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

I am curious about the vinyl. Is it better than the remastered Mono Pepper? On the fence if I should buy it.

 

I think it's important to remember that Sgt. Pepper has ALWAYS been a very compressed, dense and cluttered album. The dynamic range has always been limited, especially the much vaunted mono mix. The reason is the manner in which the tracks were recorded in the first place. Lots of bouncing, each one requiring additional compression and extra doses of reverb, ADT and god knows what else, Martin Sr. and Emerick threw into the mix. I'm not sure if folks don't understand these methods, or thought somehow that the remix would solve these issues. Since Giles said from the start that he wanted the new stereo remix to emulate the original mono template it's not surprising he went with a punchy, compressed, but much clearer mix.

As for those who get ear fatigue, may I suggest listening at a slightly reduced volume, or move away from your speakers a tad? I can't help headphone afficianados, but most people I know use crappy earbuds pushed to 10... this isn't good whether the DR value is 7 or 13. I'll tell you this... in the car, at home and in the studio, this new remix is very exciting for me. Yes, it's compressed and hot, but the little background things once buried, are much clearer and help define moments within the song. Just my two cents from a middling musician, engineer, producer and fan. Ron

PS Compressed doesn't mean brickwalled. There are no squashed or flattened peaks on these mixes. In fact, the high end peaks are quite good indeed. There's just a lot going on musically and vocally. For goodness sake, Fremer gave this a 10 for sound quality. And he's NO Apple suck up!

 

It's actually worth reading about the "loudness wars" - google it, its fascinating. Basically you'd think that a song is a song, but if you listen to a song on CD from the 80s and then listen to it on a "greatest hits" CD from 2010, the difference in how it sounds is shocking. Record companies started demanding that songs be as loud as possible, but obviously you can't suddenly have a song on the radio being hugely louder than the song they just played; so they make it seem louder by raising the levels of the quieter bits. That means there's less difference - less range, within the song itself. And it makes everything seem louder (it's actually one way they make TV adverts seem louder than the TV programmes).

Because of the lack of range, this is known as "brickwalling". Others will be better able to explain what the term actually means.

People say this actually fatigues the ears and makes it hard to listen for long periods. But it's still happening because record companies want their songs to land with a punch on the radio.

If you google "loudness wars" you'll get some great examples of songs that have been remastered to seem louder, losing range in the process: it brings the issue alive. You'll hear how awful songs actually sound when treated this way - but it's become the dominant way of doing things.

Part of the reason why people are more disappointed with this Pepper release is because the people involved seemed to be indicating that they'd chosen not to go down this route. Some people feel they did go down the "loudness" route but I'm not experienced enough to know how much that means in reality. Certainly the raw figures show that the dynamic range on this release is lower (there's less difference in low and high levels) than older releases of the same album. But how much that will affect people is anyone's guess.

I'd love someone involved to explain why they didn't try to give us the maximum possible dynamic range. These songs aren't competing for radio play now, are they? Are the record companies totally convinced that we will reject their songs if they're quieter with more range? I'd love to know what an actual Abbey Road or Apple staff member thinks.

(Sorry if you knew all that already; it's a fascinating subject even for someone like me who doesn't really know anything about it.)

 

I am curious on what someone's opinion on what it sounds like instead of a conclusion based on the results of a mathematical formual generated by a computer.

 

Modern mixes are being mixed/mastered for the sound systems of the masses.... ear buds.

 

Weirdo.

 

I'd never listened to the mono of Pepper until a few days ago, and in all honesty it felt more squashed and compressed than anything else I'd heard. That's partly a feature of mono, and partly the result of me not having sophisticated ears, but it felt like the exact way people describe the way they feel when listening to "brickwalled" tracks.

I actually felt no emotional connection to the music because of it. I felt like vocals and guitars were fighting for space.

That's not a criticism of the mono - I understand and respect the esteem in which the mono mix is held. But when I read about "squashed", brickwalled, compressed music, I have to say I felt like the mono mix had all the downsides people use to describe modern compression. It felt like there was no life and no range. Maybe that's what mono "is" - it felt lifeless and cramped and squashed.

Sorry

 

Thre first three tracks have already been released on streaming services, and I instantly noticed the limited DR when listening to them. It's really that obvious.

 

Anyone watch the documentary on the Blu-Ray disc yet? I'm curious about the video quality. It's supposed to be restored but I wonder was it originally recorded on videotape or film?

 

Wow WYWY is STUNNING.

 

I listened to the mono for the first time just last year and had the same impression - sounds very compressed and cluttered. Very different to the airy and smooth stereo I'd been listening to for 30+ years.

 

I have spent all morning listening to the boxed set , and although there is compression on the new mix it's totally worth buying. It sounds loud, but it also sounds fresh, new and lively. We still have the old mixes available. This new mix is great fun - there are moments when what you are genuinely taken by surprise by elements you never really paid much attention to before. Maybe the vinyl will be more dynamic, but then you would miss out on a lot of great takes and the fantastic book.

The outtakes are a Cornucopia of Curiosities - a Spice Rack of black, white, red and green pepper. Really if you love Pepper you have to buy this box.
If you're not buying it because of the DR numbers I would rethink and take the plunge. I think this is an essential mix.

It really reinforces what an achievement this LP was by these four (or five) guys in 67.
Obviously it's expensive, but it's definitely worth getting. How often is something like this released?

 

You can read the review of Michael Fremer on Analog Planet who did actually listen to the music, and gave the sound quality a "10". Here's the link:

Giles Martin’s “Pass the Salt and Pepper” Remix on CD

 

I don't know why anyone wouldn't have expected the new mix to have all the accoutrements of other mixes in this day and age.

I definitely did. I can't wait to hear it in that context... just to get a new perspective on this historic work.

 

Mono can sound glorious. Sgt. Pepper in mono is very dense and compressed, with little dynamic range within each track. I just think the DR value isn't a true barometer for this album. So many songs are just BAM! There's no dynamic range in a song like Sgt. Pepper's Reprise... balls to the wall. Same with nearly every song on the album. The outtakes have "better" DR value because the songs are incomplete and not nearly as cluttered as the final mixes. I don't know enough about hi-rez to know why those DR values are a bit better (higher) than the standard remix tracks. Ron

 

I can provide them tomorrow, if no one will be faster.

 

I loaded a few tracks into Audacity late last night and none were brickwalled. It's disingenuous to say otherwise. Compressed and limited, yes. Brickwalled, no. Ron

 

The digital 2017 Stereo remix sounds great. The superior Mono mix has always been compressed, and I've never liked the original Stereo mix. The latter always had more breathing room.

The 2017 vinyl sounds even better. I'm sure Apple knew the hardcore audiophile Beatles fan was going to buy the vinyl either way, so a universal digital version was created.

 

I'm no expert, but I do wonder: With an overall DR rating of 8, how could it not be brickwalled? Otherwise you risk clipping.

 

No brickwalling but it IS compressed more than it needed to be. Bit of an opportunity squandered although the remix itself in terms of positioning is wonderful.

 

The 50th anniversary remix.

 

Glad I am choosing the vinyl option, which Martin has stated was done "at half-speed..." Hopefully, they chose a softer mastering to maintain any available dynamics.
I've heard the 3 available tracks on Tidal...impressed with the mix.

 

Great post. Sums up my feelings on the mono version perfectly. Viva la stereo!

 

To be fair, I get "brickwalling" wich is kind of a stretchable term and compression mixed up sometimes.