bit off topic: pink floyd final cut - Blu-ray Forum

frank_t · 01-25-2009, 10:12 PM

a bit off topic here, but i'm trying to determine if i should purchase the original release on CD or the 2004 remastered version of The Final Cut.

Anyone have any particular opinions on the two? I'm sometimes hesitant to purchase remastered "updates" to CDs...

(note: I know this isn't preferred floyd for many floyd fans. I like it, so don't need this thread to turn into a bash-the-album thread).

thanks!

fighthefutureofhd · 01-25-2009, 10:36 PM

i've only heard the re-mastered cd and i highly recommend it. besides the final is an 80's released as well as early cd release and anytime you have a choice of getting re-mastered 80's cd's do it! they are almost always heads and shoulders above the original cd release.

Lapse of Reason · 01-25-2009, 10:42 PM

I like the remastered one.

Johnny Vinyl · 01-26-2009, 12:55 PM

I have to wonder sometimes if "remastered" editions are only just a marketing gimmick. Grant you, I don't listen to CD all that much, but I've bought some over the years and could never really tell a difference. I guess the only way to tell really is to do a side-by-side comparison.

John

kingofgrills · 01-26-2009, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frank_t

a bit off topic here, but i'm trying to determine if i should purchase the original release on CD or the 2004 remastered version of The Final Cut.

Anyone have any particular opinions on the two? I'm sometimes hesitant to purchase remastered "updates" to CDs...

(note: I know this isn't preferred floyd for many floyd fans. I like it, so don't need this thread to turn into a bash-the-album thread).

thanks!

Definitely buy the remastered copy. The new mastering tools being used sound less digital and shrilly than the older CD version. Personally, if I can't find an older disc on SACD, I'll seek out a remastered CD version next.

Right now I'm collecting a lot of 20 and 24 bit Rudy Van Gelder remastered jazz discs, and they all sound fantastic.

Clark Kent · 01-27-2009, 12:12 AM

The only reason to get the remaster of The Final Cut is for one additional song not included on the original cd, When The Tigers Broke Free. That song was also included on Echoes: The Best of Pink Floyd though. In general the 2004 remastered cd is a harsher and more compressed mastering than the earlier and better Doug Sax mastered cd from the 1990's. So for sound quality I would pick the earlier cd and for the sake of completeness the remastered cd unless you own Echoes.

fighthefutureofhd · 01-27-2009, 12:58 PM

when in the 90's though? a lot of very early 90's discs were mastered horribly. the sound is so tiny, thin, and weak. nothing expansive and beautiful about it at all. i think if the final cut's original cut was very early on in the 90's i'd go with the remastered version. cause at this point anything would be an improvement over the tiny and thin shitty early, early 90's master. when cd's starting getting big, labels just ported over lp's to cd with little concern or care whatsoever for how it sounded. it was really bad.

bhampton · 01-27-2009, 01:09 PM

There was a band supervised re-master of the whole back catalog in 1994. (Ironically... Roger wasn't part of the "band" at the time, Ha!) I don't think the 1994 version has when the tigers broke free,.. but I'm not sure offhand.

Anyway,... I love Pink Floyd and I love the Final Cut too.

-Brian

p.s. According to this (if I'm reading it right) James Guthrie did the 2004 re-master... I would go with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Final_Cut_(album)

Clark Kent · 01-27-2009, 08:06 PM

Doug Sax is widely recognized as one of the best mastering engineers in music today and supervised all of the Pink Floyd catalog on cd in the 1990's. Basically every prior version of the Final Cut cd is superior to the 2004 remaster done by Guthrie. I have both cds and have compared them extensively on my stereo system.

bhampton · 01-27-2009, 08:44 PM

Interesting,

James Guthrie has been mixing Floyd live since the 80's (I think) and I thought he did the 1994 remasters. I could be wrong indeed. EDIT- I am wrong... Doug Sax did all the 1994 re-masters.

-Brian

fighthefutureofhd · 01-28-2009, 01:06 PM

they're not really re-masters they did in 1994. many times with the early cd releases they just ported over the music from lp or what not to cd so to speak. it's not a port obviously, but you get the point. the sound was extremely tiny and thin in cases. i think james guthrie would be the better choice for mastering the final cut seeing as he was one of the original producers. it's always better to get someone who was originally part of the project, as they would know more of how it was intended to originally sound. r.e.m. did with their re-mastering of murmur. they used the original masterer from the original sessions to do the new master. it worked out beautifully, but wouldn't have in any other hands.

doctorsteve · 03-23-2009, 04:01 AM

To get further off-top (and resurrect the thread) The Final Cut shouldn't even be considered a Floyd album anyways... It was all Roger - he just handed the guys their parts and told them to play.

Jerk.

01-25-2009, 10:12 PM	#1
frank_t Senior Member Member since:Jul 2007	bit off topic: pink floyd final cut a bit off topic here, but i'm trying to determine if i should purchase the original release on CD or the 2004 remastered version of The Final Cut. Anyone have any particular opinions on the two? I'm sometimes hesitant to purchase remastered "updates" to CDs... (note: I know this isn't preferred floyd for many floyd fans. I like it, so don't need this thread to turn into a bash-the-album thread). thanks!

01-27-2009, 01:09 PM	#8
bhampton Blu-ray Count Member since:Aug 2007 4K collection:981 Blu-ray collection:2537 DVD collection:67 Blu-ray reviews: 6 Trading Score:18	There was a band supervised re-master of the whole back catalog in 1994. (Ironically... Roger wasn't part of the "band" at the time, Ha!) I don't think the 1994 version has when the tigers broke free,.. but I'm not sure offhand. Anyway,... I love Pink Floyd and I love the Final Cut too. -Brian p.s. According to this (if I'm reading it right) James Guthrie did the 2004 re-master... I would go with that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Final_Cut_(album) Last edited by bhampton; 01-27-2009 at 01:12 PM.

01-27-2009, 08:44 PM	#10
bhampton Blu-ray Count Member since:Aug 2007 4K collection:981 Blu-ray collection:2537 DVD collection:67 Blu-ray reviews: 6 Trading Score:18	Interesting, James Guthrie has been mixing Floyd live since the 80's (I think) and I thought he did the 1994 remasters. I could be wrong indeed. EDIT- I am wrong... Doug Sax did all the 1994 re-masters. -Brian Last edited by bhampton; 01-27-2009 at 09:10 PM.

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
Pink Floyd: The Wall	Blu-ray Music and High Quality Music	Ray O. Blu	92	11-26-2018 06:42 PM
THE WALL:Pink FLoyd on Blu-ray	Wish Lists	cydetrakd	24	07-01-2012 01:38 AM
Pink Floyd on Blu	Wish Lists	Mr.White	0	05-08-2009 01:38 AM
Pink Floyd SACD problem...	Blu-ray Music and High Quality Music	doctorsteve	19	01-16-2009 04:26 PM
Pink Floyd Reunion 2009 ?? !	Movies	Scooby Blu	22	06-06-2008 01:13 AM

01-25-2009, 10:36 PM	#2
fighthefutureofhd Blu-ray Baron Member since:Jun 2008 Location:Dry County	i've only heard the re-mastered cd and i highly recommend it. besides the final is an 80's released as well as early cd release and anytime you have a choice of getting re-mastered 80's cd's do it! they are almost always heads and shoulders above the original cd release.

01-25-2009, 10:42 PM	#3
Lapse of Reason Active Member Member since:Jul 2008 Blu-ray collection:3 Trading Score:10	I like the remastered one.

01-26-2009, 12:55 PM	#4
Johnny Vinyl Moderator Top ranked HT gallery Top contributor Member since:Jul 2007 Location:At the crossroad of Analogue Dr & 2CH Ave Home Theater Gallery:19 Blu-ray collection:205 DVD collection:7 Blu-ray reviews:3 Trading Score:8	I have to wonder sometimes if "remastered" editions are only just a marketing gimmick. Grant you, I don't listen to CD all that much, but I've bought some over the years and could never really tell a difference. I guess the only way to tell really is to do a side-by-side comparison. John

01-27-2009, 12:12 AM	#6
Clark Kent Blu-ray Prince Top contributor Member since:Oct 2007 Location:Metropolis Blu-ray reviews:2 Trading Score:184	The only reason to get the remaster of The Final Cut is for one additional song not included on the original cd, When The Tigers Broke Free. That song was also included on Echoes: The Best of Pink Floyd though. In general the 2004 remastered cd is a harsher and more compressed mastering than the earlier and better Doug Sax mastered cd from the 1990's. So for sound quality I would pick the earlier cd and for the sake of completeness the remastered cd unless you own Echoes.

01-27-2009, 12:58 PM	#7
fighthefutureofhd Blu-ray Baron Member since:Jun 2008 Location:Dry County	when in the 90's though? a lot of very early 90's discs were mastered horribly. the sound is so tiny, thin, and weak. nothing expansive and beautiful about it at all. i think if the final cut's original cut was very early on in the 90's i'd go with the remastered version. cause at this point anything would be an improvement over the tiny and thin shitty early, early 90's master. when cd's starting getting big, labels just ported over lp's to cd with little concern or care whatsoever for how it sounded. it was really bad.

01-27-2009, 08:06 PM	#9
Clark Kent Blu-ray Prince Top contributor Member since:Oct 2007 Location:Metropolis Blu-ray reviews:2 Trading Score:184	Doug Sax is widely recognized as one of the best mastering engineers in music today and supervised all of the Pink Floyd catalog on cd in the 1990's. Basically every prior version of the Final Cut cd is superior to the 2004 remaster done by Guthrie. I have both cds and have compared them extensively on my stereo system.

01-28-2009, 01:06 PM	#11
fighthefutureofhd Blu-ray Baron Member since:Jun 2008 Location:Dry County	they're not really re-masters they did in 1994. many times with the early cd releases they just ported over the music from lp or what not to cd so to speak. it's not a port obviously, but you get the point. the sound was extremely tiny and thin in cases. i think james guthrie would be the better choice for mastering the final cut seeing as he was one of the original producers. it's always better to get someone who was originally part of the project, as they would know more of how it was intended to originally sound. r.e.m. did with their re-mastering of murmur. they used the original masterer from the original sessions to do the new master. it worked out beautifully, but wouldn't have in any other hands.

03-23-2009, 04:01 AM	#12
doctorsteve Blu-ray Samurai Member since:Apr 2007 Location:Tonawanda, NY Home Theater Gallery:15 Blu-ray collection:188 Blu-ray reviews:16	To get further off-top (and resurrect the thread) The Final Cut shouldn't even be considered a Floyd album anyways... It was all Roger - he just handed the guys their parts and told them to play. Jerk.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals