|
Post by ronzo56 on May 28, 2017 21:07:19 GMT
I guess you can count me as a looney. The super deluxe box set was $118. Seems high. But 6 discs plus a 144 page hardbound book, it is not totally out of line. Seems the price in the U.K. is quite a bit more than the U.S. Or did I miss something. The Japaneses import is outrageously priced! As to where the music companies have there heads, could not agree more. They have been lodged up there for sometime. I might add Sony to the list as their handling of SACD was classic Sony. Reminds me of how they developed Beta for video, and blew it. So we ended up with an inferior format for years. As to the new mix of Pepper's. Suffice it to say I was up until 2 A.M. listening to the 24/96 version. IMHO, the best version of the new mix. Noticeably better than the 16/44.1 at least on a speaker system.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on May 28, 2017 21:26:15 GMT
Don't have anything to say bout Sgt. Pepper, but the talk bout music companies trying to encourage piracy is spot on. I can't buy music from Qobuz or HDtracks simply because of where I live?? What an absolute load of crap. It's this kind of crap that does proves the record co. totally have their heads shoved up somewhere unpleasant. When it's actually easier to pirate music than legally purchase it… the mind recoils. Thankfully Opera browser has a built in VPN so I have a way round. As far as the pricing goes, it is ridiculous. However, if you spent any time on the Steve Hoffman forums, you'll see there's no shortage of Beatles loonies willing to throw money at it Well, Beatles fans aren't loonies but they are an easy target. Just like Star Trek fans and the original series which retails in the U.K. At ridiculous prices as well. The companies themselves are providing a very good reason for piracy by doing this kind of thing since in Pepper's case, a lot of money has already been made and now they're just being greedy. Don't start me off about the hi res version Ron!! Even normal hi res stuff is too expensive really and yet some of these boutique studios providing hi res special recordings of unknowns and then charging a fortune for them saying things like their expenses are much higher because of hi res just make me feel that there is a stronger case for pirating music which is supported by these greedy baskets. A fair price would be fine but they are now targeting groups who they know will pay out big bucks and I now wonder how long before Michael Jackson, and all of the early rock catalogue revamped from the original takes into a so called hi res remixed box set in order to justify the prices. Great pity and shame on the industry that does this.
|
|
|
Post by ronzo56 on May 28, 2017 21:57:39 GMT
The hi-res business is pretty dodgy in my opinion. Sometimes there is improvement. My experience my be typical. Most titles I have purchased have had compression added when it wasn't needed. I end up going back to my original CD copy. Or it is mastered from a poor source, not the original session tapes. I only purchase hi-res if I know with certainty that it was done well. Which unfortunately is seldom. As to the hi-res of Pepper's, both my mate and I felt the 24/96 version was superior to the 16/44.1. Could be the placebo effect. Will see if I still feel this way in a few weeks. Unfortunate the record companies are charging high prices in the U.K. I wonder how they rationalize their pricing. Seems like pure greed to me.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Trev on May 28, 2017 22:37:10 GMT
Sadly, consumers aren't very bright. You only have to look as far as your local Apple store to see folks lined up evrytime a new IPhone is released
This isn't even new. How many reissues of Kind of Blue have there been? Personally, I'm beginning to think that the only reason new formats even get invented is so content owners can continue to milk their customers - "look honey! The Lion King on Goldray-XD" Actually read an article once claiming the only reason Sony/Philips invented SACD was because their patents on CD were about to expire and they needed a new income stream.
The highres business is a dodgy lot. I won't say they're all bad, but not disclosing the source is a big red flag. Thankfully we can do research beforehand.
|
|
Crispy
very active
Madrigal music is playing - Voices can faintly be heard, "Please leave this patient undisturbed."
Posts: 776
|
Post by Crispy on May 29, 2017 20:03:27 GMT
As to the hi-res of Pepper's, both my mate and I felt the 24/96 version was superior to the 16/44.1. Could be the placebo effect. Will see if I still feel this way in a few weeks. Unfortunate the record companies are charging high prices in the U.K. I wonder how they rationalize their pricing. Seems like pure greed to me. I haven't had chance to listen to the new recording yet Ron, but I will be doing an A/B of all the tracks as I am driving along this week. From the DR meter in foobar the dynamic range is superior on the 2009 (24/44100) as compared to the new 2017 (16/44100) recording. I for one refuse to buy another copy just to be slightly better?
|
|
|
Post by ronzo56 on May 29, 2017 21:06:23 GMT
True. DR reading is better on the 2009. The big difference this is not a remaster. It is a complete re-mix. Starting with the non bumped down session tracks and using the mono-mix as a guide as to how a stereo mix might have sounded if they had spent 3 or 4 weeks mixing the stereo in 1967 instead of 3 days. All the remasters have used the same 1967 mix. Just cleaned it up. This is totally a new and fresh experience. I was furious when I saw that DR reading. But after calming down decided to listen. The compression really doesn't seem to be an issue. I am speculating it was done to give it the "muscular" sound the mono mix has. The stereo soundstage is now full, vocals in the middle. No more hard pan left and right, for the most part. BTW, I found out the DVD hi-res is 24/48. Only the BD disc is 24/96. Both in LPCM so I have been able to use an external DAC. Probably won't be everyone's cup of tea, but I am enjoying the new sound.
I'm slowly (and still not certain) coming to the conclusion that a good speaker system might be the best way to hear the new stereo re-mix, and that the hi-res is slightly better than the 16/44.1. As to the compression someone at other site analyzed each song with Pro Tools. Seems that compression was added (or reduced) very judiciously. Not sure if he is saying it occurs within songs, but I think he might be implying this. As I am an ignoramus I am assuming the Dynamic Range plugin on FB2K is an average. Frustrating. I wish I could have 5 minutes with Giles Martin to ask a few questions about his decisions. Still, this is for me like listening to the mono for the first time on my parents hi-fi. The bonus tracks are very interesting too.
|
|
Crispy
very active
Madrigal music is playing - Voices can faintly be heard, "Please leave this patient undisturbed."
Posts: 776
|
Post by Crispy on May 30, 2017 19:44:14 GMT
True. DR reading is better on the 2009. The big difference this is not a remaster. It is a complete re-mix. Starting with the non bumped down session tracks and using the mono-mix as a guide as to how a stereo mix might have sounded if they had spent 3 or 4 weeks mixing the stereo in 1967 instead of 3 days. All the remasters have used the same 1967 mix. Just cleaned it up. This is totally a new and fresh experience. I was furious when I saw that DR reading. But after calming down decided to listen. The compression really doesn't seem to be an issue. I am speculating it was done to give it the "muscular" sound the mono mix has. The stereo soundstage is now full, vocals in the middle. No more hard pan left and right, for the most part. BTW, I found out the DVD hi-res is 24/48. Only the BD disc is 24/96. Both in LPCM so I have been able to use an external DAC. Probably won't be everyone's cup of tea, but I am enjoying the new sound. I'm slowly (and still not certain) that a good speaker system might be the best way to hear the new stereo re-mix, and that the hi-res is slightly better than the 16/44.1. As to the compression someone at other site analyzed each song with Pro Tools. Seems that compression was added (or reduced) very judiciously. Not sure if he is saying it occurs within songs, but I think he might be implying this. As I am an ignoramus I am assuming the Dynamic Range plugin on FB2K is an average. Frustrating. I wish I could have 5 minutes with Giles Martin to ask a few questions about his decisions. Still, this is for me like listening to the mono for the first time on my parents hi-fi. The bonus tracks are very interesting too. I had some A/B listens today in the car - although not the ideal environment for a listen it is usually good enough for me to get the gist of whats good and whats not. I was only curious about the DR ratings in Foobar and was always going to listen with an open mind:P I have heard enough to bear out what your saying Ron - Full stereo soundstage, vocals in the middle and no more hard pan left & right Up to now I agree that the new version SOUNDS better, but before I make my mind up I am going to have a listen through my Kameleon and either my Beyers or Philips heaphones and then finally though my main speaker system. Have not got around to the bonus tracks yet, I will save them for when I have finished listening to the main tracks.
|
|
|
Post by ronzo56 on May 30, 2017 21:15:35 GMT
Finally had a run through of the Sessions discs. Mostly new takes. Less compression than the re-mix tracks. Very centered in the soundstage. Sounds almost mono. I got a hint some of the higher take numbers are 4 track reductions of previous takes. It's possible Giles reconstructed these using his father's meticulously written notes. Hopefully there will a mention in the accompanying book. But these really show how much work it took to get all that sound with only 4 track machines. Very clear sound. I'll have to take another listen. There is a lot of information to process.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on May 30, 2017 21:50:56 GMT
I wouldn't get too hung up about dynamic range if the recording sounds good really.
Noise floors were higher in those days as well as hiss levels so tricks would be necessary to get it sounding reasonably good; especially on comparatively more revealing modern gear.
A bit like having a very high res and contrasty modern tv, watching an old movie that just didn't contain the contrast ratio that we can get now. Levels have to be artificially tweaked to produce an effect, but that doesn't mean that the resolution is any better, but it may 'look' better on a modern tv.
Compression is a legitimate tool if used well but s Hi-Fi people, we see it as a kind of despoiler, which isn't always the case and the dynamic levels as measured may not be as good as we like, but may well be an appropriate level for the source material.
I've been making a lot of videos recently and believe me, even with digital recording, noise levels remain a problem; especially via microphones and setting levels is a compromise between noise floor and audio distortion and clipping.
Even with digital ... and those that think that digital makes everything easy are not entirely correct. With no compression, the average volume feels really low and so the noise floor can feel very close so there are all kinds of tricks to try and get that noise lowered.
Compression is very useful to get the average level up although quieter passages can be a challenge with the noise levels. Sometimes, lowering the recorded signal in the output stage in those spots helps to get the noise seem to be lower aurally it's not as obvious although the ratio is the same.
Hiss can also be a bugger to remove because ultimately, some of the sparkle can get removed with it. I try to find the frequency of the hiss and create a very narrow notch in that area. That means there is a suck out at that frequency. If that doesn't work, then a sample of the noise on it's own and then remove it digitally from the sound is a last resort but there are also consequences for the sound.
It really is a juggling act and I think sometimes, we, as Hi-Fi people don't appreciate that in our measurements of the holy grail .... dynamic range. The original is on 4 track tape. How much real dynamic range was captured at the recording stage? That's the crucial part. Artificially creating more dynamic range would impact on the 'heard' sound.
|
|
|
Post by ronzo56 on May 31, 2017 0:14:08 GMT
I read a posting on Reddit. Someone analyzed each track with Pro Tools. IIRC the limiting/compression was varied over the course of each track. He says the DR is greater in some places than on the 2009 remasters and actually the same or less in others. Of course I can't find the thread again. Does this make sense Ian? I assume you can do whatever you want within each track. Just a lot of work I would imagine. I assume the DR plugin for Foobar is an average.
Edit: IMHO this re-mix is not headphone friendly, when it comes to the bass on certain tracks. Especially the opening one. I have been doing comparisons with the mono album and I've come to the conclusion that Giles really meant it when he said he was trying to make a stereo version of the mono.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on May 31, 2017 6:50:12 GMT
I'm not sure how Foobar comes up with a single figure, Ron. Whether it's the minimum, maximum or average. Thing is that it can be a bit crude to write an audio track off based on this one aspect. Not sure if it is varied or fixed. May well be varied.
I vary compression, limiting and all kinds of things on my film audios, depending on what I hear. (If I need to be very finicky. If not I leave the files alone)
For film, the quieter bits are harder, so I look for them and apply processing there more than loud bits.
Could have been the same for Peppers. Especially with the likely higher noise levels that are likely to be on the original takes. You can hear what kind of noise levels on some of those extra tracks they provided.
Compression isn't the only thing to look out for in a recording. In fact, compression used well is useful sometimes and is not just used by habit, but for reasons. If compression levels are highly variable over an album, there may well be reasons so just measuring and judging a recording on this one aspect is a bit 'hammer' like.
The times that compression is annoying is when it's routinely applied with no thought for the music content.
Personally, I was wondering how they'd go about lowering hiss levels without kicking the treble in the teeth. 4 track tape recording really wasn't great and there is quite a lot of track bouncing in Peppers which would have really 'upped' the noise.
In the 80's, very often, noise gates were used to suppress noise which is a very crude method really and impacts on instrument attack. Phil Collins drums used this heavily and to my ears, sounds disgusting!!
A better test is how does it 'sound' more than measuring a dr level. The DR measurement might be more useful if you think there is something wrong.
I once commented about a wide dynamic range that I could hear on something so Javier measured it and did see that it was a bit higher. Then again, I could hear it and was very aware of it, so was that right?
Its a bit like contrast levels on a TV. What is the correct ratio for a bright scene, dark scene and a daylight and more normal scene? Depends on what you're looking at. Have a listen to Love and you may well spot the noise issues that George Martin didn't perhaps deal as well with in the samples that he used. Still a great album though.
Along with DR, take a listen and try to pinpoint hiss levels, range of frequency response, solidity of central image, balance and placing of instruments, inner clarity of those little 'inside' variations and subtleties of their playing, voice presence and tone. You'll hear that this is a great balance where the reality is that quite a few compromises would probably have been made in a less than perfect original on 4 track.
DR is just one aspect. For me, the album sounds as though is has been released from quite a lot of its old problems which have been largely overlooked because it's such a great album.
I do find the bass and drums really improved on this mix. The only thing though is that Ringo's snare drum snares often rattle when he hits the toms so they didn't isolate the snare in the original and now it really shows!!
I'd like Abbey Road sorted out now!!!!
|
|
|
Post by hifidez on May 31, 2017 11:08:20 GMT
Ripped from Bluray, 24/96. Entire album as one track. Attachments:
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on May 31, 2017 11:33:56 GMT
Had a close look ... it looks to me as though the levels are a bit too high both on the wav and the MP3 copy that I made. The Benefit of Mr Kite, track 7, is unbelievable. A solid block of sound, or it appears like that until you zoom in and see that it isn't as bad as looking from further back. Compared to my copy, the wav is 'slightly' better but on both, the peaks are clipped and levels are set really high. It's banging up at zero all the way through the album on both copies. He could have lowered the gain imo. Possibly compressed while recording?
|
|
|
Post by ronzo56 on May 31, 2017 14:55:23 GMT
I think the compression was added during the re-mix. I would like to see what the mono mix looks like in comparison. With headphones the bass seems elevated on the mono as much as on the stereo re-mix. The mono is a direct transfer from the master so it is what the Beatles and George Martin wanted it to sound like. Decided to switch amps this morning. A lot of the bloom on the bass is gone. Went back to the Ember, then changed tubes. The tube seems to be giving me the bass issue. It's a new one I got yesterday. Not a good match with this recording perhaps. Had a quick listen to a couple of tracks from the 2009 remaster. Now that I have adjusted to the new re-mix, 2009 now sounds off. Funny how fast your brain adjusts. I can see them putting out a 24/96 download with less compression down the road. Hit those wallets one more time. But all in all I am happy with the new mix. Just never realized how much they wanted the sound "in your face", or ears rather. I have to keep reminding myself that Paul and Ringo signed off on this, so it must be the way it was intended to sound. As Giles said "believe me if Paul didn't like it you wouldn't be hearing it".
|
|
Javier
Administrator
Digital bytes
Posts: 986
|
Post by Javier on May 31, 2017 15:25:44 GMT
The original 1987 stereo CD was just slightly better DR wise if that provides some consolation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DR Peak RMS Filename ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR11 -2.32 dB -15.90 dB 01 Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.m4a DR12 -1.81 dB -15.64 dB 02 With A Little Help From My Friends.m4a DR12 -2.49 dB -17.45 dB 03 Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds.m4a DR12 -1.03 dB -14.29 dB 04 Getting Better.m4a DR12 -1.93 dB -16.39 dB 05 Fixing A Hole.m4a DR10 -5.16 dB -17.26 dB 06 She's Leaving Home.m4a DR11 -2.95 dB -16.06 dB 07 Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite!.m4a DR12 -2.83 dB -17.32 dB 08 Within You Without You.m4a DR12 -3.39 dB -16.81 dB 09 When I'm Sixty-Four.m4a DR11 -1.82 dB -14.77 dB 10 Lovely Rita.m4a DR9 -1.68 dB -13.37 dB 11 Good Morning Good Morning.m4a DR10 -0.92 dB -13.65 dB 12 Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise).m4a DR11 -3.12 dB -18.27 dB 13 A Day In The Life.m4a ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of files: 13 Official DR value: DR11
|
|