The Beatles - Sgt. Pepper's 50th Anniversary (Content, Sound Quality & Discussion Thread Only!)

IMO this must have been the idea from the get go. I did not listen to any previous clips. The whole mix is very in your face. It doesn't really bother my ears, I think I just wish a tiny bit more of subtle sensibility here would have been nice. Maybe DR9 across the board. It is what it is. A lot of sounds very good.

 

With all the arguments about the mix (and especially the mastering), there's not much talk in here about the outtakes.

What's everyone's favorite from discs 2 & 3 of the box?

For me, without a doubt it's Penny Lane take 6 - the song never really did much for me in the past, but the way that bear-bones version soars in the chorus is breathtaking!

 

I'm listening on HD600s and it varies song to song. This was definitely made more for high-end setups. A lot of it still sounds good but different and more in your face.

 

You are just used to the panning Good Morning on that Stereo version? It still sounds very compressed you just have it in one ear and the other stuff in the other for a lot of it. I think this version of Good Morning sounds very good all told.

 

There is another thread for that also.

 

Unquestionably but those people are a very small minority. The majority of people who listen to this set will have casually picked up the one or two disc version (depending on availability) from their local supermarket whilst doing their weekly shop and they will be entirely happy with what they hear, probably played in the car or on a portable unit in the kitchen or via the DVD player built in to their TV or on their laptop etc etc etc.

 

You literally HAVE TO turn your knob down to volume match.

Going back to back with the prior remaster I am honestly much preferring this for the most part. Going back to the other one just sounds horrible in comparison for much of it.

Yeah, it is loud but the original is loud too. There is a lot of compression in this album to get all the elements to gel. And the orchestra does not sound that great in the original.

I'm not saying this would not be more to my preference at DR9 or something. Too hard to tell right now.

 

Whatever your opinions, the NEW MIX is positively better in just about every way. Lovely Rita sounds fabulous.

 

Ok, you'll buy the set, because all the audio content is not available online, and of course the book etc. BUT - would you mind if the mix was a bit more balanced and with a bit more air and dynamic range? If you are an audiophile, I doubt that you could be against it, and you will rip it and listen to it as it is. And if you prefer more compressed sound, you can easily achieve it by yourself by applying further compression on the ripped files.

What I meant in general is that the things now are different than some years ago, when the main media was the CD, and the CD's of a certain title were distributed for broadcasting etc., so they were trying to made them as loud as possible in order to grab the attention of the listener. Now this is useless, and if there's need for such an approach it's valid only for the streaming platforms, and they can prepare a louder/compressed master for streaming, and to put a more audiophile and uncompressed master to be pressed on CD or vinyl. No one broadcasts music directly from CD or vinyl in our time.

 

I think this is a really good point. The original mono mix of Pepper was designed to have maximum impact when heard through the tiny speakers of a transistor radio or Dansette record player. That is the authentic mix. Ironically, we have gone full circle with modern music being mixed for maximum impact through tiny, crappy speakers so if that is what the new Pepper mix is trying to achieve (and I think it is), it is entirely consistent with the approach to the original release.

 

@delmonaco you can try and ask me if i think they pressured the sound too much.

And i'll answer that. Yes a bit too much for my tastes. I like dynamic recordings/mixes. I also like not so dynamic stuff in it's appropriate places. As long as my ears dont fattigue. It is nowhere as bad as the mid era Genesis remixes. Thankfully.

Edit: you asked me while i was writing this.

 

Live bands can be severely compressed. Beatles concerts were loud to the point of being deafening. You obviously didn't attend a Beatles concert then.

Just being dynamic for the sake of being dynamic does not mean your disc sounds good. It all depends on what kind of mix you want. Punk music does not need a huge DR, and anyone arguing that a punk record needs to be DR13 because of dynamics has no idea what they are talking about for the most part. They are trying to make a record based on they want to hear something and not how the actual band sounds. Which is fine.... but it's useless then.

As for this being a studio creation, I think it would be nice to hear a more dynamic version too.

You really cannot just look at a DR value and assess sound quality. The difference between DR9 and DR12 means nothing just by looking at a number.

DR8 is getting up there for sure.

 

It's honestly very hard to say at this point in my listening. I'm not sure exactly what a higher DR value would do for this mix. I'm not quite sure how they arrived at DR8 and DR7 for some tracks. It seems the orchestra had something to do with it.

The original with higher DR values definitely does not sound better for the most part when volume matched. It sounds much worse and the orchestra does not sound very great.

On to the idea of a DR9-DR11 version? I'm all for that. I wish they could have given us multiple versions to choose from to be honest. But this mix definitely does not sound bad.

 

Well, this is may be still true for some, but I dare to say that those people are already also a minority (or will be very soon, it's on the edge maybe) By my observations more and more people today don't even have any optical drives (they can watch so many movies and shows online on their smart TVs), the cars are already produced without CD drive, and also most of the laptops doesn't have an optical drive anymore. But perhaps you're correct, as long as there are people still having some older laptop or a DVD player that still works, or they don't drive the last model car.

 

This post (#3030) was in reference to what is showing as a quote by me, when it's not something that I wrote.

Very strange

 

So are you saying that the all session stuff has limiting on the the 2-disc set, but not on the big box.
I only own the 2 disc set.

EDITED: I first accidentally said I owned the wrong set.

 

One quote was saying how no audiophile should go near this lol. This is so ridiculous and totally endemic to this site and the ignorance that affronts it from certain posters.

The hyperbole is so amusing. The waveform has its peaks and valleys.

I too have to wonder how many people here actually listen to records LOUD anyway. We have a lot of dynamic worshippers that probably never play a record past 85dB lol.

 

Yeah sorry man the quotes were getting really messed up there. I wish they would do quoting in a more concise way on this site sometimes. I must have done that wrong.

 

The amount of limiting on the mix is irrelevant when the mixing itself is so bad.

Seriously, nothing has its own discrete place in the mix. There might be most of an element in one channel with a slightly EQ'd, extracted or ADT'd copy in the other channel.

What the hell is wrong with having the clarinets in When I'm 64 as one mono element? Why do they need the weird fake stereo effect on them?

With all the different tapes they're able to sync, there are some songs with like 10 individual elements. You can make a great mix with that many tracks. There is absolutely no need to digitally fake more tracks.

 

That is correct.

 

Is there somewhere an official info exactly what tapes they used for this remix? To my ear it sound like the original final master tapes are used, and everything is separated and reprocessed digitally. Is there an evidence that they used lower generation session tapes?

 

Yeah, that's my main problem with the mix.

And just because vocals and guitars (and in the case of Fixing A Hole, the entire rhythm track) were double-tracked doesn't mean they always have to be panned L&R.

Where double-tracked vocal parts used to sound very strong (being reduced to one track), quite often they lose some of that strength when separated L&R for me.

And that's before I get to parts that have been 'stereo-ised' from a mono source. I agree, just put them at ONE point in the stereo spectrum instead.

 

There's definitely pre-bounce tapes used, stuff like the acoustic guitar in Lovely Rita and the bass in many tracks were from pre-bounce tapes.

Unfortunately the reason it all sounds digitally extracted is due to the crummy, smeary mixing.

 

I don't think the first two albums do. They were recorded on 2 track. They both belong on Mono to me. Biggest ones that need a remix from their Stereo mixes would be Revolver and Rubber Soul. I would love if they came out with a twofer of Revolver and RS for in time before the Christmas holiday. Then next year they can do the 50th of The Beatles aka "White Album".

 

Incorrect. Higher DR values and the peak levels are much different.