What does Steve Hoffman think of the new Beatles Sgt. Pepper remix?

What Steve thinks of the White Album Blu-Ray stereo?

 

How do you know the mastering engineer didn't slap compression on it? We just don't know. I have done hundred of mixes and have mastered hundreds of songs over my 18 years and I can tell you the remix of Pepper on CD is not overly compressed. Compared to the original mix it is over compressed. But then so would every mix be in the last 25 years. The average master we get here is between DR 3 and DR 6!

And sometimes to get a mix sounding a certain way the compression is neccesary. We are not dealing with just 4 tracks anymore but 8 and sometimes 10 or 12. Things get crowded. Some elements will get buried in a mix without compression. It is a neccessary tool for every mix engineer (except Bruce Swedian!)

One example: I had recorded a little Chtistmas song on my 8 track Tascam DAW (DP-02, 8 tracks of 16/44.1) for a friend's independent movie. He wanted some bad Christmas music for a scene. No compression on any track. Not on mixdown inserted over individual tracks, or over the stereo bus or in mastering.
The only compression was on the BELLS and XYLOPHONE tracks. The compression was recorded live to the DAW. It was needed. The BELLS and XYLOPHONE could not be heard in the mix without it. The instruments would either be too loud in the mix or buried to where you could hardly hear them. This can happen in any mix.

I recently went to do a remix on
my computer. Again no compression of any kind except the two I mentioned. The final reading was DR11. Some mixes are loud because many of the tracks are just loud in the mix. And added EQ can make this worse.

 

Let me set the record straight: I can guarantee you that there WAS compression at the mastering stage as well! In order to get records nowadays to be as "loud" as everything else, most engineers use compression to boost the loudness at the final stage (with also killing any low frequencies in the process). There was also compression used at the mixing stage I have no doubt about that.

However we do need compression as a way to control sound sources that are not sitting well in a mix or that are out of control. In the over 36 years that I have been doing work as an engineer (tracking, mixing and mastering) I can tell you that the new Pepper CD is overly compressed. They have squashed any sort of dynamics (again I bring you to the opening of Mr Kite). Even though compression is needed to make any "modern" recordings (to control overly dynamic sources and help things fit in a mix), you need to use it to serve the music. I will state again that Pepper was a missed opportunity. Even though the high res files are slightly better than the CD (as is the record) it is still too much. I agree with you though: we need compression to make better sounding recordings, just like we need salt in our food. The best engineers can add the salt without ruining the flavour of the musical food. Just because we get music with terrible DR ratings doesn't mean we have to accept it or like it. I agree that in comparison to the rest of what is on the charts that the Pepper CD is not as maximized but it is almost as ugly as most recordings that are released today. But please don't misunderstand me. Compression is needed as a tool, but it must ALWAYS serve the music and nothing else (i.e. the label's wishes, keeping up with other modern recordings re: loudness, etc.).

 

Mr. Kite 2017 is kinda deafening with DR of 6. If this is not compressed / limited, then what is? Even Helter Skelter 2018, pretty "heavy" track, has DR of 9. In case of Helter Skelter, I'm suspecting that this is actually what was on the "master file" since both CD and Blu-ray have DR 9.

 

Most of the Metal, Rap and Dance tracks sent to us to master have usually already been squashed by whom ever mixed it. And we don't smash. My point is we can't really know. If the client requests no compression or little compression than the engineer must comply . After getting hundreds of tracks that were mixed at DR5, DR4 AND DR3 the remix of Pepper sounds like a DCC disk to me. Maybe I have lost perspective but considering what I hear these days Pepper is not that bad. Maybe you have better clients. LOL.

Mastering engineers love to smash these days. Automation is one way to control dynamics. but even that can go wrong. I had a listen to the remix of Magical Mytery Tour for the Blu-Ray release. You can hear the fader going up everytime it comes to the part of, "ROLL UP" and then back down again. Very unprofessional sounding but very audiophile. Bruce Swedian refuses to use compression which is great except for when it isn't. Have a listen to the end of the song "Thiller" Just before the doors is slammed and Price laughs. Bruce turns down most of the channel faders so not to overload the tape. All of a sudden the level dramatically drops. Worse pumping effect than any compressor set incorrectly by an amateur. I love his mixes and his lack of compression but he takes too far sometimes. And then check out "Who Is It" from 1991 Dangerous LP. About a minute into the song Swedian turns up all the faders slowly over 10 seconds. These are not small quick fader changes that no one heard. Of course all of Swedian's moxes have been ruined by remastering.

You are probably right. My point is unless we have heard the master file we are just guessing. But if I were to place a $100 bet on it I would put my money on the mastering engineer smashing it!

I know a few so called pro engineers who just insert a compressor over every track. Or worse the engineer who splits the kick into two tracks (low bass and the Cloud) and then compresses them separately. And we both know what well known engineer does this. His videos are all over Uutbe. Funny, he says it's neccessary. He must be well into his late 60's.

After almost 18 years of mastering and mixing the one piece of advice I give to our clients who have their songs mixed with us not and now want to master someplace else - PLEASE DON'T.

Cutting everything below 40 hz is now the standard practice.. Some mastering engineers and mixers will low cut below 50 hz. What is this 1964? And they say it makes it better. Little kids can't hear low bass on their Ipod speakers. LOL.

 

The mastering engineer smashed HD file as well. Funny aren't HD tracks for audiophiles?
And they know audiophiles hate compression.

 

Some tracks are just mixed that way. If you have all the faders up at 80% then it is going to be a loud mix.

But my guess is the mastering engineer compressed it. Let's say the master is DR 12. Even a little bit of compression and reduce it to DR9.

Forget it! This is not The Idle Race - Birthday Party LP release with a DR of 15 or whatever or Dark Side Of The Moon.
You want loud? Listen to every Metal release in the last 20 years.

 

I'm not a pro, but it feels that many electronic albums also have low dynamics, this is the current trend I guess. There are some rare "outliers" though. Recent Kraftwerk 3D catalogue for example. It is pretty bass heavy, lots of powerful percussion / drums, yet it maintains good DRs, even higher than previous remasters.
These DRs are not be all end all, but I think there is a certain threshold (IMO around DR 9, maybe 10) below which it starts to be a bit tiring and actually not so captivating (all things being equal). There are no troughs, but there are no peaks either, like music starts to lose some pulse.

 

I don't always agree with the guy but he kills everybody else on presentation.

 

I have very little technical knowledge, other than my ears, but I enjoyed your post.

 

But then again it was probably compressed to death in mastering. But I can still hope...

 

Thank you. In all honesty you would be surprised at how many "professional mix/mastering engineers" have no technical knowledge either. Which would explain the Journey remasters LOL :

"Yea, make sure it goes over 0 dbfs!..Yea, love that PCM distortion. Reminds me of Grandma's Pumpkin/kiwi pie," the mastering engineer said tweaking is knobs in a evil fashion.


Any of the members on here (including yourself sir) could master a old classic Rock catalog better than the compression happy goons who are currently doing it.

 

Could be but not necessarily. (It better not bloody better be!) The master file could be DR 12 and they just compressed the crap out of both the Boo-Ray and Ce De. It happend with a colleague of mine. He had mixed an album in 5.1 with a DR of 15. The Boo-Ray ended up as DR 5! My friend raised a fuss; going directly to the client. Did no good.

But seriously though.... DR6!! O.k. very funny....Come on what was the actual DR number? A joke is a joke....You are joking right? DR 9 right? Look humor me and tell me it was DR9....I refuse to believe DR6. That is inhuman! Say it isn't so....

 

Don't go there! Steve 99 % of the time hates remixes. Equally, you shouldn't listen to my opinion on remixes because I love 99% of all remixes. But yes, good question. We know what Steve thinks on stereo remixes but what about 5.1 mixes?

 

TIME FOR ANOTHER EXCITING ADVENTURE OF 23 STONE & 6 LBS EX-AUDIO ENGINEER....

If I may add to the whole remix issue and shed some light on the topic. Let me explain how a basic stereo mix goes and the problems engineers encounter. Hold on good members we'z a goin' on little trip now....


So here you are. You baked your "Out Of The Blue" 2 inch multitrack tapes that suffered from SSS. You had your lazy assistant transfer them to Pro Tools. You had two maybe three passes before the tapes became useless and went to that golden studio in the sky. Mission accomplished.

You have two drum kits over 6 tracks. The first kit is:
1. Kick
2. Snare
3. Toms (Yes, one microphone for all the toms. Not my idea.)
4/5. Stereo overheads.

6. The second drum kit is just one microphone over the whole kit recorded in a large closet. (Not kidding! Not my idea.)

This is how Mackie recorded the drums on most ELO albums.

You start mixing in mono with no effects, EQ or compression. This is how most pro mix engineers start a mix. But not all. You start with the drums first. Then the bass. Rhythm guitars next. Lead instruments, followed by vocals, etc. Next you toss on some low bass EQ to the kicks. Probably 80hz + 6 db @ Q of 1. The low bass thud you hear on pretty much all real kick drums isn't there in that amount. A real 22 inch acoustic kick produces mostly mid and upper bass. Low bass too but NOT the amount you hear on records unless you left both heads on.

The doubters can check out The Jackson 5 song, "Forever Came Today" from the 1975 album MOVING VIOLATION. The kick on the album version is 100 % low bass. A distinct low boom. Love it. So disco! Now go and check out the 12 inch 45 version. (A bonus track on the remastered disk) No EQ on the kick at all. You can hear straight away that it is the unfudged sound of the kick. Mostly upper mid and upper bass. Motown engineers had to boost the low end quite a bit to get the kick sound you hear on the album version.

Now on to the bass guitar. You put on some compression to tighten up the electric/acoustic bass guitar. It is common practice to put some compression on the bass track to even out the volume of the bass notes. Just enough compresion so that you don't have to keep turning the bass channel fader up and down over and over. Unfortunately they overdo it these days. For example: Compare the bass in ABBA's "Mama Mia" to the Musical version. In the musical version every bass note has the same volume. But the actual ABBA version you can hear the bass notes get louder as the bass player goes lower on the scale: "Yes, I've been broken hearted. Blue since the day we've parted..." This is natural. Certain bass notes or octaves will be louder. You want compression to control t your bass guitar so isn't all over the place but not SO MUCH that is destroys the natural dynamics of the instrument. In fact some engineers in the 70's didn't use any compression on the bass at all. Bruce Swedian is one of them. Did all the MJ solo records (1979 - 1995). Actually Bruce never used any compression at any time on anything. I quote, "Compression is for kids."

Another technique to bring up the bass so that it will cut through a dense and busy mix is to boost the lower midrange. (500 - 2 000 hz.) Small bit. ie 2 - 3 db @ 1khz @ Q of 1. Another technique is to put a slight phasing effect on the bass. The bass player did this on OLNJ's 1983 tour. Check out the early 80's live version of Xanadu on Utube. You can really hear the phasing pedal the bass player is using. He also makes a wicked meatloaf. Long story.
Adding saturation (distortion is another method) of making bass stand out in a mix. Easy to do if you are miking your bass amp. The bottom line is you want to keep your bass track sounding like your bass track especially if it a classic album remix. The bass on "Out Of The Blue" is very distinct so you can't fool with it much. And would want to? If you solo'd the bass track on "Mr Blue Sky" you would hear a lot of detail on the bass that you never got to hear due to the crowded and busy nature of a typical ELO mix. But boosting the upper bass or lower midrange might do the trick. Some extra detail on the bass would be great in a remix but not so much that the bass in "Mr. Blue Sky" ends up sounding like the bass in Zeppelin's "Heartbreaker."

It is not uncommon for the kick to get muddled with the electric bass. Easy solution. You notch little bits out of both the kick and bass. For example say the mud is around the 100 - 150 hz and 50 - 70 hz area.

Kick EQ: - 3 db @ 150 hz @ Q of 1.
Or you could apply the same EQ to the bass only. There is also my special technique which is called a double notch:

Kick: - 3db @ 150 hz @ Q of 1.
Bass: - 3db @ 70 hz @ Q of 1.

This will separate your kick and bass with minimal EQ. As you can see no more than 3 db was used. This double notch EQ technique is mine and I have it copyrighted. It is called THE FAT MAN'S DOUBLE NOTCH....O.K. I made the last bit up but the double notch is my idea. very useful on other similar problems. For example: if you have a piano on one track and a xylophone on the other. These two will sound the same and just smear together. Of course if that is what you want then that is a good thing. Again easy solution:

Piano: - 5 db @ 1 khz @ Q of 2.
Xylophone: - 5 db @ 5.5 khz @ Q of 2.
These are higher Qs so more volume is required.

Also another problem with recording acoustic tracks is the build up of mud under the track. It is the reason why every professional console has a 100 hz / 75 hz low cut filter on every channel. The low frequencies of many instruments like guitars, woodwinds, female vocals, etc can muddy up a mix with low and mid bass pretty quickly. But be warned! Too many amateur engineers just put a 100 hz high pass filter on every track. Too much low cut filtering and notch filtering can suck the life out of your mix. One engineer who loves to low cut below 250 hz is RUPERT HINE. Take a listen to Rush's: PRESTO and ROLL THE BONES and you will see what I mean. The albums had no weight. In all honesty Presto is not so bad but ROLL THE BONES is a mess. No bottom end. Hine low cuts on all guitars and keyboards. Severely notch filters the low end out of his kicks. He prefers the Motown kick sound which is mostly upper bass. That cardboard box sound. The idea is to notch filter the kick so that it is mostly upper bass which would cut through a mix and be heard on all systems. That's fine, boost the upper bass (180 - 250 hz) but don't notch the low bass out of the poor defenseless kick.

Most engineers today have become lazy. They want the compressor to even out the dynamics instead of automating the fader moves. No excuse! Even Reaper which is free has full automation.

Vocals use to sit nicely on top of the mix. Listen to songs from the sixties. The vocals are nice up in front in the stereo mixes. Compare that to the mixing of vocals today. The vocals are buried half of the time with heaps of digital compression. And of course most vocals are high passed at 250 hz. If you ever wonder why remixes lack that certain soul now you know why.

Compression should only be used for two reasons: If you are trying to get the instrument to fit in the mix or you are trying to get a certain sound. Mixers who purposely mixing loud ( as in DR3) are idiots. Assuming the clients want his album loud LEAVE IT TO MASTERING. This is the mixing stage. You are getting a balance here. That is your job. And never put a limiter on the stereo bus when you are trying to make mix decisions! If you feel the need to throw on a limiter over the stereo bus for a certain soound then do it during the mixdown after all you mix choices have been made.

So now you have a nice mono mix of "Mr Blue Sky". (You are in trouble because you stole those 2 inch tapes!)
Now you add effects. Some slight Plate reverb on Jeff's vocals. One very effective technique that is widely used is the Abbey Road Reverb Trick. On the speare mixing channel that you are using for the return channel you low cut everything below 500 hz and high cut everything above 5 000 hz. Or if you are using a digital EQ plug in then you can do the Eq high and low pass moves right there on the plug-in. It will give similar results but sound slightly different. The Abbey Road Reverb Trick will not only make your reverb sound better and smoother but it will allow you to use more of it without being so obvious. It will allow you to abuse reverb beyond your wildest dreams.

Compression will be necessary to get those lead and background vocals nice and smooth. You are trying to smooth the peaks not make it loud. Leave that to the 14 year making Rave tracks in their parent's basement.

Now you pan. Not just your tracks but your mono effect returns. That is...If you want to. 30 channels easy. The analog board in the 70's probably had 6 effect sends. So that is 24 tracks plus 6 Aux Sends. That is assuming the ELO album in question wasn't 46 tracks (Two 24 track recorders synchronized together minus 2 sync tracks) bass, kicks, snare, lead vocal must go in the middle. Anything else is up for grabs. Although I have heard some mixes in my time that break all the rules. For example, the first album from Jamaica's Progressive Reggae band - The Fabulous Five "FFONE". Back in 1975 the best most talented Reggae musicians in Jamaica formed the world's first progressive Reggae band. They took: Gospel, Funk, Classical and other forms of music and combined them. One instrumental off the album is called "Classical Reggae" combines classical music with mid 70's Reggae. Piano, electric bass, mandolin, flute and drums. I managed to transfer this badly worn album to CD. anyway the mix in this song is bizarre: The kick is in the middle, the snare is half way left and the high hat is half way right. Another wierd example of unorthodox panning is on the song, "Shaving Cream." A Reggae version of the well known 30's track. Some guy is banging rhythmically on a cow bell. But the engineer is panning the bell around all through the song. After the second hit the cow bell is panned to the center...then again after two hits the bell is panned hard right. Then again center.....then hard left....Then the Center ad infinitum. It is the most bizzare thing you have ever heard in a mix. Should any engineer remixing a classic like OOTB be trying such unorthodox panning moves? I wish I there was some way of putting the whole FFONE album up for you guys. It is Dark Side Of The Moon of Reggae albums. And while most Reggae drummers just play a beat with the occasional pick up fill this drummer plays like you won't believe.

I find it hard to believe all that junk on OOTB fits on 24 tracks. I wish I knew. It's not like I have boxes of the 2 inch tapes stacked behind me. Again this is a hypothetical remix of "Out Of The Blue." One album we remixed back in 2012 was recorded on 3 synchronized 24-tracks. 69 tracks (Minus 3 tracks for sync pulse) Actually it was 64 tracks. They didn't use them all. The artist used guard tracks as well. Guard tracks are the blank tracks beside your sync tracks to prevent any possible bleed through of the sync pulses to the adjacent track. So that is 6 tracks in total. 3 lost to sync pulse and 3 more to guard tracks. 66 max. So they only really left two blank.

(O.k. who is getting bored? Hands up. Come on)

Here is the difficulty level:
3 tracks - Should almost mix itself.
4 tracks - Effortless

8 tracks - Some thought is required. Should not be hard. The last mixes that you will ever do standing up. For the first time you get stereo drums.

12 tracks - The mix now becomes slightly stressful. Take a seat.

16 tracks - Now the mix becomes difficult. You now have multiple guitar parts. Where as before you had 1 or 2 tracks for drums now you have 4 or 6 tracks. Phase becomes an issue.

24 tracks - The mix is crowded. 24 tracks plus at least 4 Aux sends. You have at least 28 channels to pan and mix including Aux Returns. Drums now come on 8 - 12 tracks. The drum mix is now a separate project all on it's own. Back in the 4 track days you could pull a good mix off in 30 minutes or less. Now it can take days. We have automated boards today but back in 1974 a 24 track mix often need three people or more to mix the thing.

48 tracks - A major headache. You probably have at least 10 Effect/Auxiliary Sends. 58 channels to mix. (Assuming it's Pro Tools or a 3348 / 3348HR.) If you don't have automation then go home! By the late 80's 48 tracks became the norm. The mix will be super dense. Some elements will get buried. Can't be helped. A mix like this can take you days. No pro engineer wants to mix more than 48 tracks. For example famous engineers CLA and brother TLA always reduce their mixes to 48 tracks. They mix OTB and like real mixing boards. The average song today is 100 tracks. That is took much for any mixer. You could mix 120 tracks on a SSL 4098 G / G+ automated board. Only maybe 20 were ever made. It is a silly mixer. I think Uncle Jack recently dumped our SSL4064 G / G+ for a SSL 4098 G / G+. I was looking at one on line for sale on Ebay or whatever. Good condition for $250 000 USD. And it was sold. I visit the studio (even through I don't work there anymore) I walk into Mix Room A and there it is 25 feet long - A SSL 4098 G / G+. He can't afford me but he buys a quarter of a million dollar U.S. SSL4098 G? I think he took a second mortgage on his dead sister in law's house. You can't miss a Class G board. They have those 20 inch CRT computer screens sitting in the middle of the board. Class G is the fully automated series as opposed to Class E SSL boards. And the automation data is stored on 3.5 inch Floppy disks. These were made for those who feel the need to link up 2 Sony 3348s or synchronize 4 analog 2 inch 24 tracks together. Name your poison.

Rush's - Hold Your Fire I believe is two Mitsubishi X-800s. That is 32 tracks of 16/48 on one inch DASH tape × 2 for 64 tracks. This is the reason the SSL 4064 G/ G+ came out. Many studios were using the one inch 32 track DASH format. Not just one machine but two linked up together. As for the people using 3...They have been locked up. Neil's kit took up one whole machine. "Hold Your Fire" is super dense. A real super big fat as* drum kit plus a zillion stereo keyboards, plus a choir and orchestra, effects and ahhh....Alex is in there somewhere. And loads of vocals. Hell, even a bloody guest singer! They actually ran out of tracks. Alex complained that there was no room for his guitar. He has mentioned it a few times. Poor bas*tard. That album would make a great 5.1 mix. Not like we haven't tired either.

96 tracks or more - Question. Why are you even mixing this?

120 or more - Let us change the subject.

Mixing is easier when you have a fully automated mixing board to work on instead of the computer screen and a mouse. 56 channel boards are easy to find. But boards that can handle 112 or more are rare and costly..

Mixing is a pain. It pays super crap and you work long hours and get no respect. They are a few who are making a good living but we can't all be Bruce Swedian, CLA / TLA, Ken Scott or Giles Martin.

Sorry for the super long post. I just wanted to show some of the problem or situations that mixing brings.

 

The new Pepper is garbage.
Writing 20 paragraphs isn't necessary.
Time for the proletariat to part with more of their hard earned dollars. That's the real travesty.

 

I respect your opinion. And to correct you it wasn't just about Pepper sir it was a about mixing and remixing in general. The post is for whom ever wants to read it. As for how much is necessary I wasn't plugging how much I loved Pepper. I have been mixing professionally for almost 18 years and I thought the members would appreciate an insider's view on in. It isn't just throwing up faders. And sometimes getting a certain sound you want involves compromises.
Obviously you misunderstood my post
You can hate Pepper all you want. I wasn't selling it. LOL

Curious. "Pepper remix is garbage" is just a blank statement. What is it exactly about the remix that you don't like? Even though I love the remix (except for "Good Morning") I would like to know why others don't like it.

Did you want it remixed in the first place?
Do you dislike remixes?
Is it the compression?
That is the mastering stage and has nothing to do with the mix.

Again as a member I respect your opinion even though I disagree with you.

 

Heads up guys. I had worked in the industry for a long time. 99% unknown and not even paid minimum wage. I know a hell of lot about how mixes are done. I have unfortunately a lot of info to share. Maybe at times too much. Maybe at times my posts are way too long but nobody forces you to read them. Or do they? I figured audiophiles would live to know how many of their records are made. Maybe I was wrong.

 

The main reason for my dislike of the remix is the stereo widening used on the individual mono tracks, like the title track for instance. It sounds like the backing track (the drums and guitar) is spread artificially across the left side of the stereo image. On the reprise as well. It ruins the integrity of the recordings in my opinion, especially when they have more than enough tracks at their disposal.

 

Ahhh! Some audiophile I am. How could I miss that? I will give Pepper Remix another listen. Especially the first track.
Artificially spread? You mean as in some form of plugin that simulates a real stereo soundstage? Or do you mean the use of stereo reverb on track via an Effect/ return loop? The guitar sounds just like it is panned to one side. It could be leakage you are hearing. But I believe that you heard what you say you heard. Just because I haven't heard it yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

But then no one hears what Giles did on "Good Morning." He took a very slight delay (echo) maybe half a second and placed it on the rhythm track and the horns. I hate it. But it isn't something the layman would notice. If only the members knew how much delay effect he slapped on the song you guys would vomit.

 

Hey, if I wanna spend my money on garbage then I will. It is a free country. I like garbage. It ahhhh.....makes compost

 

Not exactly sure what he did, but it sounds like he tried to isolate the drums slightly to bring them more center. The drums and guitar should all be coming from the same part as they were recorded in mono.

And yeah, Good Morning is a catastrophe. Hearing the overdubbed percussion delayed and panned left and right is horrible.

I see what Giles wanted to do, try to make it sound like the sound was coming from you in many directions, that way to mimic the cohesive-ness of the mono. It doesn't work though... just make a basic stereo mix out of it!!! It would be one of the greatest sounding records ever. Such a missed opportunity

 

Please keep them coming. I for one find them very informative and useful. We need more posts like yours, we have plenty of the "this is is rubbish" kind, which contribute nothing.

 

Enjoy the fleecing my friend.

 

It's all good. I view the remixes as drawing a moustache on the Mono Lisa.
Its unnecessary. If you want to go in and do minor tweaks such as reducing the vocal harshness by doing a little limiting, and maybe rolling the bass off a little where its bombastic, that's ok in my view.
But going in and playing with the EQ is now someone's interpretation of what the album is supposed to sound like.
I want to hear the album the way I'm used to hearing it. And in the case of The Beatles, that means older vinyl, either ripped or the genuine article. I still maintain there simply is no good official digital Beatles product. People on this forum balk at that statement. Be that as it may, most have probably never enjoyed the sonics of the older, tube cut vinyl.