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

Scroll down to the second part of this blog post for graphs comparing the dynamic range of the new digital master to the '87 CDs. The blogger also agrees with much of what has been posted here. (Please skip the digital vs vinyl debate in the 1st part of the blog so this thread stays on point)

Archimago's Musings: MUSINGS / MEASUREMENTS: Thoughts on Vinyl LP Fidelity... (And thoughts on Sgt. Pepper's 50th Anniversary Remix.)

 

And here's those 2 overlaid, and roughly level-matched. You can see where the peak limiting was applied, but's not hugely different.

 

Two quotes from Giles Martin that may lend additional context to things (click either quote number if you'd like to read the full article):

1 - “There are different rules that happen in sound when you go from mono to stereo. There’s an intensity to just one block of sound hitting you in the face that you can’t get with stereo.”

2 - “You’re hearing the four tracks without any effects, any equalisation on it. What I wanted to do is let people hear what I hear, as opposed to what I think you should hear, and that was tough thing. At times I had to straitjacket my hands and arms not to change it, but there’s a beauty in the rawness of certain things.”

My gut is that additional compression was added in the mix to more closely approximate the mono's "intensity to one block of sound hitting you in the face", but the second quote really leads me to believe we're mostly just hearing the tapes and how they were recorded in 1967.

 

Thank you very much for that. It shows some slight lost fidelity during the loud parts, but nothing extremely drastic.

 

I get that he was trying to emulate the mono, but I feel like it hurt him and the mix. If I wanted the mono sound/intensity, I'd listen to the mono. I wouldn't listen to a stereo record that tries to sound mono.

He had a chance to remake the stereo mix but tried too hard to make it mono.

 

Richard Lush brings that exact point at the 3:30 mark in the video.

 

Being For The Benefit of Mr. Kite went from DR6 to DR9 from the CD to the Vinyl.

Here are the waves:

CD:


Vinyl:

 

The stated intent of the remix was to capture, in stereo, the feel of the original mono mix.

If you're satisfied with the mono mix, you've already found what you like.

But expecting the remix to not conform to its goal? That's not realistic. You're setting youself up for disappointment.

 

But the problem is that he tried so hard to add an effect to the stereo that only really sounds good with mono. The crunchiness of the mono mixes sounds great because it's mono.

When you open up the mix, it allows the instruments to breathe, and you don't want to hear the crunchiness of mono.

This is all my opinion of course. I don't mind that he tried to emulate the mono dynamically and the effects.

 

So I'm currently doing an entire listen to the vinyl version, and to me it just sounds better. I might try to de-click it using iZotope and just use it as my main version.

There is still compression, but as some others have stated before, it might be mostly compression that was already in the tapes and was amplified in the new mixes.

Obviously there is some as the vinyl has less DR than any previous versions, but it isn't bad. I like it and I wish the CD's had this mastering.

 

Thank God somebody finally said this!!!! Thank you!!!
One of my pet peeves about most of the early albums was 'Where the hell is the bass'?
I believe you are spot on!
Beave

 

Maybe the collector who supplied it to Giles didn't know it was counterfeit?

Derek

 

can I ask a question? did anybody here cancel their orders after seeing some of the reviews here?

 

Not me. Exactly the opposite.

 

I am with you morinix. I bought the vinyl of this album after reading this endless forum of Beatles Sgt. Pepper.

 

Although I don't like the fact that the hi-rez discs use the more peak-limited transfer, I would still probably have purchased it had I known in advance.

It's still a new take on Sgt Pepper, albeit more crammed sounding than the vinyl, still has great outtakes, the original mono mix/master (w/o further dynamic compression added, I believe), good packaging, and a great book.

That's not quite answering the question you asked, but it's as close as I can get having ordered before any reviews been read.

The tragic irony is that this mix of Pepper is so different and interesting that it makes you want to hear it in it's full glory... hence pissing you off that it's too opaque from the added compression to ever really be able to.

 

I'm kind of wondering if this forum will survive the tsunami if Giles does remix The White Album. I'm cringing in horror just thinking about it.

Think about it: Giles has to remix something. If he doesn't, he'll have nothing to do, and he is charged by The Beatles to do stuff, to keep the catalog selling. He's going to remix something. I'd prefer him to overhaul the "Let It Be" album and leave the others alone.

One project i'd like to see him do is create a U.S. singles comp with the original MONO single mixes.

 

This.

 

I hear they are going to do an elvis type orchestra album for the next release

 

More like an alcoholic hi-ball with 1000 mg of caffeine.

 

This must be the most misguided remix of a classic album.

I don't even consider the remixes good from an objective viewpoint.

"Getting Better", "Being...Mr. Kite", "Good Morning, Good Morning" are unlistenable.

 

I just had a sickening thought of Elvis Presley singing "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds".

 

can't be as bad as William shatner!

 

The MFSL edition of Pepper has the treble goosed and a lot of bottom end, but not much midrange. I'd take that pressing out of the equation, regardless of what the average DR range is.

 

Why is Apple so obsessed with recreating the mono all the damned time I personally suspect because they do not have the skills to make the original stereo any better so have this stupid 'lets recreate the mono' excuse, just do a nice new modern stereo mix Giles Martin ?