How to buy pre-1991 CD's

[mustang guy]

I was just listening to the Pink Floyd - The Endless River, and it made me look at my other Pink Floyd CD's. They are remastered. I want original, or at least pre-1991 cuts of CD's so I can hear the original dynamic range.

 

How do you all find these? I went on Ebay and looked for Pink Floyd The Wall CD 1979, and got tons of hits, many of which are remastered.

 

There has to be an easier way yo navigate this stuff..

 

Any help would be helpful.  

[Thaddeus Smith]

i just went to discogs.com

 

searched for "The Wall", filtered by format=CD, filtered by year = 1985 (oldest that was listed), and came up with this ..

 

http://www.discogs.com/sell/list?year=1985&controller=_mp_facets&master_id=11329&ev=mb&format=CD

 

I've always used discogs for information on specific album releases, but never to buy. I wasn't even sure they facilitated music sales, but sho nuff they do.

[mustang guy]

i just went to discogs.com

 

searched for "The Wall", filtered by format=CD, filtered by year = 1985 (oldest that was listed), and came up with this ..

 

http://www.discogs.com/sell/list?year=1985&controller=_mp_facets&master_id=11329&ev=mb&format=CD

 

I've always used discogs for information on specific album releases, but never to buy. I wasn't even sure they facilitated music sales, but sho nuff they do.

 

I am looking at the site. Nice to be able to navigate with the extra fields, for sure.

 

I did a little more digging on that site and found that the original CD is indeed available and was pressed in 1979. The trouble is, the sellers did not fill in 1979 in the 'release' date field. I had to look at the 'more images' link and see the copyright on the back of the jewel case. There are lots of them, and they are cheap. Perhaps the website database does not allow dates before 1980 or something like that???

 

Here is one such CD:  http://www.discogs.com/sell/item/194362334

Edited November 11, 2014 by mustang guy

[Mallette]

My experiences with early CDs were pretty uniformly awful.   Usually transcoded and harsh. 

 

Granted, I am mostly an acoustic guy and get my rock and roll from vinyl...but the acoustic folks seem to have learned digital quicker than the pop music folks.

 

My own transfer of DSOTM from vinyl to CD remains my favorite Pink Floyd CD.

 

Dave

[mustang guy]

I found this excellent reference for Pink Floyd CD pressing information:

 

http://pinkfloydcd.com/

 

In looking at this site I see that the CD I reference above is a 1979 USA reissue. It is the same (not remastered), just a second pressing. The way to tell easily is the DIDP 020204 in small letters on the right side of the disc 1.

 

I am going to do some research and see if I can get a DSOM and some other original pressings while I'm on this great site...

 

edit: turns out DSOM was cut in 1983, a full 10 years after the vinyl. Still... That is before 1991.

Edited November 11, 2014 by mustang guy

[Chris A]

Many to choose from here (just turn the handle on the "Audio CD, Gold Cd, September 4, 1990" to see many more offerings: http://smile.amazon.com/Wall-Pink-Floyd/dp/B00000DWPK/

 

Looks like there are many good choices available: http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/dr/desc?artist=Pink+Floyd&album=The+Wall

 

Chris

[Chris A]

My experiences with early CDs were pretty uniformly awful. Usually transcoded and harsh.

This has not at all been my experience. 

 

In fact the harshness starts to become real (in the form of intentionally added noise) in CDs after 1990--and particularly after 1997. 

 

What was bad in those years before 1991--were the 14-bit CD players which did sound awful in comparison to later 16-bit oversampling models.

 

YMMV.

 

Chris

Edited November 11, 2014 by Chris A

[japosey]

I too am always looking for the pre 1990-1991 issued cd's.  All cd's since the late 90's are so compressed there is absolutely no dynamic range.  I will keep a close eye on this thread for more insight in everyone's findings.

[Mallette]

In fact the harshness starts to become real (in the form of intentionally added noise) in CDs after 1990--and particularly after 1997. What was bad in those years before 1991--were the 14-bit CD players which did sound awful in comparison to later 16-bit oversampling models. YMMV. Chris

 

Maybe it's the type of music.  Lots of discussion here of compression, which is an engineering and not a format issue.  I don't buy much of anything subject to compression so it's never been a problem.  However, it was the general nastiness of the transcoding and such practice in the early days by analog engineers trying to work in a format with completely different rules that led me back to analog until they learned to get it right. 

 

Dave

[Chris A]

I will keep a close eye on this thread for more insight in everyone's findings.

I have a couple of methods that usually converge on the CD

 

1. Find the disc music label company and year/version/bar code number that I'm looking for, found from the DR Database. Do a search using Google for just the bar code or music label+disc number.  Usually Discogs pops up to the top of this list.  After verifying the version numbers and year(s) produced, I search using those disc numbers/bar code numbers restricting the Google output to just those within the last month or year.  Usually, ebay listings pop up to the top - and I go to those ebay listings to buy them directly.

 

2. Search Amazon.com for the disc title and look at the different version numbers of discs that are listed by turning the CD handle (like above) to reveal all the versions/years available from Amazon Marketplace.  I search through these listings until I find a year number for a used disc that matches (or almost matches-usually before 1991) the listing from the DR Database that I'm looking for.  There is usually a range of years that I'm looking at.  Amazon has a really irritating problem in that they don't reveal the disc makers/bar codes to the buyer for these discs -- only to its sellers.  Once I find a version that looks like a good bet, I'll usually take a chance on buying that one.  (Remember that we've usually only talking about a few bucks here - sort of like buying Starbucks coffee in the morning). 

 

Of the two methods I've identified, I usually use the second method listed as my first option, since I do not like the returns policies that ebay sets on its sellers.  I've had a greater than 90% success rate with these methods.

 

Chris

[Chris A]

In fact the harshness starts to become real (in the form of intentionally added noise) in CDs after 1990--and particularly after 1997. What was bad in those years before 1991--were the 14-bit CD players which did sound awful in comparison to later 16-bit oversampling models. YMMV. Chris

Maybe it's the type of music.  Lots of discussion here of compression, which is an engineering and not a format issue.  I don't buy much of anything subject to compression so it's never been a problem.  However, it was the general nastiness of the transcoding and such practice in the early days by analog engineers trying to work in a format with completely different rules that led me back to analog until they learned to get it right. 

 

Dave

 

Yesterday I listened to a handful of discs from the 1980s that I pulled out, and I found that there were some discs that don't sound very good (a few...like 3-4 total out of my entire disc collection).  These discs had the following in common:

1. They all were recordings of bands consisting of a guitar player (or two), bass player, drummer, and vocalist playing popular music or rock
2. They all were "best of" compilations
3. They all were from disc labels that weren't the same labels that produced the original vinyl discs with which I was familiar in the US
4. They all looked cheap on the cover--as in "not authentic"

Only two of these discs were bought within the last couple of years by looking at the DR Database ratings: and I knew when I bought them that I would probably have to re-EQ them to tame high frequencies (2-10KHz) that are mixed way too hot (...but nothing like an uncompensated RIAA curve that boosts hf relative to lf by almost 40 dB...) , and to boost low frequencies below 60 Hz--particularly below 30 Hz (which is typically non-existent on popular music in vinyl). 

 

But the dynamics are still there on these digital discs--and no rumble, pops, ticks, wow, flutter, mono bass, or sagging high frequencies due to tracks being closer to the center hole of the record, etc., i.e., the basis for potential hi-fi is much more prevalent.  I can work with that.

 

YMMV.

 

Chris

Edited November 13, 2014 by Chris A

[bobdog]

I too am always looking for the pre 1990-1991 issued cd's.  All cd's since the late 90's are so compressed there is absolutely no dynamic range.  I will keep a close eye on this thread for more insight in everyone's findings.

This is not the case with Pink Floyd CDs.  The 90s remasters were done by Doug Sax and were not compressed.  Some prefer the the earlier masterings but there is really nothing wrong with the remasters.

One of the best places to research masterings for almost any artist is the Steve Hoffman music forums.

[muel]

So who did the DSOM sacd? I'm open minded about comparing others but the sacd loses to my 1985 version

[bobdog]

So who did the DSOM sacd? I'm open minded about comparing others but the sacd loses to my 1985 version

James Guthrie.  I think the DSD layers are OK but the rebook which is a completely different mastering is terrible. The surround mix is fun.

Edited November 15, 2014 by bobdog

[mustang guy]

 

I too am always looking for the pre 1990-1991 issued cd's.  All cd's since the late 90's are so compressed there is absolutely no dynamic range.  I will keep a close eye on this thread for more insight in everyone's findings.

This is not the case with Pink Floyd CDs.  The 90s remasters were done by Doug Sax and were not compressed.  Some prefer the the earlier masterings but there is really nothing wrong with the remasters.

One of the best places to research masterings for almost any artist is the Steve Hoffman music forums.

 

I had never seen those forums. I went in and started reading the newest thread on The Endless River (Part 5, which was started on Monday), and it is already up to 452 posts.

 

I would love to have the time to sit and read all of those posts. The responses are short blurts and mostly meaningless. It takes too damn long to find meaningful information when people post just to get their count up.

[Chris A]

This is not the case with Pink Floyd CDs. The 90s remasters were done by Doug Sax and were not compressed. Some prefer the the earlier masterings but there is really nothing wrong with the remasters. One of the best places to research masterings for almost any artist is the Steve Hoffman music forums.

Hummm, maybe NT...

 

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/dr/desc?artist=Pink+Floyd

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/year/desc?artist=Pink+Floyd

 

I'd recommend the checking the DR Database first, and select the exact version/manufacturer/year of manufacture that you prefer to have.  The DR Database is sortable on album name, year, DR(album), DR(min), and DR(max) - ascending or descending for each column by clicking on the column headings twice.  Details and version identification are in each detailed record view selected.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Chris A

[bobdog]

 

This is not the case with Pink Floyd CDs. The 90s remasters were done by Doug Sax and were not compressed. Some prefer the the earlier masterings but there is really nothing wrong with the remasters. One of the best places to research masterings for almost any artist is the Steve Hoffman music forums.

Hummm, maybe NT...

 

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/dr/desc?artist=Pink+Floyd

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/year/desc?artist=Pink+Floyd

 

I'd recommend the checking the DR Database first, and select the exact version/manufacturer/year of manufacture that you prefer to have.  The DR Database is sortable on album name, year, DR(album), DR(min), and DR(max) - ascending or descending for each column by clicking on the column headings twice.  Details and version identification are in each detailed record view selected.

 

Looking at the database for Dark Side and other popular Pink Floyd CDs there is a difference of at most 1 between the earlier masterings and the Sax remasters.  This is could easily be the result of EQ moves.  I am a believer in the DR database but minor differences in the ratings do not tell the whole story.  It is well established that the Sax remasters did not use compression.  I have spent way more than I should have buying different masterings of Pink Floyd CDs, LPs, and SACDs.  The fact is that almost all of them sound great.  I hate to see the Sax remasters dismissed just because the are not the earliest masterings.  They are almost guaranteed to be the cheapest CDs you can find and while maybe not the holy grail masterings they sound very good to excellent.

Edited November 16, 2014 by bobdog

[bobdog]

My favorite Pink floyd pressings are

Atom Heart Mother: MFSL gold disc

Meddle: MFSL gold disc

Obscured By Clouds: Sax

Dark Side: SACD or Sax Remaster.  To be fair I have not heard all of the early Japan masterings but they are pricey.

Wish You Were Here: Sony Mastersound gold disc or SACD.  I have heard the 2 track. Save your money!

Animals: Sax by a mile

Wall: Harvest

Final Cut: No preference.

[Chris A]

No arguments on Doug Sax himself and what he is capable of producing--especially in light of his Sheffield Lab DTD vinyl and CDs, which are outstanding.  He has my highest respect for what he has done in the past.

 

My only my concern might be if he didn't have final creative control over the mastering results for the disc(s)...which seems to be most often governed by record company producers (and sometimes the artists themselves) overriding the better judgment of the mastering engineers, which is perhaps not the case here. I assume that he can take on only mastering jobs nowadays where he can set his own standards on the resulting mixes, which buck the now-industry-standard loudness war mixing practices first seen in the US 23 years ago.

 

Chris

[Kent T]

The Columbia C2K version is the original CD mastering in the USA. And sounds great. Look for that version.