Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band 50th Anniversary Reissue (with 5.1 surround mix)

[JerseyEd]

Listened to the Dolby True HD mix today, and on my receiver, a Yamaha HTR-5540, the center rear speaker icon lit up, and the display said Matrix 6.1. I only have a 5.1 speaker set up, but certain items, such as the Star Wars videos also display the same way and a phantom rear center channel is produced. I did not notice anything that sounded like a rear center channel, but over all the rears sounded more discrete than the DTS Master HD. My OPPO is set to convert a 7.1 to 5.1 so this may have contributed.

 

[halbroome]

Finally had a chance to sit back and do an A/B of the DTS vs. Dolby.

On my 7.2 system I found the contrast is best described as "thin vs. thick." The DTS was airy; the Dolby sort of leaden. Maybe the airiness is the lossy format, but I consistently prefer DTS over Dolby for other DVD/SACD/ blu rays, at least to these over-used ears, for that freedom of movement I hear in the DTS.

The reason is that I hear / experience a much more "spatial" experience with the DTS. My main song to compare was "Within You, Without You," the most revealing track to me on the surround. While the Dolby version was, again, thicker in the sense of solidity, I really like the dance around the room like a fairy quality of the DTS.

Sorry if I have to use metaphors to describe this! But music on a spectrum analysis suffers from the same problem.

 

[Guy Robinson]

Finally had a chance to sit back and do an A/B of the DTS vs. Dolby.

On my 7.2 system I found the contrast is best described as "thin vs. thick." The DTS was airy; the Dolby sort of leaden. Maybe the airiness is the lossy format, but I consistently prefer DTS over Dolby for other DVD/SACD/ blu rays, at least to these over-used ears, for that freedom of movement I hear in the DTS.

The reason is that I hear / experience a much more "spatial" experience with the DTS. My main song to compare was "Within You, Without You," the most revealing track to me on the surround. While the Dolby version was, again, thicker in the sense of solidity, I really like the dance around the room like a fairy quality of the DTS.

Sorry if I have to use metaphors to describe this! But music on a spectrum analysis suffers from the same problem.

Why do you say "lossy". The audio on the BD is not lossy.

 

[HomerJAU]

Why do you say "lossy". The audio on the BD is not lossy.

Both DTS-HDMA and Dolby TrueHD are similar as they are lossless yet both contain 'core' (lossy) streams for backward compatibility with older non-HD DTS/Dolby decoders.

Its unlikely any decoder that can do DTS-HDMA wouldn't do Dolby TrueHD too, so I doubt halbroome is listening to the lossy Dolby Digital stream (unless it was selected - not the TrueHD stream?)

 

[halbroome]

Why do you say "lossy". The audio on the BD is not lossy.

I'm coming here from the (legal, I hasten to add) bootlegging community, where it is considered that DTS is an inherently "lossy" format. I pride myself on telling an MP3 from a FLAC a mile away, but, as it's all a matter of perception (unless you do spectral analysis, but that's rather cold, no?), I have no problem with the DTS format (and prefer it!).

 

[halbroome]

Both DTS-HDMA and Dolby TrueHD are similar as they are lossless yet both contain 'core' (lossy) streams for backward compatibility with older non-HD DTS/Dolby decoders.

Its unlikely any decoder that can do DTS-HDMA wouldn't do Dolby TrueHD too, so I doubt halbroome is listening to the lossy Dolby Digital stream (unless it was selected - not the TrueHD stream?)

Oh, cool! This is a step up from Winamp and FLAC files, isn't it :banana: I have indeed upgraded my equipment since my trading days!

Thanks to the forum here for being educational for a surround newbie!

 

[salsdali]

so I haven't really read much about the Video portion of the Blu-ray which has The Making of (1992) and I immediately went to the Within You Without You portion and it was pretty interesting in that George Harrison said that the Beach Boys Pet Sounds was the biggest influence on Sgt Peppers and Paul even said they "borrowed" a few tricks (harmonica, etc) from Pet Sounds for Sgt Peppers.

(BTW A documentary film entitled George Harrison: Living in the Material World, directed by Martin Scorsese, released in October 2011) was pretty revelatory to me about George since I didn't really know as much about him as I did John and Paul.

George Martin playing the isolated tracks of all the crazy sounds was the highlight for me from The Making of

you can then really see what Giles had to work with and why this release sounds the way it does

 

[4-earredwonder]

so I haven't really read much about the Video portion of the Blu-ray which has The Making of and I immediately went to the Within You Without You portion and it was pretty interesting in that George said that the Beach Boys Pet Sounds was the biggest influence on Sgt Peppers and Paul even said they "borrowed" a few tricks from Pet Sounds for Sgt Peppers.

I sometimes think that for those who WERE disappointed with the 5.1 remix should watch the Making Of Sgt. Pepper first for an insight into how Sir George/Geoff Emerick managed to squeeze all those elements into a few paltry tracks of magnetic recording tape. And yes, it was one of those vice versa affairs where the Beatle's were infatuated with Pet Sounds and the Beach Boys were likewise blown away with Sgt. Pepper.

In fact when I heard BS&T's Child Is Father To The Man again recently [in spectacular QUAD] there were elements of Pepper in that album as well.......that 'campy' vaudevillian feel and all those crazy sound effects/animal sounds. I was also quite surprised to hear in the Making of Pepper video that Sir Paul was actually writing songs with Frank Sinatra in mind. But, Frank never returned the 'compliment'.......there was never a Sinatra Sings The Beatles album.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

I was also quite surprised to hear in the Making of Pepper video that Sir Paul was actually writing songs with Frank Sinatra in mind. But, Frank never returned the 'compliment'.......there was never a Sinatra Sings The Beatles album.

Well Sinatra is considered by many to be the first "rock star" and is often also given credit as the originator of the "concept album". In spite of an early dislike of the Fab Four, I think he did eventually cover a few Beatles tunes like "Something", maybe even "Yesterday", "Michelle"?

 

[4-earredwonder]

Well Sinatra is considered by many to be the first "rock star" and is often also given credit as the originator of the "concept album". In spite of an early dislike of the Fab Four, I think he did eventually cover a few Beatles tunes like "Something", maybe even "Yesterday", "Michelle"?

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...76474EE7C29F218E840776474EE7C29F&&FORM=VDRVRV

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...597D85986BA820CC4117597D85986BA8&&FORM=VDRVRV

 

[rontoon]

bass in the main channels is ok by me, its whats in the LFE that's a bit underwhelming and head-scratching (ok, I cheated, I ran the 6-ch files thru the computer to isolate them.. and at times not much noteworthy is in there, fair enough I guess if there's nothing much v.low in the original that warrants routing through the Low Frequency Effects channel.. but at other times it seems to be just really indistinct boom boom thud thud.. not necessarily what some of the best 5.1 mixes' LFE channels comprise.. maybe more what I would expect from techno/dance/trance type stuff remixed into 5.1 i dunno.. at least if there's no higher frequency stuff buried in the LFE channel on Sgt. Pepper that's a good thing!! ).

I personally don't like the LFE channel used for music. It's mainly for movies and special effects.

 

[Guy Robinson]

This entire release is a surround revelation.

The problem is it's like an Easter egg hidden in there.

It's there, you just need to work to find it but once you do, wow!

of course I'm disappointed that the default mix is not the pinnacle, but it's there so...

I will say it again but those with 7.1 systems really need to take the DTS MA 5.1 track and re-author it to 7.1 duplicating the 2 rear speakers into the 2 back speakers. Left to left and right to right. Wow. This is even better than the miss-authored Dolby True HD 6.1 track on the BD.

 

[GOS]

Just now decided to watch the "making of" Pepper...wow! What a treat that is.

 

[ar surround]

I will say it again but those with 7.1 systems really need to take the DTS MA 5.1 track and re-author it to 7.1 duplicating the 2 rear speakers into the 2 back speakers. Left to left and right to right. Wow. This is even better than the miss-authored Dolby True HD 6.1 track on the BD.

Guy, I don't quite understand your note. Why does the DTS MA 5.1 track need to be re-authored to 7.1 if simply duplicating the surrounds in the rears. My 7.1 receiver always duplicates the surrounds in the rears, unless I apply a Logic7 processing which can yield results anywhere from great to a total disaster.

Oh, and yes I agree that duplicating the surrounds in the rears does indeed give great results on this mix...almost as if some sounds are coming from overhead. This happens probably because my rear speakers are higher than my surrounds.

 

[edisonbaggins]

Guy, I don't quite understand your note. Why does the DTS MA 5.1 track need to be re-authored to 7.1 if simply duplicating the surrounds in the rears. My 7.1 receiver always duplicates the surrounds in the rears, unless I apply a Logic7 processing which can yield results anywhere from great to a total disaster.

Oh, and yes I agree that duplicating the surrounds in the rears does indeed give great results on this mix...almost as if some sounds are coming from overhead. This happens probably because my rear speakers are higher than my surrounds.

I think I'm beginning to understand what's going on here. Some of us have taken the DTS mix and boosted the rears and/or lowered the fronts. This reveals some pretty cool info mixed in to the rears. Most notably the harmony vocals, IMO.

Something about the Dolby True HD encoding copies info from the side surrounds and throws it in to the back surrounds if you have 7.1. I think this more or less amounts to boosting the rears compared to the fronts.

I found a tweaked 5.1 mix to be quite enjoyable, but think Giles and company missed some opportunities for best panning placement. I.e. too conservative.

Boosting the rears helps SO MUCH that I wonder if it really boils down to a mastering error/decision. Why put excellent info in the rears, then bury them?

 

[Plan9]

I'm coming here from the (legal, I hasten to add) bootlegging community, where it is considered that DTS is an inherently "lossy" format. I pride myself on telling an MP3 from a FLAC a mile away, but, as it's all a matter of perception (unless you do spectral analysis, but that's rather cold, no?), I have no problem with the DTS format (and prefer it!).

Wait a minute, I believe you are not talking about the same formats.

Standard DTS and Dolby Digital tracks, as found on DVD-Video for example, are indeed lossy encodes.

There are new formats since the advent of the Blu-Ray, called DTS-HD Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD, which are, *if decoded properly*, entirely lossless. They contain a lossy standard DTS and Dolby Digital core, respectively, to be compatible everywhere.

The lossless DTS-HD MA and Dolby TrueHD tracks should almost always be digitally identical, and the only difference in sound would come from how your personal equipment decodes the two streams.
On the other hand, there is a big difference between the standard lossy DTS and Dolby Digital encodes: DTS is of higher quality and better preserves the higher frequencies, which could explain why you have a better sense of "airiness" with the DTS in comparison with the Dolby. But it only makes sense if you are comparing lossy vs. lossy or lossless DTS vs. lossy Dolby.

 

[halbroome]

Wait a minute, I believe you are not talking about the same formats.

Standard DTS and Dolby Digital tracks, as found on DVD-Video for example, are indeed lossy encodes.

There are new formats since the advent of the Blu-Ray, called DTS-HD Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD, which are, *if decoded properly*, entirely lossless. They contain a lossy standard DTS and Dolby Digital core, respectively, to be compatible everywhere.

That is what I have on my (admittedly 3 years old) amp (DTS-HD and Dolby TrueHD):

https://usa.denon.com/us/product/hometheater/receivers/avrx4000

My player is a Denon Universal, newer than the amp, and does DTS-HD and Dolby TrueHD as well (and 3D, but I never got the tv, and may never do so 8'/). Perhaps because I use NEO:X on the amp (to obtain 7.2), that might affect things. I could set it to straight 5.1 multi-channel, although the 7.2 always sounds better to me. Will be fun to tweak it and see :music

 

[JonUrban]

I queued up Being For the Benefit of Mr. Kite, both from LOVE and from thr 50th and checked them out section by section. They are not that far off. Not far off enough to complain about, IMHO.

If you look at the wav files, the center channel of the 50th has the solo vocal pretty much isolated, while on LOVE the bass guitar is in there as well. Also, some of the organ effects are in the rears on the 50th while they sit in the fronts on LOVE.

The LOVE wav file ends early since it fade into "She's So Heavy", but for you wav file scan fans, take a look below.

 

[ar surround]

I queued up Being For the Benefit of Mr. Kite, both from LOVE and from thr 50th and checked them out section by section. They are not that far off. Not far off enough to complain about, IMHO.

If you look at the wav files, the center channel of the 50th has the solo vocal pretty much isolated, while on LOVE the bass guitar is in there as well. Also, some of the organ effects are in the rears on the 50th while they sit in the fronts on LOVE.

The LOVE wav file ends early since it fade into "She's So Heavy", but for you wav file scan fans, take a look below.

View attachment 29653

Jon, I'm not sure that I know how to interpret these graphs, but it seems that the front channels of the Love version has higher peaks/lower valleys than the 50th anniversary version. Does this mean that the Love version has more dynamic range?

 

[seilerbird]

I queued up Being For the Benefit of Mr. Kite, both from LOVE and from thr 50th and checked them out section by section. They are not that far off. Not far off enough to complain about, IMHO.

Well there is another forum that will complain about the differences all day long like as if they are earth shateringly important.