Album Reviews

Giles Martin’s “Pass the Salt and Pepper” Remix on CD

Michael Fremer  |  May 9, 2017

Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band 50th Anniversary Remix
The Beatles
 
Parlophone (box set)
Produced by: George Martin (Reissue producer Giles Martin)
Engineered by: Geoff Emerick
Mixed by: Giles Martin (Mix engineer Sam Okell)
Mastered by: Miles Showell and Sean Magee
 
MUSIC
SOUND
It all started as a misheard request for a condiment, Paul McCartney recollects in one of the introductions to the box's sumptuously produced book. During a flight back from America, the band's roadie Mal Evans asked Paul to "pass the salt and pepper", which he misheard as "Sergeant Pepper".

The deluxe box set arrived yesterday containing among other things, a gatefold LP jacket in which are four CDs as well as a DVD and a Blu-ray disc. The box represents packaging and musical completeness worthy of an epic album like Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. The vinyl is sold separately and is on its way.

It will take time to go through all of the previously unreleased outtakes and instrumentals on CDs two and three and the original mono mix plus bonus tracks on CD four, as well as the Blu-ray disc containing 5.1 channel remixes in DTS HD Master audio and Dolby Tru HD 5.1 plus 5.1 remixed bonus tracks “Strawberry Fields Forever” and “Penny Lane” (which George Martin said not including on Sgt. Pepper’s… was perhaps the greatest mistake of his Beatles producing career), as well as the 1080i video content— the 1992 documentary “The Making of Sgt. Pepper” and three promotional videos—as well as the hard-covered book. All of this, while interesting, pales in importance compared to the main event, which is the re-mix.

So let’s cover that now because getting to the rest will take some time. Please read the previous post about Giles Martin’s re-mix strategy. Last night I sat down to first listen to the re-mix on CD and then to an original UK stereo pressing (lacquer 1, mother 1, stampers 4 (side 1) and 13 (side 2).

Obviously CD isn’t my favorite format. I would have preferred hearing the 96/24 high-resolution file, but I have no idea how I’m supposed to get it off of the Blu-ray disc and onto my computer. I don’t have a Blu-ray audio disc (or DVD-audio disc) player. This is a real shame because for many it limits access to the files. The solution is probably to buy a Blu-ray drive and ripping software.

I was twenty years old the first time I heard this album—I bought it at E.J. Korvette’s in Douglaston, NY the day it was released (I remember it as if it was just the other day) so when The Beatles sang “it was twenty years ago today”, that seemed like the distant past, but not as long in that direction as hitting sixty four would be in the future for McCartney who wrote it when he was sixteen or for any teenager or twenty-something listening in 1967. Now that I’m past that age, well……I am digging a garden as I’ve been doing for decades and “mending some fuses” as an audio writer but hardly as McCartney pictured the sixty four year olds in the song—no doubt McCartney feels likewise as an almost seventy five year old still going strong on the concert stage.

What I thought I heard at the McIntosh Town House event is what I heard at home. The more times you’ve heard this album, especially in stereo, the more you will probably enjoy this re-mix.

I am not going to go track by track and describe the stereo/mono differences between the originals because the superbly produced book does that track-by-track. Martin had to decide whether to produce a new stereo mix that mirrored the original mono or keep the original stereo elements such as McCartney’s “missing” wails at the end of the “Sgt. Pepper’s…” reprise that can only be heard as an echo track. That of course was an example of a mixing a mistake not an esthetic choice. Many of the crossfades in stereo were not exactly elegant compared to the smoother monos. The stereo machines sounded different than the mono ones, different compressors were used for the stereo and mono mixes. All of this (and more) contributed to the easily heard differences between the two mixes. From the two “passes” I’ve so far made, it’s pretty clear that Martin’s goal was to produce a stereo mix that more closely mirrors the original mono including purposeful speed changes and vocal effects requested by The Beatles that are on the original mono but not the original stereo.

While stereo by 1967 had been around for almost a decade, for most young listeners the novelty was still fresh of hearing different “things” in the left and right channels as well as in the “phantom center channel”. However, the passing of time as in fifty year’s worth, makes clear that the original stereo mix was a disjointed, messy affair, in which “globs” of pre-mixes intended to be folded down to mono were almost haphazardly placed hard-left, hard-right and center because the mixers’ choices were so limited.

The vocal pans across the soundstage, while novel and “fun” in 1967 (especially listening for the first time stoned through Koss Pro 4A headphones) was not what The Beatles themselves had ordered or probably wanted—not that back then they paid attention to the stereo mix.

This new mix is not a “re-imagined” Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. Rather it’s a clarified and far more orderly and coherent mix, with a more natural stereo spread that’s not as wide and disjointed as was the original. Vocals are centered where they would have been had it been possible back then to put them there. The holes have been plugged. The “clusters” have been more effectively woven into a seamless whole. The bottom end is somewhat more powerful and McCartney’s bass lines made more prominent but thankfully not to the point of distraction as they were on the 2009 CD (and FLAC 24 bit Flash Drive) and 2012 vinyl box sets. In fact, the bottom end, at least here, is ideal.

One thing Martin did not do is sledgehammer dynamics. I put the tracks up on Audacity and there were no “flat tops” but that was just to confirm the audibly wide dynamics.

As I described the other day, Martin was able to go back and use the original multi-track pre-mixdown elements rather than just mixing from the final four track pre-mix, thus saving at least one and possible more generations. So take for example, “When I’m Sixty Four”. First, this is a track that McCartney requested be sped up a half-tone to make him sound younger and the track more “chipper”. The stereo mixers probably were unaware because they didn’t do it on the original. Martin did it on the remix.

I promise you’ve never heard the clarinet trio on this track sound this tonally or texturally correct nor the tubular bells sound so properly metallic and “chimey” whether in mono or stereo. The more times you’ve played this record over the years the more you’ll be impressed by how things sound fundamentally the same, yet when they do sound different it’s almost always for the better.

The mono mix on vinyl has always sounded somewhat brighter and harder than the stereo mix and that’s also true here. Did Martin purposely EQ it that way? I don’t know. After listening to the CD re-mix, the original stereo record sounds softer—almost too soft— though at the same time more “relaxed” and spacious, especially in terms of stage width and depth. The re-mix’s upper midrange can be hard at times and the “She’s Leaving Home” strings on the original stereo vinyl kill the CD re-mix strings, which are somewhat harsh-sounding and lacking in bottom end weight but overall and by a wide margin I preferred the new digital stereo mix just because it’s a much better mix that still manages to remain true to the original’s spirit and to the intentions of the album’s creators.

Hope to have vinyl and 96/24 review posted ASAP as well as more in-depth coverage of the other discs and the book and box as a whole. The book includes a track-by-track recording history. Perhaps this line from the “With a Little Help From My Friends” page helps explain why the mono mix has always sounded more seamless and better constructed: “The next day, fifteen versions of a mono mix were made until all were happy with the final one. The amount of ADT (automatic double tracking—an Abbey Road developed technique to produce vocal doubling) added to Ringo’s vocal for the mono version was reduced when the stereo mix was completed after three attempts on 7 April.”

COMMENTS
Steelhead's picture
Submitted by Steelhead on Tue, 2017-05-09 15:02

I was a hick teen in upstate NY when this amazing album hit. After first listen we sat around and just were floored. Still remember the impact and buzz this album made and how it spread like wildfire. Wow, still holds up for me and enjoyed the pro 4a reference as that was my first set of headphones.

I know you and an original engineer slagged the mofi uhqr of pepper but I adore it and it is my go to. Perhaps because warm, dark, and the more tubes the better is my ballpark and maybe the smile eq makes for the perfect recipe? I also have the mono boxset and blue box pepper. Like both of them but the uhqr is the one I always spin.

I pre-ordered this album of course and really looking forward to it. I bought the cd of Love and enjoy the hell out of it. My brother hates it and made me take it off when he visited as he compared it to someone gashing the mona lisa. I liked the mash up and so it goes. Thought Mr. Martin did a fine job on it. Made peace by throwing the blue box Revolver on and everything was fine

Thank you for the review Mr. Fremer. This one I will be waiting at the mail box for.

thomoz's picture
Submitted by thomoz on Mon, 2017-05-15 06:26

Steelhead:

I have listened to
the UK HTM cut (tube cut) stereo (earliest press)
the UK HTM cut (solid state) stereo
The German "dull color " Apple (earlier press) -AND THE CLEAR WINNER
The AR series JPN (earliest press)
The MFSL
The MFSL UHQR
The black/silver Parlophone Holland 1978
- and if you ever hear that early Apple German (and not the later one w/ the contrast-y bright green label) you will be utterly blown away.

There is a misguided midrange boost on the "HTM UK tube cut" stereo done in an attempt to pull out Ringo's vocal on WALHFMF and it just makes the track sound bad.

Steelhead's picture
Submitted by Steelhead on Mon, 2017-05-15 10:26

I certainly do not have the depth and experience of your listening to Pepper. I also do not discount your preference as I have found certain reissues not to sound as lively (frankly as good) as some of my older beat copies of different albums. I also bought a German press Apple white album in 1972/1973 while stationed in Germany and it easily stood out as sounding special. Many comments from listeners on how nice it sounded. The vinyl has not stood up and it has some nasty pops and ticks but I have probably spun it close to 100 times. Hell, I even have probably heard number 9 around 50 times. I bonded with the UHQR and on my system it just sounds great to me so it is my go to. I am looking forward to the Giles Martin reissue on vinyl though as it is time to see if the UHQR stays in the sleeve. Happy Listening!

J. Carter's picture
Submitted by J. Carter on Mon, 2017-05-15 14:28

The MFSL is the favorite of the ones I own as well (for stereo). Granted I only have the MFSL, BC13 Box version and 2009 reissue.

2_channel_ears's picture
Submitted by 2_channel_ears on Tue, 2017-05-09 18:59

How does Lennon's voice sound on LSD? On the remastered stereo it is horrible, sounds sped up and nasally and not clear vs the mono LP reissue of a few years ago.

jasonv's picture
Submitted by jasonv on Tue, 2017-05-09 19:00

hooked up via HDMI to a compatible receiver will playback the 5.1 DTS-HD MA and TrueHD soundtracks. Wasn't sure if you were implying you needed a special "Blu-ray audio player." Dying to know how this sounds.

PAR's picture
Submitted by PAR on Wed, 2017-05-10 01:59

..but I think that Michael is referring to the 24/96 PCM version that is also held on the Blueray disc. I have had to think similar thoughts and to hear it I would need a USB Blueray drive plus special ripping software. Checking the(UK) prices this would cost me 110 gbp for the box set, around 70 gbp for the drive and $39 for the ripping software. So call it 200 quid to hear one album.

I thought a bit more, realised that I already own 5 different versions of Sgt. Pepper, wondered whether I really need another of dubious artistic merit (it not being echt Beatles - that being solely the original mono vinyl disc) and threw in the towel.

imthewalrus79's picture
Submitted by imthewalrus79 on Wed, 2017-05-10 21:07

For the Blu Ray, if you have a Blu Ray player hooked up to a home theater receiver via an HDMI cable, that's all you'll need to hear the high resolution mixes from the Blu Ray disc. Obviously, you would need to have a surround speaker set up from that receiver to properly hear the surround mix. Even if you don't have the Blu Ray player hooked up via HDMI, but have the audio hooked up for surround via a digital optical cable, you'll still be able to listen to the surround mix. The only difference is that you won't get the full resolution (Dolby TrueHD or DTSHD) but the slightly lower resolution core (plain Dolby Digital or DTS).

As for the DVD, having not seen the disc yet, I cannot comment on if they made it a DVD-Audio disc, which would need a specialized DVD-Audio player to play back the higher resolution audio mix. But again, as long as you have your DVD player hooked up for sound to your receiver's digital optical input, the disc should be set up for you to listen to a slightly lower resolution version of the music. That said, considering that the DVD-Audio format is pretty much dead, I would think this is just a standard DVD with a primary focus on the audio.

Either way, as long as you have the DVD/Blu Ray player and a proper home theater setup, you shouldn't need to buy anything extra to enjoy listening to the music on these discs vs buying any other DVD or Blu Ray disc.

PAR's picture
Submitted by PAR on Thu, 2017-05-11 02:29

...I think both Michael and I concerned about how we get to hear the stereo PCM 24/96 version through our main stereo audio systems not via a home theatre setup (which I don't have in any case even if I do have an old blueray player/recorder - no way of connecting it to the stereo).

vinyl listener's picture
Submitted by vinyl listener on Thu, 2017-05-11 16:15

... hook up as per any other line level component.
better yet invest in a cambridge audio or oppo universal disc player which will handle all these non-redbook digital formats.
:)

StonedBeatles's picture
Submitted by StonedBeatles on Tue, 2017-05-09 19:04

Bloody Wanker Piece of Shite Giles Martin..

Michael Fremer's picture
Submitted by Michael Fremer on Wed, 2017-05-10 08:40
Not sure from where your anger stems but it's not from anything Giles Martin has ever done. This remix was done with input from Paul and Ringo plus Yoko and Harrisons. The original stereo mix was the "wanker mix" actually.
StonedBeatles's picture
Submitted by StonedBeatles on Wed, 2017-05-10 15:28

Why change what is still an amazing picture of a 1967 stereo studio creation? Do you really think Macca cares about a a remix or is it how much thicker he can pad his bank account?
Next Beethoven will come back to rewrite his 5th and 9th symphony's.

VictorV's picture
Submitted by VictorV on Thu, 2017-05-11 09:53

All the time went into the mono mix.

MrRom92's picture
Submitted by MrRom92 on Wed, 2017-05-10 04:42

When the big day hits, I'll be listening to my UK mono 1st press. I believe that will always be the reference, the "go-to" (my McIntosh power amp is also from 1967 so it will be that much more period-authentic!)

That said, I'll be listening to the 24/96 remix immediately after. And then maybe repeatedly through headphones. This is my favorite album of all time, so I'm really excited to hear what Martin & co. have done with it. I have no doubts that it will top the original stereo mix. While entirely possible, I don't expect them to surpass or improve on the mono mix but if they can approach it and create something that better resembles it then they've succeeded IMO.

MrRom92's picture
Submitted by MrRom92 on Wed, 2017-05-10 04:46

PC blu ray drives are cheap and there is freeware software out there for extracting audio from your blu rays- I used this to great effect with the 1+ blu ray set, as that had all the new remixes specific to that set In 24/96 as well - LG makes the best drives on the market right now, ideally go for something like the BE16NU50. Very reliable, great build quality and feature heavy.

Michael Fremer's picture
Submitted by Michael Fremer on Wed, 2017-05-10 08:41
You will like it... it's the mono mix in stereo...
Jack Gilvey's picture
Submitted by Jack Gilvey on Wed, 2017-05-10 05:02

as well as the 5.1 mixes. Not afraid to hear it new ways. Bring it on!

firedog's picture
Submitted by firedog on Wed, 2017-05-10 09:25

Any inexpesive external disc drive can read DVD discs. Then you just need DVD audio extractor. 30 day trial available. Newer versions also work on BlueRay.

soundman45's picture
Submitted by soundman45 on Wed, 2017-05-10 11:41

After hearing the first two preview tracks of the remixed Sgt. Pepper I actually hear more compression in the new mix than the original stereo mix. Although the instrument balance is fine I have always looked at the sfx mix in the stereo as the better version. In the mono what always bothered me was that you can actually hear the starting up of the tape machine in a couple spots. It was probably intentional but to me it sounds like a mistake. Lame.

saronian's picture
Submitted by saronian on Thu, 2017-05-11 10:38

Summer '67 KRLA radio phone in battle between "A Day In The Life" vs. "Good Vibrations." Tough choice, I believe The Beatles just edged out The Beach Boys.

fritzg's picture
Submitted by fritzg on Tue, 2017-05-23 20:20

Any comment, Michael, on the above versions?

thomoz's picture
Submitted by thomoz on Fri, 2017-05-26 05:16

Except for some low level grunge on the lead out of side 2, these pressings are dead silent. I may still be able to "cavitate" the noise out later.

I'm generally enjoying the stereo remix. It's nice to hear them on LP without the peak limiting that is on all the digital incarnations. Some of the effects from the mono are still missing (ADT on a sitar, a wobbly-pitch John vocal tag, etc) but it's fun - and the vocals sound ridiculously better on these mixes.

***For anyone who wants to know: the chicken cluck that starts the Pepper reprise is the length of the stereo - a mixing decision I heartily agree with.

I won't get to head the 6-disc version until tomorrow.

I may actually quit playing my German Apple after all.

Jenn's picture
Submitted by Jenn on Fri, 2017-05-26 23:19

...I like it a lot. The holes are plugged. The bass on all of the instruments is, for me, just right. The voices are FAR better than they are on any of the versions that I've heard. Tomorrow I'll compare to the mono and stereo versions from the box sets, two of the CD releases, and an original stereo release that is in less than perfect condition. So far, I really like it.

firedog's picture
Submitted by firedog on Sat, 2017-05-27 01:18

The CD and hi-res have a bit too much volume compression. Not ruined, but would sound better with a bit less. I sort of get it for the CD, but why with the hi-res? Can the hi-res be left with less compression - a more audiophile sound?
I guess for digital I can rip the vinyl and listen to that...

Lemon Curry's picture
Submitted by Lemon Curry on Sat, 2017-05-27 08:54

DR numbers are out. The remix gets DR8, the included original mono a DR9. The 2014 mono vinyl was DR11.

No word yet on the remix vinyl, but I've played it and MAYBE it's slightly better than the digital.

This relentlessly loud mix has clear pumping going on regarding vocals, cymbals, etc. I was unprepared for such an assault. My mono doesnt sound like this, or even begin to sound like this.

And how could they compress his dad's version? Unlistensble.

Michael, to my ears this is a disaster, truly.Sure you can hear lots of easter eggs now, but I wanted to crank this from the mountaintop. What we got was an FM radio mix.

Ironically, the stuff he left alone, like the outtakes, sound wonderful at DR11.

This box needs saving. A new CD and vinyl need to be reissued to make things right. 'Cuz I'm just not interested in the experience of listening to it that much.

Sangox8's picture
Submitted by Sangox8 on Sun, 2017-05-28 11:36

Music Direct offers a double LP vinyl version of the 50th Anniversary Sargent Pepper, remastered by Giles Martin? Mikey, any chance it will get a review or opinion?

hi-fivinyljunkie's picture
Submitted by hi-fivinyljunkie on Mon, 2017-05-29 07:08

The vinyl version is also a loud mastering. It's very hard sounding and in your face. While some hidden details are revealed this just doesn't breath and has brick wall written all over it. To my ears and many others on the Hoffman Forum this is vastly inferior to the original stereo sound. I understand the CD sounds even worse. So I am questioning how this gets a 10 for sound?

dobyblue's picture
Submitted by dobyblue on Mon, 2017-05-29 08:19

The only difference between the vinyl and Blu-ray stereo 24/96 is "very light" limiting according to Miles Showell. He also stated that the listening Michael was a part of, was the unlimited 24/96 files. The limiting results in no more than 0.5dB difference though, Miles is correct, it is "very light" limiting although it's peculiar that they didn't use the unlimited version on the Blu-ray (erm, "high resolution" should be the best mastering possible) and just put the limiting on the CD but less than 0.5dB is likely inaudible...the vinyl and digital all have dynamic range compression applied in the mastering before the limiting was done and while the vinyl rip to the DR database shows 2dB higher, we know the TT meter is very inaccurate for vinyl and it's likely the same DR8 we're seeing on the Blu-ray (maybe DR9 if you could measure the original digital filed Miles used if the tiny difference resulted in a rounding change)

The 5.1 seems to fare a little better, the DR score for the front L/R channels only in Lovely Rita is 2dB better than the 24/96 stereo files.

While it's not "sledgehammer" slammed like something coming out of Vlado Meller or Ted Jensen's studio, it's still not fully dynamic. Still, Ian Shepherd does allow DR8 entries as the absolute minimum DR score to be considered into Dynamic Range Day awards so this is loud but not so loud that it prevents enjoyment on better stereo rigs, and the 5.1 mix in particular sounds remarkably clear.

One peculiarity is the outtakes on Disc 2 and 3 in the super deluxe are mastered differently to the 2CD sets' second disc, in almost all cases with less dynamic range oompression but in a couple of cases the 2CD set has the more dynamic mastering.

azmoon's picture
Submitted by azmoon on Wed, 2017-05-31 15:07

a missed opportunity. Giles made some really bad choices. Too much bass and drums for one thing. Changing George's vocals on Within You is another. This is nothing but a novelty item.

Jeff Turk's picture
Submitted by Jeff Turk on Thu, 2017-06-01 07:24

I finally had the opportunity to hear the remix last night and listened again today. I ripped it to iTunes (apple lossless). I heard improved clarity even through my shitty Mac speaker - compressed from the original CD which is also compressed.

I tell you this because I think it is interesting to consider why the Beatles chose to focus on Mono, and give little regard to Stereo. Mono was the compressed file of it's time. It was the streaming service. It was the low-fi format that EVERYONE used. They embraced the fact that most people were going to listen to their music on a less than audiophile quality equipment, and they played to that.

What I found listening to the remix on my low-fi compressed files is more clarity with the vocals and certainly more detail. YES - I heard more detail with apple lossless being pumped through my stock Toyota car stereo. And as far as the actual "stereo" part of it, I found it to sound much more natural than the original George Martin stereo. I always felt, no matter if I was listening on cheap or expensive equipment, the stereo often sounded like it was there for the stereo effects state. A little forced. And obviously, there was a fair amount of detail missing.

So with regard to some of the hand wringing going on here, I believe Giles Martin did EXACTLY what the intent of the Beatles would have been: create a recording that conveys their musical ideas to the best of their ability to the MASSES. That doesn't mean to concede - but to embrace and enhance the reality of the situation.

For us audiophiles, if we really want to experience the TRUE sound of what the Beatles intended, I believe that would have to be done with either the new MONO vinyl masters or first generations of those records on high end mono equipment. Look at it this way - at least they threw the audiophile community a bone with that release.

For a stereo version, this remix will be my go-to. And I hope they continue this trend with the rest of the catalog.

Lincoln Matt's picture
Submitted by Lincoln Matt on Mon, 2017-06-05 06:10

My record store finally got the LP back in stock on Friday and I finally had a chance to listen last night.

I listened to the Tidal version at a friend's place last week and felt that there were some differences that didn't always work. However, when I listened to the LP last night it was almost everything that I could have asked for. A more coherent presentation than the old stereo and very fresh and dynamic vocals. And DEAD QUIET surfaces. Were all the LPs pressed in Europe for the US market?

There might have been a bit of accentuated bass and drums on a few tracks, but it wasn't something that I found objectionable. Of course I have never heard the proper LP Mono mix, so I can't say I have experienced the definitive version. I guess I will have to search that out.

bill lettang's picture
Submitted by bill lettang on Mon, 2017-06-12 08:11

In a nutshell, the mono mix is superior in that it FOCUSES on parts the band wanted you to NOTICE, not because there are so many things TO HEAR as on this stereo remix. End of story for me on this one mates....

bill lettang's picture
Submitted by bill lettang on Sun, 2017-07-02 20:01

Hello Michael, First let me say I enjoy your reviews and knowledge on sound recordings but am a little baffled when you say Pepper is not re-imagined. There are 2 songs that I know of that have swapped parts (Getting Better bass lines and Within You, Without You, Indian instrument parts). What exactly then qualifies as a re-imagining?

X