but I feel I jumped in in the middle. Anyway, love the vinyl as well!
Of Course You Should Buy This on Vinyl!
"Why buy vinyl cut from a file when you can buy the file itself?". That's easy! If you've worked to get your analog front end to sound glorious, magical and the way you want your records to sound and it sounds better to you than your unyielding, unadjustable digital box, you might have the answer.
This doesn't make sense to digital devotees but then to most of them neither does playing records period ! This is not to suggest that the vinyl version of a file will always sound better but depending upon your analog and digital front ends, it most often might. Let's say the D/A converter in the recording studio is superior to the one you have at home, which depending upon what you've got at home, is quite possible. And let's say the lacquer cutting engineer has applied some equalization that he likes and thinks you will too. That's another reason it might sound better (or worse) than the file. You have to take this on a case by case basis.
In this case I think Miles Showell has done an excellent 1/2 speed cutting job and on my turntable in my system I prefer the vinyl to the file played back through a very good digital front end and that's all there is to that. I especially prefer the string sheen and the overall smoothness with detail minus the digital "glare".
In addition, the packaging is very well done and the second record is the complete album in "sessions", which is a very attractive way to present it. In other words it mirrors the album track order but gives you various incomplete elements with detailed annotation for each (this is also on the deluxe CD set that also gives you various takes of "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Penny Lane", not included here).
For instance "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" mixes elements contained on the four tracks of take 9, recorded in two sessions, the 1st and 2nd of February 1967 (so long ago). Drums and electric guitars on one track, Paul overdubbing bass on another. Paul's lead vocal and John's and George's harmonies were recorded during the next session and that's all you get here before the audience, sound effects and French horns were added to complete the song.
When you get to "She's Leaving Home", recorded March 17th, 1967, you'll know whether buying the vinyl was a good idea. The track is take one (of six tries, four of which were complete) of just the lovely string arrangement plus harp written by Mike Leander who got the assignment because George Martin simply lacked the time. Was George upset that he didn't get to write it? Yes he was. You can read the quote in the annotation.
The arrangement was for four violins, two violas, two cellos, double bass and harp with Paul adding his vocals on March 20th. The mono mix was accomplished that evening with the tape recorder sped up to produce a semi-tone pitch shift from E to F. The tape was not sped up for the stereo mix, produced April 17th and that's the speed of the version here that you can dare to sing along with.
When I compare the strings and harp on the vinyl version with the CD version (this is not available on the DVD's high resolution 96/24 file), no contest! But I find that's also true of the actual final song itself when I compared the 96/24 file and the vinyl. Your experience may be different but overall when I want to hear this excellent remix I'll break out the record, which is well-pressed and well-presented in the gatefold LP, which does not have a bar code (thank you)!
 | ||
|
||
- Log in or register to post comments
COMMENTS
Where was it pressed?
Submitted by bkinthebk on Tue, 2017-08-29 20:58
Thanks for this review. I've been balking at the vinyl, but this may sway me. Do you know where it was pressed?
The vinyl is likely the best
Submitted by hi-fivinyljunkie on Wed, 2017-08-30 03:37
The vinyl is likely the best way of hearing this but I find this new mix a pretty awful listen. Added compression and in your face presentation while losing the psychedelic feel of the original. The second disc of outtakes sounds a lot better.
I love audacity
Submitted by Martin on Thu, 2017-08-31 00:16
It lays bare what the mastering engineer has done.
You see exactly how he has mastered the music - and how much respect he has.
I am guessing the digital of Sgt. Peppers looks great. I'll have to download it from HD Tracks or wherever. That I will certainly do. It's a truly great record and I don't have a good digital version. This is it.
Audacity is good for other things.
The Rolling Stones "Blue and Lonesome" run through Audacity elicits pure rage. At a certain mastering engineer: Stephen Marcussen. Marcussen Mastering in Hollywood.
Blue and Lonesome, every track looks like a sausage. Every track clips, the whole way through. The dynamic range of the album, average is 6 or 7. One track in there is a 5.
It needs to be said, as often as possible, there is mastering, and there is butchery.
Sgt. Peppers, the 96/24 Led Zepp reissues, is mastering.
Blue and Lonesome, and most of what I have heard done by Marcussen mastering, is butchery.
Same DAC and ADC?
Submitted by abelb1 on Wed, 2017-08-30 04:31
I wonder if there's an advantage to having the vinyl cut using the same DAC / ADC on which it was digitized in the first place (assuming it's the same device)?
Thumbs Up
Submitted by Lincoln Matt on Wed, 2017-08-30 07:09
I picked the LP up the second week it was out as my store ran out immediately. I have listened to it several times myself and have played it for several friends. We have all been amazed at the increased clarity - it doesn't sound 50 years old.
I don't notice an increase in compression, but it could be that the reduction in the all right-all left stereo spread by a much more natural presentation is more pleasing and that negates noticing other issues. Those may become apparent after more listenings, but for now I would listen to this over any other version.
I also bought the deluxe box and am still listening to the extras. I did listen to the surround mix and was totally unimpressed. Of course my center and surround speakers don't hold a candle to my main Apogee Stages.
Someone asked where it was pressed. I'm not sure of the exact plant, but it does say pressed in the EU. So it must be one source for the world market - or at lease Europe and North America.
Not convinced
Submitted by Martin on Wed, 2017-08-30 08:30
And I won't be getting this one.
Just not a fan of digital. Quite frankly, it lacks the emotional involvement and has you going off to do other stuff.
96/24 is perfectly playable, but I have yet to hear a 96/24 reissue that sounded as good, let alone better than the analogue reissue. To my ears, anyway. And I'm including the Stones DSD stuff here.
This whole digital pressed to vinyl is all very well, but I'm not convinced. I like high resolution digital as much as anyone. But for classic Beatles and Stones, I reach for the recent analog mono box reissue set and the original 60's Deccas and 70's Atlantic.
Also, compare the Blue Note 75 years anniversary series done by Don Was at 96/24 vs. the same titles reissued by Music Matters all analogue. The Music Matters reissues render the 75th anniversary 96/24 digital Don Was reissues unplayable. Extra plastic taking up shelf space. Plastic with digits in the grooves that will never get played.
My Feeling...
Submitted by Michael Fremer on Wed, 2017-08-30 10:44
Is that the better mix and far superior clarity and transparency offered by using first generation tape elements far outweighs the 96/24 transfer issues....
The Don Was Reissues
Submitted by Michael Fremer on Wed, 2017-08-30 10:45
Well most of those were done by Alan Yoshida and Bernie Grundman but the plating and pressing was mostly done at United and those are seriously lacking....
re Blue Notes
Submitted by daveming3 on Wed, 2017-10-04 11:41
The Music Matters are mesmerizing! This the kind of loving treatment that all great music deserves!
However, to compare those with the 75th anniversary issues is to miss Don Was' intent for this project, which is of course to get the music onto people's turntables for under $20.
I've purchased a few of the 75th anniversary issues (because I want to hear the music and I have neither the time nor the $$ to hunt down originals). Sure, the pressings are more noisy than the black-as-night Music Matters issues, but the music itself translates very well - very enjoyable.
Thank you, Don Was - mission accomplished!
And I meant...
Submitted by Martin on Wed, 2017-08-30 08:31
better than the original analogue issue.....
CD vs Vinyl
Submitted by jokerman on Wed, 2017-08-30 08:31
I was dumbfounded as to why the hi-res files of the remastered Led Zep albums sounded far less than the vinyl and became convinced that they were purposely degraded to keep public from owning them. The truth is that it appears that you have to own a VERY expensive digital player to get the playback digitally whereas that sound can be gotten at a lower price through a good TT.
dead on opening statement.
Submitted by Analog Scott on Wed, 2017-08-30 22:02
""Why buy vinyl cut from a file when you can buy the file itself?". That's easy! If you've worked to get your analog front end to sound glorious, magical and the way you want your records to sound and it sounds better to you than your unyielding, unadjustable digital box, you might have the answer." Yes!!!!! That is exactly why. That and the fact that one often still gets better mastering on LPs cut from digital files than what is available commercially in a digital format.
Martin: get the vinyl
Submitted by thomoz on Thu, 2017-08-31 04:04
***All*** the digital versions of this release are squashed in the mastering, including the HD.
Only the vinyl was released "directly off the mix" without this additional overdone compression.
The vinyl breathes, the digital versions ALL screech!
vs. last Mono reissue?
Submitted by stephsrecords on Fri, 2017-09-01 09:17
I have the UK Blue Box, Recent US Stereo and Mono reissue boxes as well as the US early reissue. Should I get this one too on sonics alone? or for the sessions material?
thanks
Hate to be a party pooper
Submitted by Eskisi on Tue, 2017-09-05 19:59
But..."vinyl cut from digital sounding better than original digital" sounds more like "alternative facts."
So.....
Submitted by Michael Fremer on Thu, 2017-09-14 12:56
Use a tube mike and a solid state mike to record. One has lower noise, less distortion and flatter response but the tube mike sounds better. Which do you use? The smart producer/engineer uses the one that sounds better. Totally subjective. If the vinyl sounds better that's what counts.
Of watches and turntables
Submitted by Toptip on Thu, 2017-09-14 05:09
When people used to bemoan the state of hifi sales they often likened it, with some envy, to the resurgence and prices of mechanical watches. But I have never heard an "analog" watchmaker claim that it keeps better time than a digital watch. Or, for that matter, the owner of a classic Ferrari that it can out-brake a modern Lexus. It is only in hifi that nostalgic, retro or hipster pursuits come with a requirement that they be superior to current technology. Play your records if you like, if mistracking doesn't bother you, no need to claim "it makes hi-rez sound better."
|
Equipment Reviews | |
The Gruvy Awards | |
Blogs Analog Tips | Columns Music | |
Show Reports | |
News Resources |
© 2024 AnalogPlanetAVTech Media Americas Inc.
All rights reserved