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

Don't know if I am going to vote on this, but I want to leave a comment.

After the initial love for the release (to hear a classic milestone album like this in hirez surround, just fantastic) you start to recognize some imperfections...

I can live with the not so great surround mix.

But the loudness of the recording destroys much of the listening pleasure. It just does not sound good, makes you not want to play it as often - as you would, had it been a good recording.

Why?? Why record an album like this - 10dB higher than it should???? Makes me mad.

Have no clue to what this should result in a voting number @:

Spock said:

Don't know if I am going to vote on this, but I want to leave a comment.

After the initial love for the release (to hear a classic milestone album like this in hirez surround, just fantastic) you start to recognize some imperfections...

I can live with the not so great surround mix.

But the loudness of the recording destroys much of the listening pleasure. It just does not sound good, makes you not want to play it as often - as you would, had it been a good recording.

Why?? Why record an album like this - 10dB higher than it should???? Makes me mad.

Have no clue to what this should result in a voting number @:

Click to expand...

I agree to a point. This album is loud and when you boost the rears and lower the center it sounds too loud in a way, but more in a fatiguing / somewhat distorted way (because of boosted Dynamic Range Compression?) than an improved sound way. I think someone posted the Dynamic Range Compression of Sgt Peppers as ~10 overall.

I mean I think this album deserves to be played loud, and that's what really surprised me about this album that it does sound better the louder you play it, as I would have not have expected, or never really thought about the Beatles in this way.

Although, now that I think about it, LOVE does sound a lot better the louder it is played (Come Together could never be played loud enough for me for instance) so for some reason I always thought of the Beatles as some Pop Rock type group that did not need to be played loud (compared to say Rush) but when I play this album loud I really start to understand the Beatles as more of a Rock Band than a Pop band.

Maybe that's why they were always considered Pop, because their initial recordings weren't loud enough. lol

salsdali said:

I agree to a point. This album is loud and when you boost the rears and lower the center it sounds too loud in a way, but more in a fatiguing / somewhat distorted way (because of boosted Dynamic Range Compression?) than an improved sound way. I think someone posted the Dynamic Range Compression of Sgt Peppers as ~10 overall.

I mean I think this album deserves to be played loud, and that's what really surprised me about this album that it does sound better the louder you play it, as I would have not have expected, or never really thought about the Beatles in this way.

Although, now that I think about it, LOVE does sound a lot better the louder it is played (Come Together could never be played loud enough for me for instance) so for some reason I always thought of the Beatles as some Pop Rock type group that did not need to be played loud (compared to say Rush) but when I play this album loud I really start to understand the Beatles as more of a Rock Band than a Pop band.

Maybe that's why they were always considered Pop, because their initial recordings weren't loud enough. lol

Click to expand...

When I am increasing the level on the rears, I lower the fronts+center to achieve the same effect - but without increase the level of the recording further. I have tried all the soundtracks on both the blu ray and the dvd (and without changing the level of the rears), but with the result - it's too loud.

But not all songs are bad - When I'm Sixty-Four sounds very nice - a 10!! :banana:

Looking for some help to follow the discussion (apologies, I'm still a relative newbie).

Does the terminology "loudness" in this case mean the dynamic range?

Here's my current understanding of recording levels:

• Assuming no clipping in the process, from a technical perspective two digitally represented recordings of the same source, one "10 dB higher" than another, should sound the same when playback levels are matched.
• If one of the recordings has dynamic range compression, or other distortions are introduced, then they can sound different.

Thanks for helping me out,

Steve

Spock said:

Don't know if I am going to vote on this, but I want to leave a comment.

After the initial love for the release (to hear a classic milestone album like this in hirez surround, just fantastic) you start to recognize some imperfections...

I can live with the not so great surround mix.

But the loudness of the recording destroys much of the listening pleasure. It just does not sound good, makes you not want to play it as often - as you would, had it been a good recording.

Why?? Why record an album like this - 10dB higher than it should???? Makes me mad.

Have no clue to what this should result in a voting number @:

Click to expand...

sbrom said:

Looking for some help to follow the discussion (apologies, I'm still a relative newbie).

Does the terminology "loudness" in this case mean the dynamic range?

Here's my current understanding of recording levels:

• Assuming no clipping in the process, from a technical perspective two digitally represented recordings of the same source, one "10 dB higher" than another, should sound the same when playback levels are matched.
• If one of the recordings has dynamic range compression, or other distortions are introduced, then they can sound different.

Thanks for helping me out,

Steve

Click to expand...

I am no expert - but there is limited headroom, you can't increase the level of a recording by 10-15 dB (from a "safe" level) without it clipping - to avoid clipping they use compression - and it is the compression that leads to listening fatigue and it sounding "wrong".

And I don't understand why they do this? It seems like extra unnecessary work?

"Help" please!

I just received my Sgt. Pepper's box via Italian Amazon. Upon opening the box (inside the hologram sleeve) there is what seems to be a vinyl album and a book (both wrapped in celophane) plus the sundry paper Pepper cutout stuff.

Before I open the celophane... Is this the right version with the CDs and the 5.1 Blu Ray???

<Perhaps the discs are in the vinyl sleeve or in the book> ???

Thanks

Scott M4 said:

"Help" please!

I just received my Sgt. Pepper's box via Italian Amazon. Upon opening the box (inside the hologram sleeve) there is what seems to be a vinyl album and a book (both wrapped in celophane) plus the sundry paper Pepper cutout stuff.

Before I open the celophane... Is this the right version with the CDs and the 5.1 Blu Ray???

<Perhaps the discs are in the vinyl sleeve or in the book> ???

Thanks

Click to expand...

Yup..that's how it's packaged, they are in the album sleeve..I believe Aqualung SDE was similar...brilliant IMHO

baphomet said:

Yup..that's how it's packaged, they are in the album sleeve..I believe Aqualung SDE was similar...brilliant IMHO

Click to expand...

Yay! Thanks!

Scott M4 said:

"Help" please!

I just received my Sgt. Pepper's box via Italian Amazon. Upon opening the box (inside the hologram sleeve) there is what seems to be a vinyl album and a book (both wrapped in celophane) plus the sundry paper Pepper cutout stuff.

Before I open the celophane... Is this the right version with the CDs and the 5.1 Blu Ray???

<Perhaps the discs are in the vinyl sleeve or in the book> ???

Thanks

Click to expand...

Amazon uk actually sent me a special e-mail telling me the discs were in the LP cover inside the box. It does protect the discs well compared to the Pink Floyd Immersive box sets where the discs were destroyed.

Reading peoples thoughts on this its like Marmite (a UK yeast extract spread), you either love it or hate it. I love Marmite, but do I love this release of Sgt. Pepper's?

I have 4 full range with matching centre Monitor Audio speakers, no LFE, and my seating position is as on the SACD leaflets, i.e. sitting closer to the rear speakers, with them 'toed-in'.

First its a 50 year old recording, made on what was then state-of-the-art 4-track machines, with mixing down and track bouncing, plus I think compression of the sound in places due to level peaks. So its a remarkably clear sounding presentation, yes you can hear imperfections in the sound, the things that struck me were some of the drums, and some brass, but it is 50 years old! So its an 8 for clarity/sound.

Secondly, we should not expect it to sound like a modern 5.1 mixed from discrete tracks. Instruments have had to be extracted by software, which although good has its limitations. Plus I think The Beatles and family have had an input, they couldn't not have done, its an historic land mark album, not a best of, and changed the way albums were made forever. So as a result I also think it has been mixed in way that was consistent with what would have happened in 1967, minus perhaps the swirly Quad panning I would have expected (as you sometimes hear in early stereo - which can irritate). Its more than wide stereo, but less than a discrete surround mix. So to the contentious bit, what do I think? So I have never liked the stereo mix of this album (I never had or heard the mono LP), as I always found it to be a wall of sound, which I personally don't like. I really do like the surround mix. I've listened to it way more times than I have the stereo CD of the album I've had for years, its not perfect but it opens up the album and production. Some tracks are way better than others, but its all come from 4-track with bounce down. Its the version I will listen to. So its an 8-9 for the surround.

The music well its a 10, :music I've loved these tracks since I was 9 when the album was released.

So that puts it at a 9 overall.

Not bad for a 50 year old album, recorded to 4-track! :upthumb

DuncanS said:

Reading peoples thoughts on this its like Marmite (a UK yeast extract spread), you either love it or hate it. I love Marmite, but do I love this release of Sgt. Pepper's?

I have 4 full range with matching centre Monitor Audio speakers, no LFE, and my seating position is as on the SACD leaflets, i.e. sitting closer to the rear speakers, with them 'toed-in'.

Click to expand...

Like Marmite...love it or hate it. ROTFLMAO!!!!

Anyway, my speaker configuration is the same as yours - full range all around, no sub and speakers aligned as per the SACD leaflets. Pepper sounds great in this configuration with the surrounds juiced up a bit.

DuncanS said:

. . . but its all come from 4-track with bounce down.

Click to expand...

The interview with Henry Rollins (I posted earlier), who got a sneak listen, claims the sound is not bounced. Seems they unearthed the entire tape archive and started from scratch, or so it is suggested.

Isn't that what they did with the Yellow Submarine Songtrack too?

Yes they went back to the pre-bounce multis. IIRC, they have between 4 and 10 tracks to work from (depending on the song).

I was 13 when this LP came out. I had neither the money nor my parents' approval to buy it at the time. One year later, when the White Album came out, I had managed to save enough pocket money to secretly buy that double album, successfully fooling my parents into thinking that I had borrowed it from a friend. The price was almost double that of a single album, a whopping 550 Belgian francs, about $13.75 if you do the math now. My weekly allowance at the time was the equivalent of $0.75.

But back to Pepper. Obviously, the music is a 10. A landmark if there ever was one. Songwise it's not even my favorite Beatle album. But that production, those sounds were mind blowing. And still are if you think of the primitive circumstances (by today's standards) in which the album was recorded.

The new box sounds excellent. Incredible fidelity for a 50-year old album. The mono and stereo mixes are stunning. I wish I could say the same for the surround mix, but like many of you, I find it a bit tame. Especially if you compare it to the 5.1 mix of the songs on the Anthology dvd's, the Yellow Submarine blu-ray and the Love dvd-audio.

But having said that, if you crank up the rear speakers, it's "not half bad" as they say in the UK. And from time to time it's so stunning (Within you, without you being a case in point) that you wonder why it couldn't have all been that good.

So overall, I'm giving it an 8. I wish it could have been a 10.

It would be interesting to know on which tracks they had the most channels to play with!

Plan9 said:

Yes they went back to the pre-bounce multis. IIRC, they have between 4 and 12 tracks to work from (depending on the song).

Click to expand...

DuncanS said:

It would be interesting to know on which tracks they had the most channels to play with!

Click to expand...

I seem to remember most tracks was on Mr Kite, less tracks on When I'm 64, but I could be wrong.

I dont understand all the comments about having to boost the rear surrounds and reduce the fronts for this 5.1 mix.

I find this recording very satisfying without making any changes at all. Just for the record, I use a SPL meter to insure that all speakers in my 5.1 set up put out an equal amount of sound energy. I wonder how many others do this? (along with having surround speakers that arent a cheap afterthought)

I think it has something to do with expectations. Sgt Pepper is a 50 year old piece of "art". It was recorded with a mono presentation as the objective, but they (Beatles and Martin) thought way outside the box in terms of the production elements. Ultimately, a mono presentation did not do justice to their artistic vision, but they did get as close as they possibly could.

That being said, a Steve Wilson or Elliot Scheiner 5.1 type mix would not have been appropriate for this iconic recording. I think there would have been a huge outrage for mixes that went crazy with tons of discrete music elements. That is not within the vision the Beatles had.

What I LOVE about the stereo remix and the 5.1 is the increased presence and clarity of being able to hear the individual instruments/voices, aided by having a more modern stereo soundstage. In this way, Giles and team simply broke through the limitations of the mono mix technology and let the vision become more fully realized.

Ephi82 said:

I dont understand all the comments about having to boost the rear surrounds and reduce the fronts for this 5.1 mix.

I find this recording very satisfying without making any changes at all. Just for the record, I use a SPL meter to insure that all speakers in my 5.1 set up put out an equal amount of sound energy. I wonder how many others do this? (along with having surround speakers that arent a cheap afterthought).

Click to expand...

I do set levels with an SPL meter, and my rear speakers are identical to my front three. I still find the rears need to be boosted 3db or so for this release to sound its best. I really don't have to do that with any other disk I can think of. And if your thought is that a majority on this board don't know how to properly set levels using an SPL meter or otherwise, I very much doubt it.

Ephi82 said:

I think it has something to do with expectations. Sgt Pepper is a 50 year old piece of "art". It was recorded with a mono presentation as the objective, but they (Beatles and Martin) thought way outside the box in terms of the production elements. Ultimately, a mono presentation did not do justice to their artistic vision, but they did get as close as they possibly could.

That being said, a Steve Wilson or Elliot Scheiner 5.1 type mix would not have been appropriate for this iconic recording. I think there would have been a huge outrage for mixes that went crazy with tons of discrete music elements. That is not within the vision the Beatles had.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The mono mix is still there and the stereo mix is also available. A new, discrete 5.1 mix would have only been but another version. It wouldn't replace the mono or the stereo, it would have supplanted it. Had the Fab Four had good discrete multichannel technology available to them as a playback medium back when this was recorded, who knows how outlandish the original mix might have been. It was the psychedelic era after all.

Ephi82 said:

What I LOVE about the stereo remix and the 5.1 is the increased presence and clarity of being able to hear the individual instruments/voices, aided by having a more modern stereo soundstage. In this way, Giles and team simply broke through the limitations of the mono mix technology and let the vision become more fully realized.

Click to expand...

I agree with you about the increased clarity. The fidelity is better than I might have hoped for. But a more discrete mix would have only enhanced that.

Ephi82 said:

I dont understand all the comments about having to boost the rear surrounds and reduce the fronts for this 5.1 mix.

I find this recording very satisfying without making any changes at all. Just for the record, I use a SPL meter to insure that all speakers in my 5.1 set up put out an equal amount of sound energy. I wonder how many others do this? (along with having surround speakers that arent a cheap afterthought)

I think it has something to do with expectations. Sgt Pepper is a 50 year old piece of "art". It was recorded with a mono presentation as the objective, but they (Beatles and Martin) thought way outside the box in terms of the production elements. Ultimately, a mono presentation did not do justice to their artistic vision, but they did get as close as they possibly could.

That being said, a Steve Wilson or Elliot Scheiner 5.1 type mix would not have been appropriate for this iconic recording. I think there would have been a huge outrage for mixes that went crazy with tons of discrete music elements. That is not within the vision the Beatles had.

What I LOVE about the stereo remix and the 5.1 is the increased presence and clarity of being able to hear the individual instruments/voices, aided by having a more modern stereo soundstage. In this way, Giles and team simply broke through the limitations of the mono mix technology and let the vision become more fully realized.

Click to expand...

I think it depends on several things.
What type of surround mix the listener prefers. The is QQ after all and classic quad is far different from 5.1.
The room, speaker layout & the speakers. Huge factors as well.
Room correction software or none. The better RC systems are far more accurate at setting parameters than a Radio Shack SPL meter.
A meter is far better than by ear.
I've tried all 3 and there is no comparison.
That said, for film soundtracks I set my surrounds +3db from reference as they are not matched to my L\C\R and I prefer more action than many films are mixed for.
My music(rear) surrounds do match my L\C\Rs so I leave the settings as ARC sets them.