[Mr Soul]

I know that this topic has been covered a little already but I finally
got a couple of the re-mastered CDs (SPLHCB & the WA). I was
listening to SP the other morning and in the intro of the reprise, I
heard someone (probably Lennon) clearly say "bye" or "goodbye" in the
background. Now I've never heard that before and I'm wondering -
could it be the quality of the re-mastered CD or just a coincidental
thing on my part?

The new CDs do sound quite clear but they are somewhat dull sounding,
compared to modern day recordings. I also seem to notice vocal
distortion much more than I used to. Unfortunately, I don't have the
old LPs (or CDs) to go back to compare the new ones to.

Mike

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:12:32 -0400, Mr Soul wrote
(in article
):

I know that this topic has been covered a little already but I finally
got a couple of the re-mastered CDs (SPLHCB & the WA). I was
listening to SP the other morning and in the intro of the reprise, I
heard someone (probably Lennon) clearly say "bye" or "goodbye" in the
background. Now I've never heard that before and I'm wondering -
could it be the quality of the re-mastered CD or just a coincidental
thing on my part?

The new CDs do sound quite clear but they are somewhat dull sounding,
compared to modern day recordings. I also seem to notice vocal
distortion much more than I used to. Unfortunately, I don't have the
old LPs (or CDs) to go back to compare the new ones to.

Mike

Was that on the end of Sgt. Pepper?

IUf so, I've heard that on my original vinyl for years.

Good is on one track, Bye on the other.

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[gjsmo]

On Sep 17, 8:12*am, Mr Soul wrote:
I know that this topic has been covered a little already but I finally
got a couple of the re-mastered CDs (SPLHCB & the WA). *I was
listening to SP the other morning and in the intro of the reprise, I
heard someone (probably Lennon) clearly say "bye" or "goodbye" in the
background. *Now I've never heard that before and I'm wondering -
could it be the quality of the re-mastered CD or just a coincidental
thing on my part?

The new CDs do sound quite clear but they are somewhat dull sounding,
compared to modern day recordings. *I also seem to notice vocal
distortion much more than I used to. *Unfortunately, I don't have the
old LPs (or CDs) to go back to compare the new ones to.

Mike

I've heard it forever... I think it's supposed to be a "sign-off" to
the imaginary concert they're having.
Listen to the mono version - it's a lot clearer.

Just IMHO Sgt. Peppers is the best album they released.

[Mr Soul]

On Sep 17, 2:06*pm, Ty Ford wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:12:32 -0400, Mr Soul wrote
(in article
):

I know that this topic has been covered a little already but I finally
got a couple of the re-mastered CDs (SPLHCB & the WA). *I was
listening to SP the other morning and in the intro of the reprise, I
heard someone (probably Lennon) clearly say "bye" or "goodbye" in the
background. *Now I've never heard that before and I'm wondering -
could it be the quality of the re-mastered CD or just a coincidental
thing on my part?

The new CDs do sound quite clear but they are somewhat dull sounding,
compared to modern day recordings. *I also seem to notice vocal
distortion much more than I used to. *Unfortunately, I don't have the
old LPs (or CDs) to go back to compare the new ones to.

Mike

Was that on the end of Sgt. Pepper?
It was in the beginning of the Reprise when McCartney was counting it
down, which is at the end of the album. Yes - I am sure it has always
been there and probably audible but I am just wondering if the re-
mastering made it more audible or not.

Mike

[Nil]

On 18 Sep 2010, Mr Soul wrote in rec.audio.pro:

It was in the beginning of the Reprise when McCartney was counting
it down, which is at the end of the album. Yes - I am sure it has
always been there and probably audible but I am just wondering if
the re- mastering made it more audible or not.

"More audible" would be a subjective opinion, I'd say. It's always been
there, and I've always heard it clearly.

[Mr Soul]

Just IMHO Sgt. Peppers is the best album they released.
It is interesting for me to listen to the Beatles as an adult because
when I a kid they could do no wrong.

The thing I notice the most when listening to the Beatles is how dated
the recordings sound now, with the exception of Abbey Road, which was
of course using more modern equipment.

I still love & appreciate Sgt. Peppers for the ground that it broke,
but as far as a collection of songs, I think it would have fallen
short if Martin hadn't added his magic to it. Certainly, there are
some outstanding compositions on it (With a Little Help from My
Friends & others). Too bad they hadn't added Strawberry Fields (and
Penny Lane) like it was originally planned. Same goes with Abbey Road
- if Martin hadn't been able to pull it together, there wouldn't have
been much for the 2nd side but a bunch of unfinished songs.

Probably my favorite album is the White Album, just because I love
most of the songs on it. The band was totally disjoint when they did
this and there wasn't all this fany Martin produciton & sequencing -
just a bunch of great songs and reasonable performances put together
that showed the artist capabilities. I believe Lennon said it was his
favorite & I can see why.

I also like some of the earlier records as collections of good songs.

Just some of my ramblings.

Mike C

[david correia]

In article
,
Mr Soul wrote:

Just IMHO Sgt. Peppers is the best album they released.
It is interesting for me to listen to the Beatles as an adult because
when I a kid they could do no wrong.

The thing I notice the most when listening to the Beatles is how dated
the recordings sound now, with the exception of Abbey Road, which was
of course using more modern equipment.



Ya, it doesn't sound over-limited, depthless, dynamic-less & tinny ;




David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[[email protected]]

On Sep 18, 1:09*pm, Mr Soul wrote:

It was in the beginning of the Reprise when McCartney was counting it
down, which is at the end of the album. *Yes - I am sure it has always
been there and probably audible but I am just wondering if the re-
mastering made it more audible or not.

Mike

OK, a few observations from a specialist (expert?) on the Beatles
studio recordings (I've written about them in specialized collectors
magazines) with a background in audio engineering (although I now work
in TV):

1) Lennon's closing comment on Pepper, just before the Reprise (some
hear it as "by-ee") has always been there, but ONLY ON THE MONO MIX.
It is not on the stereo mix. As was often the case, the stereo and
mono mixes were done at separate times from the same mults, but
contain significant (to nitpickers like me) mixing differences. (The
mono Pepper is considered the official mix, while I prefer the
stereo.) Another huge example from the same album is She's Leaving
Home: It is varispeeded up on the mono to make the pitch of
McCartney's voice higher. This was not done on the stereo.

2) The original mults of the Beatles at EMI were extremely well-
recorded, with no noise reduction. They have stood up very well over
the years. Digital re-issues have used very little hiss-reduction.

3) The eight track equipment used on the latter White Album, Let It Be
and Abbey Road sessions was not markedly better that the top-notch
(and well maintained and operated) four track equipment of the earlier
sessions. Eight track was new to EMI at the time, and the unit was
still being tested and tweaked.

4) The digital reissues of the regular catalog offer nothing radical,
but to my trained ears have a broader frequency range and more depth
than any previous releases.

[geoff]

Mr Soul wrote:
Just IMHO Sgt. Peppers is the best album they released.
It is interesting for me to listen to the Beatles as an adult because
when I a kid they could do no wrong.

The thing I notice the most when listening to the Beatles is how dated
the recordings sound now, with the exception of Abbey Road, which was
of course using more modern equipment.

Maybe 'basic' would be a better description. I guess that's mainly because
there were technical limitations, like 4-track machines rather than infinite
tracks to play with....

geoff

[Mr Soul]

Maybe 'basic' would be a better description. *I guess that's mainly because
there were technical limitations, like 4-track machines rather than infinite
tracks to play with....
Geoff - the early ones were basic but the later ones were anything but
basic. What I mean is that Sgt. Pepper's sounds dated to me. I mean
it's still great but it just sounds dated.

Mike C.

[William Sommerwerck]

What I mean is that Sgt. Pepper's sounds dated to me.
I mean it's still great but it just sounds dated.

It has to sound dated. It's not multi-ch SACD. (I'm not joking.)

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

On 10/10/2010 7:06 PM, Mr Soul wrote:
Maybe 'basic' would be a better description. I guess that's mainly because
there were technical limitations, like 4-track machines rather than infinite
tracks to play with....
Geoff - the early ones were basic but the later ones were anything but
basic. What I mean is that Sgt. Pepper's sounds dated to me. I mean
it's still great but it just sounds dated.

Mike C.


OK, that said, you now need to
provide some definition of
"sounds dated."

Are you saying heard it before
or copied by others in that time
period but no longer used or... ?

And then, just what properties
are you talking about?

Seriously, the techniques may
have been state of the art back
then, but what does that mean?

Is it that the novelty has warn
off ...or something else?


Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Scott Dorsey]

Mr Soul wrote:
Geoff - the early ones were basic but the later ones were anything but
basic. What I mean is that Sgt. Pepper's sounds dated to me. I mean
it's still great but it just sounds dated.

This is fine. Sometimes sounding dated is okay.

It beats _Yellow Submarine_, which sounded dated until they went and
remixed everything in 5.1 in what I consider an unpleasant way... and
in another decade those remixes will sound dated.....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr Soul" wrote in message


Maybe 'basic' would be a better description. I guess
that's mainly because there were technical limitations,
like 4-track machines rather than infinite tracks to
play with....

Geoff - the early ones were basic but the later ones were
anything but basic. What I mean is that Sgt. Pepper's
sounds dated to me. I mean it's still great but it just
sounds dated.

Believe it or not, recording technology has audibly improved since 1967.

Here's your homework - listen to a complete discography of some a first-tier
artist (someone who recorded fairly consistently and whose audience always
warranted first rate technical treatment whatever that meant at the time)
from the late 1960s-early 1970s to the present. Eric Clapton comes to
mind. Maybe the Stones. Stevie Wonder, perhaps.

If your ears are any good at all, from then to now you'll hear a signifcant
even dramatic transformation of the sound quality. The audible quality
improvement transcends the concurrent changes in musical style and other
musicans.

That's technology changing and improving, right before your very ears. In
my hearing, the rate of improvement in sound quality slowed down a lot in
the 1980s. If you start in the 1950s, the improvement is even greater, but I
can't think of any single artist who was at the required professional level
that long. I think that much of what happened since the late 80s is that
good sound quality became far more pervasive and acessible.

[William Sommerwerck]

That's technology changing and improving, right before your
very ears. In my hearing, the rate of improvement in sound
quality slowed down a lot in the 1980s. If you start in the 1950s,
the improvement is even greater, but I can't think of any single
artist who was at the required professional level that long. I think
that much of what happened since the late 80s is that good
sound quality became far more pervasive and acessible.

Accessible, yes. Pervasive -- who knows? Just because digital recording can
be of extremely high quality, doesn't mean that what goes onto a CD is worth
preserving.

There's no doubt that classical sound quality has greatly improved since the
introduction of the SACD -- though cause and effect are difficult to
determine. As good as SACD is, I'm inclined to think that it finally forced
recording engineers to do what they should have done -- simplify the
recording chain -- with the introduction of the CD more than 20 years
earlier.

[Mr Soul]

Believe it or not, recording technology has audibly improved since 1967.
Right & I am just stating the obvious. I think the point I am trying
to make is that we don't benefit much for these re-mastering's because
the original recordings are just too dated. The original recordings
souded pretty good on vinyl but re-mastering them in the digital arena
hasn't helped much (IMO). That said - some of the re-done mixing/
mastering of the original songs did sound pretty good. For example,
on the Anthology II, I thought Penny Lane sounded really, really good.

I've said this before, but I'd like to hear Abbey Road, for example,
re-mixed in digital as they did with Let It Be Naked, i.e., moving the
tracks to digital & re-mixing/re-mastering. Any of the 8 track
recordings, I'd love to hear re-done.

As an aside, I just listened to Lennon's re-mixed version of Just Like
Starting Over and it sounds great! That track is free on iTunes,
although you have to do all this registering to get it.

Mike

[Mr Soul]

This is fine. *Sometimes sounding dated is okay.
That's exactly right but I never imagined myself feeling this way 40
years ago!!!

Mike C

[[email protected]]

I think the reissued Beatles stuff sounds surprisingly good (both the
4-track and 8-track). Yes, the recording techniques are dated, and EMI
was a pretty conservative company in recording terms. Two things to
keep in mind: 1) The Beatles themselves were a bit drugged at the
time, and 2) they were blazing a trail on many recording techniques,
being among the first if not the first to do them. So yes, the
recordings may sound dated in terms of technique. It was 1968 or so,
after all.

That having been said, I've heard a lot of 60s reissues where the
actual audio QUALITY is crappy. I give EMI credit for recording the
Beatles on good machines, good tape, at good levels, with judicious EQ
(and no NR!), keeping all generations of tape, and having it sound
good in terms of audio quality 42 years later.

[Bill Graham]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Mr Soul" wrote in message


Maybe 'basic' would be a better description. I guess
that's mainly because there were technical limitations,
like 4-track machines rather than infinite tracks to
play with....

Geoff - the early ones were basic but the later ones were
anything but basic. What I mean is that Sgt. Pepper's
sounds dated to me. I mean it's still great but it just
sounds dated.

Believe it or not, recording technology has audibly improved since 1967.

Here's your homework - listen to a complete discography of some a
first-tier artist (someone who recorded fairly consistently and whose
audience always warranted first rate technical treatment whatever that
meant at the time) from the late 1960s-early 1970s to the present. Eric
Clapton comes to mind. Maybe the Stones. Stevie Wonder, perhaps.

If your ears are any good at all, from then to now you'll hear a
signifcant even dramatic transformation of the sound quality. The audible
quality improvement transcends the concurrent changes in musical style and
other musicans.

That's technology changing and improving, right before your very ears. In
my hearing, the rate of improvement in sound quality slowed down a lot in
the 1980s. If you start in the 1950s, the improvement is even greater, but
I can't think of any single artist who was at the required professional
level that long. I think that much of what happened since the late 80s is
that good sound quality became far more pervasive and acessible.
Freddie Fender? - Perhaps Peter Nero, or Sergio Mendez.....