Pink floyd the early years 1965-1972

It looks for all the world that they considered their cassette copies of the BBC masters that had been lost as the only remaining remnants. Obviously they didn't look to this forum or they would have been able to simply download better copies. Even the poor copies they have of the 1967 broadcasts show a mark of finesse in Andy Jackson's mastering. At least for some elements - noise reduction damage and other critiques aside. Point being that he wouldn't have spent that time if they had any hint that a better copy existed!

That lack of communication or reaching out is unfortunate (and rather embarrassing for them) but I do have to give them an A+ for the attitude to release the material for posterity even though it was damaged. (They truly thought they were releasing all that remained.) It appears that they wanted to include these broadcasts for completeness but they treated them as kind of an aside in that they didn't do extensive focused research or restoration.

There's really no other way to interpret it. I see absolutely no indication that they intentionally omitted anything or released substandard copies with the intention of coming back around with an upgrade (like some of the talk about the practice of releasing downgraded to CD format copies and coming back around with HD later on).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pf94

Anyone's know why andy jackson or another guy of pink Floyd camp use the mono version for the 1971 bbc?

---

It's all the BBC had and they assumed that both the 1970 and 1971 broadcasts were recorded in mono (and later processed to fake stereo).

I stumbled across my copy on the internet from some guy who posts things to a cloud service that you can choose free but slow download, so I'm nearly done (I started it the day after xmas) downloading the 270 something (1GB mostly) rar files posted (just redundant dvd material and hi-rez flac extracts from the bd for the last volume left to go). So yeah, it was free, but i worked for it in a way. But the long process has allowed me to digest the material in a non-overwhelmed way.

This is Awe/some. Yes, it is flawed. For myself the biggest issues are the 67 bbc tracks (especially "The Scarecrow" with its high pitched whine throughout). And the hard clipping distortion in the Pompeii audio made me think i had blown my 5.1 speakers when I decided to watch it at a very room filling volume lol :yourock:

l also was disappointed with the choice of using the controversial Pompeii 'directors cut', which looked awful up-sampled on the blu-ray version. However my biggest gripe with that version is not the new footage and cgi etc, but the fact that the aspect ratio cuts the top and bottom of the original picture off, ruining the the iconic (at least for me) 9 screen split effect during the first louder guitar solo in "Echoes". (Imagine the outcry if that was done to a release of The Brady Bunch episodes ("You've cut Florence Henderson's head off! Now I will lop off yours ARRRRGH" lol)).

No subtitles for the very beautiful looking (by comparison) Barbet Schroeder films was only an inconvenience, easily remedied with srt files found right here at good old Yeeshkul!

This is a treasure trove no doubt. Just a cd audio version would have blown me away. The 1965 sessions. The Stockholm 67 gig. The John Latham stuff. 2010 mixes. Capitol studios. More outtakes (love the "Theme (Beat Version)"). Paradisio. Amsterdam '69. AHM Montreux and early studio version. Zabriskie Point outtakes. "Nothing Part 14".

Plus all the wonderful videos. I do not so much miss (since we have them elsewhere) but wonder why no San Francisco film or simply the so called Thompson Studios version of IO audio from it. Also the TLAMLIL IO that goes into "Nick's Boogie".
However in typing it becomes obvious one possible answer is "just how many versions of IO do we need?".

I do feel for those who bought physical copies and had to deal with missing or defective discs. Any nitpicking about mastering is just that. They sound good to me (and I am listening through very nice speakers). You should expect polished mixes from these guys. They are not gonna put 'raw' versions out for the 'purists'.

Again I repeat: THIS IS AWESOME!!!!!!! :yourock: :sexy: :cheers:

Oh another thing. I read (but have not listened comparatively) where someone said the bbc 71 stuff sounded unbalanced (weak keyboard I think was mentioned). Wouldn't it be funny if they were using the original flawed Meddler bootleg as their source lol. :facepalm:

They did actually release some raw material for purists/completists. The Nth generation copies of the BBC recordings you mentioned. And they get an A+ for doing that even though it turned out there were better copies still in existence that they really didn't know about.

I think there's a misconception about what people mean by raw or "purists seeking raw recordings" too.
No one intentionally seeks out a recording that is unbalanced in some way over something properly preserved and presented.
I think there are two different categories. A performance issue that causes an embarrassed musician to leave a song off a release or a technical difficulty that damages the recording are one thing. And they did release raw stuff like that in this set.

The other case is with live recording trading circles. People seek out the original "raw" recordings because they know that some fans - with the best of intentions - cause more harm than good in their attempts to preserve or improve the recordings. Quality analogous to trying to restore a photo with a post office copy machine in the worst cases. It's not that someone prefers a 'raw' sound. It's that they want to avoid unintended flaws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zaguh

Oh another thing. I read (but have not listened comparatively) where someone said the bbc 71 stuff sounded unbalanced (weak keyboard I think was mentioned). Wouldn't it be funny if they were using the original flawed Meddler bootleg as their source lol. :facepalm:

---

They didnt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roscoe59

They didnt.

---

I know that, I was being silly :p, first off Meddler had Brian Matthews' announcements instead of John Peel's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zaguh

I know that, I was being silly :p, first off Meddler had Brian Matthews' announcements instead of John Peel's.

---

And it was the stereo mix bounced down to mono.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roscoe59

And it was the stereo mix bounced down to mono.

---

See I always thought the whole deal with Meddler becoming Meddled (the first HRV release) was to fix the fact that Meddler was not L+R > mono but was accidentally released as L+L > mono.

I was there in 2000/2001 on Furthurmore forum, he (Further) had just posted ATFOS in 256 mp3. And someone else on the forum got a hold of me to guinea pig the new hrv ftp server and I got one of the first shn copies of Meddled (HRV 001)(at blazing speed for the time too like 500 KB/s, I said nice 'military' speed download and he commented yeah we'll fix that to limit speeds to 50 KB/s lol).

It was my first exposure to lossless and I never went for mp3 ever again (I had been getting Pink Floyd boots from CrazyDiamonds mp3 site at the time)

I stand corrected, I just reread the meddler review on pf-roio.de (which is surprisingly still up with out needing to wayback machine it) that explains the whole story (the studio engineer that de-clicked the stereo tracks sent them back mono).
But i still wonder if was a fold down or the left channel twice. Hrmmm