Giles Martin to re-mix Sgt Pepper's Atmos Mix

[CPR]

I meant the surround versions; my bad

 

[temporaryhuman]

Sounds like more compression is the goal? I hope weight just means bass.

I find white album and the 5.1 of SPLHCB to be quite harsh.

 

[ar surround]

Sounds like more compression is the goal? I hope weight just means bass.

I find white album and the 5.1 of SPLHCB to be quite harsh.

Yeah, considering what those two could have been, they did not deliver. The philosophy seems to be that if the originals were fucked up, the new ones have to be fucked up too. They are both still way better than the red book CD's of the late 80's and late 2000's.

 

[marcb]

Yeah, considering what those two could have been, they did not deliver. The philosophy seems to be that if the originals were fucked up, the new ones have to be fucked up too. They are both still way better than the red book CD's of the late 80's and late 2000's.

What’s wrong with the 80s CDs of Pepper and White Album? They’re actually pretty decent.

 

[edisonbaggins]

I find white album... to be quite harsh.

I remember reading or hearing that they remixed TWA too smoothly and ADDED harshness back in, so that it would more closely resemble the original.
Burns my ass. I have to turn it down several db, compared to other BD 5.1 mixes. Plus break it up in short listening sessions. Just too grating.

 

[marcb]

I remember reading or hearing that they remixed TWA too smoothly and ADDED harshness back in, so that it would more closely resemble the original.
Burns my ass. I have to turn it down several db, compared to other BD 5.1 mixes. Plus break it up in short listening sessions. Just too grating.

It’s an imperfect, all over the place album from a fidelity perspective. If they try to make you happy, it’ll be at the cost of something else - and probably something less palatable. Too many people think if you just solve this ONE problem, it’ll then be perfect (or at least much better, according to them). Mastering (and mixing) is not magic; it’s a series of trade-offs. And the worse the original canvas is, the bigger the trade-offs.

 

[ar surround]

What’s wrong with the 80s CDs of Pepper and White Album? They’re actually pretty decent.

I'll give you two examples. If you take the song Birthday, the 80s CD (and 2009 remaster) has essentially all of the instrumentation as a mono center channel. The surround sound mix is much more interesting and enveloping, especially after applying some judicious EQ to take the edge off of it.

On Pepper, take the song Good Morning, Good Morning. The original mix has all instrumentation hard panned right or hard panned left with vocals in the center. It sounds like there are giant holes between the right and center and the left and center. The surround sound mix is again more creative and enveloping.

 

[marcb]

I'll give you two examples. If you take the song Birthday, the 80s CD (and 2009 remaster) has essentially all of the instrumentation as a mono center channel. The surround sound mix is much more interesting and enveloping, especially after applying some judicious EQ to take the edge off of it.

On Pepper, take the song Good Morning, Good Morning. The original mix has all instrumentation hard panned right or hard panned left with vocals in the center. It sounds like there are giant holes between the right and center and the left and center. The surround sound mix is again more creative and enveloping.

Huh? You’re comparing apples and oranges. What does any of that have to do with relative merits of any of the CDs (or any vinyl pressings for that matter) of the original stereo mix?

If you don’t like the original stereo mix, that’s subjective. It find it rich though when the same folks here who dislike hard panned stereo go gaga over throwing anything discretely in rears - and the more the better - of a 5.1 mix or those awesome discrete 70s quad mixes even when it serves no apparent musical purpose.

Nevertheless you do realize the stereo mix was created on a 4 track deck - with many bounces to create the four tracks - whereas they were able to go back to the pre-bounce multis to essentially create the individual stems for the 5.1 mix. It’s much easier to pan everything where you want it when instruments aren’t combined onto a single track.

Personally I find conventional post-mid 60s cookie-cutter stereo mixes kinda boring. Bass and vocals centered. Guitars wide left and/or right. Drums center or stereo panned L/R (got love those dopey sounding 10 foot arms...). Yawn.

Thankfully, and not regretably, defying convention was one of the Beatles trademarks.

 

[4-earredwonder]

I'll give you two examples. If you take the song Birthday, the 80s CD (and 2009 remaster) has essentially all of the instrumentation as a mono center channel. The surround sound mix is much more interesting and enveloping, especially after applying some judicious EQ to take the edge off of it.

On Pepper, take the song Good Morning, Good Morning. The original mix has all instrumentation hard panned right or hard panned left with vocals in the center. It sounds like there are giant holes between the right and center and the left and center. The surround sound mix is again more creative and enveloping.

I also discovered that by playing those Beatles BD~A Remasters at a 'reasonable volume' [i.e. without BLASTING THEM] they sound AWESOME on my system at FLAT response [NO EQ applied].......

BTW, AR, how do you like the Parasound P7 Pre~Amp?

 

[marcb]

I also discovered that by playing those Beatles BD~A Remasters at a 'reasonable volume' [i.e. without BLASTING THEM] they sound AWESOME on my system at FLAT response [NO EQ applied].......

BTW, AR, how do you like the Parasound P7 Pre~Amp?

You mean the remixes? Yeah, they sound like they have a built-in loudness button.

 

[Scott M4]

I remember reading or hearing that they remixed TWA too smoothly and ADDED harshness back in, so that it would more closely resemble the original.
Burns my ass. I have to turn it down several db, compared to other BD 5.1 mixes. Plus break it up in short listening sessions. Just too grating.

I too find the TWA too crispy.

 

[Nyad]

I too find the TWA too crispy.

Might have to pull out the 80's CD and upmix it with Neural X (just for fun)

 

[ar surround]

Huh? You’re comparing apples and oranges. What does any of that have to do with relative merits of any of the CDs (or any vinyl pressings for that matter) of the original stereo mix?

True, I am comparing apples to oranges. Prior to the surround sound mixes, we only had the apples. And now that we have the oranges, I much prefer them.

If you don’t like the original stereo mix, that’s subjective.

Also true. Virtually everything posted about music here and anywhere else is subjective.

 

[marcb]

True, I am comparing apples to oranges. Prior to the surround sound mixes, we only had the apples. And now that we have the oranges, I much prefer them.


Also true. Virtually everything posted about music here and anywhere else is subjective.

But it gets murky when folks incorrectly understand, cite or utilize objective facts to develop or justify subjective opinions.

 

[Strilo]

I've most always been a subscriber to the idea that people should assume everything I say about music/film/TV/books/art etc... is subjective. It's all opinion. One shouldn't need to reassure people that their statements are opinion. Nor should people feel a need to assert "that's your opinion" about these subjects.

 

[temporaryhuman]

I've most always been a subscriber to the idea that people should assume everything I say about music/film/TV/books/art etc... is subjective. It's all opinion. One shouldn't need to reassure people that their statements are opinion. Nor should people feel a need to assert "that's your opinion" about these subjects.

True, although with music one can objectively measure the frequencies and see the waveform showing limiting, so some things are objectively the truth. We all have different speakers, equipment and ears though, so some frequnecies will stand out to some and not so much to others. Bright in my room with hard flooring might sound great to somebody else who has thick a wool carpet. With the Beatles 5.1 issues, most have said they think SPLHCB is very bright, harsh and not very discrete.

I still welcome Giles remixing some more stuff in Atmos, I just wish he would make it more dynamic like the latest GG issue by Mr Wilson.

 

[edisonbaggins]

I still welcome Giles remixing some more stuff in Atmos, I just wish he would make it more dynamic like the latest GG issue by Mr Wilson.

Abbey Road 5.1 and Atmos are fairly well-regarded

 

[jimfisheye]

I remember reading or hearing that they remixed TWA too smoothly and ADDED harshness back in, so that it would more closely resemble the original.

Haha. Yeah, you kind of have to be a little familiar with what you're talking about when you try making excuses like that. Otherwise you might not realize that you just told people "Yeah, I've never actually heard the original!" That's a really pathetic and poorly crafted excuse.

 

[edisonbaggins]

Haha. Yeah, you kind of have to be a little familiar with what you're talking about when you try making excuses like that. Otherwise you might not realize that you just told people "Yeah, I've never actually heard the original!" That's a really pathetic and poorly crafted excuse.

It certainly struck me as one of the dumbest things I've ever heard about music production.

 

[Doug G.]

I am SO GLAD I am not wrapped up in all this crap.

Doug