Beatles - Now and Then

[pma]

It is a shame what they did with that, speaking about sound mastering.

 

[JSmith]

Beatles

Some of it could be the recordings themselves. However the vast majority is just the band. They had a few songs i could appreciate. But the majority of their stuff just gives me a headache. I may be in the minority here, but i try to avoid their music whenever possible. It always fascinated me...

audiosciencereview.com

New Beatles Song!

I thought I'd link the new Beatles song, which came out today: it's pretty good!

www.audiosciencereview.com

JSmith

 

[dasdoing]

The 'last' Beatles song is a marvel of audio restoration - but did it really need to be so LOUD ? - Production Advice

I made a deal with myself, in the years after my blog posts about the loudness of Metallica's "Death Magnetic" went viral. (They ended up being reported in

productionadvice.co.uk

 

[dasdoing]

is there a way to download the Atmos version so one can extract stems and create a more dynamic stereo version?

 

[DanielT]

I stand by my position as I wrote yesterday:

The song itself is ok but nothing more I think. Typical John Lennon feeling in it.

The sound quality is criticized on other forums. Well, so be it, but maybe it was needed to get the song together?
For those who are interested, there is data on this here:

faktiskt.io • Visa tråd - The Beatles - Now and Then (2023)

Edit:
I don't really care about the sound quality, ie the compressed recording. The song itself is of course the thing in this case.

What are we listening to right now..

Jean Martinon, ORTF - Saint-Saens - Les 5 Symphonies (1975) CD x2, Angel Records 1989, France DR Peak RMS Duration Track -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DR13 -3.26 dB -21.63 dB 7:22 01-Symphony in A Major - i...

audiosciencereview.com

The graphs in the thread https://www.faktiskt.io/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=74397

:

 

[MrSoul4470]

I listened to it today and was shocked: Peak to loudness ratio is about 5dB (at least that's what my TC-Electronic Clarity M told me). One of the worst I've ever seen. Then today I read that Jeff Lynne was involved in the production. So that is not really a surprise then. Hyper-Compression is just so typical for Jeff Lynne. Great musician, unfortunately he appears to be deaf.

Also listened to "Love me do" which was surprisingly greatly done (especially after listening to "Now and then").

 

[Joe Smith]

Yeah, that's a disappointment for sure. It does feel thick, congested in the stereo mix. I was thinking about buying one of the various vinyl options, but I won't be doing that.
The video debuts today, I'll enjoy seeing that at least. It's a shame they could not make the stereo mix more dynamic.

 

[MrSoul4470]

Yes, a bit disappointing. I just kept reducing the volume throughout the song, because it just hurt in my ears. The first time I listened to it, I thought it was complete crap and boring. After listening to it again I started to kind-of like it. Of course it's not another "Yesterday" or something, but it has a nice and simple melody and it's actually not that bad and John's voice is surprisingly clear though rough.

 

[DanielT]

Yes, in terms of sound, it's a sad compressed sausage BUT better that than no song at all.

 

[holdingpants01]

If anyone is wondering it sounds better in stereo, in Atmos it's as compressed but also somehow empty sounding, at least in stereo the bass guitar is easier to hear, it's buried in the center channel in Atmos version

 

[KaNuckles1]

Here is the atmos version dowmixed to stereo

 

[dasdoing]

now I listened to it, not anywhere near my style of music, but the mix is good (given the material). But the chorus could sure stand out a little more (louder), but I don't think this is beatles style when doing so

 

[dasdoing]

Youtube brought it down 4,5dB only, so it seams Youtube version is a little more dynamic than digital CD

EDIT: the video version seams to be targeting 14LUFS

 

[DVDdoug]

It doesn't really excite me but I'll probably download the MP3 just to keep my mostly-complete Beatles collection mostly-complete. It won't go into my "favorites playlist".

I'm NOT a HUGE fan but I think they made some really good music and I have all of their albums and music that was originally released as singles. I don't have their Christmas releases of any demos or any of that obscure stuff.

I don't have any complaints about the quality of those 1960s analog recordings... Analog studio equipment was always WAY better than the analog home formats. And The Beatles weren't "winning" the early-analog loudness wars. (I did read that Paul McCartney complained that the EMI releases didn't have as much bass as American records.)

I'm just-slightly too young to have been a fan when they were popular and my big sister was a Beatles fan, and you can't like the same music as your big sister!!!

A saw a Beatles tribute band, probably a decade ago, and I REALLY enjoyed it. And I remember thinking, "The Beatles probably never sounded this good". The PA systems weren't as good, and wedge monitors hadn't been invented yet so they couldn't hear themselves properly.

Speaking of tribute bands - The Fab Four made a "Beatles" Christmas album called Hark! which I'd classify as "fun!". And if you like that kind of thing and you like classic rock, check out December People.

Youtube brought it down 4,5dB only, so it seams Youtube version is a little more dynamic than digital CD...

...EDIT: the video version seams to be targeting 14LUFS

All of the popular streaming services use loudness normalization so you don't get big loudness swings with different songs. It's just a volume adjustment before the song starts (like ReplayGain or Apple Loudness Check). It doesn't fix the dynamics. The compression used in broadcast radio (which also evens-out the volume) makes the problem WORSE!

I keep reading that loudness normalization is ending (or has ended) the loudness wars because you can no longer "win". There may be some truth to that but I haven't seen it (with the few new recordings I've purchased).

P.S.
Even more off-topic... I used to read Stereo Review magazine. All of the audiophiles in those days listened to classical music.

Anyway... They were reviewing a high-power amplifier and discussing the need for headroom. They tried the amp with The Beatles Helter Skelter and they concluded that you didn't need a high-power amplifier with this kind of constantly-loud music. The funny thing was that they described Helter Skelter as "typical" of The Beatles (and maybe typical or rock) which was crazy! The Beatles made a wide variety of music and I'd say Helter Skelter is an outlier! Awhile back somebody said, "I don't like The Beatles". I said, How could you NOT like SOME Beatles music since they had such a variety of styles.

 

[dasdoing]

All of the popular streaming services use loudness normalization so you don't get big loudness swings with different songs. It's just a volume adjustment before the song starts (like ReplayGain or Apple Loudness Check). It doesn't fix the dynamics. The compression used in broadcast radio (which also evens-out the volume) makes the problem WORSE!

that's not what I said.

you can see how much things were brought down on Youtube. (right click > stats for nerds)

this version is 4.5dB down:

this one is 0dB down:

now that doesn't necessarily mean that the peaks on the second one go to -1dBFS. But the master sent to youtube was at -14LUFS.
I strongly advice you fans to download the video version and test it as I suspect this is the most "audiophile" version

 

[Jean.Francois]

Hello,
The release of a new song in particular for a group as well-known as the Beatles is always an event. "Now and then" was composed by John Lennon in 1978, and finalized by Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr in 2023.

All this was made possible by the AI used to produce the track.
So the question arises as to what artificial intelligence was used, and for what purpose, in the production of this new track.
Generative AI is used to create content, and is increasingly used in all fields, from text to images to music.
But in the case of this piece, it wasn't a generative AI that was used, so there was no creation of new content or new paths in relation to a text, for example.
It's a tool using AI to optimize the separation of a track already mixed on a demo tape, as in this case John Lennon's voice and piano, to produce different tracks with restored quality.

So what's the result when you listen to this song? That's what we're going to look at with the 5 versions tested: maxi45 vinyl record, blue vinyl record, Tidal MAX flac in 24-bit 96 kHz, Amazon UltraHD in 24-bit 96 kHz and Tidal Dolby Atmos.

The waveform of the two vinyl records is not very dynamic. But we can see that the level of the maxi45, which is on a 12″ record, is almost 3 db higher than that of the single vinyl record, which is on a 7″ record.
This is explained by the fact that there is more useful surface area for recording information on the 12-inch record than on the 7-inch record, allowing a wider track cut (and therefore a higher level), as shown in the photo comparing the tracks on the 2 vinyl records.

vinyl records : single 7" (blue) vs maxi 12" (black)

The graph below shows the waveforms of the Tidal Max version, the maxi vinyl disc and the Dolby Atmos version downmixed to 2.0 for the song "Now and Then".
All three waveforms are adjusted to -14.7 LUFS for comparison purposes.
The most dynamic version is the Dolby Atmos version downmixed to 2.0. As for the vinyl version, it appears to have been burned directly from the dynamically compressed stereo version.
The difference in DR between the Tidal Max version and the vinyl disc is due to the fact that the vinyl was burned from a source that had undergone a dynamic limiter (see explanation "Do analog media impose dynamics on music?").

Waveform “Now And Then” Digital stereo vs vinyl record vs Dolby Atmos

The graph below compares the spectrum of the Tidal Max version (white curve) with the spectrum of the Dolby Atmos version downmixed to 2.0 (blue curve). The two curves are very different, due to the use of two different mixes. The yellow arrow indicates that the maximum frequency of the Tidal Max version is 24 kHz (for the "Now And Then" sound), despite the use of a 96 kHz sampling frequency.
This raises the question of whether it has been mixed at 48 kHz.
For the Dolby Atmos version, the 20 kHz limitation is due to the Dolby Digital Plus encoding.

Spectrum Tidal Max Flac – 2023 (white) vs Tidal Dolby Atmos – 2023 (blue)

Spatialization is perfectly realized while respecting the original spirit. The voice remains in the foreground, with great clarity and nuance, while the music and backing vocals make full use of all channels.

Digital technology is capable of both the best and the worst. Let's start with the best: AI was used to separate the voice from the piano with fantastic results, not the AI-generated voice. Unfortunately, the dynamic range compression enabled by digital technology tarnishes the result on stereo editions.
Fortunately, Dolby Atmos is there to save the day, offering a version that respects the dynamics of the mix, while rendering the voice in a cleaner, more natural way.
To convince yourself of this,simply listen to and compare the various extracts here, including the Atmos 2.0 (stereo) downmix.

Enjoy listening
Jean-François

 

[dasdoing]

Hello,
The release of a new song in particular for a group as well-known as the Beatles is always an event. "Now and then" was composed by John Lennon in 1978, and finalized by Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr in 2023.

View attachment 323751
All this was made possible by the AI used to produce the track.
So the question arises as to what artificial intelligence was used, and for what purpose, in the production of this new track.
Generative AI is used to create content, and is increasingly used in all fields, from text to images to music.
But in the case of this piece, it wasn't a generative AI that was used, so there was no creation of new content or new paths in relation to a text, for example.
It's a tool using AI to optimize the separation of a track already mixed on a demo tape, as in this case John Lennon's voice and piano, to produce different tracks with restored quality.

So what's the result when you listen to this song? That's what we're going to look at with the 5 versions tested: maxi45 vinyl record, blue vinyl record, Tidal MAX flac in 24-bit 96 kHz, Amazon UltraHD in 24-bit 96 kHz and Tidal Dolby Atmos.

The waveform of the two vinyl records is not very dynamic. But we can see that the level of the maxi45, which is on a 12″ record, is almost 3 db higher than that of the single vinyl record, which is on a 7″ record.
This is explained by the fact that there is more useful surface area for recording information on the 12-inch record than on the 7-inch record, allowing a wider track cut (and therefore a higher level), as shown in the photo comparing the tracks on the 2 vinyl records.
View attachment 323753
vinyl records : single 7" (blue) vs maxi 12" (black)

The graph below shows the waveforms of the Tidal Max version, the maxi vinyl disc and the Dolby Atmos version downmixed to 2.0 for the song "Now and Then".
All three waveforms are adjusted to -14.7 LUFS for comparison purposes.
The most dynamic version is the Dolby Atmos version downmixed to 2.0. As for the vinyl version, it appears to have been burned directly from the dynamically compressed stereo version.
The difference in DR between the Tidal Max version and the vinyl disc is due to the fact that the vinyl was burned from a source that had undergone a dynamic limiter (see explanation "Do analog media impose dynamics on music?").
View attachment 323754
Waveform “Now And Then” Digital stereo vs vinyl record vs Dolby Atmos

The graph below compares the spectrum of the Tidal Max version (white curve) with the spectrum of the Dolby Atmos version downmixed to 2.0 (blue curve). The two curves are very different, due to the use of two different mixes. The yellow arrow indicates that the maximum frequency of the Tidal Max version is 24 kHz (for the "Now And Then" sound), despite the use of a 96 kHz sampling frequency.
This raises the question of whether it has been mixed at 48 kHz.
For the Dolby Atmos version, the 20 kHz limitation is due to the Dolby Digital Plus encoding.
View attachment 323756

Spectrum Tidal Max Flac – 2023 (white) vs Tidal Dolby Atmos – 2023 (blue)

Spatialization is perfectly realized while respecting the original spirit. The voice remains in the foreground, with great clarity and nuance, while the music and backing vocals make full use of all channels.
View attachment 323757
Digital technology is capable of both the best and the worst. Let's start with the best: AI was used to separate the voice from the piano with fantastic results, not the AI-generated voice. Unfortunately, the dynamic range compression enabled by digital technology tarnishes the result on stereo editions.
Fortunately, Dolby Atmos is there to save the day, offering a version that respects the dynamics of the mix, while rendering the voice in a cleaner, more natural way.
To convince yourself of this,simply listen to and compare the various extracts here, including the Atmos 2.0 (stereo) downmix.

Enjoy listening
Jean-François

add Youtube video clip version

 

[Chester]

I was actually just excited to listen to this track, and for once forgot all about whether it was the perfectly mastered version.

Maybe I should be like that more often.

 

[Jean.Francois]

add Youtube video clip version

The youtube version is also dynamically compressed like the other stereo digital versions.

 

[dasdoing]

The youtube version is also dynamically compressed like the other stereo digital versions.

well, at least they removed the last limiter