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

To all those with Androids -- you have Dolby Atmos as of the latest release on your phone. You can in fact plug in your phone and use the Atmos DSP for headphones. I will stick to 5.1 for my listening sessions and the stereo vinyl or Hi-res for critical listening/mastering choices. But, from what Mikey said - it doesn't offer much in surprises. Which is good. So - the highlight is in fact, the outtakes (which lets be honest, could have been more extensive.) and the 5.1 mix/Atmos mix.

Are there Atmos DACs?

 

From "Abbey Road 50th Anniversary Edition First Listen!" by Michael Fremer:

One thing Mr. Hayden said popped back into my memory as I typed this: he said one of the reasons for the remix was to make Abbey Road as an album or as individual tracks from the album more compatible with contemporary music so in a playlist assembled by young people it would not "stick out".

 

I would try the Atmos decoder for Windows as mentioned above. Or use Foobar's surround DSP - Pepper was pretty enjoyable after using a tube VST, and EQ.

 

I'm pretty sure the accusations of hyperbole were for being hyperbolic.

 

Abbey Road 50th Anniversary Edition Heard on a Real Stereo System!

MF did a follow up review and finally heard the remix.

 

I solved the WMGGW "issue" by using the 5.1 mix played in stereo. The panning is a bit tighter, the drums and guitar are a bit louder. Definitely better than the original stereo mix (and the stereo remix).

 

What a source of inspiration

for this divine revisitation

 

Mr. Grove must have given this exclusive to the Mirror:

Sound engineer reveals it was a biscuit that really broke up The Beatles

 

The truth always needs to be told...
" ... But things turned irrevocably sour when George Harrison furiously branded Yoko a 'B***h' when “he spied her stealing one of the digestive biscuits he’d hidden on top of his Leslie cabinet." "

 

How tall was the Lesley cabinet, did she need a step ladder to get them? At least hide them in a guitar case or something....

 

Usually no taller than, say, a Hammond organ.



Guitar case would have definitely worked better.

 

May well be...you quote Fremer who quotes Mr. Hayden...a bit hearsay-ish, isn't it?

 

Pure and Simple.

 

if you do please let me know when you mine them on the world-wide-web....unfortunately, I do not have the Inter-Net. : (

 

I just read this, and this is the first time I've ever heard of a "top loader " jacket for AR. My UK 1st opens from the side.

 

Yeah, I was thinking he meant the White Album because that made no sense.

 

But he defends and details seeing even more in the 90s, in the comments section.

 

He’s talking about his White Album pressings. But what’s weird is when he talks about a possible AAA vinyl, he talks about a « fold-over » cover, but AR never had one.

 

He must be confused about something then. Abbey Road definitely never had a top loading sleeve.

 

What a great idea. I have no idea how one goes about doing such a thing, but that sounds idyllic.

 

I just read his clarification in the comments. Needs to clarify within the text of his article, he never tells the reader he's changing subjects.

 

Maybe your idea is indeed the best solution.
But for those of us less ambitious I wonder, did you consider just swapping in the original mix for this one song? Does it sound out of place with the new mixes? I feel like the original stereo mix of this song in particular is sonically quite good (and I like the instrument placement too). So maybe a remix wasn't necessary for this one....

I think I'll eventually get around to compiling my ideal white album. I cherish the remix overall, but the more I listen, the more I feel like certain songs I would rather just have the original. It's nice to have different versions available to hear occasionally for curiosity-sake, but for every day listening I'd really like to compile one version that is the best possible for each song.

I think I'd start with the remix and then make these substitutions with the original stereo (except where noted):

- Back In The USSR (LOVE BluRay/DVD Audio version)
- While My Guitar Gently Weeps (dislike remix's moaning and the new stereo picture placement of the organ)
- Happiness Is A Warm Gun (dislike the extra mesasure of bass before "She's well acquianted..." in remix)
- Martha My Dear (A french horn counter melody I cherish in the original is buried in the remix)
- I'm So Tired (I don't like having Paul's voice so loud as in the remix and the original mono)
- Blackbird (bird sounds sit in the pocket more pleasingly in the original)
- Rocky Raccoon (somewhat undecided on which one I prefer for this one--I like the remix's harmonica, but I don't like how when the bass comes in, the first note sounds neutered, as if limited.
- I Will (also undecided, but I like how on the original the bass vocal part joins later, not right at the beginning)
- Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey (need more guitar!)
- Helter Skelter (original reigns supreme)
- Cry Baby Cry (I feel that the integral vibe was somehow lost in the remix)

All the others are really good. Favorite remixed songs are: Glass Onion, Ob-La-Di, Piggies, Yer Blues, Long Long Long, Revolution 1. Those in particular are awesomely improved to me.

I guess 19 unqualified successes (imho) out of 30 ain't too bad. Although a 63% was considered a D (letter grade) when I was in high school. ;-)

 

Do you really? How flattering. Or...wait a mo...are you being ironic? Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Maybe you are missing my (possibly too subtle) attempts at humour? Let me spell it out for you: Yes, popular music, and its enjoyment, is subjective - how could it be otherwise? However, as in all areas of the arts, it is possible to cross a line between subjectivity and objectivity. Examples? If you think Shakespeare, or Rembrandt, or the Beatles, produced nothing but garbage, then that is not a valid opinion, open to debate under the sheltering umbrella of 'subjectivity', it is just plain wrong. Am I making myself clear?

 

I may be guilty of hyperbole. But surely (maybe not?) that is better than continually sticking to some bland formulation, along the lines of "I prithee reconsider that you may be in error kind sir..."? I don't think we would expect John Lennon to have expressed himself in such dull, watery terms; so why restrict ourselves when discussing his music?

 

But Hayden is an "insider", isn't he? He said what he said in front of music critics at a sneak preview in Manhattan, filling in for Giles Martin. He must know something...