Sgt. Pepper 50th anniversary release

[firedog]

30 minutes ago, wwaldmanfan said:

 

A hybrid DVD-Audio disc (24/96) is different from a standard DVD (24/48). Is your disc labelled as the former or the latter?

apparently standard. 

no sweat, someone has already offered to give me a copy of the 24/96 rip

[firedog]

As an aside, the previously unreleased 25th anniversary documentary in the box set is pretty good. The hardcover companion book is also informative and quite well done. 

[firedog]

On 6/9/2017 at 5:26 AM, new_media said:

 

A standard video DVD can support 24/96 stereo PCM. Neil Young's Greatest Hits is one example.

 

I ripped the Blu-ray (using MakeMKV and DVD Audio Extractor), but I will load up the DVD and see what I find. My understanding was also that it was supposed to be 24/96.

But if you look at the disc folders, the BR states it has 24-96, the DVD one doesn't.

The presage descriptions certainly led one to believe both the BR and the DVD had 24/96. In any case I find it odd they didn't just include 96 instead of 48. 

I haven't checked, maybe there was a space issue on CD6 that made them limit the audio to 24.48 instead of 24/96.

[firedog]

10 hours ago, mjb said:

Got the 6 disc set today, having deliberated for weeks. The studio sessions are quite interesting, the remixed stereo album is too bright, much more "in your face", and arguably not authentic as only two of the Beatles can have heard it.  Though, on switching back and forth, I now kinda prefer it to the 2009 remaster. Gosh, how many times do I have to buy the same album? Great marketing... Nice to have, yes. A must have? Probably not.

Well, "not authentic" is sort of an odd criticism,since none of the Beatles had anything to do with the original stereo mix, which is what this is designed to replace....

[firedog]

1 hour ago, mjb said:

Perhaps. I was actually surprised how good the "1967 mono mix of original album" (disk 4) is, though I've never heard the original mono vinyl. I've not got to the Blu-ray & DVD yet.

Yep, historically all the afficiados listened to the mono - it's the mix the Beatles worked on for 3 weeks. I personally never minded the Stereo, as like many outside of the UK, that's what I was used to.

But it's also the reason Giles Martin talked about the goal of this mix being the mono mix as if the Beatles had actually tried to mix it also in stereo in 67 

[firedog]

I understand that it is the same mix: if it is different the differences are extremely minor (a second or two of editing).

But the 2017 version is volume compressed a bit, average DR 9 instead of 11 from the 2009. In 2009 they specifically claimed they added no overall volume compression to the remaster.

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

If it is in fact the same, that appears to answer something I wondered about earlier in the thread - whether lower DR figures might result just from restoring bass and percussion volume from any reduction made necessary by recording for LP in 1966-67.

Maybe, but to me it sounds like they did overall volume compress it slightly.

Of course, it could be what you said, and my impression could just be caused by the effect of hearing the bass and percussion volume raised.

[firedog]

1 hour ago, lasker98 said:

The 2009 mono mix and this 2017 mono mix don't seem to be the same imo. Here's a pic from Audacity of :"Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds", 2017 on top, 2009 bottom. Also the 2009 DR is 12, 2017 is 8 for this track:

 

Not sure what your point is. We didn't say they were exactly the same, we said they are from the same mix. The 2017 version is said to be a flat transfer of the original 67 Momo mix; the 2009 mono was done much the same way, with a little eq added in some places, but no added volume compression. Remasters, not remixes.

The 2017 mono disc clearly is a little volume compressed (not brickwalled) - that's what your waveform shows. I don't see - or hear-  a remix in the 2017 mono.

 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, lasker98 said:

I'm definitely no expert on what to look for but just visually comparing the two, I'm mainly seeing the lack of individual extremes in the top (2017) one compared to the bottom (2009). For example, compare between 45-60 seconds. Notice how much more "spikier" the 2009 one looks. The 2017 one almost looks like all those spikes have been cutoff for the entire track.

It's just what's now seen as moderate volume compression. The waveforms are reduced, not cut off. If you want to see flat -  cutoff waveforms, find some nice music that's been remastered to a DR of 4.

[firedog]

34 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

 

 

I must have misunderstood. Sorry for the confusion.

 

Saying it is the same mix is not saying it is exactly the same in every aspect. If you take a 67 master, flat transfer it to digital, and then volume compress it a bit for CD release, it is still the exact same mix, as you haven't remixed anything.

I did notice that to make your point you edited the quote from me to leave out the word "mix" when I said it is the "same mix", not exactly "the same". You also left out the rest of the quote where I qualified the sentence and mentioned the volume compression.  Thanks for selectively quoting me in order to distort my meaning.

 

Apparently you don't know the difference between a remix and a remaster.

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

Aside from any definitional stuff, does Audacity have other capabilities, e.g., examining spectra, that would help us tell whether other changes were made?

I think this is probably one of those cases where being an "Audacity Cowboy" will probably lead us into a lot of incorrect speculation.

 

The  2009  mono remasters apparently had a small amount of EQ applied in select places ( I remember one of the principles involved saying it was something like a total of a smallish number of minutes spread throughout the entire catalog) but not overall volume compression.

So first you'd need to know the differences between the 67 and 2009 versions. 

 

The new mono version is said to be a flat transfer of the 67 tape, but pretty obviously has been overall volume compressed after digitization.

 

Seems to me you wouldn't get very far in those circumstances trying to figure out how the 2017 and 2009 remasters differ.