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

Album list - Dynamic Range Database

(NB: red is "bad")

 

This is not an agreed set of standards set by the music industry. So no one is setting or calibrating their equipment to these standards and going off or getting as close to them to give a level playing field, leaving only opinion.

 

The figures compare like to like (i.e., the 1987 version of an album to the versions from other years.)

To that extent, at least, they don't lie.

 

As I said though this is down to a matter of taste and opinion and nothing to do with expensive equipment etc as there is no baseline that anyone is working off.

Can I ask you guys why it is you think the most respected engineers and record producers in the world @ Abbey Road would have turned this into the train wreck you guys claim it is, and that is not my opinion but ask any musician record producer worth his salt what they think and who and where they would like to record with.

 

That's not the promo mix of Penny Lane though...

 

I'm not sure that the people involved in the Pepper remix are the most respected engineers and producers in the world.

 

I am.

 

I gave the remix another try last night...after taking some weeks off from listening to it.

It didn't strike me as overly compressed.

It did strike me as loud...but I just fine tuned the volume down.

It's a very clear sound. Strikingly clear. As digital of a recording as I've ever heard.

Flawlessly digital.

Most of the sounds are on the surface. All these varying clear sounds.

It's nice to hear certain parts more distinctly, thanks to the remix.

It's less psychedelic.

It's more mono than I had been hearing.

Not smeared.

Just more assorted sounds channeled, for the most part, in the middle...balanced.

Although some songs have more panning.

It almost started to sound like Muzak.

Oh so very clear...pretty...(here it comes...)...artificially ornamental like a Christmas tree with lots of varied colored lights.

Although the panning on the stereo 67 recording is criticized by some, the 67 stereo mix has more depth, dimension, and is more psychedelic.

I wasn't getting the "hard rock" of this mix. I think it's because I turned it down to a reasonable/comfortable level.

The voices in this remix are very clear.

I'm thinking this is a Clear Recording.

Clean and Not Smeary.

Just very Digital, Sharp, and Colorfully clear.

A Pretty Recording.

The 67 stereo mix Takes Me Somewhere.

Whereas this remix is like putting on Rose Colored Glasses.

That change colors.

It's a Pretty Scenery I get to experience.

A Changing Scenery with each song.

But not transcendent and psychedelic like the stereo mix of 1967.

 

Money

 

Surely you can not be serious.

 

100 per cent serious.

The whole purpose is to shift units.

The remix is not aimed at the audiophile market, which is a relatively small one.

If it was aimed at the audiophile market it wouldn't have been mastered the way it was.

The figures don't lie:

Album list - Dynamic Range Database

(The difference between the stereo remix and CDs two and three, which contain the outtakes, is stark).

 

Vinyl or CD? And where is your setup on your profile?

 

Peter Mew was highly respected during his career yet some of us believe he ruined a lot of reissues with his remastering choices. Many of the Deep Purple remasters are pretty disappointing and Steven Wilson himself wasn't happy with Mew's mastering touches on his Jethro Tull remixes. Respect, whether from critics, magazines or awards, doesn't always equal good mastering choices or high quality/dynamic sound.

 

Sorry, i have read some of this in disbelief. You really think they would have brought Giles and the team in with the only aim to make money and spend months on remastering for this soul purpose.

What are you saying when you say the figures don't lie. That has nothing to do with standards and level playing field.

 

Sorry, you have lost me on this quote!!.

I am on about probably the worlds best in AQ being involved @Abbey Road. Not sure what this has to do with the people you mention. This is Sgt Pepper we are talking about being remastered from the son of George Martin a man who was mentor and teacher to Giles, but as has been shown and I am sure would a agree part of a whole team.
You guys are honestly questioning that because you have maybe high-end systems or an agenda to adhere to.

 

If it wasn't for this thread, I think I would have forgotten all about the CD by now. When questions about the remix come up, I tend to take the view that it's pretty good, forgetting that many (perhaps most) people will only have heard it via the overly compressed/limited CD or via similarly crushed download/streaming. To me, the remix is more than satisfactory as presented on vinyl or on the 24/96 Blu-Ray version. (Yes, I know that some elements were probably compressed/limited prior to mixing, but I don't personally detect anything excessive).

More generally, I understand that audiophiles (and aspiring audiophiles) are a small part of the market, but I don't see why the mass market (in their cars or wandering the streets wearing ear buds) can't be served adequately by heavily compressed/limited masterings for (standard res) download and streaming, while those of us who care are served by less compressed masterings for physical formats (CD as well as LP) and hi-res download. Afterall, the CD isn't really mass market nowadays, so why use is to distribute the mass market version?

 

No, the album has been REMIXED by Giles Martin.

And the MIX is what some people don't like. That's a perfectly valid opinion.

And my own opinion is that the outtakes sound much better than the album remix.

 

Sorry coming from video and a film has been cleaned up to look better etc we call it a remastered and not remixed as more often than not a new master is created.
Of course, it is valid, if you don't like it as I have said there are many other versions out there, just some of the criticism is not and bringing into question someones ability to do their job because someone on an internet forum thinks they are hearing something on a high-end system and also claiming it was done just for money is frankly beyond belief.

 

You do know that we are talking about a remix and not a remaster?

You do know the difference between the two, don't you?

 

I think i explained what i thought?

This is a remix of the original tapes, not hard to understand why do you ask.

 

Agenda? Why would anyone have an agenda?

I really wanted to like it but, in my opinion, the too loud mastering means I don't get the chance to appreciate, hear or judge the remix.

I should add here that I am referring to the CD only.

 

You said this (and, to be perfectly blunt, it is a little bit hard to understand, actually):

"Sorry coming from video and a film has been cleaned up to look better etc we call it a remastered and not remixed as more often than not a new master is created."

 

On the contrary, it has everything to do with standards and a level playing field, since it compares different masterings of the SAME album.

 

^This. I found the stereo remix pleasing on the Blu-ray. Supposedly it's the same mastering as the CD, including the compression, but for some reason they sound different to me. The 96/24 sounds loud, but not excessive at all.