HiRez Poll Beatles, The - Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band [BluRay]

[Ephi82]

I do set levels with an SPL meter, and my rear speakers are identical to my front three. I still find the rears need to be boosted 3db or so for this release to sound its best. I really don't have to do that with any other disk I can think of. And if your thought is that a majority on this board don't know how to properly set levels using an SPL meter or otherwise, I very much doubt it.



I disagree. The mono mix is still there and the stereo mix is also available. A new, discrete 5.1 mix would have only been but another version. It wouldn't replace the mono or the stereo, it would have supplanted it. Had the Fab Four had good discrete multichannel technology available to them as a playback medium back when this was recorded, who knows how outlandish the original mix might have been. It was the psychedelic era after all.



I agree with you about the increased clarity. The fidelity is better than I might have hoped for. But a more discrete mix would have only enhanced that.

I am humbled at the # of replies to my original post, including yours.

I want to make sure that my comment about how many people use SPL meters was not limited to members of this forum. Based on my experience on other forums (and in particular the Steve Hoffman one), its pretty clear to me that many posters do not experience surround music with matched speakers, room correction, or balanced multi channel output. These are often posters who routinely deride surround music.

That said, if you have a better experience with the new Sgt Pepper surround mix by boosting the rear channels, terrific. Thats why those controls are available. In my experience, I didnt find a need for this and the new recordings are simply stunning with my system.

As far as the surround mix, Martin could never please everyone. It would be VERY interesting to hear a more adventurous Wilson/Scheiner type mix, but I speculate that Martin's bosses (McCartney and Starkey) would have pushed back, and a ton of people would have screamed "sacrilege" ! You made a very good point noting that those who would proclaim it a sacrilege are die hard anti surround critics!

 

[LuvMyQuad]

OMG!!!! I SWEAR that i read the last line as (besides the fact that my subconscious is a big bastard!!) "...which gave more opportunity for more adventurous SEX(!!!!) @:

I've tried several times now while playing both Sgt Pepper and the Love soundtrack. With boosted rears and without. It didn't matter. The sex just never got any more adventurous. It wasn't bad, but no more adventurous than say... the mono versions.

In thinking it over, I think only Dark Side of the Moon (AP quad mix of course) is the only disc where the sex ever got more adventurous, and not by a lot. I had high hopes for the 9 disc Chicago Quadio set providing more adventurous as well as more frequent sex... but it just didn't happen.

 

[depeche76]

i just voted for this title......it is a 9 for me. I really wanted to give it a 10, but (at least in my opinion) frankly, there are a lot of better surround use of speakers than on this title. Related to Beatles catalog you can hear how great were mixed the DVDs of Paul McCartney antohology or the John Lennon video compilation (although they are only in DTS, but are great to listen to). I was thinking that for this title, Giles Martin should have included some type of two 5.1 mixes (as in some titles from AIX records) one approaching the original feel of the album, and another one "aggressive surround for modern times" like.

 

[kap'n krunch]

you know??? I don't care...this is the 3rd or 4th time I've listened to it and it's a REVELATION...no, they didn't go all the way like "Love" did but it's a perfect compromise...love it

 

[Woody71]

A 9 from me, for the same reasons as a lot of others...that the mix is a little conservative. 'Within You Without You' is the moment I get to every listen where I think the potential got close to the reality. I ordered the Deluxe Box Set though, and love it to bits. The extras and book... a wonderful musical and cultural experience.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

I finally put a vote in. I gave it an 8. I just cant ignore the fact that the surround mix is so tame on the majority of the tracks. It was a new 5.1 mix and in my mind had no reason to be conservative in order to respect the mono mix. The MC mix should have been as experimental as the original album was when it was first released (or at least up to the limit it was capable of). We have a mono mix to fall back on and we have several stereo mixes to offer respect. On the plus side, its a great package and unquestionably top shelf material. I hope whatever gets released after this has all that but also includes a more involving MC mix.

 

[salsdali]

The MC mix should have been as experimental as the original album was when it was first released (or at least up to the limit it was capable of).

This is a good point. I mean in the documentary on this disc the band talks about how John (or was it Paul) "accidentally" takes acid and goes on the roof and writes Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. I know, I know, they denied it later but it was a factor (at least for the entire album) if not just Lucy.

Between that and George trippin' out with Ravi Shankar on Within Without You the 5.1 mix could have really been a psychedelic stunner if Giles wanted to honor the "spirit" of the album.

I mean LSD and surround sound are a match made in heaven. I mean, the only way to truly replicate the psychedelic experience is with more speakers because LSD opens up areas of the mind the same way more speakers open up more areas of the sound field.

What I'm saying is (and a lot of people will not agree with me on this) but Giles, drop some acid and then mix the album in surround and then you would be honoring the true spirit of this album.

I do feel Giles reached a good "compromise" but I doubt the Beatles would agree that this album was created as a compromise way back then.

I bet, in the Beatles "heads", they heard this album in stunning psychedelic surround when recording it, they just didn't have the technological capability to put that onto tape, and it is IMO kinda Giles duty to finally bring that fruition, now that the technology exists.

 

[proufo]

Years ago Crawdaddy magazine wrote that Quad would succeed (or would have succeeded) if the Beatles make records that HAD to be listened to in Quad. Alas, they didn't.

I'd rather have a mix that is respectful of the original work of geniuses than a current interpretation by a producer of what a psychedelic stunner is or should have been.

Haven't heard it yet. Looking forward to it.

This is a good point. I mean in the documentary on this disc the band talks about how John (or was it Paul) "accidentally" takes acid and goes on the roof and writes Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. I know, I know, they denied it later but it was a factor (at least for the entire album) if not just Lucy.

Between that and George trippin' out with Ravi Shankar on Within Without You the 5.1 mix could have really been a psychedelic stunner if Giles wanted to honor the "spirit" of the album.

I mean LSD and surround sound are a match made in heaven. I mean, the only way to truly replicate the psychedelic experience is with more speakers because LSD opens up areas of the mind the same way more speakers open up more areas of the sound field.

What I'm saying is (and a lot of people will not agree with me on this) but Giles, drop some acid and then mix the album in surround and then you would be honoring the true spirit of this album.

I do feel Giles reached a good "compromise" but I doubt the Beatles would agree that this album was created as a compromise way back then.

I bet, in the Beatles "heads", they heard this album in stunning psychedelic surround when recording it, they just didn't have the technological capability to put that onto tape, and it is IMO kinda Giles duty to finally bring that fruition, now that the technology exists.

 

[proufo]

Wrong thread.

 

[fizzywiggs41]

Years ago Crawdaddy magazine wrote that Quad would succeed (or would have succeeded) if the Beatles make records that HAD to be listened to in Quad. Alas, they didn't.

.

Crawdaddy ?

Now that was an excellent audio insider magazine. Very topical for it's time. And I always found it a far better info read than Rolling Stone. Too bad it didn't last.



Voted nine for Pepper, btw. I like the mix . :sun

 

[John Svensson]

Crawdaddy...... Yes, I still have a few copies and they released a "Best Of" book about 10 years ago. Unfortunately the founder Paul Williams who was in college at Swarthmore passed away a few years back from a fairly rare disease, I recall they started a charity drive to cover his medical expenses.

 

[meanmrkite]

Considering what Giles Martin had to work with......basically 4 tracks and miles of outtakes from a bygone era, he accomplished a remarkable feat and, IMO, this reissue literally/figuratively blows away ALL previous Sgt. Pepper releases. The utter clarity of the instruments and vocals with absolutely No background noise [hiss] is simply astonishing! While not wildly discrete, it remains faithful to the original and the occasional discrete flourishes, IMO, satisfy rather than WOW with unnecessary gimmickry.

I voted a 10!

Now, bring ON the WHITE album!

I've already started a "white album 2018" fund with spare change, spare bills (as if...), spare whatever...i'm expecting it to cost a packet, after all if Purple Chick did theirs with 10 cd's a 'proper' one with full access to the vaults could easily double that (unless blu-ray is used i suppose). I'd love a full fidelity Kinfauns set, and the reels of 'audio verite' that Lewisohn mentions...the 27 min Helter Skelter has always been a grail of sorts...

Speaking of, one real disappointment I had was the Carnival Of Light was NOT included on this year's Pepper box. I had hoped it would be, when I first heard of the impending release of a 50th Pepper set...another opportunity gone (apparently Paul wanted COL on the Anthology, but George & Ringo nixed it, maybe because they didn't participate?).

Finally, I gave the Giles' mix a 9...would've been a ten but the new mix used the mono "join" from Good Morning to the Reprise, which I've always found jarring when compared to the seamless stereo 'join'...that's the ONLY element I favor the traditional stereo mix for, btw.

Thanks, I'm a relative newbie and just lurking about and trying not to ramble as i am here @:

best,
mmk

 

[kap'n krunch]

I was gonna say that WE (I'm including myself) are a bunch of crybabies because of the "conservative" mix, but the truth is that

WE ARE SPOILED ROTTEN!!!!

yesyesyes,...I can hear you,,,
"Love"
yes, that was a REALLY AWESOME mix....but , again, the BD mix is GREAT!!!!

...spoiled rotten....

:couch

 

[Which_One_Is_Pink]

OK I am voting 9, a really, really strong 9! Docking it a 10th a point for the surround (more for what I wish it was than what it is), fidelity is...well Pepper has NEVER sounded so good, ever! Content, I have always liked Pepper but was always a bigger fan of Abby Road, Revolver, Let It Be and Hey Jude musically but now after multiple listens in surround I can now say I LOVE Pepper just as much! Bring on the rest!

9+

 

[oxenholme]

Several months on I put this on again in the midst of an evening listening to all manner of surround tracks in all sorts of different types of music.

Sgt Pepper was the only one where it was not immediately obvious where everything is in the "sound stage". A wall of sound. Hard hitting. A mish-mash. Not at all easy to equate with the sound on the original stereo LP.

I tried playing tracks from one or two other Blu-ray discs just to be sure that it wasn't Blu-ray vs SACD and DVD-A. Marley Legend, Pet Sounds, Mojo, Aqualung. All sounded brill.

Presentation: gorgeous but impractical.
Mix: meh - 4
Sound: meh - 4
Material: no doubt 10

Gives 6.

 

[ar surround]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I spent most of my high-fidelity years beginning in 1972 considering it a wet dream to get a Sgt. Pepper that sounds this good. The album just never sounded right whether listening in stereo, Dynaquad, QS, DPLIIx, or Logic7. So if you told me way back then that I could have this exact latest version of Sgt. Pepper I would have been in awe and jumped all over it. I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth.

Several months on I put this on again in the midst of an evening listening to all manner of surround tracks in all sorts of different types of music.

Sgt Pepper was the only one where it was not immediately obvious where everything is in the "sound stage". A wall of sound. Hard hitting. A mish-mash. Not at all easy to equate with the sound on the original stereo LP.

I tried playing tracks from one or two other Blu-ray discs just to be sure that it wasn't Blu-ray vs SACD and DVD-A. Marley Legend, Pet Sounds, Mojo, Aqualung. All sounded brill.

Presentation: gorgeous but impractical.
Mix: meh - 4
Sound: meh - 4
Material: no doubt 10

Gives 6.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I spent most of my high-fidelity years beginning in 1972 considering it a wet dream to get a Sgt. Pepper that sounds this good. The album just never sounded right whether listening in stereo, Dynaquad, QS, DPLIIx, or Logic7. So if you told me way back then that I could have this exact latest version of Sgt. Pepper I would have been in awe and jumped all over it. I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth.

I promised myself I wouldn't come back to this poll...it's a waste of time to get involved in internet arguments...if you look at the few dissenting lowball votes and then look at the reasons given...or actually the lack of credible reasons given...it's sad...hopefully somebody that is using the poll to make a decision of purchasing this item will look at the majority of opinions....

I too have heard many versions of this iconic album and this one is the best...it's true to it's origin...it's not a demo disc for surround sound....that was never the intention or goal...and like the Kap'n mentioned...we are spoiled...I'm just glad it happened

 

[capsid]

I promised myself I wouldn't come back to this poll...it's a waste of time to get involved in internet arguments...if you look at the few dissenting lowball votes and then look at the reasons given...or actually the lack of credible reasons given...it's sad...hopefully somebody that is using the poll to make a decision of purchasing this item will look at the majority of opinions....

I too have heard many versions of this iconic album and this one is the best...it's true to it's origin...it's not a demo disc for surround sound....that was never the intention or goal...and like the Kap'n mentioned...we are spoiled...I'm just glad it happened

I think it can be confusing as to how to vote. For this disc the vote is for Content, Surround and Fidelity. For Steven Wilson's it's Content, Surround Mix and Fidelity. In previous polls the criteria differed for the great and poor marks even within the poll. So people vote on differing benchmarks and some subjectively score the disc on whether they like the music, which has never been a criterion AFAIK. As it turns out though it all averages out and the poll seems to work as long as there are a good number of votes for each disc.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

I think it can be confusing as to how to vote. For this disc the vote is for Content, Surround and Fidelity. For Steven Wilson's it's Content, Surround Mix and Fidelity. In previous polls the criteria differed for the great and poor marks even within the poll. So people vote on differing benchmarks and some subjectively score the disc on whether they like the music, which has never been a criterion AFAIK. As it turns out though it all averages out and the poll seems to work as long as there are a good number of votes for each disc.

I always thought "content" included the appeal of the music itself, along with bonus material, packaging, etc. I have also voted that way.

 

[capsid]

I always thought "content" included the appeal of the music itself, along with bonus material, packaging, etc. I have also voted that way.

There you go, I think it means how much you get included such as demo takes, videos and even marbles.