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

[jimfisheye]

I'm distracted by what sounds like a cheapened greedy release. If you have that disease too, read on.
Gives me the impression that the full fidelity sound of the original mixes is being held back intentionally to allow a steady stream of 'just a little better' releases.

The sound isn't bluntly poor but it very much pales next to the stereo mix (as heard on the MFSL vinyl release). Whereas the original stereo mix has ahead of its time fidelity with exceptional clarity and dynamics, down to full extended bass response, this is reduced dynamics with a harsh shrill edge. The bass content here is 'detached' from the instruments and hits you like some club mix. The fidelity is distracting enough to make anything about the surround presentation a moot point.

I get the impression of 'intentional' following on past behavior. The talk and hype around the original mixes transferred with Prism AD converters to 24 bit 192k that they have held back to this day and only released brick wall limited and high end eq blasted copies of in 24/44.1 and 16/44.1 (the 24 bit version having the same slamming but before reducing to 16 bit).

To play devils advocate, it may be that the original tapes have deteriorated badly and they tried to coax the sound out of them with harmonics generation and heavy eq.

I'm reading this the riot act because I'm distracted by the presentation so much. It's not awful sounding. If I had never heard the originals in full fidelity I might be none the wiser. It's an improvement over the 24 bit and 16 bit reissues mentioned. Distracting at best when it doesn't sound as good as a (technically) reissue of the vinyl when there's no technical reason for it.

Note: I'm not even a fanatical Beatles fan with every single release and rerelease ever made. I ended up with a copy of that MFSL set and I've just never heard a better copy yet. I have heard critique of some of these as being high end eq boosted as well. If there are even better copies I haven't heard them. All I can say is if you are one who has a problem with the MFSL being too bright, you will be absolutely appauled by the harsh edge and reduced dynamics on this release.

I can listen to many levels of flawed recordings. But a lower quality version (intentional or not) gives me zero listening pleasure.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Starting to get the impression that the full fidelity sound of the original mixes is being held back intentionally to allow a steady stream of 'just a little better' releases. Sounds conspiratorial but here we go again...

The sound isn't bluntly poor but it very much pales next to the stereo mix (as heard on the MFSL vinyl release). Whereas the original stereo mix has ahead of its time fidelity with exceptional clarity and dynamics, down to full extended bass response, this is reduced dynamics with a harsh shrill edge. The bass content here is 'detached' from the instruments and hits you like some club mix. The fidelity is distracting enough to make anything about the surround presentation a moot point.

I get the impression of 'intentional' following on past behavior. The talk and hype around the original mixes transferred with Prism AD converters to 24 bit 192k that they have held back to this day and only released brick wall limited and high end eq blasted copies of in 24/44.1 and 16/44.1 (the 24 bit version having the same slamming but before reducing to 16 bit).

To play devils advocate, it may be that the original tapes have deteriorated badly and they tried to coax the sound out of them with harmonics generation and heavy eq.

I'm reading this the riot act. It's not awful. If I had never heard the originals in full fidelity I might be none the wiser. It's an improvement over the 24 bit and 16 bit reissues mentioned. Very much a disappointment if you were hoping to finally hear a pristine 24 bit HD digital copy of the originals or even expended from that to surround.

Note: I'm not even a fanatical Beatles fan with every single release and rerelease ever made. I ended up with a copy of that MFSL set and I've just never heard a better copy yet. I have heard critique of some of these as being high end eq boosted as well. If there are even better copies I haven't heard them. All I can say is if you are one who has a problem with the MFSL being too bright, you will be absolutely appauled by the harsh edge and reduced dynamics on this release.

So it's not awful...but you voted a 1...honestly...I thought the days of this kind of voting had been purged on here...it's a good thing you threw in the "conspiracy" angle/holding back...a nice touch...this should appeal to the other malcontents out there...the most important section of this forum for me has been the polls...and I've been concerned about them....and it appears my fears were well founded...fortunately there is one forum function that has saved me a lot of frustration...and that is the IGNORE button...and now you can join that select group....and for me I'll just refrain from using the polls and discuss upcoming surround titles with my close circle of friends on here whom I trust to give me intelligent input...

 

[jimfisheye]

Yeah, I feel like the odd man out chasing fidelity nowadays. To the more extreme level and acting like it's important and all that is. I can prove to myself that other elements are more important in the big picture by listening to horrendous sounding recordings but none the less, shooting for 99% fidelity instead of 97% is also a thing. When something is released either ignorant of what's possible or being greedy with it, that gets in the way for me. I ended up starting to skip through this and then just listened to my old copy. Zero enjoyment. If I was buying a vinyl picture disc I wouldn't mention sound quality at all. This is a bluray.

 

[GOS]

Yeah, I feel like the odd man out chasing fidelity nowadays. To the more extreme level and acting like it's important and all that is. I can prove to myself that other elements are more important in the big picture by listening to horrendous sounding recordings but none the less, shooting for 99% fidelity instead of 97% is also a thing. When something is released either ignorant of what's possible or being greedy with it, that gets in the way for me. I ended up starting to skip through this and then just listened to my old copy. Zero enjoyment. If I was buying a vinyl picture disc I wouldn't mention sound quality at all. This is a bluray.

Hey Jim - I know...I know. But I sort of wonder when someone votes a 1 for an album I know they like. It seems more like it's to make a point, and not based on reality.

The voting criteria according to the top of the polls says:

Great Surround
Great Content
Great Fidelity

So to vote a 1, I guess you'd have to give a 1 to each of those 3....and that doesn't seem likely that the content is a 1 for you. Just saying my man, just saying....

 

[jimfisheye]

Fair enough. My reaction for good or bad was like the teacher marking zero on a test for cheating. I get unreasonably distracted by this stuff sometimes.
N/A would be more accurate for everything so I'll try to respect the rules and not vote on what are 'ringers' to me from now on.

 

[Franklin]

...only released brick wall limited and high end eq blasted copies of in 24/44.1 and 16/44.1 (the 24 bit version having the same slamming but before reducing to 16 bit).

...it may be that the original tapes have deteriorated badly and they tried to coax the sound out of them with harmonics generation and heavy eq.

...If I had never heard the originals in full fidelity I might be none the wiser.

Behave. They were not brickwalled, the were not high end EQ blasted, they were not slammed.

I don't think tape deterioration would be masked with compression. Isn't it more likely to bring it out?

Unless you've heard the original tapes on properly lined up machines through great monitors you've not heard them in full fidelity. Hyperbole is not your friend with this. I don't think the new stereo mix sounds great either, but it is what it is, and it didn't suit my taste/expectations.

 

[Franklin]

A little cheeky hello to everyone who's put me on their ignore list.

 

[jimfisheye]

Behave. They were not brickwalled, the were not high end EQ blasted, they were not slammed.

I don't think tape deterioration would be masked with compression. Isn't it more likely to bring it out?

Unless you've heard the original tapes on properly lined up machines through great monitors you've not heard them in full fidelity. Hyperbole is not your friend with this. I don't think the new stereo mix sounds great either, but it is what it is, and it didn't suit my taste/expectations.

I tend to not behave myself then I guess.

The USB stick masters are compressed and high end eq blasted. If there's an alternate version that isn't, I haven't heard it or heard of it.
And yes, compression would bring out tape deterioration. Hence my leading that this set was damaged by intentional mastering for portable listening devices rather than suffering from deterioration and someone's best clean up efforts.

I never made it to that Beatles listening party at the studio. Wasn't that some MTV contest or something? Winner gets to listen to the original masters in the studio?
Did they really spool up the actual analog masters? That seems unwise... I don't remember if they ever mentioned the mono or stereo masters (or both) either.
Anyway, I wasn't there and I have not heard the analog master tapes.

All I can say is I do know what various forms of generation loss sound like as well as compression, saturation, and that kind of damage. I'm familiar with how something with a layer of saturation but turned up loud can sound "great" to the ear at a glance. Carefully match the level with the original and now the damage is revealed and glaring.

Is the sound on those stereo vinyl copies in some weird state that it gives one the impression it's a cleaner, lower generation copy than the USB masters even after carefully matching the volume? That's a stretch in my experience. My turntable setup is not THAT much better than my digital chain to account for it. I have a number of MFSL pressings that were very well done but got bettered by the 24/96 HD digital release that finally came out. (Benz Micro MC-3 -> Mark Levinson pre vs Apogee Rosetta DA. Should be a pretty fair reading of the music and mastering work rather than critique of artifacts from the gear for both systems. AR or Genelec speakers to choose from.)

All I can say is the MFSL stereo master betters the 5.1 remix for fidelity. I could derive the 5.1 mix fidelity from the stereo mix using compression, distortion, and eq. I know of no way to clean the new mix up to the clear and open full fidelity of the MFSL master. I have one other MFSL master that sounds nearly identical with a 24/96 digital bluray release of the same and that's Dark Side of the Moon. And I hear a little bit of high end eq boost on the digital master which is the common complaint and maybe the reason. All the other MFSL albums I thought sounded fantastic pale next to the 24/96 digital releases.

Yeah, so this sounds like one of those "analog rules and digital sucks" rants. That's not my intention and I find myself more in the "HD digital is the golden age of audio" camp actually.
And this new mix sounds distorted and hyped next to my old copy. I'd rather write something glowing and be enjoying the new mix. Instead, I'm writing what the likes of me would want to read as a warning.

 

[Franklin]

It's such an exageration to say that the high end EQ of the remasters was blasted. There may have been a little more level on the top end, but it was not blasted. It just wasn't. They were limited a bit (and I agree it's not inaudible, but it's not terrible). Out of interest, are you still able to hear the 15kHz tone at the end of Pepper? FWIW I don't particularly like the new stereo mix of Pepper either, possibly for the same reasons as you.

 

[4-earredwonder]

I am hardly an expert on the subject, but Pepper was recorded in 1967 analogue on a four track machine with god knows how many multiple tracks of audio info bounced around those four tracks. And how many splices were incurred in the process? And then I'm sure MULTIPLE sub masters were struck from that ABSOLUTE original 4 track master which was probably stored away in the vault never to be touched again.

This was also pre any type of noise reduction and the analogue machines of the time were limited in their S/N [Signal to noise ratio] and high/low end frequencies.

That Pepper sounds as good as it does compared to today's analogue/digital recording techniques is somewhat of a miracle.

I'm sure there have been multiple manipulations of those sub masters over the years to augment the limitations of the original masters [sub masters?] utilizing modern digital technology.

And keep in mind......VINYL also has its limitations and has always sounded 'different' [warmer?] than digital......but is different always better?

Every turntable, cartridge, tonearm combo imparts its own unique characteristic so the sound of vinyl is wholly dependent on those factors, as well.

The ONLY experts on how Pepper should sound were Sir George Martin, the Fab Four and the recording engineers of the time who actually heard the original playback at EMI in 1967.

Everything else is pure hearsay!

 

[EHughes]

I gave this a 6. I wanted to rate it higher, I really did. But after hearing the Love DVD-A surround mix I just know this could have been so much better.

 

[4-earredwonder]

I gave this a 6. I wanted to rate it higher, I really did. But after hearing the Love DVD-A surround mix I just know this could have been so much better.

I'm with you on the LOVE remix......IMO, absolutely superb! But after reading the 'be faithful to the mono version' hype surrounding the Pepper remix and PERHAPS the constraints imposed on Giles to do a more 'conservative' remix I reneged and gave it a 10. If you read my above post [#250] I based it on the analogue restrictions of the time. Probably 40~15,000kHz [at MOST] with a low signal to noise ratio and the fact that it wasn't hissy after all the info crammed onto that four track machine, I never heard it so clearly but totally agree it could've been more adventuresome, mix wise.

 

[4-earredwonder]

A little cheeky hello to everyone who's put me on their ignore list.

Take sodium bicarbonate with a Dr. Pepper and guaranteed you'll feel better in the morning!

http://tyrannyofpink.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/5.png

R.S.V.P.: Pity Party @ Mike the Fish's home ... dress, optional http://www.shalerlibrary.org/wp-con...pers-Lonely-Hearts-Club-Band-single-cover.jpg

 

[bktouchstone]

I hadn't listened to the 5.1 in a while, and after this thread vigorously resuscitated I had to give it another try. My original impression still stands. There is enough disappointment in the phrase "could have been better" to fill the Grand Canyon. Despite this, the surround mix definitely has some fine moments. Just not enough. To me this is demonstrated perfectly on Harrison's "Within You Without You." The music, as remixed, is a revelation, but George's voice has been liberated from the mirky depths of mysticism and he is now sitting on the ottoman in front of you. Some will find this OK, I just think it alters the entire mood and gravitas of the song, which makes all the difference. Bass is still bottom heavy and muddled at that very bottom throughout, just like I remember. I think if the bass had been done right, all else could have been forgiven (yes I am too lazy to turn down the sub-woofer!). It's a fine technical achievement but like some CGI movies you lose the plot amongst the eye candy of dinosaurs from space in flying saucers.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

I hadn't listened to the 5.1 in a while, and after this thread vigorously resuscitated I had to give it another try. My original impression still stands. There is enough disappointment in the phrase "could have been better" to fill the Grand Canyon. Despite this, the surround mix definitely has some fine moments. Just not enough. To me this is demonstrated perfectly on Harrison's "Within You Without You." The music, as remixed, is a revelation, but George's voice has been liberated from the mirky depths of mysticism and he is now sitting on the ottoman in front of you. Some will find this OK, I just think it alters the entire mood and gravitas of the song, which makes all the difference. Bass is still bottom heavy and muddled at that very bottom throughout, just like I remember. I think if the bass had been done right, all else could have been forgiven (yes I am too lazy to turn down the sub-woofer!). It's a fine technical achievement but like some CGI movies you lose the plot amongst the eye candy of dinosaurs from space in flying saucers.

So you don't like the fact that they brought clarity to George's voice...and that alters the mood?...Uh...OK..so to review...muddled bass(on your system) is bad...and cleaning up George's voice and providing more separation is bad also...and then your description of the music remix as a revelation...is bad?...I understand perfectly now

 

[bktouchstone]

I hadn't listened to the 5.1 in a while, and after this thread vigorously resuscitated I had to give it another try. My original impression still stands. There is enough disappointment in the phrase "could have been better" to fill the Grand Canyon. Despite this, the surround mix definitely has some fine moments. Just not enough. To me this is demonstrated perfectly on Harrison's "Within You Without You." The music, as remixed, is a revelation, but George's voice has been liberated from the mirky depths of mysticism and he is now sitting on the ottoman in front of you. Some will find this OK, I just think it alters the entire mood and gravitas of the song, which makes all the difference. Bass is still bottom heavy and muddled at that very bottom throughout, just like I remember. I think if the bass had been done right, all else could have been forgiven (yes I am too lazy to turn down the sub-woofer!). It's a fine technical achievement but like some CGI movies you lose the plot amongst the eye candy of dinosaurs from space in flying saucers.

So you don't like the fact that they brought clarity to George's voice...and that alters the mood?...Uh...OK..so to review...muddled bass(on your system) is bad...and cleaning up George's voice and providing more separation is bad also...and then your description of the music remix as a revelation...is bad?...I understand perfectly now[emoji57]

I probably could have explained it better. Having George’s voice pushed back in the mix supported the overall spiritual theme and tone of the song because it added a mysterious feel. Putting his voice out front gives a more matter of fact tone that doesn’t seem appropriate to the subject. The original mix got that right IMO. The music behind him sounds incredible in surround- I stand by that-it’s gorgeous. And I have a pretty good system that generally gets the bass right, but I find the bass as presented in this mix overwhelms things at times (edit: the bass comment is about most of the rest of Pepper, not WYWY so I should have been clearer). It would probably be ok if I turned the sub down but I don’t want a custom setting for everything I play - too lazy! But it’s still an enjoyable listen and I think my 8 was fair.

 

[4-earredwonder]

I probably could have explained it better. Having George’s voice pushed back in the mix supported the overall spiritual theme and tone of the song because it added a mysterious feel. Putting his voice out front gives a more matter of fact tone that doesn’t seem appropriate to the subject. The original mix got that right IMO. The music behind him sounds incredible in surround- I stand by that-it’s gorgeous. And I have a pretty good system that generally gets the bass right, but I find the bass as presented in this mix overwhelms things at times. It would probably be ok if I turned the sub down but I don’t want a custom setting for everything I play - too lazy! But it’s still an enjoyable listen and I think my 8 was fair.

It would actually be quite lovely if Giles Martin himself explained the guidelines he took into account when remixing Pepper into surround as it's such an iconic album and has experienced such controversy, pro and con, his personal account would be most welcomed. Did Paul and Ringo effect the outcome and did surviving widows, Olivia Harrison and Yoko Ono contribute feedback to the eventual remix?

For instance, did Yoko assert that Pepper's MONO mix was John's preferred version and she nixed an aggressive surround remix and/or did Olivia request that George's vocals be more prominent in "Within You Without You?"

And what input did Paul and Ringo contribute........"Well, it's NOT Vegas like the LOVE remix so keep things more conservative."

Steve Wilson prefers to work with the actual artists when doing 5.1 remixes and one wonders if Giles had that luxury with assists from Paul and Ringo and/or the surviving Beatles' family members?

IMO, legitimate concerns and we'll never really have those queries fully answered unless Giles himself grants an interview and possibly chimes in regarding his remixing approach to The White Album....and let's hope that approach won't be KEEP IT LILY WHITE.....LIKE THE COVER!told ya we shouldn't have done IT in the road!

 

[bktouchstone]

[

And what input did Paul and Ringo contribute........"Well, it's NOT Vegas like the LOVE remix so keep things more conservative."

Steve Wilson prefers to work with the actual artists when doing a 5.1 remix and one wonders if Giles had that luxury with assists from Paul and Ringo and/or the surviving Beatles' families?

IMO, legitimate concerns and we'll never really have those queries fully answered unless Giles himself grants an interview and possibly chimes in as to his remixing approach to The White Album!

Love most of Steven Wilson’s work and I have to wonder what he could have done with Sgt Pepper. Or Elliott Scheiner (the spelling of which is probably wrong).

Hard to say if McCartney was involved in the Pepper surrounds. The McCartney Years turned out very good, and doesn’t seem too compressed, yet the dts surround versions of Band on the Run and Venus and Mars were pretty rough so have to wonder if Paul was much involved as the quality is all over the place. I concluded eventually that he delegates with mixed results on surround stuff.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Love most of Steven Wilson’s work and I have to wonder what he could have done with Sgt Pepper. Or Elliott Scheiner (the spelling of which is probably wrong).

Hard to say if McCartney was involved in the Pepper surrounds. The McCartney Years turned out very good, and doesn’t seem too compressed, yet the dts surround versions of Band on the Run and Venus and Mars were pretty rough so have to wonder if Paul was much involved as the quality is all over the place. I concluded eventually that he delegates with mixed results on surround stuff.

As I've said a zillion times, Elliot [one T] Scheiner offered to remix Abbey Road in surround some years back and was flatly rejected. I'm sure we've all wondered what you stated......if either ES or Steve Wilson were to remix iconic albums like the Beatles catalog [and I could name countless others] into surround.....what WOULD be the results. A few years ago, Scheiner was asked to remix Beyoncé's video album* into 5.1 and after hearing the results, her hubby, JZ, nixed Scheiner's aggressive remix and demanded it be TONED DOWN so as not to detract from the visuals. IMO, BIG mistake. The audio is undeniably superb but the surrounds are tepid, at best. And how about the Michael Jackson 5.1 remixes for Off the Wall....supposedly Jackson, himself, rejected nearly 50 of them because they just weren't good enough.

Since the remaining Beatles have remained true to the Martin family [remember Sir George WAS considered the 5th Beatle] doubtful we'll ever have that luxury of hearing ANY other remix engineer be awarded the Fab Four's catalogue. Scheiner is 71 years old, retired and even though he dabbles in recording projects in 2018, he'd probably never even be approached to assist and nor would Steve Wilson, even though he is considered to be among the Best of the Best remixing engineers in the business.

The die is cast!

*https://www.amazon.com/Beyonce-Blu-Ray/dp/B00IJ9M5M0

 

[Franklin]

Venus and Mars is a rough sounding album in stereo or surround. With the Pepper surround I was disappointed although it seems to improve as it goes along, and it's strange that the first impression presented is not a good one. I would have thought the audience in the rears would have been fairly obvious to do. It does sound better to me with the recommended 3dB extra in the rears (not the Strawberry Fields single, though). Comparing to Love is unfair though as multiple songs and samples of songs playing at the same time gives many more seperate tracks to play with. That said, I prefered the tonality of the mix to Pepper.