"Saucerful" on CD - defective??

General discussion about Pink Floyd.
PemmicanHoosh
Axe
Axe
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 10:34 am

Re: "Saucerful" on CD - defective??

Post by PemmicanHoosh »

It's been said that there's enough Syd-era material to make an album. It would be a real treat if they, as Nick has suggested, put together a Piper/Saucer Immersion with loads of stuff on it. It's hard to imagine they'd do that and choose early pre-record contract demos and leave off Scream and Veg. We shall see.

I'd like to hear Seabirds properly, from what can be heard in the film More it's a little gem. Don't know how they'd Immerse you in the years 1969 to 1972 though because there doesn't seem to be much material from those years, from what's been said.
User avatar
TheFloydian1
Blade
Blade
Posts: 201
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 6:17 am
Gender: Male
Location: US

Re: "Saucerful" on CD - defective??

Post by TheFloydian1 »

PemmicanHoosh wrote:It's been said that there's enough Syd-era material to make an album. It would be a real treat if they, as Nick has suggested, put together a Piper/Saucer Immersion with loads of stuff on it. It's hard to imagine they'd do that and choose early pre-record contract demos and leave off Scream and Veg. We shall see.

I'd like to hear Seabirds properly, from what can be heard in the film More it's a little gem. Don't know how they'd Immerse you in the years 1969 to 1972 though because there doesn't seem to be much material from those years, from what's been said.
Wrong thread?
User avatar
danielcaux
Supreme Judge!
Supreme Judge!
Posts: 2546
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 1:25 am
Location: Abya Yala

Re: "Saucerful" on CD - defective??

Post by danielcaux »

Wolfpack wrote: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.
Yes, they tweak all the old Harvest masters a little (shifting the volume levels basically) but didn't do a real remaster (new transfer from the master tapes, EQ, etc). And you have to take into account that there was also more than one master for each album in the 80s. Normally there would be, in the 80s, at least two: the Sony/Columbia master used mainly in Japanese and American releases and the EMI-Harvest master used in European releases. With little variations from different pressings.
Wolfpack wrote: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.
Same story as above. It depends on what 80s CD version was being compared to: Sony? Toshiba? Harvest? Capitol?
The regular EMI 1994 "remaster" of DSOTM available throughout the 90s used the old Harvest master (with a little shift in volume levels but otherwise exactly the same). But for a short period of time in 1993 they DID use the real Sax remaster for the special "20th anniversary" versions of DSOTM, the one that came in a long box, and also the standard jewelcase version; but after 1994 they reverted to using again the old 80s Harvest master. The easiest way to tell the difference is by the cover, the "20th anniversary" jewelcase versions used the original hollow prism cover while the 1994 and onwards reissues used the solid piramid cover.

http://pinkfloydarchives.com/DEUCDPF.htm#DSOTM94
Wolfpack wrote:I only recently bought 'The Wall' of 1994, as an update for my 1980s CD. Which means I now have the same CD twice.
It depends, if you bought the "1994" EMI Remaster of The Wall after 2009, there's a chance you have another new remaster (but not really the Doug Sax remaster); the same that was used in the Oh, By The Way boxset. Many people think that this is the best remaster for that album actually. But if you bought an EMI "remastered" version that was printed before, in the 90s or early 2000, then you have the old Harvest. Given the differences in the song index I think you may have the new one.
Wolfpack wrote: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.
Well, I wouldn't call it dirty money making, more like plain ineptitude, negligence and lack of decent quality control. But yeah one feels kinda cheated. The remasters were there, they used them in America, why didn't they use them in Europe too? Either it was an accident or Columbia prevented them from doing it. But if that was the case then they should have corrected the artwork accordingly.

The bright side is that many audiophiles seem to prefer the old 80s master better! Many think they have a warmer sound and are less harsh than the Doug Sax remasters, so in the end is also kind of a matter of taste (with some clear exceptions, like the butchered Saucerful).

That said it's always good to know what you are actually buying.
RonBaker2003
Axe
Axe
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 9:49 pm

Re: "Saucerful" on CD - defective??

Post by RonBaker2003 »

I thought David played vibes on this track and Syd played guitar...I think I read that somewhere many years ago. If David doesn't play vibes on it, who does?
User avatar
danielcaux
Supreme Judge!
Supreme Judge!
Posts: 2546
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 1:25 am
Location: Abya Yala

Re: "Saucerful" on CD - defective??

Post by danielcaux »

Wolfpack wrote:Just to be certain, is the Discovery version fixed or not?
I just listened to it and well, they kinda fix it, a little, but the patch is still there.

So far I've checked these CD versions:

-Works
-Saucerful (EMI-1994 "Remaster")
-Echoes Best Of
-Saucerful (2011 Remaster)

It seems that the only version that does NOT have the edit is "Works", all the others have it, although in different forms; the EMI-1994 being the most offensive, replacing the damaged 5 seconds with a louder clip of the next 5 seconds of the track.

Some people were under the impression that the "Echoes" version lack the edit, but that is not the case. The edit is still there, they just used a different patch to the EMI 1994 version, is not as noticeable. Echoes and the 2011 remaster both sound like they replaced the damaged part with the proper 5 seconds but from a much higher generation copy. Still, in both version you can clearly hear clicks and a jump in the stereo image where they inserted the patch.

I've not listened to it, but unless Doug Sax had access to the undamaged master tape, or a better copy of the original album for his 1992 remaster, it seems that "Works" is the ONLY place where one can find a perfect version of "Set The Controls" :shock: It's almost like the ugly duckling story, nobody cared for that comp and there you go, not only has Embryo but also the only good version of STCFTHOTS [-D-]

I will post clips later so everyone can understand the different variations better.


On the bright side, the new 2011 remaster for the whole album does sound MUCH better than the old 80s and EMI-1994 version. Very little hiss, robust sound and a lot more detail there. I can't compare it to the 1992 Sax remaster though.
Wolfpack
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 914
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:15 pm

Re: "Saucerful" on CD - defective??

Post by Wolfpack »

danielcaux wrote:I can't compare it to the 1992 Sax remaster though.
I have the 'Shine On' version of 'Saucerful'. That is by Doug Sax, isn't it? I could make an MP3 of STCFTHOTS for you, and/or the entire album. How can I deliver it to you?
User avatar
danielcaux
Supreme Judge!
Supreme Judge!
Posts: 2546
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 1:25 am
Location: Abya Yala

Re: "Saucerful" on CD - defective??

Post by danielcaux »

Yes, Shine On and the american Capitol 90s remaster are the only versions with the Doug Sax remaster...

Here are the promised clips, all of them are from between 2:10 and 2:45 in the song, the glitch occurs around 2:27 and 2:35 in the song, so in these clips it would be around the 17 and 25 second mark.

Edit: a little update, many thanks to Wolfpack for sharing with me a file of STCFTHOTS from the Shine On boxset (Doug Sax remaster) I just added it to the clips below. Sadly this version also has the patch around 2:28 though :( But apart from that it has great sound quality. Sounds very similar to the new Guthrie 2011 remaster, which I also added as a clip.



EMI 94 "Remastered" CD: http://snd.sc/tN4zEy

This is the version with the most obnoxious glitch. In order to "fix" the damaged part between 2:29 and 2:35 they just patched a rough and amplified clip of the next 5 seconds (2:35 - 2:40)

Shine On Boxset (Doug Sax 1992 Remaster): http://snd.sc/uADbeA

The real remaster, the patch sounds just like the one described in the Echoes version below. Overall it's also a better sounding remaster of the song compared to the EMI version released two years later. It has more clarity, just compare the cymbals (gong?) at the beginning of each sample, the EMI version is very murky while this one has richer high ends. Just like the Echoes and Discovery CDs the EQ here is closer to the bright Works version than to the dark sound of the EMI CD.

Echoes Best Of: http://snd.sc/tmbKN4

Here they half fixed the glitch, replacing the damaged part with a proper patch from the right segment, but you still can hear the pops where the patch begins and ends and funny stereo balance between 2:27 and 2:35. The drums suddenly jump from the left channel to the center, and the vibes jump from the center to the right channel. The left channel sounds kinda chopped and far in the distance. Compare that with the Works version where everything stays in place or flows evenly from side to side.

2011 Discovery CD (James Guthrie 2011 Remaster): http://snd.sc/ubfFd8

Almost identical to the Doug Sax 1992 remaster, it even has the same pops and tape noises in the exact same places of the Shine On version.

Works CD: http://snd.sc/swJX1M

This is how it should sound. No glitch there -- but a little more hiss than in the others.
Wolfpack
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 914
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:15 pm

Re: "Saucerful" on CD - defective??

Post by Wolfpack »

You're welcome! Many thanks for your comparison.
danielcaux wrote:[STCFTHOTS from the Shine On boxset (Doug Sax remaster)] Sadly this version also has the patch around 2:28 though :( But apart from that it has great sound quality. Sounds very similar to the new Guthrie 2011 remaster, which I also added as a clip.
If they need a patch, then why don't they use a sample of the 'Works' transfer? The little more hiss might be less distracting than some of the edits they made by reusing a part from elsewhere.

What has happened with this tape? Why do they need a patch? Has the master tape been damaged after 'Works'? Or does 'Works' use a copy? I guess there must be lots of copies. All they all worser than the loss of a part of the recording?

Is there someone here who can forward these questions to someone who has been involved in the CD transfers?
everton1690
Knife
Knife
Posts: 280
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:54 pm

Re: "Saucerful" on CD - defective??

Post by everton1690 »

cant say ive listened to it in the past 25 years