Apparently the 2017 mono cd has also been compressed... But can anyone reference an original 1967 mono vinyl ?
Its in the DB, too. Look and compare. You wanted proof that mono in the box was compressed and I showed you that. Other than the outtakes, they compressed everything. And of course only the outakes sound good.
Seems like it's a sad truth that even the bonus "Mono" CD for the super deluxe set was compressed (wtf ?) Interesstingly the runout groove gibberish is much louder on the 2017 CD.
I have to say, this doesn't look all that compressed to me. The 2009, in particular, looks very similar to the vinyl.
The 2009, as far as we know, wasn't compressed. Something is different with the 2017, which was listed in the press releases as a direct transfer. Is it a direct, unaltered transfer? The lower DR and different waveforms point to something being done, but I don't know if there's anyone who can get the full answer.
Here's a theory. Maybe 2009 mono CD was eq'd to sound a bit like the 67 mono vinyl. I remember some Beatles fans on another forum complaining that the CDs never sounded like they remembered their old vinyl sounding. This might've been a reason why. We know there was often more bass on the tape than was cut to vinyl in the 60s. The new transfer is probably closer to the tape.
I haven't listened to the 2017 mono yet, much less done any A/B comparison to the 2009 (my only vinyl copy is an original Euro stereo LP from 1967). But from the waveform shown above, it looks like it might have had a touch of upwards compression applied -- this is where, instead of clamping down on the peaks that cross the threshold, they are generally left alone and the quiet bits that fall below the specified threshold are made louder. It's still compression of the dynamic range, but a different method that is sometimes preferable depending on the sonic content and what the engineer is trying to achieve. It can certainly be used to make things sound a bit punchier without stripping away the peaks that our ears find so compelling.
Here's the waveform of Lucy '09 vs '17. Something is definitely not right with the '17. If this really is a flat transfer, then I think something went wrong with the equipment of the transfer along the way. Those extra peaks seen in the '09 (and vinyl) didn't create themselves and EQ didn't cause them. I did EQ matches in both directions to see how much the EQ difference would affect the waveform look and it barely made any change. Sometimes EQ difference can definitely cause the peaks and dynamic range to look different, but that's not the case here. Whether the 2017 was EQ'd or not, I have no idea, but something happened to it either by accident or on purpose. The EAC log shows the mono album tracks all in the 40-60% peak range, which is very low (Lucy has 5db of headroom for example). A couple of the bonus tracks go higher, but some of them don't and also look like the below '17 waveform. Unfortunately, it seems something odd happened with most of the mono CD. Just some added info- the 2009 is true mono (aside from dither) and 2017 is not. 2009 on top:
The 2017 is also faster than the 2009, the 2009 may have been pitch corrected. The 2017 does seem a touch squashed compared with 2009, and there's more bass, maybe a bit more top end.
Based on a lot of the articles I'd read at the time of release and to the best of recollection, the 2009 mono version was a digital copy of the original mix master (pre-mastered for LP) EQd to sound as much to/match the original mono LP as they could get digitally. They did use a bit of limiting to make it louder. I am one of those that doesn't like any digital limiting, but, I don't find it too too bad on this master. I could have done without it, but, I do like the 2009 mono a lot.
I have nothing to add other than I'm listening to sgt pepper mono for the first time ever right now with the 2014 mono vinyl and I'm flabbergasted at how good it is. I could have sworn I knew exactly how this album sounded, but no, I truly had no idea how good it could sound until the 2014 mono. That is all and have a great night.
Why couldn't EQ cause the extra peaks on the 2009 CD? Here's Lovely Rita - 2009 at the top, 2017 on the bottom (one channel each, as they are mono): The 2009 looks more dynamic. But it's also EQ'd differently (to my ears it has more mids but less bass and treble than the 2017). Just by cutting some of the bass on the 2017 with a high-pass filter (set at 100Hz) to better match the bass level of the 2009, we get this (I've matched the peak levels):
I don't know. But by applying a HPF (to slightly reduce bass) the resulting waveform is obviously 'spikier' than it was originally, and very similar to the 2009.
Thanks for the comparison @slane, a very good example of the difference EQ can make. The more I compare the 2009 and 2017 the more little "fixes" I find on the 2009 version. Comparing to a really high end transfer of the 2014 mono LP the 2017 CD sounds close to identical. A very worthy part of the super deluxe box in my opinion!
