'The Beatles' (White Album) [50th Anniversary Box Set with 5.1 Blu-ray Disc!]

fredblue said:

i wonder if using where instruments are positioned in the soundfield in a gig setting as his reference point for how to pan a surround remix of a studio track is part of "the problem"..

Click to expand...

That certainly does seem plausible. Luckily for us, it appears he's slowly growing out of that conservative approach- some choices in his recent mix of Sgt. Pepper would completely violate it.

"Fixing A Hole"- probably the most adventurous mix on that disc- would suggest George is playing his guitar directly behind you.

"When I'm 64"- Piano overdub behind you

"Strawberry Fields"- Harp does 360 pan

Granted, those parts that are "rear only" are really like 75% rear, 25% front. Better than 1+ for sure though.

Glad to see he's getting more adventurous. Haven't heard the recent INXS disc done by him yet- comments on the poll thread seem to be positive.

sjcorne said:

Giles- "In the early days of surround, I was given a Marvin Gaye disc, and the guitarist played behind me. I would never go to a gig where I was standing next to the kick drum and the guitarist was playing behind me!"

My retort- Well that's no fun...

Click to expand...

I would LOVE to go to a gig where I was standing next to the kick drum with the guitarist behind me... bring it on!!:banana:

sjcorne said:

I assume he's referring to either "Let's Get It On" or "The Marvin Gaye Collection", both released on SACD/DVD-A with 5.1 mixes. The quad mixes of "Let's Get It On" and "What's Going On" are only available on Japanese quad vinyl, so I doubt he's heard those.

Though "Love" and Sgt Pepper certainly have their moments, I don't agree with this philosophy at all. Surround mixes of studio material are not meant to replicate a live performance...it's ok to spread things out and immerse the listener as long as the mix honors the sound of the original. People like ES and SW understand that. The guys working on quad at Columbia back in the day for the most part understood it too, though they went for a more experimental approach that some seem to appreciate more than others.

I respect both views, but one thing I'll say: Giles' Beatles 1+ was an absolute travesty. That is NOT a surround title, or even a 3.1 mix.

Click to expand...

I'm with you right up until the final paragraph, sjcorne. I agree that Giles's oft-stated guiding principle about mixing The Beatles for surround is, well, misguided. (Or at least, as others have pointed out, that it's needlessly restrictive. In this day and age, you can have a mix that "respects the original" and another that takes some risks--or, as you say, one mix that artfully does both at once. The two propositions aren't mutually exclusive!) I also run with the pack that was blown away by Love and underwhelmed by Pepper. And yet I'm still part of the minority that really likes 1+. Partly it's because I appreciate the total package: the hardbound book with credits and commentary, the clean hi-res sonics, the great new stereo mixes, and most of all the immaculately restored videos. But for me, the 5.1 mixes are more than just "Big Stereo"; they add a depth and fullness and presence to the sound field/soundstage that I find convincingly immersive even when they're not adventurous or discrete, and they enhance the experience of watching the vids in a way that the stereo mixes don't. Not trying to change your opinion, necessarily: I was reading back through the 1+ poll thread this morning and found something I could agree with in almost every post, including the more passionate denunciations. But I'm also glad to have had an excuse to pull the box off the shelf and enjoy it all over again...when I should have been working!

[Edit/addendum: in spite of/because of Giles's chequered history, I'm looking forward to the White Album...]

humprof said:

I'm with you right up until the final paragraph, sjcorne. I agree that Giles's oft-stated guiding principle about mixing The Beatles for surround is, well, misguided. (Or at least, as others have pointed out, that it's needlessly restrictive. In this day and age, you can have a mix that "respects the original" and another that takes some risks--or, as you say, one mix that artfully does both at once.

Click to expand...

Every album having two mixes, one conservative and one adventurous, is an interesting idea...I suppose in theory that would please everyone. Some of the Monster Music live surround titles have an "On Stage" mix and "In The Audience" mix to please both camps. Only problem is getting the labels to commission two 5.1 mixes per album at a time when we're lucky to get one.

I really wish someone else would get a shot at Beatles remixes, but it'll never happen. Giles is part of the family and he's made his views on surround mixing quite clear. I had read somewhere that ES offered to do Abbey Road and was pretty much laughed off

Nothing upsets me more than a great catalog trapped in the hands of a restrictive mixer...I feel the same way about Mick Guzauski's Clapton mixes and James Guthrie's Floyd mixes (especially since the much more adventurous Andy Jackson is waiting in the wings).

humprof said:

And yet I'm still part of the minority that really likes 1+. Partly it's because I appreciate the total package: the hardbound book with credits and commentary, the clean hi-res sonics, the great new stereo mixes, and most of all the immaculately restored videos. But for me, the 5.1 mixes are more than just "Big Stereo"; they add a depth and fullness and presence to the sound field/soundstage that I find convincingly immersive even when they're not adventurous or discrete, and they enhance the experience of watching the vids in a way that the stereo mixes don't. Not trying to change your opinion, necessarily: I was reading back through the 1+ poll thread this morning and found something I could agree with in almost every post, including the more passionate denunciations. But I'm also glad to have had an excuse to pull the box off the shelf and enjoy it all over again...when I should have been working!

Click to expand...

I don't disagree that it's a solid video package. What bugs me is how they built so much hype around the surround...there was this big S&V review praising the mix, so when it arrived I felt kinda cheated. It is Hi-Rez though which counts for something.

What's funny though is it lowered my expectations so much for Pepper, that when I heard it I was actually pleasantly surprised. Was playing around with the waveforms before and it really does have some nice moments.

humprof said:

[Edit/addendum: in spite of/because of Giles's chequered history, I'm looking forward to the White Album...]

Click to expand...

Yes please...I'm pumped to hear "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", one of my favorite Beatles tracks, in 5.1- even if it's not quite how I always imagined it. My version would probably have guitars in the rears...

sjcorne said:

That certainly does seem plausible. Luckily for us, it appears he's slowly growing out of that conservative approach- some choices in his recent mix of Sgt. Pepper would completely violate it.

"Fixing A Hole"- probably the most adventurous mix on that disc- would suggest George is playing his guitar directly behind you.

"When I'm 64"- Piano overdub behind you

"Strawberry Fields"- Harp does 360 pan

Granted, those parts that are "rear only" are really like 75% rear, 25% front. Better than 1+ for sure though.

Glad to see he's getting more adventurous. Haven't heard the recent INXS disc done by him yet- comments on the poll thread seem to be positive.

Click to expand...

i'm not entirely convinced the Sgt.Peppers 5.1 is all that recently mixed but i may be wrong

fredblue said:

i'm not entirely convinced the Sgt.Peppers 5.1 is all that recently mixed but i may be wrong

Click to expand...

But then, Adam, how would one account for the Dolby Atmos version of Sgt. Pepper? That HAD to be a new remix and wonder if it'll ever be released as a stand alone BD~A?

sjcorne said:

Giles- "In the early days of surround, I was given a Marvin Gaye disc, and the guitarist played behind me. I would never go to a gig where I was standing next to the kick drum and the guitarist was playing behind me!"

My retort- Well that's no fun...

Click to expand...

No doubt if he was in the studio with the Beatles he might of been privy to an all encompassing surround with lot's of instruments coming from the rear...as the band members must of heard.

And then there's the "up on stage " sound of a live performance which should also never be denied for the fans.

skherbeck said:

I would LOVE to go to a gig where I was standing next to the kick drum with the guitarist behind me... bring it on!!:banana:

Click to expand...

I've never been able to understand all the complaints about the placement of different instruments...where the sound comes from is meaningless to me..as long as it exists

LennonCobain said:

SDE has speculated on what 2018 has in store and had this to say about The White Album:
http://www.superdeluxeedition.com/feature/sde-reissue-preview-for-2018/

“The rumours are that Apple and Universal will reissue a 50th anniversary edition of ‘The Beatles‘ aka The White Album this year. The 50th anniversary is in November so if this happens, it won’t be a summer release like last year’s Sgt. Pepper. Expect ‘Esher demos’, outtakes and more, although a 5.1 mix of the entire double album doesn’t seem very likely…”

An incomplete 5.1 mix would be such a let down! I wonder where this hypothesis stems from?

Click to expand...

I don't read that sentence to say that an "incomplete 5.1 mix" would be an option, but rather that a 5.1 mix of the 90 minute White Album would be more trouble/cost than the producers/record company feel it would be worth.

keywhiz said:

I don't read that sentence to say that an "incomplete 5.1 mix" would be an option, but rather that a 5.1 mix of the 90 minute White Album would be more trouble/cost than the producers/record company feel it would be worth.

Click to expand...

Absolutely absurd. We're talking THE BEATLES, here .... "too much trouble....." :yikes NOT worth the expense :yikes:yikes

I'm sure Universal/Apple would recoup their initial 'investment' in a heartbeat.

And think of the money they'd save on this most iconic of Fab Four albums by not having to replicate the 3D Lenticular cover which graced the Sergeant Pepper boxset? :banana:

And my biggest fear: this might nix any further 5.1 surround remixes for future Anniversary Beatles' reissues!

Years ago, Elliot Scheiner offered to remix Abbey Road into 5.1 and the powers that be declined his offer. One can only imagine a bona fide ES remix of The White Album.........or for that matter ANY Beatle's albums.

It'll be 50 years since the White Albums release in November 1968, so maybe maintaining a copyright on new mixes might be an incentive to do it all? Please Abbey Road is the next album I'd love, they could have some fun mixing "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" in surround!

The label did absolute squat to promote the 5.1 mix included on the Sgt Pepper’s set. I didn’t see Martin talk about it in any interviews or hear much about it in any reviews. It was treated as a complete afterthought.

If they don’t do one for the White Album and use “lack of interest in the Pepper’s 5.1” as an excuse???

:scream

Over at the SHF, some folks “in the know” that have proven track records when it comes to Beatles-related releases are indicating that a 50th anniversary reissue of The White Album will indeed happen later this year. While no details have come out regarding a 5.1 mix, I don’t see why one wouldn’t be included.

FVDnz said:

a better remixed LIB Naked mix

Click to expand...

LIB Naked is an auto tuned fraud. It should not be revisited.

markshan said:

LIB Naked is an auto tuned fraud. It should not be revisited.

Click to expand...

Can you elaborate on this?

sjcorne said:

Giles- "In the early days of surround, I was given a Marvin Gaye disc, and the guitarist played behind me. I would never go to a gig where I was standing next to the kick drum and the guitarist was playing behind me!"

Click to expand...

That explains why the Pepper surround is so bland, doesn't it? What gig would you ever go to where they had carousels and herds of animals running across the stage? He talks about that mix being an homage to the mono. The mono mix, and really nothing at all about Pepper, was even intended to replicate a band at a gig (with the possible exceptions of the title tracks).

LuvMyQuad said:

Can you elaborate on this?

Click to expand...

markshan said:

LIB Naked is an auto tuned fraud. It should not be revisited.

Click to expand...

Yes, please - as LuvMyQuad asked, can you elaborate? I have not heard about this.

LennonCobain said:

Over at the SHF, some folks “in the know” that have proven track records when it comes to Beatles-related releases are indicating that a 50th anniversary reissue of The White Album will indeed happen later this year. While no details have come out regarding a 5.1 mix, I don’t see why one wouldn’t be included.

Click to expand...

In the meantime, I think DKA's upmix of The White Album is outstanding.

LuvMyQuad said:

Can you elaborate on this?

Click to expand...

None of those takes were used for 40 years because John's Bass VI was so horribly out of tune for what was supposed to be rehearsals. That's why Spector "fixed" the take of LAWR by putting string and choir on to bury the out of tune part. It was all that could be done in 1969. For years autotune couldn't effectively correct things below about 120 Hz. I think it was about 2001 that Antares finally figured out a way around that limitation. Not long after, Naked comes out and all of those woefully out of tune bass parts are suddenly in tune. Coincidence? I think not.

Go back and listen to the boots. You can hear how lousy the VI was tracking.