Abbey Road 50th contents, outtakes and sound quality thread .. only

i don't know why i was worried about Polythene pam, if anything the guitars sound LESS compressed now!

 

What do the liner notes say regarding Goodbye? Does it say taken from acetate? Tape? Bootleg source? Just wondering.

 

Giles has a public email?

 

I guess

I'm too old school. The earlier graph has different color and shading. Not sure what I'm looking at, other than the first one is limited at a certain frequency. You're telling us that if you did a 320 lossy extraction of this source it would look like your first graph? Honestly not trying to play devil's advocate, but the graphs look totally different from one another... almost as if you used two different programs. If you did not, and it's my inexperience with such graphs, I apologize. Ron

 

Not that I'm aware.

 

Wow - absolute goosebumps listening to YNGMYM on my first play.

 

Sorry for the confusion - I did use a different program than the other poster.

I'm not an expert in this stuff either but from my experience dealing with transcodes, if you did a 320 conversion of the FLAC, it would only strip out the frequencies above 20Hz.

It would not look like the graph of the supposed released product, which looks like a mp3 that's been significantly more compressed. The more compressed files are the ones that form a 16Hz "shelf" in the spectrogram, above which all information is thrown out.

That said, waiting for more information from higher up if it comes.

 

No, but if it says sourced from acetate then we have a starting point. Again, it makes no sense in ANY capacity to use a lossy cut on ANY major release. Even IF sourced from bootleg, why on earth would they do a lossy rip of it. It makes no sense and until I hear so definitively, I'm afraid graphs don't tell the entire story. Just my opinion and in no way an attack on you personally. Ron

 

And the 83 and 87 CDs too.

 

Thanks

 

Nothing lower than DR9 on the 2009 CD.

Six of the tracks on the 2019 are DR8 and one is DR7. Not what I'd call on par.

 

Another question? Why would Giles use mp3's as his guide? And not some other format i.e. mp4 or any number of other formats? Likewise, why FLAC and not WAV or Ape or other lossless formats? I think we may looking at something without knowing any background information. Are the graphs different if mp4's are substituted? Again, I'm old school. I don't know these answers. Ron

 

So your emailing him how?

 

I have his personal address because I've worked with some of his associates on other projects. We are NOT personal friends.

 

listening to the Goodbye demo right now, i'm pretty sure it's just a low quality demo. I can hear paul and his guitar pretty clearly! besides, it wasn't intended to be scrutinized in audiophile quality in the first place. it's.... a demo.

 

Thanks Mike!
Tomorrow Never Knows!

 

A special shout out to @mikecarrera. What a wonderful and inspriational source for all things Beatles-related. He makes the whole process more enjoyable and his attention to detail is greatly appreciated by me and the members here. Thanks Mike!!!!

 

Lossy, bad acetate rip (possibly from bootleg files) for the Goodbye Demo...
It's the Capitol Penny Lane from the Pepper Set all over again...

 

As a bishop said to an actr... uh... never mind.

 

And Come Together from the 1+ has DR11 (10.8 to be precise). It is now ~DR8.

 

It's actually a pretty decent quality demo. I'll chime in when I hear the set in my studio. It's also a very quiet recording and I'm guessing Giles and company used some compression to give it a bit of heft. Just my opinion. Ron

 

I would like to know what the book says, if anything.

A WAV file would represent all the same frequencies through a spectrogram viewer as a FLAC, since both are lossless. And an mp4 put through a spectrogram viewer would simply display the audio stream of the file like you'd expect.

I have to go for now, hopefully multi.flacs can clarify further.

 

Spent some time last evening listening and re-listening to Abbey Road in anticipation of the 50th anniversary remix. I have listened, in a row, to three different pressings: the original UK Apple pressing, the original Capitol pressing, and the 2012 remastered pressing (sourced from the 2009 digital remastered file).

To my ears, the original UK pressing sounds the best. The 2012 remaster sounds the worst. Capitol pressing is aggressively EQ-ed with the smiley face -- insanely loud bass and crunchy highs. But the sound is decidedly rock-and-roll nevertheless.

I was sitting in awe listening to the best band ever. When Ringo's drums enter in the "You Never Give Me your Money", at the point when Paul launches into "But oh that magic feeling", my god, Ringo makes the band literally levitate! The magic these guys were capable of creating in the studio is unprecedented. I've never heard any other band being able to lift themselves a few inches off the ground the way the Beatles could. Unbelievable!

Can't wait to listen to the remaster!

 

First of all thanks for your reply.
I know there is a difference in the resolution, but my Audiolab CD player is of higher quality (with balanced outputs) compared to my standard Sony Blu-ray player.
I will try to compare the two audios, but do you think the high resolution of the Blu-ray version will be enough to compete with the rich sound coming out of superior machine/connectors?

 

What's wrong with freeware? There are a few good freeware products and they show the same and correct spectrograms as commercial audio software packages.

Roughly speaking, when you encode into MP3, even using highest quality setting, it ditches some of the high frequencies using some psycho-acoustics algorithms.
And in those cases you will definitely see a clear frequency cutoff after a certain value on a spectrogram.