Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by JOSERENATO, Mar 5, 2017.
Was thinking of the 1963/64 colbalt grey Beatles suits.
I think it is a new transfer but I don't know why. I think they would have identified it as the 2009 remaster because they correctly attribute the Strawberry Fields Forever remix etc.
And no doubt they will all have moved on to 'hard' drugs by the end of it.
What fixes were they?
I am interested as to how you identify the Sergeant Pepper chat in the Rock Band thing. It was my understanding that the speech had no necessary connection with the track it was associated.
Great Britain you are terrific".
No probs with a new 2017 Mono LP mastering excluded then ?
You know absolutely nothing about surround sound and you have never heard a proper surround sound set up. Sad. Sounds like you are basing your opinion because of that failed 70s abortion called quadraphonic. Quad was the first attempt at surround sound and it was a miserable failure because they did everything wrong. They put the four speakers in the corners and then the engineers made some of the worst surround recordings imaginable. It is not right to put the listener in the middle and then have the sound swirling around them. Might sound cool the first time but it becomes really cheesy after that.
There are two different forms of modern surround sound. The first is for movies. Currently most people are using 7.1 systems for movie surround. Two speakers behind you and 5.1 in front of you and around you. This allows action to go front to back, left to right or any combination. Surround sound for music is not like that at all. Surround sound music is 5.1 channels and it is all in front of you. It doesn't surround you. My surround speakers are at the ten o'clock and two o'clock position, my front left right speakers are in the eleven o'clock and one o'clock position. The center speaker is at 12 o'clock and the subwoofer is at 11:30. This means all the music comes from in front of me in a very wide and deep soundstage that sounds a lot more like a real performance than having everything coming out of a single pair of speakers or a single speaker.
The whole reason surround sound is so wonderful is because with six channels you get most instruments and vocals receive their own channel, amplifier and speaker. This gives you clarity that is just not possible with normal stereo which had a half a dozen or more sounds coming out of the same speaker. Really muddies up the sound. Considering that the remixes will go back to the stems and remove several layers of distortion and that the new mixes will be in 5.1 means that this will be the cleanest Beatle recordings of all times. I am so excited to hear the Beatles like they have never been heard before. I feel sorry for anyone who will only get to hear them on a stereo or a mono system. A properly set up surround system beats either one by a mile.
Very informative, never realised surround sound for music was at ten to two. thank you
No, the .1 is the LFE channel, the Low Frequency Effects channel, like explosions and such.
That is lousy engineering and the whole reason quad failed in the 70s. Modern surround is a lot more immersive and natural sounding.
Yes. Macca's solo proper period of success was being heavily shadowed by EMI's repackagings and reissues, including the ongoing 20th anniversary singles and picture discs.
I'm sure he and the other fabs had been sick enough of the likes of Hollywood Bowl, Ballads, Rock and Roll Music, Love Songs etc so adding the belated Stars on 45-style desecration to the list of offences was enough to ally the former fab estates under Apple toward the aim of getting control.
In a way, we have Reel Music and Beatles Movie Medley to thank for the ultimate and ongoing triumph of Apple Corps in recent decades. It wasn't until this point that the fabs stopped suing each other long enough to see that they might best battle EMI together as Apple. I think Paul was least inclined to do so, especially legally-speaking, being under contract to EMI, but the shadowing of every single of his with a Beatles item was really, as they say in Liverpool, starting to 'get on his wick'.
Not heard of that either I must admit. Left, Right, Centre and Sub are arrayed in front of me of course. But I use my system for movies and TV as well as music so I have put the four satellites parallel with and above my head. That corresponds to what I thought was the correct setup. I admit the satellites would be better at ear level but compromises must be made I think.
Most surround sound music that emulates a 'live in the studio performance' is placed in front of you nevertheless with only ambient sound filling the room. However an album like Sgt Pepper doesn't really have that sort of feel I think, especially after we get high with Lucy...
You can only tell when they are vamping chords or perhaps playing or singing a bit of melody along with the chat. Lots of chat still has unknown origins. Ron
Surround sound (for movies at home) is one of the dumbest things I have ever had the displeasure of experiencing. I'm sitting on a couch in the living room looking forward at a screen 15 feet in front of me where all the action is visible yet I'm hearing the sounds coming from BEHIND ME. Same with the left and right sides of the room. It would only be logical in a surround theater situation where you could hear the sound coming from the direction you're seeing it occur. My Bobservation.
Sorry, but you're doing it wrong. This is the ideal SACD speaker setup:
In an audio (not HT) surround system, the rear speakers SHOULD be behind you, by 20-30 deg. At least for SACD and DVD-A. I don't know about multichannel BluRay guidance.
There's another thing about that Tiny Tim story. When John Lennon asked Geoff Emerick what he thought of Tiny Tim, Emerick had no clue who Tiny Tim was but pretended that he did - I believe he thought Tiny Tim was the name of a band. When Lennon realized this he tore a strip off Emerick. So it was actually an embarrassing moment for Emerick, though a valuable lesson in not trying to BS John Lennon.
I'm not sure about Pepper specifically, but when the 2009 remasters were prepared, EMI staff went through making EQ fixes, repairing dropouts ("Day Tripper" being perhaps the most glaring and famous), smoothing bad edits, and so on. The point is that, for 2009, they didn't just transfer the tapes to digital; there was restoration work involved. I'm assuming that a "direct transfer" wouldn't include all that work, as it rather takes the directness out. Also, if they're calling it a "2017 direct transfer," I take that to mean a new transfer from the original tapes. If they went from an intermediate source, such as the 2009 remasters, once again we're no longer talking about "direct."
That diagram is wrong. It is correct for movies but not for music. Do a Google search on surround sound speaker diagrams and you will get dozens of hits and most all of them are wrong for music.
Will the 2CD version sound exactly the same as the 2-tracks programmed together from the 6disc version? Or will the amount of silence vary on different players?
That's what she said.
The objects in fact, like the dolls, stone bust, trofy, TV set, etc
I've got to assume that the rear right and left speakers are for ambient noises and not sound coming from what you are looking at in front of you. Kinda like two wasted speakers for the music listening experience unless you have the crowd sounds there for live recordings or the sounds of producers and engineers yelling "cut!" or "Take 2" or something while the band is in front of you.
More repetitive than immersive.
I think all the 'alternate takes' were included. It's hard to tell as it all sounds the same to me!
I have surround sound (5.1) in my media room. The speakers that are behind me are the rear left, rear right, and subwoofer (the .1 hidden behind the couch). All of the dialog pretty much comes out of the front center channel. Music and sometimes sound effects related to things you see on screen will be placed somewhere between the front left, center, and front right. The two back speakers, when used effectively in a 5.1 mix, will typically be a sound effect of something happening off screen, which would naturally occur behind the viewer's POV. For example, if we are watching a scene taking place in a living room, and the camera is at an angle where the front door is behind it, a knock on the front door would be placed in one the rear channels (or possibly both but panned to one side). This gives the viewer the realistic sensation that the front door is in the opposite direction of where the camera is currently pointed. Another example might be low background conversation in a busy restaurant to give you the sensation that there are people all around the subjects currently dining on camera. The rear channels for most 5.1 movie mixes are not used very often throughout the movie. Hopefully that helps explain it a little.
I'm afraid the Beatles (or Apple) were never terribly generous with their long-term fans.
In fact, as a protest, I don't think I'll buy this new Pepper set!
(Although it might upset them too much if I went down that road. It would upset me anyway. )
just because there is sound coming out of 5 or 7 speakers does not automatically make it better ! it still all comes down to choices made when mixing and mastering . I have heard a lot of 2.1 stereo mixes that sound far better than 5 or 7. I actually I don't like surround at all! why? because I have hearing difficulties in one of my ears so for me 5.1 etc is pointless also you have to keep in mind the intentions of the artist and original producer any change in mixes has to have there blessing and I have read a few times about artists and producers not happy about having control over their album releases . this new remix I doubt is a cash grab like some here have said and I don't think Paul would release something he was not happy with so I can't wait for the new album to drop. any news on who is doing the booklet?
If you're going to be so adamant, at least be factual.
The previous diagram is what was included with every early multichannel SACD release as the ideal layout for multichannel music, and is the recommended layout prescribed by Sony and Philips. So it IS the correct speaker layout for music. I deliberately didn't reference a home theater layout. You say it's correct for movies, but you're wrong about that too. Here is an HT ideal layout:
For HT, THX (they know quite a bit about this stuff, certainly more than you and me) recommend that surround speakers are in line with your listening position:
"Front Left & Right Speakers (L & R): Place the Front Left and Right speakers at ear height, producing a 45° angle as viewed from the main seating position. This delivers a wide soundstage and precise localization of individual sounds.
Center Channel Speaker (C): Place the Center channel speaker either above or below the TV. Then, aim the speaker either up or down to point directly at the listener. If you have a perforated projection screen, center this speaker both horizontally and vertically behind the screen.
Left Surround and Right Surround Speakers (Ls & Rs): Place the Ls & Rs speakers between 90° to 110° to each side and 2 feet or higher above the listener. The Ls & Rs speakers recreate the enveloping sound and intense special effects that you experience in the cinema." source FAQ - THX
Your preference for having surround speakers only 60 degress off centre-axis (10 o'clock and 2 o'clock) is just that - a preference. For ambient mixes I'm sure it sounds OK, but for aggressive surround mixes with deliberately placed discrete instruments or effects, it'll be a disaster. Your speaker placement won't be anywhere close to that used by the mixing engineer when he or she created the sound design.
I'm not sure why you're so aggressive, but please, stop with the inaccuracies???
Separate names with a comma.