Beatles 5.1

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
They led me to trying to remaster a version that lined up more with the fidelity of the original stereo and mono mixes. Putting an album on shouldn't immediately lead me to thinking I need to try to fix it! I would have been happier in the end to skip these altogether. (I did just that and avoided Abbey Road after hearing the other two.) They're not just the poorest work. There are releases butchered up, down, left, and right. These aren't that. They genuinely sound very professional overall. The problem is these needed to be hit out of the park or nothing. Or at least they needed to preserve the fidelity of the original releases. Those who may have only heard some of the chirpy CD releases and never heard the good copies get an upgrade here. That's not good enough.

Alas, my MoFi LP box set from 1983 sits in a closet just a few feet from me, yet no turntable on which to spin them. (And no, they are not going anywhere.)
 
I would have been happier in the end to skip these altogether. (I did just that and avoided Abbey Road after hearing the other two.)

I think you're missing out. I'm picky about these things too, and it sounds really good to me straight off the disc - maybe a bit louder than I would've liked (though certainly not 'brickwalled'), but the cymbal crashes don't sound like someone taking an ice pick to your ears. On the contrary, it's actually the bass that's a bit out-of-control on AR.
 
I think you're missing out. I'm picky about these things too, and it sounds really good to me straight off the disc - maybe a bit louder than I would've liked (though certainly not 'brickwalled'), but the cymbal crashes don't sound like someone taking an ice pick to your ears. On the contrary, it's actually the bass that's a bit out-of-control on AR.

IIRC, wasn't Abbey Road a rather bass-heavy recording to begin with?
 
But hasn't the bass always been that way on AR? It's one of the reasons I like it.
IIRC, wasn't Abbey Road a rather bass-heavy recording to begin with?

I thought the bass guitar on "Come Together" and "Sun King" in the 5.1 was a bit too powerful - those two tracks sound just right with 2-3 dB bass cut on my system. It could certainly have something do with the shape/size of my listening room though.
 
I own Abbey Road, White Album and St. Pepper box sets which all have 5.1 and/or Atmos (Abbey Road). I also own Love.

Abbey Road is the best of them and the Atmos track is a real reference standard. By far the best Atmos music I have heard. This album is solid from beginning to end and has some incredible moments all of which are made better with 5.1 or Atmos.

White Album is also very good and was on my pretty constant playback list until Abbey Road came out.

Sgt. Pepper also good but the others are better.

Love is my least favorite as it is just a bit disjointed compared to the others.
Mostly agree except I think Love is a better surround mix overall than Pepper.

But the mash-up concept itself doesn’t really do it for me.
 
I thought the bass guitar on "Come Together" and "Sun King" in the 5.1 was a bit too powerful - those two tracks sound just right with 2-3 dB bass cut on my system. It could certainly have something do with the shape/size of my listening room though.
In my listening room, that album (especially those two tracks) will set things vibrating. Its my primary test for knowing when something like a picture frame needs to be fastened better. But the album has always done that, even going back to vinyl days. Its also a reference I use to evaluate bass.
 
I was not a huge Beatles fan, but these releases have made me appreciate them a great deal. All are worth buying. In order of preference (least to best) based on sound quality and surround mix: Pepper‘s, The Beatles, AR. AR is reference quality in EVERY way. If you have Atmos it is even better.

Apple Music has an Atmos version of Sgt. Pepper’s. It is a step up from the 5.1 mix.
 
I heard Come Together on AM radio on the drive home. Loud bass guitar. Like it has always been, but I noticed what an unusual mix for a big hit song.
 
I wish they'd do nice, 4-corner aggressive mixes. They now have the technology to sync up all the pre-bounce tracks, so we could literally get a Beatle in each corner of the room like I attempted for my mix of Abbey Road. See, I'd buy something like that. Or, a vintage-style, aggressive mix.

I was not all that impressed with the "Love" 5.1 DVD of a few years ago and haven't read it said that these modern mixes are very discrete either.

Exactly what I do not want.

I want recordings that make you feel you are there, not ping-pong effects.
 
I want recordings that make you feel you are there, not ping-pong effects.
MCH or stereo, there are no rock recordings I can think of that make me feel I am there. In fact, the recordings themselves are considerably better than the live amplified sound they are created from. The real thing sucks when it comes to live sonics with rock. And studio recordings are most often a patchwork of overdubs that have no equivalent in real time. The mixing is just a creative extension of the performance. Like a seperate instrument being played. So 4 corner discrete dosent bother me at all. Striving for reality with rock music is not practicle or desireable. The best it gets is a good sounding illusion. And there are plenty of those to be had.
 
Last edited:
You look at that iPhone picture you took of the moon...
"Hey, that little white speck in this blurry gray picture doesn't look anything like how my perception was dialing the image up in my head when I was looking at it?!"
So the cropped hyper realistic produced image looks better and more "real" than the actual real image that's truly like being there (but without the enhancement of human perception).

Audio is the same way. Got a reference system in a purpose built home theater with that room also really dialed in. (I know a couple of you do... Sit back down for now.) If not, you probably prefer hyper realistic mixes too.

Just trying to define some context for some of this. Early stereo and early quad were a point on the road to the ideal. Don't compare the 4 corner quad to some modern perfectly imaged presentation (as if we even get that very often). Compare it to the stereo version from the period that was more compressed and squeezed together and had no bass end in the mix to speak of.

Some old school moves with direct sounds isolated to a channel, mono coupled pairs of channels for some bass sounds, and other matter of fact moves to get direct sounds firing out of a sound system open up the cheap seats. A good mix should work for both. There should be matter of fact primary sound that comes across on ear buds or soundbars. Then extended fidelity and spacial presentation that opens up for higher fidelity and then surround. The latter shouldn't be stepped on for the former though under any circumstances.

Anyway, I thought the Beatles were the most popular band in the world and had a recording engineer of some fame. These productions should be done to the highest standards. These releases may not be the worst of show but the shrill hyped sound is unwelcome and the lowly old vinyl releases for all their flaws contain higher fidelity copies of this music.

I still honestly wonder sometimes if this is done intentionally to keep interest and collecting of the originals alive and leave the door always open for a new "upgraded" release down the road. If these are genuine screw ups... well, that's pretty special!

Don't worry @ar surround, I have my own box. Yours are safe! :D
 
You look at that iPhone picture you took of the moon...
"Hey, that little white speck in this blurry gray picture doesn't look anything like how my perception was dialing the image up in my head when I was looking at it?!"
So the cropped hyper realistic produced image looks better and more "real" than the actual real image that's truly like being there (but without the enhancement of human perception).
Sure but take that Iphone photo and blow it up x3 or x5. You will see things on the moon surface that you never detected with the naked eye.
 
I have historically (and boy is that word appropriate in my case :LOL: ) done the great majority of my Beatle listening on LPs.
I picked up a few CDs along the way but not all of them in contrast to the LPs which I bought when they were released.

I recently checked out of my local library, a large number of Beatles CDs that were there because the pandemic has reduced library actual patronage.
I was listening to some of them in the car and found that they were not identical to the LPs. I am not saying that they were bad mixes at all or that there was anything wrong with the quality.

Rather things didn't sound the way I was used to hearing. The balance of their many layered and many tracked productions (the album in question was Magical Mystery Tour and I had noticed a similar thing on Sgt. Pepper but not as widespread) Just slight variations in level of certain things that were different. And in stereo not mch.

The part that surprises me is how irritating a small level difference is. If I wasn't used to hearing it the way the LP had it I am sure I would not be thinking about it.
 
Last edited:
MCH or stereo, there are no rock recordings I can think of that make me feel I am there. In fact, the recordings themselves are considerably better than the live amplified sound they are created from. The real thing sucks when it comes to live sonics with rock. And studio recordings are most often a patchwork of overdubs that have no equivalent in real time. The mixing is just a creative extension of the performance. Like a seperate instrument being played. So 4 corner discrete dosent bother me at all. Striving for reality with rock music is not practicle or desireable. The best it gets is a good sounding illusion. And there are plenty of those to be had.

I have some recordings that make me feel like I am really there. I even made a few with local bands. I want more of those.
 
Back
Top