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

[Clint Eastwood]

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.

It's not really confusing at all....the concept of Content..Surround...and Fidelity...are merely guidelines...not requirements..Jon has stated this many times on here...check this out..it was merely a suggestion...it's as simple as...do you like it or not...and why...and then some CREDIBLE reasons for your opinion...that's it...simple as that...the problem is the CREDIBLE element is often missing...I can understand subjective...but when somebody is so far from the mainstream and gives a lowball score with explanations that are laughable...its a concern for me and others who view this poll as one of the important elements of the forum...

In the past I have refrained from voting on some of the polls that had content I didn't like....I just didn't feel it was right to downgrade a Steven Wilson masterpiece because I hated the content...and I would hope others would do that...and on the subject of content...how could anything be as important?...If content didn't mean everything we could just be evaluating test tones...content is everything...

This will be my last comment on this topic...as many of us have realized...internet arguments are useless...you aren't going to change these kind of posters...

 

[colsky]

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

I agree with you. I think the people voting along the lines of "hey, its the Beatles with one of the best albums ever made, so its a 10" make the poll a bit meaningless (IMHO :couch). I get that this version sounds better than the album has ever sounded, but this is a surround forum, and seeing a disc with so many 9's and 10's would make me assume that the surround mix was excellent to demo quality, which I don't think it is. I understand though that the poll is only a guide, and the vote should be viewed alongside a good read of the accompanying comments. Anyway, don't want to derail a poll thread!

 

[ar surround]

...it's not a demo disc for surround sound....

It is interesting that when I play A Day in the Life to Beatles fans who have never heard it in surround, they experience "shock and awe." Then I play state-of-the art surround recordings from much lesser known artists. Yes they are impressed by how great they sound, but these recordings don't have the context of classics like Pepper and do not invoke the same enthusiastic response. But then I hit them with a Steven Wilson surround remix of a classic and they go bananas. :banana::banana::banana:

It seems that in rating a new surround sound release, the degree of improvement over what came before is an extremely strong driver. What amazes me is how quickly I become acclimated to the new and improved versions. Sometimes I'll go back and listen to the old versions for a few minutes so that I don't take these great new releases for granted.

 

[oxenholme]

It seems that in rating a new surround sound release, the degree of improvement over what came before is an extremely strong driver. What amazes me is how quickly I become acclimated to the new and improved versions. Sometimes I'll go back and listen to the old versions for a few minutes so that I don't take these great new releases for granted.

I waited a long time and listened to it several times.

A little earlier this year Wild Honey by The Beach Boys came out in true stereo for the first time. I'm over the moon with it. Not just that it's stereo but that it is mixed and EQd to sound like a 1967 album. Important to me.

The new Pepper stereo remix doesn't sound anything like a 1967 album. To me it sounds modern and out of keeping with the music. I don't like my music modernised for the modern listener. I'm a Luddite stuck in my time warp.

Now I did like the surround mixes of the bits of Pepper on the Yellow Submarine soundtrack. I found them tonally pleasant too - important to me.

In a way it is good that many of you disagree with me and enjoy this release. I am sorry, but I don't view it as an improvement - to me it's quite the opposite.

 

[kap'n krunch]

....

In a way it is good that many of you disagree with me and enjoy this release. I am sorry, but I don't view it as an improvement - to me it's quite the opposite.

I understand your point of view.
I usually say, the more mixes , the merrier, and this is a good example.
as we all know the "basis" of the Surround mix was the MONO mix (yes, I know, but bear with me).
The BD mix has definitely delivered in that aspect cause this is not a "Love" kind of extremely active surrounds. Mono is a HUGE (DEMOLITION) BALL!!!! And this is what this MCH mix is.

It is not "bells and whistles" everywhere, it is a solid, steady mix.

Regarding the new stereo mix: if it sounded the same, or in the same 60's style, there would be no point whatsoever; you don't like the new stereo mix? Cool, well, listen to the ORIGINAL mix, then.

Being what it is and its contents, of course each and every one of us would have done SOMETHING in a different way, but that's what we were given, and we should be thankful that we got it after all these years....

It's the freaking Beatles!
And not only that , it's SPLHCB in MCH!!!!

Most of us would have never even EXPECTED this a few years ago (much less when DVDA and SACD started!).

Be thankful we got it!

 

[sukothai]

Of course this album is a classic, but I was tired of it years ago and I was hoping a new surround mix would revive my original excitement from when I first heard it. It didn't and my score reflects my disappointment. I adjusted the levels and really tried to find that original joy - it never came.

Better surround mixes have spoiled me.

 

[kap'n krunch]

Of course this album is a classic, but I was tired of it years ago and I was hoping a new surround mix would revive my original excitement from when I first heard it. It didn't and my score reflects my disappointment. I adjusted the levels and really tried to find that original joy - it never came.

Better surround mixes have spoiled me.

Ahhh..expectations will f*ck with you every time...that's why I've tried to not have high hopes for many things...

Funnily enough, I am a HUGE FAN of "Wild MCH mixes" and I find this one is VERY GOOD...of course, like I say, we would ALL have done things differently to our own liking...

 

[edisonbaggins]

Better surround mixes have spoiled me.

I think a lot of expectations for this one were set by the Love DVD-A and the Yellow Submarine BD-V. We know how the album could have been mixed differently.

 

[markshan]

I gave it a 7. I posted this in what now appears to have been the wrong thread, so I'll put it here as well...

Well, a good friend invited me over to hear this. I really see this mix as a missed opportunity, which is quite disappointing given the wonderful job I thought they did on the "Love" surround mix. In particular, LSD and Mr Kite were very underwhelming. Given the work that Giles had already done cutting apart the Lucy track, I totally expected a psychedelic treatment where the notes were floating around the room randomly like colored dots in front of your eyes when the Mescaline kicks in (or so I've heard). In the same way, when Henry the Horse starts dancing, I felt it would have been entirely appropriate to center the organ but have the effects spinning around you in a dizzying manner, the way the organ on a carousel would remain stationary as you ride, but all of the sounds from outside would be spinning as the ride twirls. "Day in the Life" was nice, but pedestrian. A treatment completely not befitting that song. Only two songs actually benefited from the surround mix in my estimation. The separation given the small ensemble in "When I'm Sixty-Four" gave an interesting freshness to that tune (not one of my favorites on the album) and "Penny Lane" was literally the only mix that had me hearing things I hadn't before. Again, the fact that the whole album didn't do this is a wasted opportunity.

I've yet to even mention the most egregious blunder of all. The LFE channel is an awful mess. For starters, it is entirely too loud. My friend had to turn his sub down twice just to get it to "play nicely" with the other channels. Once that was accomplished, it was horrible "flubby" and indistinct. Plus, it seemed to only carry far too much of Paul's bass fundamental but I heard little to none of the kick drum fundamental. It's really all but inexcusable IMHO.

In a way, this is probably appropriate for a 50th Anniversary release. For fifty years I've heard about how the mono was the go to mix and the stereo was an afterthought. With this release it seems that the stereo is finally the go to mix and the surround was treated as an afterthought.

 

[ar surround]

I listened to this the other night after not playing it for quite some time. Despite the underwhelming multi-channel mix, the thing that bothers me is amount of compression. I actually found listening to it a bit tiresome this time around. Perhaps I will need to dink with the LFE channel. You know, it is funny how quickly one becomes used to a new and better sounding recording of an old favorite. Once the new recording becomes the norm it becomes subject to nit picking for sonic flaws.

 

[edisonbaggins]

I voted 7. Kind of a weak 7. The mix has been discussed to death. It is stronger, IMO, if you lower the fronts by 2 or 3 db.
This is mastered pretty freakin' loud, so I wouldn't raise the rears.
Anyhow, other than blasting this record on my friend's hi-fi in mono, this is a good as this album gets for me.
It's such a great and important album that I'm glad I have a weak 7 for surround, rather than nothing at all.

 

[sf49erjohn]

I voted a 9. Loved the sound and the extras that are included were excellent IMHO.

 

[HDave]

After a revisit around 6 months of listening I would just bump my original vote down 1 to a 9. This iconic album sounds great on my 7.2 Yamaha system (prefer Dolby True HD over DTS Master) it has the surround backs in a front height position. Haven't listened to it on the Integra Atmos system 5.1.2 yet ?

 

[ChristopherLees]

I wish Steve Wilson had played with these tapes in his own studio..so many blunders here its annoying....the mix here needs help in the rears and the sound quality throughout has rolled top end..even my mono lp pressing from 1967 has more extended highs than any 5.1, stereo or mono mix from this collection..at least lovely rita is an improvement on the rather strange original stereo mix we've always had...other than that the whole new set bored me with the dullness..maybe Giles Martin will get it right one day..I wonder if he's ever heard a cymbal...I can get all my old sgt pepper lp's( mono and stereo) to sound like this if I throw a blanket over the speakers...

 

[seremetcc]

I wish Steve Wilson had played with these tapes in his own studio..so many blunders here its annoying....the mix here needs help in the rears and the sound quality throughout has rolled top end..even my mono lp pressing from 1967 has more extended highs than any 5.1, stereo or mono mix from this collection..at least lovely rita is an improvement on the rather strange original stereo mix we've always had...other than that the whole new set bored me with the dullness..maybe Giles Martin will get it right one day..I wonder if he's ever heard a cymbal...I can get all my old sgt pepper lp's( mono and stereo) to sound like this if I throw a blanket over the speakers...

How does the mono version in the box sound to you? This is the only version I have.

 

[ChristopherLees]

How does the mono version in the box sound to you? This is the only version I have.

original mono has decent top end.....new mono is rolled...even the vinyl box sets of a few years ago were rolled top end compared to virtually anything analogue from the 60's and 70's on vinyl...could be an abbey rd problem i guess maybe something in their chain is screwing things up...but ultimately it's just boring the way it is sounding these days...compared to what was previously done.

 

[kap'n krunch]

original mono has decent top end.....new mono is rolled...even the vinyl box sets of a few years ago were rolled top end compared to virtually anything analogue from the 60's and 70's on vinyl...could be an abbey rd problem i guess maybe something in their chain is screwing things up...but ultimately it's just boring the way it is sounding these days...compared to what was previously done.

you may be forgetting a very important factor...AGE!!!!!

It has been 50 years and it's a minor miracle we can still play those...of course you all know, EVERY TIME it gets played, a Baby Unicorn dies ...no, wait , that was fredblue's post...so , of course it's not gonna sound nearly as goods as it did FIFTY (count'em , fifty) yeas ago...
And you'll be DAMN lucky to get a "barely played" mono LP ...especially a UK version....The Beatles GOT PLAYED...it was THE group back then ....and still is!..I have a Mono Wide Spine one, which looks good , but when played, you can tell it was played with a bad needle ;( ...it still sounds great , but...oh, maaaaannn!!!!

Crank up the treble!!!!

 

[Mesozoic Mike]

C'mon, it's the Beatles.

 

[markshan]

C'mon, it's the Beatles.

Which is exactly why it deserves better. Look how long we put up with the mediocre fidelity and poor packaging of the '87 (IIRC) CDs. It is ludicrous that EMI should treat the greatest catalog in the history of recorded music with such contempt.

 

[Mesozoic Mike]

Which is exactly why it deserves better. Look how long we put up with the mediocre fidelity and poor packaging of the '87 (IIRC) CDs. It is ludicrous that EMI should treat the greatest catalog in the history of recorded music with such contempt.

I agree about the mediocre fidelity in previous releases, but I think the Pepper bluray, although maybe not all it could have been, was a vast improvement over any other version I've heard.