Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band 50th Anniversary Reissue (with 5.1 surround mix)

[sbrom]

Yes......It's worth it. It's Beatles masterpiece afterall. They did very good in surround for a four track master ( and possibly bits and pieces of other tape)


Some tunes are Deluxe for my 2 cents.

I concur, well worth a purchase. Good surround but not great. Very good sound quality though. I'm not a Beatles connoisseur so consider the source, but I hear a clarity in the BluRay I've never heard from the Beatles before. Thoroughly enjoyable.

 

[milt]

My question is, how could you NOT buy it if you could afford to?
I don't know what people expected this to be.
Some miraculous transformation of a 50 year-old recording that was overdubbed a zillion times.
Don't get me wrong, the original Pepper is a miracle of recording prowess and innovation.

Paul McCartney got the version of Sgt. Pepper he wanted.
Calling this a flop is the usual self-centered internet drivel.
If you don't like it, fine but projecting your opinion as a definitive take on the entire project...

I think it also might relate to number of Quaddies on this forum. Duh.
Quad and 5.1 aren't the same and I for one am glad.

 

[JediJoker]

They did very good in surround for a four track master ( and possibly bits and pieces of other tape)

This was not mixed from the final four-track bounce down, but rather from all the original four-tracks used to create that bounce down. I'm not sure what the total track count is for the most dense productions on this album.

 

[The Quadfather]

Then I reckon I'm gonna go for it. Thanks to those who responded to my request.
The Quadfather

 

[edisonbaggins]

Then I reckon I'm gonna go for it. Thanks to those who responded to my request.
The Quadfather

See my post just ahead of yours. Try to get an Amazon warehouse deal and sell what you don't want from the set.
It made this release affordable for me.

 

[The Quadfather]

Thanks, but no thanks. I thought about doing that, but if I get it, I think I'll just keep it all.
The Quadfather

See my post just ahead of yours. Try to get an Amazon warehouse deal and sell what you don't want from the set.
It made this release affordable for me.

 

[ar surround]

Then I reckon I'm gonna go for it. Thanks to those who responded to my request.
The Quadfather

Yes, this is the best Sgt Pepper that you are likely to ever get. It's "shortcomings" are a matter of one's taste and expectations from a surround mix. Regardless, the bonus 5.1 mixes of Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane are wonderful.

 

[edisonbaggins]

Thanks, but no thanks. I thought about doing that, but if I get it, I think I'll just keep it all.
The Quadfather

Well, suit yourself, but to answer your question, in that case, I would recommend against the purchase. I would be pretty unhappy had I spent more than $20 or 30 on this.
It's just not a great surround release. You probably have different motivators than I do though.
The added clarity was worth a repurchase to me, but not in the $100+ range.

Sent from my TA-1025 using Tapatalk

 

[markshan]

This was not mixed from the final four-track bounce down, but rather from all the original four-tracks used to create that bounce down. I'm not sure what the total track count is for the most dense productions on this album.

Yes, but most of Love was mixed this way as well, and it is outstanding.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

My question is, how could you NOT buy it if you could afford to?
I don't know what people expected this to be.
Some miraculous transformation of a 50 year-old recording that was overdubbed a zillion times.
Don't get me wrong, the original Pepper is a miracle of recording prowess and innovation.

Paul McCartney got the version of Sgt. Pepper he wanted.
Calling this a flop is the usual self-centered internet drivel.
If you don't like it, fine but projecting your opinion as a definitive take on the entire project...

I think it also might relate to number of Quaddies on this forum. Duh.
Quad and 5.1 aren't the same and I for one am glad.

Outside of one individual's meltdown...most understood what it was intended to be...it wasn't intended to be Love Part 2...it was a better version of Sgt Peppers...and that's what it was...the people that loved the original Sgt Peppers liked this release...the one's looking for a discrete surround disc...weren't thrilled...and to be candid...going forward to the White Album...I hope those people with unrealistic expectations just skip the White Album because it will be along the same lines...if they want to sift thru the Anthology set they can live vicariously through that collection...which I have and never listen to...

 

[markshan]

I think it also might relate to number of Quaddies on this forum. Duh.
Quad and 5.1 aren't the same and I for one am glad.

Fine (condescension aside), then why not include the quad mix that was reportedly finished but never released in this collection? Was Giles afraid it would show up his efforts?

FWIW, I'm one of the heretics who thinks the 5.1 mixes we have of Chicago albums smoke the Quaddio release, so you can't pigeon hole my criticism of the mix that way.

 

[kap'n krunch]

Fine (condescension aside), then why not include the quad mix that was reportedly finished but never released in this collection? Was Giles afraid it would show up his efforts?

FWIW, I'm one of the heretics who thinks the 5.1 mixes we have of Chicago albums smoke the Quaddio release, so you can't pigeon hole my criticism of the mix that way.

Actually, only side A was given the QUAD mix (or not, who knows if they actually did mix ANYTHING down!...)
Maybe they just realized they needed to GO BACK to the previous tapes "PRE Bouncedown" to do a DECENT Quad mix......

 

[markshan]

milt seems to suggest that the only people who like aggressive, discrete mixes are quad people. Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots is quite aggressive, and was done decades after the quad era ended. I throw the Pepper quad mix out as a hypothetical, but I guess my real beef is with people who try to pump up their opinion (these are all just opinions) by including some random speculation that actually doesn't have anything to do with anything.

 

[himey]

My question is, how could you NOT buy it if you could afford to?
I don't know what people expected this to be.
Some miraculous transformation of a 50 year-old recording that was overdubbed a zillion times.
Don't get me wrong, the original Pepper is a miracle of recording prowess and innovation.

Paul McCartney got the version of Sgt. Pepper he wanted.
Calling this a flop is the usual self-centered internet drivel.
If you don't like it, fine but projecting your opinion as a definitive take on the entire project...

I think it also might relate to number of Quaddies on this forum. Duh.
Quad and 5.1 aren't the same and I for one am glad.

Simple answer is many people don't like loud compressed remixes and seek out discrete multichannel. This fails on both accounts. Only thing saving this one is the tunes are so damn good.

Who exactly are you talking to when you say Duh? And why are you using quaddy as a derogatory term? Paul McCartney gave the new generation exactly what they wanted, a loud new stereo remix that sounds great on their Bluetooth speaker. He doesn't give a hoot about multichannel. "Quad and 5.1 aren't the same and I am glad"? This is funny. Like someone has to take a side.

 

[rusinurbe]

For me the single most disappointing surround release of the year, Ago B tracks from Love and you will understand what could be have been done.

Yes it's nice to have the clarity in the mix missing from the pronounce but even then some choices are just too tame.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Let's stop the confrontational posting on this thread...Please

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Simple answer is many people don't like loud compressed remixes and seek out discrete multichannel. This fails on both accounts. Only thing saving this one is the tunes are so damn good.

Who exactly are you talking to when you say Duh? And why are you using quaddy as a derogatory term? Paul McCartney gave the new generation exactly what they wanted, a loud new stereo remix that sounds great on their Bluetooth speaker. He doesn't give a hoot about multichannel. "Quad and 5.1 aren't the same and I am glad"? This is funny. Like someone has to take a side.

I agree with your statement that many people don't like loud compressed music...and I'm one of them...and IMO this isn't one of them...the DNR for this one is 10..which by today's standards isn't bad...the surround mix helps...I could list some surround titles that rank high with the members that have horrible compression...but they are still popular...and speaking of popular...how about some real measurable results...on the poll there were 92 votes cast..EIGHTY ONE of the 92 votes were either 8..9..or 10...6 votes were 7...and 6 votes ranged from 6 to 0.....and most of these voters are knowledgeable members of this forum...sure the content is a big factor but it doesn't account for overwhelming votes in the 8 to 10 category...there have been other titles on here with great content and they scored poorly on the polls due to poor audio..

When I look at surround poll results...8 to 10 means a purchase if I like the content...votes of 7 are okay if the voter gives an explanation...certain things bother others that wouldn't bother me...

 

[himey]

I agree with your statement that many people don't like loud compressed music...and I'm one of them...and IMO this isn't one of them...the DNR for this one is 10..which by today's standards isn't bad...the surround mix helps...I could list some surround titles that rank high with the members that have horrible compression...but they are still popular...and speaking of popular...how about some real measurable results...on the poll there were 92 votes cast..EIGHTY ONE of the 92 votes were either 8..9..or 10...6 votes were 7...and 6 votes ranged from 6 to 0.....and most of these voters are knowledgeable members of this forum...sure the content is a big factor but it doesn't account for overwhelming votes in the 8 to 10 category...there have been other titles on here with great content and they scored poorly on the polls due to poor audio..

When I look at surround poll results...8 to 10 means a purchase if I like the content...votes of 7 are okay if the voter gives an explanation...certain things bother others that wouldn't bother me...

We can disagree on how loud and compressed this release is. It just doesn't sound as good as Love which is a fair comparison. That doesn't sound loud and compressed and the mix is discrete. This one isn't, even with messing with the levels which many here recommend. I can't give this one any more than a five and actually a four point five and rounding up. Love is an easy 10. As the other poster mentioned, this is by far the most disappointing release of the year. I love the music but the sound and mix is poor in my opinion, especially compared to the many multichannel releases since May when this was released.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

We can disagree on how loud and compressed this release is. It just doesn't sound as good as Love which is a fair comparison. That doesn't sound loud and compressed and the mix is discrete. This one isn't, even with messing with the levels which many here recommend. I can't give this one any more than a five and actually a four point five and rounding up. Love is an easy 10. As the other poster mentioned, this is by far the most disappointing release of the year. I love the music but the sound and mix is poor in my opinion, especially compared to the many multichannel releases since May when this was released.

There is no since debating the issue..the overwhelming majority disagrees with you..

 

[LuvMyQuad]

For anyone who is interested, here is a review by Computer Audiophile of the 24/96 HD trax version of the remix. I assume this is the same as the stereo 24/96 tracks on the BRD (I have not listened to any of the stereo tracks of the album as yet, only some of the alternate takes).