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

Compression and noise reduction makes for a great combination. Plus, they screwed up Eleanor Rigby on the YSS.

 

I think the reason that this discussion shows more hatred than praise with the remix at this point is because most folks here that enjoy the remix have moved on from the thread, leaving it to the people expressing their dissatisfaction with one thing or another, or virtually everything wrong with it in some members eyes here !

It's a remix. It will never have to replace my (or your) zillion other versions of the album, so I'm perfectly happy with this alternate listen , and I'm going to guess many here aren't gnashing their teeth over three seconds of added digital reverb, or whatever the various supposed crimes against humanity'perpetrated by the losers that prepared the release without consulting with and utilizing the vast knowledge so many of the armchair quarterbacks here on the forum seem to possess..

I will say though, your entire second paragraph seems to indicate you had issues with this release from the get go.
Talking about the Kings New Clothes and the marketing exercise doesn't give me a strong indication you were or are happy with the entire packages concept in general .

Addressing one point of yours ..
I can assure you I will listen to everything more than once, so you are welcome to speak for yourself, but I would be hesitant to speak for others regarding how much enjoyment will be gotten from the set, or how many times it will be listened to.

The one point I strongly agree with you about is the hearing tapes at Abbey Road years ago compared to the remix today. I'm pretty incredulous that anyone can compare hearing something years ago at Abbey Road played back on their studio system and speakers, etc., and being able to discern much similarity or differences on a home system, 10, 20, 30, or however many years ago the Abbey Road tapes were heard.... once.
It would be apples and oranges in my book.

That of course doesn't mean I'm not envious of the folks that heard tapes at Abbey Road, whenever it was . Tbat must have been great.

 

Finally had a chance to listen to the vinyl tonight. Lovely. Dead quiet and less loud than the CD. Mu summary is simple now. The stereo CDs, rather too loud. The blu-ray 5.1, very enjoyable when turning up the rear channels. The vinyl stereo, nice.

 

Hi Glenn,
The point I was trying to make was that listening to the new Pepper mix was as much of a revelation as hearing The Beatles at Abbey Road for the first time and not to compare like for like.

 

Got it. That makes sense then.

I remember Ron (Brainwashed)saying the 2009 remasters sounded exactly like the tapes he heard at Abbey Road, and maybe they do, but my memory isn't that great to be able to compare music heard at different times in different environments.

This isn't to question Ron's ability to do that by the way. I just don't think I was blessed with that exact of a carryover musical memory or whatever we want to call it,

I'd just be too jazzed hearing the stuff at Abbey Road in general to burn specifics into my brain .

 

Auditory memory, as I understand it, is akin to color memory, which in humans has been tested as not good or reliable at all. That's why one needs an immediate A/B comparison for validity. That being said, a dramatic experience of much improved sound may be quite memorable.

 

It's sort of like remembering a great concert, or film, from years back. it just sort of permeates your brain some how. Of course this doesn't mean that the old brain is always perfect. My point back then was that the louder bass had always been present on the masters and sessions tapes and that the 2009 remasters, especially the later era CDs, weren't goosed up (as many folks claimed) but they allowed the bass to be up front, in all its glory. Previous versions always cut the bass at some point, especially vinyl. Ron

 

Yeah, I'm not disputing in any sense that you heard the bass as it was meant to be heard .

Personally, I would have trouble though because Abbey Road probably has much better speakers than I am used to hearing things on so I wouldn't be sure if it was better bass on the tapes themselves, or just better playback equipment than I have at home, plus I'd be listening to them at frickin' Abbey Road, which probably would color my judgement .

 

Yes. Repeated like a mantra.

 

No-one here is persecuting another forum member because they like the 50th remix. I have repeatedly stated my love for the vinyl version of it and have never been met with such negative actions for this. I have been met with arguments for the opposite ofcourse but that is why we are here. And i have been met with corrections if i stated a wrong fact. Can't remember any particulars right now, but i like to be corrected if i got something technical wrong.

I shall also repeat why i don't find the new remix (not the too squashed cd version, but the vinyl, mind you) offensive: The use of "new ADT". Doesn't disturb me. They went to the edge but not over it. If they had used it on a pre Revolver album it'd be a very different case. I just don't find ADT to be out of taste on an album where it was used extensively. The cases of demixing. All done very well. If we didn't know it was there (meaning we know what was originally recorded together) we probably wouldn't notice. So no beefs with the demixing for me.
All the tracks sound cohesive in a way the previous stereo mix didn't. Excepting the title track. Moving the drums that much from the center disconnects the lead guitar from the rest of the band for me.

Just took my daily walk with Sgt Pepper remix/vinyl rip in my ultimate ears molded in-ears. Sunshine and good music and finally a mix of this album that i enjoy.

 

Just got to Ibiza and 34c cool beer and guess what some Pepper being played in pool bar. Life is good.

 

Maybe so, but what exactly is the point of this demixing? The balance was recorded correctly and the parts never sounded wrong in any way. So why bother?

 

I don't think that anyone here is complaining just because it's there. I have a problem with it in places where it is audible and creates artifacts.
In Reprise they separated the guitar(s) from the Vox Continental organ. The organ has very specific sound and its harmonics share the same frequency spectrum with the biting guitars so couldn't be 100% separated. The result is that the harmonics of the organ are still in the center with the guitars and its lower spectrum only is panned slightly to the left but as it's missing part of its character it now sounds as if there is completely different instrument. Plus it makes some of the guitar fills shift from the center to the center-left panned organ.

Getting Better, they demixed bass from bass drum. The bass drum is in the center, bass is panned to the right but keeps jumping/sticking to the center placed bass drum for some notes. It's very distracting to me.

Ondra

 

It was jaw dropping. A few years ago I blogged my memories from that event with some photos. I was 13 that summer and I wished I had the foresight to have taken notes or kept a diary from that day.

Abbey Road Summer, 1983 - Microgroove Musings

 

To give more control with panning and other treatment. However advanced the technology of today is, this "demixing" does produce artifacts, depending how it is done and what is the source material. For example, if I remember correctly, With a Little Help has bass and tambourine locked together on one track. Demixing is such cases will produce minimum sound 'anomalies' and will allow to split bass and the tambourine, treat both of them separately. In other cases, however, the results can't be that good.

In fact, I think a lot of pre-8-track Beatles songs were "demixed" for Beatles Rock Band video game.

Why the bass and drums aren't in the middle at all (except for 2 or 3 songs). I thought they were basing it on Mono version.

 

Yeah, I get that. I just don't understand what the 'problem' was to begin with. Did it need rebalancing? Did it sound wrong panned together? Nope.

 

Raspberry Sauce

 

Technology my good friend. For good or bad, technological advancements seem to always give one pause. As music progressed from being on wax cylinders to the latest and greatest hi-rez, issues always abound. LPs in the late 40's were inferior, fidelity-wise to 45s and 78s. Eight-track and cassettes inferior to LPs. CDs, ah yes, "Perfect sound forever." Remember the hype back in late 1982? Streaming inferior to CDs. It goes on and on.

Then there's the mastering process. In the early days, bass and treble had to be cut for vinyl mastering. Hot bass caused the needle to "jump." So it wasn't a problem capturing bass in the studio on reel-to-reel decks, but it was very difficult to press vinyl with the bass in tact. The very sound on vinyl was often obscured by wow and flutter, vinyl composite material, cartridge type, etc... We got used to pops and clicks, but that's not the way music is suppose to be heard either. When digital CDs came on the scene, they exposed "noise" previously obscured by vinyl limitations. So, they introduced noise gates and filters and various means of noise reduction. The earliest processes degrading the sound so much new methods and software were evolving almost from the start. Ever listen to the ultra cheapo Madacy CDs from the mid-80's? Beyond awful. Hell, 16 rpm spoken word and kiddy records from the late 50s sounded better.

Editing in the digital domain is much easier and quicker than the old razor blade method, but it comes with its own issues, namely engineers using it willy-nilly for no apparent artistic reason. I've Got A Feeling on Let It Be....Naked ring a bell?! Now we have software that can separate multiple sources locked onto a single track. As with other methods, this has not been perfected. Anomalies still exist. Is there a need to unlock a tambourine and bass, to separate them and spread them out in the stereo field? Probably not. As mentioned, engineers can sometimes be their own worst enemies. But, I admit it's kind of cool to separate guitars and pan them. Ah the limitations of 4-track even bouncing tapes down. In their defense, let me say it's very possible that the engineers are told by their superiors to use the latest technology simply because of the investment involved. I have no knowledge if this was true for the 2017 Pepper album.

Regarding its use on the 2017 Sgt. Pepper remix. Some of the editing/demixing is seemless and very pleasing. Other times, it just seems they used the process because they could, not that there was a necessity to do so. There is such a thing as "too much" and at times I think this happened. That being said, the new remix is a cool listening experience. I don't think Giles and company consider it THE canon representation of Sgt. Pepper, but went for a different feel and I think they succeeded nicely. Ron

 

Thank you so much for this. What an excellent post.

 

Actually it is my understanding that demixing was used much more than in the places where panning makes it obvious. Mostly to be able to raise the drums in volume.

Now for some speculation: Perhaps this demixing to seperate the drums gave oppertunity to move the guitars away from the drums on a couple of tracks.

I know. I am glad it's not distracting to me. But had they gone totally overboard and created artefakts like the very audible cedar retouche seperations in Rock Band i'd find it very distracting. I do, ofcourse, respect your and others views on this. In this case the things done mostly fall on the right side for me, but not for you.

 

Thank you! As we go on through life, it's easy to lose the details of even the most cherished of memories. I decided that at the very least, I should post my memories so even I myself could remember them years from now.

 

Coupla words from Ringo this week at Rolling Stone:

Your drums sound louder than ever on the new Sgt. Pepper box set.
They are! Giles [Martin, son of George Martin] has turned me up. I love it! We couldn't do that in the Sixties. If anything, when we were mastering, we were taking off the bottom all the time, and the bottom was my bass drum. You should go to the Love show [in Las Vegas]. It's like drum boogie. It's so far-out.

What role did you take in putting together the Sgt. Pepper set?
Giles remastered it, they sent it to me, and I said I loved it. There's another bonus CD with different bits – the big piano that we all played for that one chord [on "A Day in the Life"]. That is so interesting, even for me, who's on the damn thing. I just love it.

Are you going to release deluxe editions of the other albums?
I hope they do the White Album and Abbey Road.

How about Revolver and Rubber Soul?
I don't know. Let's say yes! [Laughs] If we don't, forgive me.​

 

LOL! This was great ... thank you.

 

Thanks for this. I was there too - I was 25 at the time. The sound was incredible. I remember they served cookies and juice, as if being there wasn't enough!

 

Ringo said:

This is exactly what I have been saying all along. The mono mix is not the mix the Beatles wanted it is the mix they had to settle for. The 50th is closer to what they really wanted they just could not mix it that way in the 60s because everyone's record player would have skipped.