HiRez Poll Beatles, The - Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band [BluRay]

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Rate the BDA of The Beatles - SGT PEPPERS LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND


  • Total voters
    150
So, since the rear channels are not so loud, I decided to point my monster KLIPSCH rears directly at my ears. Now, I play Pepper and it ROCKS. What more, the hell do we want from a recording so old?? This is out.....mother...effing....standing. As Snood says...crank it. How can you not like this? Should I have to point my speakers to my ears? Who cares, when I do...sounds killer. This is the 1960's!!! WOW!
 
To avoid overload, I've only played this once so far, and will do so a few more times before I post anything lengthy about it. Until then, a few points to ponder:

As noted already, the approach by Mr. Giles--IMO a sensible one--was to reference the mono mix's nuances when remixing for stereo and 5.1. Rather than bitch overmuch about that, most of us will, I believe, applaud it. This means a less 'radical' mix, perhaps, but one with less gimmicky elements and general frippery than we used to hear on the *more adventurous* 70s quad albums. I never minded a bit of gimmick and fripp myself (heh), but do remember that an album like IN THE COURT OF THE CRIMSON KING doesn't have much in the way of sonic gimmicks, either. Yet its sonics are so revelatory that I, for one, was glad there were no significant added distractions, however fun and temporarily impressive such things can be.

This is not to say Martin mixed TO mono, or to the point where the sound is ultra-tight and maddeningly not very discrete (you know where to go for those!) What he has obviously done is use the mono mix--and yes, like mono PET SOUNDS, will always be the definitive refenence point--as a launching pad for how loud and prominent this 'n' that is, or how subdued other elements are, along with tape speed corrections, etc. Beyond this is the fact that the music, in whatever format, was razzle-dazzle regardless and so, rather than pile on too many 3D and other flashy effects that arguably could have added even more dazzle, he opted to let the intricacy and sheer creative force of the group at this time speak for itself.

It's easy to forget that for rock, soul/R&B and some pop of the time, mono was THE reference standard, the *money mix*, if you will. It's where most of the time and money went, not least because a) singles were mono (stereo singles making a slow but steady comeback beginning in early 1968), b) most albums contained the single mixes were applicable and c) our equipment, like our youth, was generally undisciplined and raw, and not always of the greatest quality (but sometimes with total fondness for what we can never have back), and some of our machines were, yes, still mono (though I had a small portable stereo setup with lightweight tone arm by early '67). You don't have to confine yourself to Motown to find the money mono mixes, either: until stereo editions were slowly phased out during '68, a mono Lp was a given for most acts, as was a separate stereo Lp. This 'dual inventory' thing was abandoned by the labels not because mono was inferior (which it never was) but because with stereo-only inventory, the labels were guaranteed more profit per unit, as it were, since mono Lp's were a buck cheaper (which I know explains why Mom always bought us mono Lp's!) :D

I'm also very weary of giving this one a '10' just because it's PEPPER, if only because--although I've always loved it--have never considered it the 'Greatest Album Ever Made,' as Rolling Stone, among others, would have you believe. It's a singular experience, gave birth to a ton of nonsense via all the inferior rock groups ever spawned (and otherwise would never have been heard, safe to say). But honestly? My go-to Beatles album is either PLEASE PLEASE ME (early) for its vitality, and REVOLVER (midway) for its clever, endearing sophistication and (let's be honest) pretentiousness. I like a lot of the WHITE ALBUM, about half of ABBEY ROAD (overrated, IMO), snatches of LET IT BE, and some beauties from beginning to end (including the US RUBBER SOUL over the UK, though both are great).

Needless to say, I'll be back...:rolleyes:

ED :)
 
Interesting, Ed, your comments about Beatle's albums. I, personally love them all. I just cannot get past the ridiculous amount of talent. I don't necessarily consider their oldest albums their best. I love their experimental side...but that's just my preference.

It's all good. Beatles are a once in a lifetime band, and I will cherish everything they can give me. :)
 
I understand that anyone who grew up loving this album wants to give the surround mix a 10... I would love to do that as well! I just think that the main reason for voting is to contribute to the surround poll. The surround poll is where I went as a newbie to find the consensus on the answer to that eternal surround question, "what is the greatest surround mix ever?" That's where I found Dark Side Of The Moon was #1, and promptly went searching for it... and it didn't disappoint! If everyone gives this a 10, hey, that's cool with me... I just don't think it represents the best surround mix ever. I still love it, though! Shit, I've had it playing on repeat for the last 6 hours!!
 
Interesting, Ed, your comments about Beatle's albums. I, personally love them all. I just cannot get past the ridiculous amount of talent. I don't necessarily consider their oldest albums their best. I love their experimental side...but that's just my preference.

It's all good. Beatles are a once in a lifetime band, and I will cherish everything they can give me. :)

Gene, so true about Beatles, it is incredible what quality they packed into so few years of their actual band existence and to think what they could have done with the studio tools that we have today compared to what they had back then the mind just wanders. George Martin and the Beatles sure were a magic combination and Giles M. has done a good job with this release.
I haven't had a chance to give this a true isolated listen yet but what others have stated I agree 100%, this is the best this album has ever sounded and for that we have alot to be thankful for.
Hopefully we get some more Beatles in 5.1 in the future as well.

peter
 
First let me start with my general impressions of "Sgt Pepper". I don't believe I had even heard the album all the way (or if I did, didn't pay a ton of attention to it) until I bought the MOFI box set in the early 80s. It was never my favorite Beatles album. I also figured there was a lot of "you had to be there" with this one. Had I been a teenager during the Summer of Love, I can imagine it would have blown me away. But being too young for that, it was always an album I thought was probably a bit over-rated from a purely musical standpoint, even if I was able to understand the cultural and historical significance.

So let me then say that the 5.1 mix brings me closer to what the album is all about then I have ever been before. Having really only known the stereo mix, when I first heard the mono mix upon the release of the Mono Box, I have to say didn't understand what the raving about the mono had been. Yes, I get it was closer to the original intention, but it just sounded closed. If anything, I needed the album to open up for me more. The 5.1 mix does that. And to the degree it retains the intentions of the mono mix and adheres to its idiosyncrasies more than the stereo, so much the better.

I agree with ar surround's comments that the rears need to be cranked. But once you do, the experience is immersive and illuminating. Would I have personally liked a bit more active and 'fun' mix? Sure. Especially on tracks like "Mr. Kite" and "Day in the Life" I think being more adventurous would have been great. But I find a lot of detail and discreetness throughout the album. Tracks like "Fixing a Hole", which was never a favorite of mine, I have a complete new appreciation for. "Within You, Without You" is revelatory. "Good Morning, Good Morning" is the only one I found to be disappointing and it still sounds like too much of a jumbled mess to me.

Of course, the content is a 10. The packaging is all anyone could as for, and makes the hefty price tag seem worth it. I haven't even listened to the other discs yet. But all of that is an easy 10. To be completely honest I have to give the surround mix a 9. So overall, I guess I'll call this one a 9 just because it COULD have been a bit more. But it's more like 9 3/4.

But for those disappointed with the surround? Please try cranking up the rears a bit (and then cranking the entire thing) and see if that makes a difference for you.
 
The more I listen to the Mono mix, the more I am convinced that Giles & Sam's goal was to create a 5.1 "mono" mix, if that makes sense? And a stereo "mono" mix too, of course.

It is pretty much a strong and widely held belief that the mono mixes of all Beatles albums up to and including "The Beatles" were the benchmarks. Nowadays, when Steven Wilson approaches 5.1 remixes, he starts by recreating the stereo mix and then builds the 5.1 mix using the stereo mix as the guide. To me, it seems painfully obvious that Giles did the very same, but used the mono mix as that guide for both the new stereo and 5.1 mixes. Isn't that the way that Wilson would've done it? I think so.

As I write this I am listening to the mono mix of Pepper after listening to the 5.1 mix and it is as engaging and entertaining in my headphones as the 5.1 mix is on my surround system.

I think many were hoping that Giles would create some kind of sonic spectacle with all these elements, something of a 2017 version that drew influence from some of today's more adventurous mixes, but what he's actually done is create a benchmark for remixing classic mono recordings into 5.1 that is respectful and engaging. Maybe he should be allowed to have a go at Pet Sounds. I bet it would be far more acceptable to the masses.

In fact, I would go as far to say that this 5.1 mix, when it comes to having an impact on how classic mono mixes are approached for 5.1, is as revolutionary as the original album was back in the day.
 
As Giles could go back to prepare bounce tracks he had more 8 12 and 16 tracks to play with no excuse for not producing a more interesting mix, I can only feel that the monophiles over on the H site liking it.

Realistically, I think at most he would have had 7 tracks to work with. Someone more Beatles-phile than I am can correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the most they did was bounce 4 tracks to one and then record three others. Or bouncing the original 4 to 2 tracks for a stereo mix which only gave them 2 extra tracks to work with. I think tracks like "When I'm 64" were only ever 4 track.

My recollection from Martin's book on the recording of Sgt Pepper is that the album is essentially a 6-track recording.

I suppose modern technology might allow them to isolate separate elements on single tracks in some cases.
 
Gene, so true about Beatles, it is incredible what quality they packed into so few years of their actual band existence and to think what they could have done with the studio tools that we have today compared to what they had back then the mind just wanders. George Martin and the Beatles sure were a magic combination and Giles M. has done a good job with this release.
I haven't had a chance to give this a true isolated listen yet but what others have stated I agree 100%, this is the best this album has ever sounded and for that we have alot to be thankful for.
Hopefully we get some more Beatles in 5.1 in the future as well.

peter

I, for one, think the reason Beatles records were so great is because they DIDN'T have the studio tools we have today. If there was something they wanted to do and it didn't exist, they created it. ADT, flanging (I believe), close miking of orchestral instruments, over-driving the mixing board, using a bass speaker as a mic to record Paul's bass on Paperback Writer... the list goes on. Of course most of these were the result of George Martin and his minions, but they were at the request of the Fab's. As they say, "Necessity Is The Mother of Invention" (no Zappa pun intended).

I've listened to all the 5.1 material and the session CD's (I love that kind of stuff). Still need to listen to the stereo remix and the mono. There is no way I could give this set anything but a 10. :cool:
 
Tidal, subscription streaming, has Sgt Peppers, remix 13 songs and 18 songs which I assume would be Disc 2 on the box set. CD quality only of course.
 
the whole "mixed from a FOUR track tape" is deceptive....most of you know that they did endless "bouncedowns" to 1 or 2 tracks so they could keep recording more stuff..and on top of that they LOOOOVED playing with the final mix while doing it....
 
Last edited:
I took delivery today. From first listen I have given it a 7. I like it but rear speakers seem too low in volume on most songs. The two standout mixes for me are Within you Without you and A day in the life. I would sum the mix up as 'some good bits, some lost opportunities'. Strawberry Fields Forever and Penny Lane are quite good too.

The mix seems to get better from Getting Better onwards.

I know it is an old recording , but I don't think the mix compares well with , say, The Best of the Doors Quad mix, with tracks from the same era.

Having said that, I have no regrets in buying this - the mix is good, and the packaging is great. Love the animated album cover. So even though I gave it a 7 (on surround mix alone) I would add one point for packaging, and another point for it being The Beatles (and Sgt Pepper) to give an overall score of 9.

I was 2 years old when this came out - I first heard this album in 1984 and loved it immediately. Did they include the 15khz tone towards the end? If they did I cant hear it. It used to irritate me when I was 19 years old....

I am now listening to Xtc's Drums and Wires - now that is a great 5.1 mix.
 
Maybe on next listen I need to crank my amp up to 11.....


Snood listened late last night..........reaaaaaaaally late like til 4AM over and over and then to the PCM Stereo tooooooooo

not only did Snood listen late, Snood listened LOUD:yikes so the neighbors in the court might have been annoyed :cool:

I put up the LFE plus 3 and that is all.

Loooooooooooooooooooooooved it - do think the louder ya crank it the more the rears kick in.

Snood from reading some of the reviews about rears not being as active went in thinking uhoh, but me do have a smaller room with the speakers much closer and did me mention LOUUUUUUD!!:mad:@:

then watched the making of........yeah dated, but still the George martin stuff was very informative with what they were working with at the time and currently. After watching that, Snood then listened again and was like :yikes

Couldn't be happier - yes it not perfect and other worldy space and time continuum mind bending, but very much a great happy wonderful experience. :banana:

The packaging is Stellar, very impressed - bought the album too... also very nice.

Snood gives it Overall 9 Bananas :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:

Was hovering between 8 and 9, but bumped it a 9 cuz who woulda thunk a few years ago when Snood first joined the QQ fun bunch, at what seemed to be a time of a waning amount of surround sound releases and people talking about the good ole days back in the early 2000's and all those prior releases, that we would be seeing this Icon and all kinds of other awesome releases being released. Goes to show you what the power of the dancing Bananas can do :worthy:banana:

Oh, one more thing CRANK THIS SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIT UP!!!!!! :banana::banana::banana::banana::cool:
:banana:
 
Second good listen today, and yes there is clarity, but on the whole I am seriously unimpressed.

The remix is down there with Silverline and James Guthrie's poor extended stereo mixes.

Lots of jumping up and down because it's The Beatles, tempered with why when 'Love' was so good can every surround mix since be so bad.

Anyone who has given this a score higher than Love is not measuring things properly.
 
I voted 9.

I love the Beatles, probably my favorite music makers.

What this 5.1 mix (as well as the new stereo remix) does is to correct what I always thought was an injustice to the vision of the original recordings. I always appreciated this recording, but it's muddy sonics kept it from being one of my favorites. I knew there were so really cool sounding stuff on it, but it was very hard to hear.

Through the incredible new technology available in digital mixing systems, and breakthrough demixing techniques, this album now has so much more room to breathe. I could write pages of details on what I hear now, but here are my highlights

- drums and bass are way more articulated
-vocals (especially harmonies) just shine
-real instruments sound truly like real instruments. You can smell the rosin on the bows, you can hear the "wood" in the wood winds.

I think that Giles used every bit of surrounds capabilities to present Pepper as I would have expected the band and his father would want to hear in 2017
 
This poll thread is going to be a lightning rod. I mean to say, so many different opinions. I have to say this, though maybe not wanted in this poll thread. I can't help myself. :)

I simply do not think you can compare a surround mix of a title that is from 1967 vs a surround mix of a title that is from anything mid 70's and later. It's not apples to apples.

Without any qualifiers, does this sound as good (from a surround perspective) to Wilson's mixes of Tull? Good God, of course not. Why would it? The problem I have is, if all the ratings are literal and folks purchased based on that....no one would purchase this. I seriously think you have to take many things into consideration. Why would you not do that? It's sort of like comparing $5 in 1965 to $5 in 2017. Are they the same? By number yes, but you just can't know the whole story if you take that route. Inflation......better tools. What's the difference?

For me, I cannot fathom giving this 1967 title a poor rating and diss it. Again, to be redundant...can you say this sounds as good as Steven Wilson's newest releases in terms of surround? Give me a break. Why would it?

Probably I'm not getting my point across. Oh well. And, for those who don't vote highly. I get it...I just don't agree. :violin
 
The Love mix is a red herring in this debate. Love was created as a soundtrack to a Las Vegas revue - a very good one mind you but a Strip show nonetheless. Martin & son where encouraged to go overboard. In that they were allowed to fly in parts from different songs into the blend gave them a technical advantage- they did not have to remain true to the original. I respect everyone's opinion as to what they like or don't like - just keep it in the proper context. You might prefer a mustache painted on the Mona Lisa but I'm pretty sure that DaVinci would disagree.
 
This poll thread is going to be a lightning rod. I mean to say, so many different opinions. I have to say this, though maybe not wanted in this poll thread. I can't help myself. :)

I simply do not think you can compare a surround mix of a title that is from 1967 vs a surround mix of a title that is from anything mid 70's and later. It's not apples to apples.

Without any qualifiers, does this sound as good (from a surround perspective) to Wilson's mixes of Tull? Good God, of course not. Why would it? The problem I have is, if all the ratings are literal and folks purchased based on that....no one would purchase this. I seriously think you have to take many things into consideration. Why would you not do that? It's sort of like comparing $5 in 1965 to $5 in 2017. Are they the same? By number yes, but you just can't know the whole story if you take that route. Inflation......better tools. What's the difference?

For me, I cannot fathom giving this 1967 title a poor rating and diss it. Again, to be redundant...can you say this sounds as good as Steven Wilson's newest releases in terms of surround? Give me a break. Why would it?

Probably I'm not getting my point across. Oh well. And, for those who don't vote highly. I get it...I just don't agree. :violin

I get what you are saying, but the problem is the ratings are suggested to be based on "Surround," "Content" and "Fidelity" with no option to add points because it was an early recording. Using these guidelines, the best I can give this is a 7: Content:3 Fidelity:3 Surround:1. I might bump it up to 8 with the extra point available from the 10 possible, but right now I'm inclined to leave it at 7 since I usually reserve the extra point for extraordinary surround mixes.

Another way to look at it if you want to compare apples to apples, is to compare this to "Love." I think everyone would agree the "Love" surround mix is at least a couple points better than "Sgt. Pepper"; so at best "Sgt. Pepper" is an 8.

Of course this rating system is just a suggestion, but it helps me give more meaningful ratings. I have to force myself to some sort of disciplined rating system so that I don't end up giving everything a 10.
 
Back
Top