Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by NGeorge, May 31, 2017.
Have you hears the Nimbus 1984 cut? It gives the UHQR a run for its money. I prefer the Nimbus.
I wish Giles would restrict himself to 're-imagining' rather than remixing.
I haven't heard the Nimbus. What I have been trying to point out is that the 2017 reissue (50th Anniversary) of Sgt. Pepper is a disappointment. The UHQR using the original stereo mix sounds much better.
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is a fun album...........incredibly visual, musically addictive, and artistically ground breaking. I prefer the original stereo mix, but the 2017 remix is a lot of fun. Playing the vinyl tonight and having a good time.
The Sgt Pepper remix is a fun occasional listen IMO. However, it has been pumped up a lot. I prefer the Yellow Submarine Songtrack remixes. I also prefer the Love version of A Day In The Life. It’s more natural sounding.
"Mr Kite" remains the oddity. Just silly how loud it is, which does detract somewhat from the mystique of the song.
What continues to surprise me about this album is how much I enjoy returning to it. Once upon a time, the baroque nature was a bit much for me, and, given its fame, one expects it to get “old.”
But it doesn’t seem to get stale. I find the richness of the album works in its favour--the layers and the longer-than-average song-length (for The Beatles) means there’s me more to get your teeth into.
And there are enough “minor” songs to keep “discovering” new interests. Paul really pumps out the vocal on the title track, and “Good Morning” has been reborn through the remix (just two examples).
George hated recording SP and was bored throughout because he wasn’t participating as much due to the content. Probably why he never heard the stereo imho.
It’s “vocal” or “vocals”.
I take your point, but personally, I really like the way FTBOMK crashes in after the sensitive She's Leaving Home. You know, Mr. Kite is set in a Circus Big Top and those things are always LOUD and BRASH: as was Mr. Kite himself, I imagine. I can almost smell the sawdust in this song, which, of course, is greatly aided by the incredible way they made the circus sound effects tapes. Count me in as a fan of your remix, Giles Martin.
When you say the best Sgt. Pepper is the 1987 CD are you referring to better bass, less harsh, bigger sound stage or something else? Are you just comparing the 1987 with the remastered or all three? What do you mean when you say best sounding? The recent one is a complete remix. If a Beatle fan is in love with the original mixes (as Steve is) then it doesn't matter how good the new mix sounds he/she is gonna hate it.
The goal of the Abbey Road team was to reproduce these albums as closely as possible to the master. The engineers heard every version. Including the 1987 CD's and all the vinyl.
They did something no engineer at Abbey Road had every done in mastering a Beatle album to CD or vinyl: Adjusting the azuimth of the playback head on every song transfer to get maximum bass and treble. When you adjust the playback head to get the max bass and treble out of a song this is the full bass and treble that was recorded onto tape. Anything else is not an accurate reproduction. And that includes the 1987 transfer. However, the small amount of good EQ that the Abbey Road team applied kind of poops all over the playback azuimth adjustment thing. And then the peak limiting on transient peaks, etc. Despite Abbey Road's efforts it is very possible that the 1987 Pepper is the most ummm.....Pepperish sounding Pepper CD. Not the best sounding but more like the master even if it does have less bass or treble.
That is an old post. I was reading a lot of Middle English and old Modern English books at the time and some of the old spellings stuck. For example in the 1611 King James Bible (Not the 1887 Baskerville/Oxford edit everyone incorrectly calls a King James Bible) Jesus is spelled " Levus " and forth is spelled " foorth."
The spelling in the real King James Bible is closer to it's Latin roots. 400 years ago they often had 6 or even 8 agreed spellings of a single English word. For example: Cave at one time was spelled
" caxe. " Anyway all this old spelling unfortunately spilled into my current writings.
The matter was brought up ALL LONG TIME AGO and was understood by all. And you are not a new member.
Was it necessary for you to quote the whole darn post just to point out a spelling error? I welcome the grammar police but the post is more than a year old. Anyway it was a good exercise. You never want to lose the skill of making one person look real stupid in front of other people.
I thought this nonsense was finished. Three years in Special Education with my older brother calling me stupid.
I am sure you meant well but.....
EQ added to masters used to be if the master was real dull. For example: This album would so much better with just a little top end. So you would add 2 db @ 12 khz @ a Q of 0.5. And it's a little weak in the bottom end. So you give the bottom end a little boost of 40 hz @ 1.5 db @ a Q of 1. Adds a little zip which it needed and it doesn't alter the tonal balance of the album. And you don't even notice what the engineer did. Why? Because it was tiny.
Today engineers love to reduce the cloud (90-250hz), boost the midrange at 3 khz and yank up 8 khz big and heavy. Why? Because with these three frequencies engineers do the most destruction (changes).
Take a nice classic Rock album with a good hefty mid bass and subdued top end.
A modern engineer will take it and:
150 hz - 4 db @ of 1
3 000 hz + 3 db @ of 1
8 000 hz + 5 db @ of 1
And put a low cut filter at 40 hz.
And now your beloved Rock classic sounds like classic dog poop. (Real stinky mastering)
We assumed he boosted the eq of the track in question. Remember for some of these songs you have an earlier generation of tape so the cymbals would have more top end if they were a generation higher. (If this is the case.but we don't know this either). This also could have been done in mastering. We just don't know
As a mastering/mixing engineer I would appreciate if members said, "Sounds like Giles might have gone crazy with the high frequency EQ." Instead of the usual, "Giles used too much eq on the drum track." Again you don't know and you are only guessing. Personally I agree with you but I am also only guessing.
Separate names with a comma.