|
Post by ronzo56 on May 3, 2017 2:13:24 GMT
I accidentally loaded both my CD version and my high-resolution version of the Eagles Hotel California into Foobar. Each track is playing twice. The wav file and the remastered and compressed/limited Hi-res version. I will use the title track as a example. DR-14 on wav DR-10 on hi-res. Instantly can tell the difference due to the fact that the hi-res version is louder. When I adjust the volume so both tracks are the same loudness (roughly) there is still a difference. The wav file is much more enjoyable musically. The air around instruments and subtleties in the vocals are there on the wav file. That wonderful emotion that many tracks on the album have on wav disappear on the hi-res version. Hotel California loses that ethereal mysterious sound that reinforces the vocals and lyrics. The hi-res tracks just shout at you. All the time. No soft passages at all. Yes it sounds better at first, but that's just because it's louder. This quickly gives way to a strong sense of boredom. Quickly switching to the wav file and the songs are restored to the wonderful textures and feel that are on the original mix and mastering. I realized as I kept listening that since I purchased the hi-res version I rarely listen to this album anymore, and when I do I rarely listen past the third track.
So I removed the hi-res version tracks from the playlist. Played the wav version. Listened to the entire album. Not intentionally. The music just drew me in, just like when I first owned the original vinyl. Marvelous.
So am I saying all hi-res versions of remastered albums are inferior to their originals? Absolutely not. Steven Wilson has done some great work on Jethro Tull albums among others. But too many have been remastered in a way that just takes away the magic of the performance and turns it from a musical experience where after the last song, you find yourself starting it over to one where you're bored or your ears or brain become fatigued after a few tracks. Some are really unlistenable. Music for me is not just there as background. It is a journey, an experience that talented musicians and writers take me on. When I listen, most of the time that's all I do. Sit and listen and let the music take my mind to other places. Seems such a waste of energy to purposefully degrade the sound of great music then put it in hi-rez format just to sell another copy.
Hoping that Giles Martin didn't fall into this madness when he worked on The Beatles 50th anniversary release of Sgt. Pepper. I'll find out on May 26th.
If someone has found a superior sounding version of a album in hi-res, please share it here.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on May 3, 2017 7:26:03 GMT
Funny you mentioned the Sgt Pepper 50th release.
I'm wondering what can be done with it in a new release. The problem is that they worked within the restrictions of the recording environment of the time so modern technology has to try and 'repair' what can only be described as the deficiencies of the gear originally used. A bit like saying I'll remaster an MP3 recording to wav. I can change certain things but other things remain fixed and altering them affects other areas.
As an example, while making the videos that I've done recently I noticed a buzz on the audio. I also noticed some hiss emanating from the microphone. So I booted up some software to correct this and the problem is that while it corrects what I hear it also adds whatever you have done to the sound of the file. So in reality it is much better to get it right at the start.
In some cases this is the same with earlier recordings.
I'm not sure about Peppers, but it may well have been recorded on something like a four track recorder. This means that only four tracks can really be recorded clean and anything else has to be bounced across. What that means is that you record three of the tracks and for the fourth one you take either 1, 2 or 3 tracks and combine them onto the fourth track with an extra track mixed in. The effect of this is to raise hiss levels in particular and any noise that was recorded on any of the tracks is combined. That and the hiss that tape would produce makes for a lot of noise. There was also another problem in that bounced tracks sometimes had to be put on the far left or right in order to not be mixed in with the other tracks. You can hear evidence of this on quite a few songs by the Beatles where the vocals are on the far left all the far right. I never liked that. Also it forces the artists to make decisions on volume balance before bouncing the tracks because it can't be changed later. It was actually quite crude.
So I guess that one thing that might improve the album is to take out any noise digitally. This can affect the sound of the music so it might have to be re-EQ'd as well. So yet more problems can be introduced.
The other limitation of tape recording is the fact that the dynamic range might well have to be compressed in order to stop distortion and still be able to hear quiet passages. When you get high levels of hiss it is actually sometimes better to raise the volume of quieter passages and compress it in order to overcome hiss and in those days, noise from the plastic lp itself.
So quite rightly, the studios will go back to the original tapes hopefully but over time they may well have degraded.
I was hoping that someone might get stuck in to their total output and do something similar to what George Martin did with an album that he produced called 'Love'. He captured something really special in my opinion. He grabbed takes of the Beatles and put them together in a way that produced such a vivid memory for me of the times with a kind of reminiscence while also creating something quite new out of them all. That George Martin album to me is really special. In a way it is a much more fitting celebration of 50 years ago, and although it uses the original tapes he has combined them in a way that sounds very modern and less 60s.
A tribute album like this I think would have been amazing.
Rereleasing old albums can be a little bit dodgy and I'm not sure that so many will sell given the modern market and young kids today and their inability to listen to anything much other than the current hits of the day.
Peppers is one of my favourite albums though and I look forward to hearing a remix of the whole lot again. Personally, I would like to see the issues of the hard left and right vocals fixed. Producers often leave that in because they think that the bands did it on purpose as an artistic effect, but in reality I think a lot of this was to do with the recording restrictions of the time. Had the Beatles had 48 track or even more I'm sure that they would have placed the vocals more centrally.
As far as high resolution files go, I have now heard quite a lot of HD tracks from a commercial source and I think that in many cases some of these files have been released from something that is not a good starting point. Rather like my video files with buzzes and hiss that I had to fix. In the end, I used a way more expensive mic with very low noise and I changed the phantom power supply which was creating noise. Then, editing wasn't needed.
Having said that, I have also heard files from commercial outlets where the dynamic range is quite stunning. I am quite sensitive to DR along with buzzes and hiss and my ears kind of hone in on it. I'm not always sure that I can hear anything different tonally but certainly with a good mix I can hear dynamic range differences quite easily.
I am really looking forward to the Peppers released though.
|
|
|
Post by ronzo56 on May 3, 2017 14:25:44 GMT
Yes. Very excited to her what Giles Martin has done. He did a preview for the press and explained the process. If I am hearing, and reading correctly, he was able to use the original first generation multi-element tapes before there were bumped across (down) into one track from three. He had to re-mix the album as a result. This appears to be the first time an entire album has been re-mixed. They used a similar process as they did on "Love" and "Beatles 1". The exciting part is several years ago EMI wisely transferred all the original multi-track 1st generation tapes onto 24/192 digital files before degradation had taken place. I have read they keep all the tapes in a climate controlled storage area. Giles decided he wanted to honor his father's and the bands original vision and used the mono mixes as a guide to mixing the new stereo versions. He was able to mix individual elements, for example, he has just Ringo on drums, not the bumped down track with drums already mixed in. It appears he has moved elements more to the center of the mix, so no more hard pan left and right. I have read in Geoff Emerick's excellent book, that they had to do the pan due to tech limitations as you explained Ian, but also because George Martin liked to have most or all of the vocals in one channel and the instruments in the other. Many have speculated that was for a 60's style effect. It wasn't. He did it that way because it made it easier to mix it down to mono which was their primary concern. In fact neither the Beatles nor George Martin were involved in the stereo mixing sessions at all. The stereo mix was an afterthought and done by second enginnners for the most part after the mono mix was finished.
Since Giles had access to the original multi-tracks he was also able to bring up the bass and drums to a level realistic to what was on the original tapes, which had limiting applied at the time due to vinyl having issues with the needle flying out of the groove if too much bass energy was in the mix. Since this will be released on CD and DVD he didn't have to worry about it. Wow. Peppers with slam the original slam heard in the studio! He also was able to do a 5.1 mix as well as a 24/96 hi-res version. There are also unrealeased mixes and takes on the deluxe version. Perhaps because he was able to keep tape hiss etc. to a minimum using 1st generation non bumped down versions he didn't have to apply much or hopefully very very little compression. Glad Giles was able to work with his father on Beatles projects before, as he seems to have a great deal of knowledge of how things were recorded back then.
Here is a video of Giles discussing the project. Universal made them take out the music parts but you can get a good idea what's going on.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on May 3, 2017 20:27:59 GMT
Oh wow. Thanks. I'll take a look tomorrow before I write anything!!!!
|
|
|
Post by ronzo56 on May 4, 2017 1:01:34 GMT
Your are welcome Ian. Giles isn't as linear in his explanations as his dad. I have read a couple of comments from reporters who where there. I think there were having trouble coming up with adjectives to describe the new mix. Of course it was presented at Macintosh. Man I with I could have been there. Perhaps you can clarify some things from the presentation. I hope you have your copy pre-ordered from Amazon so we can compare listening notes. You may already know this but he re-mixed Penny Lane and L.I.T.S.W.D. (Lucy). We should think about where they would have placed them in the album as they were supposed to be part of it. Greedy Capital Records USA demanded a single and EMI gave it to them. So we didn't get those two on the album. Funny enough they were the first two songs recorded for the album. It it will be interesting to see where the two of us, and anyone who wants to join in, would have placed them in the running order.
|
|
|
Post by hifidez on May 4, 2017 8:34:35 GMT
The news of a 50th anniversary Sgt Pepper had passed me by. It's great news. So are we to get in in hi-res then? I was so disappointed that the last set of reissues were not released in anything above 24/44.1 (having said that, it was pretty darned good and I rarely play any other versions).
End of the month bank hols and we are planning a day trip to Liverpool. This time I really AM going to buy myself a Sgt Pepper tee-shirt. In XL obviously.
|
|
|
Post by ronzo56 on May 4, 2017 11:06:08 GMT
There will be a Blu-ray/DVD included in the super deluxe set that will have a 5.1 mix and a 24/96 hi-res stereo mix. There is a bit of difference in the description between the Amazon.co.uk site and the U.S. Amazon.com site. Hopefully it's the same, and they aren't releasing two versions like they did back in the 60's with the early albums. I have the 24/44.1 2009 green apple USB release. Apparently the final mastering was done through a 1972 analog mastering console then put back into digital at 44.1. They decided they didn't want to convert again so they left the 24 bit at 44.1. Personally I think they did an excellent job with the whole project.
This time it sounds like it's all in the digital domain. I'm sure there will be more details to follow........I hope. I wouldn't be surprised to see another USB limited edition hi-res come out after the initial release, just like the last time.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on May 4, 2017 11:37:58 GMT
I will be definitely getting this, Ron. Going back to the original recording is the best way because noise levels will be so much lower, dynamics will be greater, but the stereo will have to be re-realised. That means that he has to use his own ideas as to where he thinks that George or the Beatles would have placed things in a true stereo copy.
I don't think that many people realise that when stereo appeared many bands were still really mixing down to mono from a stereo recorder which meant there were some strange left/right type things going on. At the time it might not have mattered for most because we were all listening on mono players.
We certainly didn't listen on headphones so it wasn't such an issue even if we were listening in stereo. The novelty of having one speaker plain one thing while the other place something else was quite new and at that time we all felt that it was great!!!
I think that this new recording will be something to really listen to. It's going to be really nice to hear them properly.
|
|
juke
very active
Posts: 396
|
Post by juke on May 4, 2017 11:56:16 GMT
"That George Martin album to me is really special." - Read that in Ian's post last night and thought that I would buy it. Decided to check first and I already had it!
I'm not sure that I ever gave it a serious listen but last night/this morning I was really knocked out by the quality of this CD!
That made me wonder about the 1 album and I see that it was a remix made in 2000. Then I saw the 1+ album and a reviewer on Amazon says the tracks on it were remixed again in 2009. The plus refers to the DVD/BluRay disks I think.
I bought the 2009-released Beatles Mono remixed box (£199 back then!) and now I'm wondering does the 1+ album use these tracks.
Anybody know or can add anything to this? Also, the videos are remastered to 4k, I have a great TV unstairs but it doesn't do 4k, anyone know if they are both 4k and BD on this + set?
I don't think the 4k downstairs would create the right atmosphere (certain audience non-appreciation <G>)
|
|
|
Post by ronzo56 on May 4, 2017 14:00:44 GMT
I have the mono boxed set from 2009 as well. I checked, they were flat transferred so they are true to the original mono mix. I have not read anywhere that anything has been done to the original mono mixes so the 1+ probably are the same as the boxed set. But I could obviously be wrong. The 50th anniversary super deluxe set will have both Blu-ray and DVD, so plenty of options to play back the 1992 documentary video. As to the audio (Blu-ray: DTS HD Master Audio 5.1, Dolby True HD 5.1 / DVD: DTS Dolby Digital 5.1) The hi-res stereo remix will be High Resolution Audio versions of 2017 ‘Sgt. Pepper’ stereo mix and 2017 “Penny Lane” stereo mix, plus 2015 “Strawberry Fields Forever” hi res stereo mix (Blu-ray: LPCM Stereo 96KHz/24bit / DVD: LPCM Stereo) The DVD is supposed to also be in 24/96. Steve Guttenberg was invited to listen to the new mix at World of Macintosh in NYC. Here are his impressions. Steve GuttenbergHere is a link with all the track listings for each disc and the file types. 22 days to go! Sgt. Pepper 50th
|
|
|
Post by ronzo56 on May 4, 2017 14:13:37 GMT
I will be definitely getting this, Ron. Going back to the original recording is the best way because noise levels will be so much lower, dynamics will be greater, but the stereo will have to be re-realised. That means that he has to use his own ideas as to where he thinks that George or the Beatles would have placed things in a true stereo copy. I don't think that many people realise that when stereo appeared many bands were still really mixing down to mono from a stereo recorder which meant there were some strange left/right type things going on. At the time it might not have mattered for most because we were all listening on mono players. We certainly didn't listen on headphones so it wasn't such an issue even if we were listening in stereo. The novelty of having one speaker plain one thing while the other place something else was quite new and at that time we all felt that it was great!!! I think that this new recording will be something to really listen to. It's going to be really nice to hear them properly. It will be interesting indeed Ian to hear where Giles placed the instruments. He has said he used the mono mix as a guide to making the stereo mix. He also said that Paul gave the final O.K. to the mix so it should be the way the band and George might have done it if they had taken the time to mix it in stereo. I read somewhere that they took three weeks to mix the mono, with the band and George Martin there the entire time. The stereo was mixed in three days by 2nd engineers mostly with neither Martin or the band present.
|
|
juke
very active
Posts: 396
|
Post by juke on May 4, 2017 23:03:24 GMT
I have the mono boxed set from 2009 as well. I checked, they were flat transferred so they are true to the original mono mix. I have not read anywhere that anything has been done to the original mono mixes so the 1+ probably are the same as the boxed set. But I could obviously be wrong. The places I looked refer to the Mono box as 'Remastered', I just assumed it was right Ron. Looked around and found this- www.soundonsound.com/techniques/remastering-beatles - In that it says "Faced with, on one hand, the demands of purists, and on the other, the expectations of modern listeners, the team chose to take two directions at once. For collectors and audiophiles, they created a box set comprising all the original mono versions of the Beatles' albums (less Abbey Road, which was not issued in mono, and Yellow Submarine, where the original mono was a straight fold‑down from the stereo), which for the most part was as faithful as possible to the source. Simultaneously, they reworked the stereo catalogue for release in a second box set, and also as individual albums — again treating the material with respect, but not shying away from the application of modern technology, if it was felt that fidelity could be improved." If it's taken from the original tapes is that not a remaster? Genuine question, I don't know the correct terms. I've ordered the 1+ set out of curiosity.
|
|
|
Post by ronzo56 on May 5, 2017 5:24:21 GMT
I am going to pass the remaster question on to Ian. I tend to think that anything done to the original source is a remaster. In the case of the 2009 releases they did have to deal with the editing tape peeling off in some places. So I suppose that would count as a remaster of the mono. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say the monos where made to sound as close to the vinyl as possible. I know they did not use limiting/compression or other features available on Pro Tools with the mono versions. The stereo versions where made louder with "gingerly" used compression apparently to satisfy the listening expectations of modern audiences. Personally I think the term remaster is a sales term for the monos. They cleaned up the edit degradation and I think that was about it. Again I could be wrong, but that is what I have gleaned from reading many articles about the 2009 remaster process. Re-mixes are different. The original studio sessions tapes are used instead of the final mastered tapes. Remastering are changes to the final mastered tapes. No re-mixing is possible just changes to dynamic range, noise reduction, editing flaws and drop outs in the sound levels etc. Over to you Ian. Feel free to correct me.
Can't wait to hear the new re-mixes .
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on May 5, 2017 6:12:33 GMT
Going back to the original studio tapes is the best way to do it. It means a complete overhaul, which for people like us is great news. For Beatles fans, it might be bad news because most memories of the Beatles are in mono or that rather crude left/right stereo.
Doesn't change the notes, but will change the 'feel' of the album. It will bring the recordings forward in time so the 60's 'vibe' may be lost. Beatles fans may not approve of some of the stereo placing etc.
Personally, I can't wait to hear it; especially after hearing what George Martin did with 'Love'. To me that has a tinge of sadness and is quite reflective. So glad that he did it before passing away. The son 'might' be further removed from the '60s' feel that George managed to retain in his album.
|
|
jello
extremely active
Posts: 1,569
|
Post by jello on May 5, 2017 17:37:26 GMT
"That George Martin album to me is really special." - Read that in Ian's post last night and thought that I would buy it. Decided to check first and I already had it! I'm not sure that I ever gave it a serious listen but last night/this morning I was really knocked out by the quality of this CD! Indeed. Listening to it now and it's excellent. Thanks for mention it Ian as it would have otherwise escaped me. Don't listen to the Beatles much these days but loved them as a kid. First album I was ever given was my Mum's mono copy of Sgt Pepper's. Mint condition complete with all the paper cut outs etc. I wish she'd waited a few years because being a typical 8 yr old the first thing I did was get the scissors out. Fantastic album though and good memories
|
|