Original UK Mono Pepper vs. 2014 mono Pepper

It's an initial release paper label UK Sgt Peppers. Vinyl has its issues as well, you know...

 

Vinyl most definitely has issues. But a 1967 (?) cassette arguably has more.

Plus I’m not sure how a stereo cassette is authentic to the mono vinyl.

 

The 2014's were sold and marketed for how authentic and close to the originals they were. Not for how great they sound, how digitally improved they are, and not because their mastering was so much better than the originals. My main line of reasoning and argument has been to show how they are NOT just like the originals. That doesn't mean they aren't good sounding...or worth their ORIGINAL price. But the CURRENT price?

 

I realize the stereo issue and acknowledge it.

 

It’s fair game to compare and contrast the originals versus the originals, and to have preferences. On the other hand, your attachment to first pressings can be construed exactly in the same light regarding your own personal agenda and vested interest in the originals.

You make a claim about added compression, and provide no evidentiary source for your claim. You can believe what you like but forum posters will jump on you for that considering the mastering engineer, in the book that accompanied the box set, said he did not add compression. I’m not disputing that you perceive the compression, but many others don’t, the mastering engineer said he didn’t and so without any evidence other than what your ears tell you, you haven’t made your case.

You’re opinions about smiley face EQ’ing, added compression and lack of punchiness are not the same as arguing the merits of photographic evidence. Funny how you antagonize forum posters for contradicting your personally held-opinions, and somehow you’re the victim of pack mentality. And then you ask yourself about why bothering spending the time to make the effort of a proper analysis. I guess it might make more people willing to consider your argument. If that’s what you here for.

FYI, I have multiple mono first pressings of Pepper and the 2014 reissue and I have a slight preference for the original as well. By a hair.

 

Your post is just too long to quote and draw attention to the parts I am answering but I'll try to reply in a concise manner.

I have some attachment to the original pressings but I am ruthless when something is bad and I would dump the originals for something better if it did exist but in my opinion and experience there is no better thing.

I have not provided any evidence of the compression because unlike some posters here, I've never said my comments are "fact" presumably facts will come from the result from a laboratory testing where the levels of those pressings get visually compared to ascertain that there is compression. My comments are based on my own comparisons between pressings. I am yet to see factual professionally done test comparisons between the pressings, so far there is only Blah blah blah.

Why should I bother in making my own graphical measurements which should demonstrate the compression but I am not so certain the frequency limitations would be shown properly. If I have to spend time proving my point, why shouldn't the people who claim the contrary have to demonstrate their point or are these people sitting on a throne in Buckingham palace without having to answer to anyone?

In any case I don't care to convince anyone of anything. If my comments serve the purpose of intriguing somebody who is seeking the truth to the point they actually taste the difference themselves then great if not I don't care but I am not going to let a false news be spread the way the are and do absolutely nothing about it.

You say you prefer the original by a hair, this is not meant in any way as an attack to you or your equipment but may be the cartridges you use or the phono stage might be limiting the differences perhaps your ears, I don't know, I had a Shure IV ages ago which I used to like a lot but I no longer have it and the only Empire is a 2000 so it does not serve for comparison. I am not even sure of the condition as it came in one of my TT's. I have never tried and probably would not want to use it on a perfect record not knowing where it's been. I normally use headphones when auditioning something to gauge the sound quality as I find that a much more easy way to determine differences when comparing records. Speakers to me tend to iron out the differences unless they are abysmal for that reason all my comments regarding sound are generally based on headphones.

 

I forgot to add regarding what you call my attachment to the originals is that in general I have one of each in some case two which with a few exceptions they are all keepers. A bit of reading on this forum or even youtube will show you people boasting about "stockpiling" these reissues and the boxes with the sole intention of making money.
I have several reissues I need to get rid of eventually and the more expensive they get the better for me but it doesn't worry me saying I don't like them as I do not have a hidden agenda and never bought them intending to make money.

 

Headphones are probably not the best way to audition a record, although at least you're consistent.

I used to have a pair of STAX headphones. Very tonally neutral, coherent from top to bottom, and lightning quick.

But, compared to dynamic headphones, they don't render large scale dynamics as well, and don't convey the presence and weight of dynamic headphones.

And then with headphones, you don't get the spatial information compared to what you get with loudspeakers, where your brain is better able to create a 3-dimensional soundstage. Obviously with mono recordings, that's less of an issue (though not entirely).

The point is, however, you don't get the most complete picture of a recording with headphones.

 

It's really no big deal. I'm a half-century old and handle myself on a daily basis.

 

That's fine, it is your opinion and I respect it, mine is that the headphones isolate me from everything and give me a better chance to immerse in the music.
As you've said I do use the headphones and always the same ones to try to be consistent when I am commenting on the quality of a particular pressing here and for my own pleasure too as I quite like them.


Those headphones and their amplifier are fairly new. I do however test sound through other equipment too mostly vintage, also a lesser pair of regular headphones. I choose not to pass judgement based on those (the speakers) because they are old but as you can imagine after telling you that, I have put the Beatles reissues trough a repertoire of other electronics and I still feel exactly the same way with those as I feel with the Stax.

EDIT: You mention the headphones don't render the dynamics well, that could be an argument if I have only listened to the 2014 but the two versions went through the same headphones so what is good or bad for one of them is good or bad for the other too, apples vs apples.

 

You didn't say whether you are an original or a reissue?

 

So true, so true. Stax is an amazing record label to listen to with headphones.
:--)

 

It doesn't matter, would people like to handle him like they would an original UK pressing?

 

Wow. That was about the least interesting interview I’ve ever read.

ANY QUESTION AT ALL

BERKOWITZ: A) We aren’t fit to lick the Beatles’ boots; or B) The new remasters are made to sound exactly like the originals.

MAGEE: Each person needs to decide that for yourself.

 

I thoroughly agree, I was going to reply later to the other poster but I may as well do it partly here. I have read the interview before and I found the replies very biased, vague, incomplete and there is a lot question avoidance.

 

Here's something very interesting:

Q&A

SEAN MAGEE, ABBEY ROAD MASTERING ENGINEER

Sgt Pepper sounds great…

It sounds beautiful, doesn’t it? We didn’t do anything at all – that’s how it came off the tape. It said on the box, “please cut flat”, which means, “don’t do anything to it.” It’s mentioned in ((i)Beatles engineer(i)) Geoff Emerick’s book I think. The head of production at that time, pushed him against the wall and ssaid, “How dare you tell my engineers what to do” sort of thing. But he said, that’s how they wanted it.

https://www.uncut.co.uk/reviews/album/the-beatles-the-beatles-in-mono#V90mH5c8S43Jo4Pj.99

So there you have it. The 2014 mono Pepper was cut FLAT. No "smiley face" EQ, no nothing.

 

Much better than that other one.

 

But, was the original Parlophone mono cut FLAT as well?

 

Am I reading this right? The head of 2014 production pushed someone against a wall? Not wanting his engineers to be told what to do? I wonder if the engineers kept it flat but then the HEAD of production made some clandestine and "never revealed to anyone" changes. "You're not the boss of me. I'm the HEAD of production and I know how to push people against walls." Very interesting...

 

No, but I like your sense of humour. That was 1967 and Horace Hack, the head of EMI's mastering deparment.

The book is called "Here, There and Everywhere: My Life Recording the Music of The Beatles" by Geoff Emerick and Howard Massey.

 

This article wholeheartedly promotes the dispelled myth that the Beatles AND George Martin only cared about mono. It's already been shown how George Martin recorded via multitracks and his method of recording, step by step and track by track, on different tracks already was building the stereo every step of the way. And it's been documented how the Beatles were "especially keen" on sitting in for the final A Day In The Life stereo mixing. And some of the methods detailed in this interview necessarily are tenuous and prone to human error. If this article, from the very beginning...didn't go out of it's way to make the case for mono Beatles and was more even handed, it would be more credible, in my opinion.

 

BUT...you conclude your post...after this quote of the pushing incident....by declaring..."So there you have it. The 2014 mono Pepper was cut FLAT." After you had just quoted from a book about the ORIGINAL 1967 Pepper. And NOT the 2014's. So the quote was about how the 1967 was cut flat? And then you decided that this proves the 2014 were cut flat? I like your sense of humor and very noticeable Word Play.

 

The interview is from 2014. It's not about the original pressing. It's all about the 2014 monos.

The excerpt I quoted in post #122 is a part of that interview.

Please follow the link and read it.

 

I did read it. And noticed your definitive and declarative pronouncement announcing, "There you have it. The 2014 mono was cut FLAT". Stated IMMEDIATELY after you quote the 1967 pushing incident over cutting the 1967 flat. NOT the 2014's...that you immediately declared as flat...as though the 1967 being cut flat proves anything about the 2014's.

 

According to the aforementioned book, Geoff was "cornered" by Horace Hack because of his "please cut flat" note, but after some negotiations, he was allowed to be in Harry Moss' machine room during the cutting session and they made "a couple of minor EQ adjustments".