Dismiss Notice
We are making some updates and reconfigurations to our server. Apologies for any downtime or slow forum loading now or within the next week or so. Thanks!

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

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by hodgo, Apr 5, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dudley07726

    dudley07726 Forum Resident

    Location:
    FLA
    Here is the video with the vinyl mastering engineer

    He mentions that around 3:13
     
  2. crossroads69

    crossroads69 Senior Member

    Location:
    London Town
    Yeah, its pretty silly that they did not include the unlimited digital master on the Bluray as an option. Bit of an oversight from Apple....
     
  3. googlymoogly

    googlymoogly Forum Resident

    I got a copy of the 2 LP remix yesterday, and it's an interesting listen. The compression is a tad overdone, as is the bass in places (but not all). The thing is, McCartney's basslines were almost always a highlight of the Beatles' songs, so it's pleasant to hear them so clearly and distinctly, but just a touch less compression and bass-heaviness might have resolved (some of) the complaints one reads on these threads. I'm sensitive to the fact that a project like this is difficult from the start, and that the remixing team knew they would be damned if they did, damned if they didn't when it comes to the Beatles. The pressing itself is very well done...and yet, I will continue to listen to the mono mix when it comes to Sgt. Pepper.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2017
    Gardo, chacha and MicJames like this.
  4. stevemoss

    stevemoss Forum Resident

    You're taking what he said a bit inaccurately.

    What he actually says is:
    "there were 2 captures on the computer workstation, the second of them was with no digital peak limiting (which is used to make the CDs and digital media sound LOUD) -- none of that for the vinyl, 'cause you don't need that on vinyl. So we did 2 passes: one with a little bit of gentle limiting for the digital version, and one completely pure which was used for the [vinyl] cut."

    He also mentions (earlier, at 1:45) that he did the mastering for the CD, the DVD, and the Blu-Ray, in addition to the vinyl. ...so the peak limiting for digital media was done by the very same guy who's saying "LOUD". And he implies that limiting was necessary for digital, and says it was gentle.

    If you want to get hung up on the peak limiting, fine. But understand that, from all accounts, it's a hot compressed mix rather than a compressed mastering job.
     
  5. MicJames

    MicJames Forum Resident

    Location:
    Seattle
    I don't understand why peak limiting is necessary for digital. I understand why it's necessary to make it LOUD. But my grasp of the technical aspects of sound engineering is very limited.

    Those who have heard both say the vinyl is less harsh, but, yes, point taken that the new mix itself is the primary source of the "hot" and "compressed" sound.
     
  6. stevemoss

    stevemoss Forum Resident

    I'm sure others can touch on that more eloquently, but the long and short of it is that audio naturally has brief transients that are of much higher level than the rest of the sound. If you want to ensure nothing overloads and clips, you're confined by the extreme peak of the very loudest sound in the mix, even if it is one of those brief transients. Peak Limiting can knock down those transients, so that the overall level of the entire mix can be raised without overloading. Used gently, you'll hardly notice it...unfortunately it can be severely abused.
     
    evilpants, MicJames and Kim Olesen like this.
  7. GP

    GP Forum Resident

    Location:
    Lynbrook, NY
    I've only had a chance to hear the 24/96 format so far, and it came out of my speakers like a Wall of Loudness. Almost as if I should be listening to this through the PA system in a huge venue, not a home stereo. Blaring and unrelenting. But maybe there's something to it. Maybe hearing one of the most influential albums of all time jacked-up in this way can be kind of exhilarating, at least for a little while. I don't think I could stay with this over the long term, but it is curious to me that they took such an aggressive approach for this remix.

    One of the things that always stood out for me on the original mix of "Good Morning, Good Morning" was the way the Sounds Inc. horns were so limited and compressed that they sounded as if they were just one very large, almost electric sounding, instrument. Now with the remix, the whole track sounds like that! I can barely make out the valve clattering between lines anymore because it's nearly buried. Quite a feat. :D

    It's almost hilarious to listen to this, but I don't know if humor is what they were going for. I don't see the point in comparing this to the original mix, whether you like it or not. The loudness button is permanently stuck in the "On" position. Full on.

    With all that said I'm still looking forward to hearing the double LP. What the hell. It's The Beatles, and it's Pepper, and there's always something to get excited about.
     
  8. stevemoss

    stevemoss Forum Resident

    Geoff Emerick said this in the 1987 "Sgt. Pepper" CD's liner notes: "The Beatles insisted that everything on Sgt. Pepper had to be different, so everything was either distorted, limited, heavily compressed or treated with excessive equalization."

    Every word after "either" in that quote seem to also be the big complaints people here have had about the remix. I don't believe that's a coincidence; I think we're just hearing all of that more clearly.
     
    evilpants, 905, pablo fanques and 9 others like this.
  9. paulmccartneyistheman

    paulmccartneyistheman Forum Resident

    That makes a hell of a lot of sense. Good point!
     
  10. Disagree. I think you're conflating the specific recording of those sounds with these same properties when applied to the overall mix - which the Beatles clearly didn't want to have happen as indicated by the outcome of the original mono mix that they heavily participated in. I wouldn't use any of the terms in Emerick's quote to describe that mix.
     
    supermd and chacha like this.
  11. Kim Olesen

    Kim Olesen Gently weeping guitarist.

    Location:
    Odense Denmark.
    It is a very accurate and elegant explanation.
     
    evilpants and MicJames like this.
  12. stevemoss

    stevemoss Forum Resident

    Not at all. The treatment applied to recorded elements shows up in the mix. There's no avoiding that. When you're combining elements laden with those properties, those properties don't go away.
    You're hearing the recorded treatment more clearly now that they've retrieved the work parts, free of bouncing's generation loss, off their original tapes.

    Disagree? Ok. Agree to disagree.
     
    evilpants likes this.
  13. The Ole' Rocker

    The Ole' Rocker Forum Resident

    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    [​IMG]

    UK front-sleeve art.
     
  14. delmonaco

    delmonaco Forum Resident

    Location:
    Sofia, Bulgaria
    So if I understand correctly, your theory is that in this new mix they used the already compressed recorded tapes without additional compression to be applied?
     
  15. Kim Olesen

    Kim Olesen Gently weeping guitarist.

    Location:
    Odense Denmark.
    To some extent yes. Listening to the rock band versions it's clear that specially the drums and bass were very hard compressed during the recording. Now these elements are loud in the new mix and so their built in properties are also more apparent. Were they compressed even more....really hard to tell without having the option to listen to them in isolation.
     
    evilpants and stevemoss like this.
  16. MicJames

    MicJames Forum Resident

    Location:
    Seattle
    Makes sense--thanks for the explanation.

    I guess I still don't understand why it would be necessary for the digital and not the vinyl, unless the objective is/was to make the digital more competitive in the loudness wars with other current releases. I can understand doing that for the CD, but not the hi-rez.
     
  17. delmonaco

    delmonaco Forum Resident

    Location:
    Sofia, Bulgaria
    I don't know...I'm not a professional, but I think that using compression and distortion during recording, in order to achieve certain sound and tonal characteristic for each instrument or voice is one thing, but applying compression and limiting during mixing/mastering is something different. A very dynamic mix can be achieved even if consists heavily processed separate elements, like distorted guitars, phased vocals etc. - the things are not related, IMO.
     
  18. delmonaco

    delmonaco Forum Resident

    Location:
    Sofia, Bulgaria
    Even doing it for CD is hard to understand, because the CD is no longer part of the loudness war. Only the files meant for streaming and broadcasting fight and compete who's louder, but no one today broadcasts from CDs.
     
  19. stevemoss

    stevemoss Forum Resident

    I'm not saying that more compression wasn't added in the mix; that's definitely possible.

    What I am saying is that the work parts weren't recorded in vanilla fashion - there WAS deliberate treatment applied to many elements during recording. They would deliberately hit a compressor too hard while tape was running, to get a certain sound. They would saturate the tape with hot signal to capture a certain sound. Delays added to vocals during recording. Extreme treatments to horns ("So we ended up flanging, limiting and compressing it, anything to make it sound unlike brass playing. It was typical John Lennon - he just wanted it to sound weird."). Running the machine at a different speed during performance, to change the pitch and timbre of the sound. These things were baked permanently into the stems live as they recorded them, and could not be undone.

    Then you perform a few bounces of this treated material, and the sound changes. Things soften a little. The "colors" shift. Go to mix the song at this point, and you're working with not quite what you'd recorded.

    ...but if you retrieve the original pre-bounce parts, you're working with the elements at the level of clarity they originally hit the tape, and thereby hearing the full extent of the treatment applied while recording.

    So if something was recorded "distorted, limited, heavily compressed or treated with excessive equalization", you're absolutely going to hear that now with more clarity. If something was compressed to within an inch of its life in 1967, it's not going to add greater dynamics to a mix now.
     
  20. delmonaco

    delmonaco Forum Resident

    Location:
    Sofia, Bulgaria
    Ok, but I believe that all this "distorted, limited, heavily compressed or treated with excessive equalization" approach concerns the tonal quality of each instrument or vocal they wanted to achieve, and not an overall compressed and overly loud sound of the whole final mix.
     
    Maidenpriest and MicJames like this.
  21. MicJames

    MicJames Forum Resident

    Location:
    Seattle
    Just want to say how pleasantly educational this thread has been for me, especially in the last few pages.

    Thanks for all the informed posts.
     
  22. Kim Olesen

    Kim Olesen Gently weeping guitarist.

    Location:
    Odense Denmark.
    Well a loud mix is a byproduct of loud individual tracks. But it is no secret ofcourse, that somewhere along the line before the final product, more squeeze was applied.
     
  23. delmonaco

    delmonaco Forum Resident

    Location:
    Sofia, Bulgaria
    Btw, do we know (I'm just curious) how many separate tracks they used for creating this final mix?
     
  24. Kim Olesen

    Kim Olesen Gently weeping guitarist.

    Location:
    Odense Denmark.
    Different from each song ofcourse but it is in the 8-10 track range for many of them.
     
    delmonaco likes this.
  25. Octavian

    Octavian Forum Resident

    Location:
    Louisiana
    So I found a nice high quality vinyl rip online, here is the comparison:

    CD:
    [​IMG]

    Vinyl:
    [​IMG]

    It is quieter for sure.

    Dynamic Ranges for each:

    CD:

    Sgt. Pepper - 8
    With A Little - 9
    Lucy - 8
    Getting better - 8
    Fixing A Hole - 8
    She's Leaving Home - 10
    Being For The Benefit - 6...
    Within You - 9
    Sixty-Four - 10
    Rita - 7
    Good Morning - 7
    Pepper Reprise - 7
    A Day in the Life - 7

    Overall - 8

    Vinyl:

    Sgt. Pepper - 9
    With A Little - 10
    Lucy - 10
    Getting better - 10
    Fixing A Hole - 11
    She's Leaving Home - 9
    Being For The Benefit - 9
    Within You - 10
    Sixty-Four - 11
    Rita - 9
    Good Morning - 9
    Pepper Reprise - 8
    A Day in the Life - 10

    Overall - 12

    Those are some big jumps. I wonder what the consensus would be if the vinyl mastering was used for the CD.

    Edit: To compare to other versions for curiosity's sake

    MFSL Vinyl:

    Sgt. Pepper - 11
    With A Little - 12
    Lucy - 12
    Getting better - 13
    Fixing A Hole - 13
    She's Leaving Home - 10
    Being For The Benefit - 11
    Within You - 13
    Sixty-Four - 12
    Rita - 12
    Good Morning - 10
    Pepper Reprise - 12
    A Day in the Life - 12

    Overall - 12

    2014 Mono Vinyl:

    Sgt. Pepper - 11
    With A Little - 12
    Lucy - 11
    Getting better - 12
    Fixing A Hole - 12
    She's Leaving Home - 9
    Being For The Benefit - 10
    Within You - 11
    Sixty-Four - 12
    Rita - 12
    Good Morning - 11
    Pepper Reprise - 11
    A Day in the Life - 12

    Overall - 11
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2017
    puelche, morinix, ParloFax and 5 others like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine