s Harvest masters been changed, for example by increasing their loudness? I have EMI 'The Wall' of 1994, on which the track dividing is different than on the 1980s version.
And I recall that the 1994 EMI version of 'Dark Side of the Moon' does sound different. At the time, someone compared the CDs and the clocks of 'Time' sounded different. Almost as if it was a different mix.

As for 1994 EMI 'Saucercul', which definitely is a crappy "remaster", I never expected to be cheated this much. I've lost much of my faith in Pink Floyd products. This is just dirty money making. I only recently bought 'The Wall' of 1994, as an update for my 1980s CD. Which means I now have the same CD twice.
If this record company fraud isn't an advertisement for illegal downloading, I don't know what is. (rant rant)

I listened to the [Discovery] "Saucerful", and it didn't sound different than the CD I originally complained about here.

Fix'd.

Just to be certain, is the Discovery version fixed or not?

When Immersion Saucerful comes out WITHOUT "Scream" or "Vegetable", and we grit our teeth in rage at Gilmour.

I'm sure they'll release a Super Deluxe Immersion box with an entire disc of unreleased Barrett sessions. But they'll make it so expensive, that only they themselves can afford it.
I guess there will be a replica of one of Mason's cars included in the box, on top of the scratched discs. A real-size replica car with a trunk full of marbles.