Songs on Sgt Pepper Most Improved By 2017 Remix?

That's the most articulate remix critique I've read to date.

 

I don't mind most of the remix but I do concur with your missus.

I recall an interview with Paul some years back where he was saying how much they actually looked forward to bouncing tracks across on to the one track - how they liked how it would all 'compress' a little and the guitar sounds would suddenly get this 'zing' and 'sheen' (I probably paraphrase a little here).

I got that reasoning - I certainly love that about the sounds on those old records too. Of course, they had no real choice in the matter back then, but it does appear that we're now supposed to forget that that was integral to how The Beatles intended the album to sound?

 

How long have you been this intelligent?

Exactly!... I couldn't have said it better myself. But you will get a more than a few members on here proclaiming, "It's too-o-o-oooo loud. And I hear digital eq, and they didn't use alkaline batteries in the light dimmer remote, etc, etc....etc...."
Is the mix more compressed than we would like it to be?...Yes.....Is it perfect?...No. But it's pretty close.

More than likely any compression used was necessary for the mix. Inserted into the channels if needed. Sometimes you need compression on individual tracks to get everything to blend together in the mix. I have done mixes with no compression on: individual tracks, over the stereo bus during mixdown, or in mastering. A DR rating of 30! But they are times in a mix where you just have to compress...

But, Sgt. Pepper is a 2017 remix. No one said it was going to be a 1967 style remix. I think that's what people expected. (Pull out the REDD board, the Fairchild Limiters and the big red box of spare vacuum tubes!)

So true. This is one stereo mix the Beatles would have approved.

 

The added music hides Paul's not too hot piano playing on the track. They should of had Preston gussie it up with something... Specter's add on's kind of watered it down..

I heard at least one guitar "howl and move"............Cool indeed

 

I prefer the speed of SLH on the new remix but otherwise it is not an improvement SQ wise. My go to CD is still the 1987 and my go to LP is a very early Two box EMI over a 1st press UK.

 

Same with me. 64 was a revelation. The speed and presentation changed a track I used to skip to a keeper in the set.

 

Fixing A Hole, Getting Better for the new 2017 pepper.

 

I don't think any are the biggest missed opportunity 5.1 mixes way to conservative

 

When I first started listening to the new remixes, I was a little disappointed. I thought the 99 remix of Sgt. Pepper (the song) was much better than the new remix. As the album progressed, I was feeling better and by the time I hit Mr. Kite and Good Morning, I was thoroughly enjoying clarity and sounds I haven’t heard before. But then, my euphoria was somewhat diminished again when I heard A Day In The Life. So basically, everything in between the opening and closing tracks have benefitted from a remix. Go to the Blue 67-70 album for a clean stereo mix of A Day In The Life.

 

WYWY sounds incredible. Love that vicious sitar.

 

not a single one...

 

Which particular version of this album has the clean intro?

 

Blue 1993 or the new Remastered Blue?

 

Just buy a $10 000 reference Brown-Bur DAC and I guarantee you will hear a difference in the remix.

Seriously though....For years the original 1965 mixes of Help! and Rubber Soul sounded the same to me as the much hated (on this site anyway) 1987 screw ups (sorry!) remixes. One day I finally heard it -The digital reverb, all of it.

Here is an easy one. Lucy In The Sky. The lead keyboard (harpsichord) line was mono. Baby Martin has taken the keyboard part and made it stereo by recording each note in the bar on a seperate track. "Lucy" is waltz time in 3/4. So he put the first note of each bar on say track 7, next note on track 8 and the last note of every bar on track 9. Each subsequent bar would be the same. i.e. The first note of the second bar goes to Track 7, the second note goes to track 8, etc, ad infinitum until the end of the song.

The three tracks were panned left, a bit off center, and then right. And he put a plate reverb over all of the "Lucy" harpsichord track so it didn't sound disjointed. Although I believe Baby Martin may have gone further doing the spit over two bars as opposed to one. This would make it six tracks and not three but it doesn't matter - The principal is the same. If you listen with headphones to the beginning you will clearly hear the harpsichord track bouncing around the sound stage with every note.

 

Yeah, Lucy is the best example of a track that went off the rails. Well described.

 

You are going to make Baby Martin cry and I don't have his rattle.....HOW COULD YOU!(Jr. Starts to cry..)

You didn't like that stereo effect?!.... (Nothing but silence....) Do you know how hard that is to do? How much trouble Martin Jr. went to?... Have you no pitty sir?

Seriously, that trick is VERY hard to pull off. He pulled it off perfectly. And in fact all stereo keyboard works the same way. Each note gets panned a little left or right. I have knownnof this trick but I have never heard it pulled off. It sounds perfect. Most people will think it's a stereo keyboard. And in 5.1 I understand the harpsicord gets panned 360 degrees. You will hear more of these tricks when Baby Martin remixes The White Album.

I guess when you heard Baby Martin's super-instant-stereo-harpsicord you reaction was, "What The Fudge?!" I was impressed but I guess you were more sickened (we understand) than impressed.

In fact most stereo keyboard samples are made super wide by (foolishly) reversing the phase of one of the stereo channels. It gets worse but I don't know if you have a bottomless bucket handy. If you are recording music using any stereo keyboard samples you need to reverse the phase of the channel that the sample provider has Ahhh...Tampered with. Or else all your recordings will be all phasy.
Another reason music today SUCKS the BIG ONE. And yes these will be on expensive professional samples. Like the $5 000 stereo choir samples you paid for.

 

I have the awful CD and you hurt it feelings.

Seriously a lot of you audiophiles are spoiled by AF, DCC, MFSL and 80's compact disks. Trust me, (I have a trustworthy face) the Sgt. Pepper remix on CD is not over compressed. Compared to most Pop, Rap, Metal and Dance releases today the Pepper CD remix is DR heaven. Have you heard a typical Metal release? DR of 3. And Dup Step releases with a typical DR of 2. (Please note: I don't listen to any of this. Unless it's a client bringing the file over to master at my Uncle's studio.) Yes, often the mix is great. And then the mastering engineer (not Steve. No good deed goes unpunished...) takes it and compresses it. Makes it loud to be "competitive."

This makes no sense - Replay Gain on Itunes normalizes the volume of all songs. In fact up against a track from some 80's CD, Replay Gain will just turn your super-loud-2001 track down and the 1984 Kenny Rogers quiet song way way up. They will both be at the same volume; only your crappy loud mastered track will sound worse because the hyper-loud Britney Spears songs has little or no dynamics. Radio stations have compressors in their transmitter audio chain since the 70's. And all the other streaming services and satellite radio normalize their music. So please tell what is the "competitive loudness" for? Who are they competing with?

 

funny you should mention that. I never really liked the WYWY. It's o.k. but there must have been another song that was better. "Only A Northern Song" was recorded during the Pepper sessions. (Or am In wrong on that?) "Only A Northern Song" would have been a way way better choice than another Harrison East Indian Song. Still the remix of WYWY is fantastic. The strings are louder for one. All of a sudden a lame song that was just "O.K." is now good.

Great job Baby Martin!

 

We can intellectually argue the merits of the remix, but not the compression. Kite is a DR6 on the blu ray. That's bloody loud.

 

DR6?!!......I am gonna be sick-
Wait!....Is that the 5.1 mix? The stereo is o.k....IT BETTER BE.

Who did the mastering on the 5.1? He should be shot.

 

Analyzed: The Beatles / Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band [50th Anniversary 2x 180g Vinyl Edition]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR Peak RMS Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR9 -2.00 dB -13.56 dB 2:02 01-Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
DR10 -1.94 dB -14.42 dB 2:45 02-With A Little Help From My Friends
DR10 -2.43 dB -15.30 dB 3:27 03-Lucy In The Sky WIth Diamonds
DR10 -1.43 dB -13.13 dB 2:46 04-Getting Better
DR11 -0.32 dB -13.77 dB 2:37 05-Fixing A Hole
DR9 -3.06 dB -15.33 dB 3:25 06-She's Leaving Home
DR9 -2.19 dB -12.90 dB 2:40 07-Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite
DR10 -1.63 dB -15.38 dB 5:05 08-Within You Without You
DR11 -2.07 dB -14.96 dB 2:39 09-When I'm Sixty-Four
DR9 -2.26 dB -12.93 dB 2:45 10-Lovely Rita
DR9 -1.73 dB -13.08 dB 2:34 11-Good Morning Good Morning
DR8 -2.12 dB -12.78 dB 1:20 12-Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise)
DR9 -0.60 dB -13.79 dB 5:03 13-A Day In The Life

 

Sticking with Kite, the facts are:
Blu Ray, DVD, and CD stereo mix: DR6
Blu Ray 5.1 mix: DR9
Vinyl stereo mix: DR10

 

No argument that the vinyl has the most DR, however; accurately measuring the DR of vinyl can be tricky.

 

How about a 'none of them' option?

 

8d

Yes, but not the main point here. Most on the forum recognize the vinyl as the best listen, so not debating that.
The main point is if we're going to defend Giles, then we are defending that DR6. Not just on the CD but the blu ray, too.
Has it ever been so true that so many bits had nothing to do?? (Said Cindy Lou Who, who was no more than two)