Let It Be/Get Back 50th Anniversary Releases! (Content and Sound Quality Discussion Only)!

Lucas would have had Lennon leave first.

 

Probably best to let have people have their opinions and c'est la vie. If you don't agree with someone, it creates far more of an issue/conflict telling others they shouldn't feel the way they feel.

 

Is is possible that Johns did that to the original tapes at some point?

 

If you're listening on a 5.1 system, the 5.1 mix is dedicated and involves no 'simplification' of the Atmos sound field. If you have a 7.1 system, if you select the Atmos mix, you should get the Dolby TrueHD 7.1 'bed' of the Atmos mix. Not sure what happens to the height objects here though - are they dropped or 'down mixed' into the 5.1/7.1 sound field.

 

I think the Let It Be single mix on disc 5 is exactly the same as the one on 2015's 1+

 

I made a joke just like that on the 'Visual Corner' thread!
Great minds, and all that....

 

Listening to the single album, and I'm surprised the remix is so subtle.
Sure the bass and drums are more prominent ( which I prefer ), but I for some reason expected something more dramatic...like Let It Be Naked.

 

Just got done listing to 5.1 mix. LOVED IT ! Adventurous, exciting, and discreet. Now if Giles would redo PEPPER with the knowledge he has gained over the years......
Only criticism is it could use a bit more bass. TWO OF US has incredible acoustic guitars. ACROSS THE UNIVERSE's orchestra sounds like I have never heard it before. Still too much orchestration on LONG AND WINDING ROAD, but all in all---this is a winner. Now will continue wth Glyn Johns.

 

After I examined all tracks' spectrum, I can draw the conclusion that clearly the "1969 Mix" is mainly based on 1970 mixes. All parts who are not featured in 1970 mix are stitched from 1969 mix (with louder noise). For example, Save The Last Dance For Me is edited in 1970 mix, so for that part, they stitched 1969 mix. Also, if you ever notice the beginning of Rocker (I'm Ready), it's a sudden cut like 1970 mix, however in 1969 mix it's a fade-in. The same goes for For You Blue, the first false start is from 1969 mix, the suddenly cut to 1970 mix when second false start comes in. As for Across The Universe and I Me Mine, I don't know what happened to them that they become so ****ed up, as they are also in 1970 mix.

 

This made me think of this joke video for Raiders of the Lost Ark if George Lucas made a special edition of that movie, employing his Star Wars revisionism.

 

A perfect illustration of the downside of noise reduction; you lose a bit of the fidelity too! The top pic looks grainy but alive and fitting with the conditions, the bottom one is just missing the whitening and aligning of the teeth and it's digitally enhanced John!

 

Sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about.

 

Kind of frustrating because I actually prefer the 1970 version, and yet they don't even use the master tape for the two songs that were added for it. I guess those two tracks were mastered lazily after the fact? It's too bad because it leaves me with the impression that had they chosen to include the 1970 version over the 1969 version and included "Teddy Boy" (feh) as a bonus, they wouldn't have ****ed that up.

 

THIS !!!!!

 

Excellent detective work! A shame. I'll enjoy it for what it is. At least it's the right time of year to be presented with Frankenstein mixes.

 

Sorry to be persnickety, but I'd have really appreciated a"Spoiler" warning on this "I ME MINE" session photos entry. It's only one day more, I realize, but still. I think I'd better lay out for a few days, too...

 

If you mean the mixes, they used some cheap NR device when they remixed the tracks for Naked. (Mixing engineer Jamie Tate, who used to post here, wrote more about it elsewhere. He knew the device pretty well and was not a fan.) Also much more compression, an inferior take of "Don't Let Me Down," and a few other things I'm probably forgetting.

 

Thanks for sharing! How would you stack this up against Abbey Road's 5.1 mix? I love that one.

 

How would you remove carp? Sounds fishy to me.

 

I see what you're saying. Yeah, sonically, it's not the best, but I'm fine with the mix decisions they made, and I think it is a better listen than the original album, with a better flow.

I'm not quite sure what you mean with "an inferior take of "Don't Let Me Down." You mean the live version patched together to be complete? I find that to be much preferable to either of the flubbed versions. Naked isn't perfect, but it's my go-to for these sessions.

 

Sorry I didn’t even notice. Wrong thread.

 

These 2 points together still make zero sense to me. Which makes me think there's more to it. There must be a reason why these two tracks weren't available but be others were. I don't buy the whole "They used bootlegs because they had no time" theory.

Why would they digitize the 1970 tape but not those 2 songs?

 

Yes I’m surprised Giles didn’t mix down the orchestration (and the female backing singers) as Paul wanted, not even a little. He did mix the harp lower though I think, at least I didn’t notice it as much.

 

Last night I picked up a copy of the CD super deluxe box. Three of us were looking at the packaging and I commented that someone on here had advised that the font used was different. They didn't believe me, so we got out a copy of the original vinyl, the 2009 digipak CD and compared them with a copy of the new remix vinyl. Lo and behold, the font was different! They were stunned!

We then compared the four photos on each cover, particularly the two vinyl albums. The original LP cover shots had a lot more grain and the skin tones were pink in hue. In comparison, on the new LP cover the four photos of the Fabs looked softer (or blurry as one of us put it) and the skin tones were green in hue!

A couple of hours later, I come on here to find half a dozen pages of discussion about over use of digital noise reduction, image smearing, over use of colour boost etc in the trailer (including screenshot comparisons).......

Man the world's a funny place!!

 

Oh no, I meant it's inferior to what was used (and also patched/fixed) for the original single. No way I'd want a flubbed version on the album.