Pink Floyd – Animals / Japanese 32DP 360 vs. US CK 34474

Vernon Fitch mentions on his excellent website that the second US issue of "Animals" is one of several non-Japanese pressings which derive from the same mastering as the Japanese 32DP 360, which itself seems to be the forum´s favorite version. This made me curious. Due to a lucky coincidence I was able to purchase a CK 34474 with matrix numbers DIDP 20206 71 A6 just the other day, and after extensive comparisons all I can say is that this CD is every good as the Japanese forum fave. So my question is: Why is this US version virtually ignored when it gets down to the question which version of "Animals" is the one that sounds best? Or did I miss something?

 

In most cases the formula is "Forum favorite" = rarest version of a certain mastering.

The 32DP Animals is the much rarer CD so it gets the honour.

 

From what I can tell there are essentially four masterings of this album on CD:

1) Sony (32DP, US Columbia, etc.)
2) EMI (Harvest issue)
3) Sax Remaster
4) Oh By The Way box set remastering

 

Yes, the forum certainly has its sacred cows.

 

My only copy of "Animals" is a CK 34474 DIDP 20206 71 A3 which I bought new at Sears & Roebucks in the summer of 1987 and I have ALWAYS been more than happy with the sound of this disc.

 

Don´t confirm my deepest fears!

 

I recently found and sold a Columbia CK Animals, made in JPN. for USA. Unbelievable sound, I almost didn't sell it, but I just don't dig Animals much. Never did.

 

I find it odd that some people praise the 32DP and slam the US CK. They sound really, really close to me. Neither one sound bad. My US CK sounds all warm and smooth, and it's one of my favorite CDs in my collection.

 

In the handful of Japan first pressings that I have compared to their WG, UK or US counterpart, I have found the Japan pressings to be better each time. They have a bit less noise and are bit more clear on my stereo. The differences are small indeed, but they are there. So, if Animals was my favorite album (it isn't) I would want the best sounding version. Based on my experience, that would most likely mean the 32DP, so I would get that one. However, there is no need to ignore the American pressing if one can be happy with the very close second place US CD, especially when one can get the US version for not too much money at a used CD store.

 

My original non-remastered CK pressing...bought in Canada.... doesn't have the nice bass that's on the 32DP.

 

So the Japanese 32DP is the same digital mastering then as the original CK US release. That's good enough for me.

 

My understanding is that 2) and 4) are the same (i.e. the "Oh by the Way" box set does not feature a new remastering for that album). Or did I miss something?

 

I wouldn´t call this CD´s sound unbelievable, but it is noticeably better than the European Harvest mastering.

I can only second your first sentence. That´s exactly what I was talking about in my first post, and as I mentioned before they both sound virtually identical to my ears.

Sure, the 32DP 360 is indeed better than f.e. the British CDP 7 46128 2 which I have owned for many years, but I can´t see why my CK 34474 should be worse (not even by a hair) than the initial Japanese pressing when it derives from the same mastering.

Mine has.

Yes, and not only the original US release. Just check Vernon´s website.

Don´t get me wrong, but this whole issue reminds me of a German term I like to use when people unjustifiably praise the sound of first pressings or valuable editions: Schönhören. Sorry I can´t translate that properly into English, but maybe you´ll know what I mean.

 

Because mastering is not the only source of difference when it comes to CDs. Where, when and who presses the CD are also factors.

 

This is like the DSOTM BT non-TO non-CDP vs. BT/BF non-TO w/CDP all over again...

 

I like the 32DP disc very much, but I haven't compared it to the original U.S. CD. As a collector, I wanted the 32DP disc anyway.

 

I´d prefer to say: Where, when and who presses the CD CAN also be factors, but they aren´t necessarily. In the case of the two CDs in question I believe these circumstances don´t have any influence.

 

Not sure which is referred to as #2, but the 1992 'Shine On' box set version (itself a remaster) was succeeded by an audibly different remaster by Sax in 1997.

 

In saying here that they derive from the same mastering, does that mean they are digital clones, or that the digital master of one was used as the starting point for remastering? If they are digitally identical then the chances of being audibly different are vanishingly small (requiring a fairly screwed-up playback apparatus). If different EQ has been applied to the digital master, then of course they may sound different.

 

Not sure if this means anything conclusive, but according to Vernon's site the peak levels all remain the same for the first 4 or 5 issues.

 

I see the CK 34474 fairly frequently in the used bins. My copy also has this number in the matrix info on the disc itself. Apparently, the earlier US issue has a DIDP number (the one SheikYerbouti is referring to), in the matrix. The question is, how different do they sound??

 

I'll be honest: 99 times out of 100, I prefer the Forum favorite, which is usually an earlier mastering or rarer first pressing. Still, having recently done an A/B comparison between the US pressing of Animals and Sax's remaster, I went with the Sax. The US pressing sounded natural, yes, but way too veiled. Now keep in mind, I prefer the 35DP WYWH to the gold Mastersound, so I'm not biased towards Sax's mastering. I just found the Sax Animals cd to have clarity, punch, and depth without much unlistenable harshness.