Sgt Pepper voted #1

davclr · Post by **davclr** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 2:55 pm

Kris, If you can't tell the fidelity sonic differences between the original 1967 USA and 1967 British vinyl versions issued in 1967 you either have a total junk sound system with a 29 cent cartridge worn out stylus or you are in very desperate need of some serious ear surgery.

marctrain57 · Post by **marctrain57** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 2:59 pm

At the time I was very impressed with Pepper. I still think " A Day in the Life" is one of the best songs of the era. However, over time I have moved several albums above it such as the others mentioned, White Album, Abbey Road and Revolver. I even used Revolver to explain to my daughter recording effects and various guitar techniques while we were on a drive. Pepper sounds dated and is somewhat of a period piece. I think that if the two songs, SFF and Penny Lane had been included it would have strenghened the album.

simer4001 · Post by **simer4001** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:12 pm

Dave, I'm not sure if you are joking around or not, but most of the posts I have read from you a pretty harsh.

beatlefreak · Post by **beatlefreak** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:35 pm

David -

First off, keep the personal attacks out of it. I didn't say anything against you, and I'd appreciate being treated the same way.

I am looking at both the U.S. and U.K. pressings as I type also. The U.S. cut-out sheet is printed on heavy stock paper, has "Printed in U.S.A." underneath either MAS-2653 (mono) or SMAS-2653 (stereo) in the lower left hand corner. The British stereo issue is printed on thinner glossy paper and has "Printed in England" in the lower left hand corner.

Just to be sure, I checked another U.K. copy of the album, and it's cut-out page is printed on the same thickness as the U.S., although the colors aren't as bright. So it's possible (probable) that both types of sheets were printed in the U.K. in 1967. Don't assume you have the end-all answer when you obviously don't.

I DID read your post properly. I never said that you stated the U.K. jacket was thicker. I was merely making a statement of my own. In my opinion, yes, I like the glossy, higher resolution jacket from the U.K. But, I like the heavier construction of the American LP. It doesn't bend easily and end up looking ratty.

My stereo is not a "total junk sound system with a 29 cent cartridge worn out stylus", but it's not a tube-snob audiophile system either. And I'm sorry, but any sonic differences between the two versions is miniscule at best. Perhaps your U.S. version was at the end of a stamper run? It could happen in either country - The later ones pressed off a set of stampers are never as good as the early ones.

And BTW, my hearing is fine - Now calm down.

davclr · Post by **davclr** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 4:08 pm

Hey Brian

I'm just straight to the point and direct.
No b.s.

simer4001 · Post by **simer4001** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 4:13 pm

You can be straight to the point without being insulting. I'm straight to the point but I don't recall just flat out insulting someone. So I would argue that your posts are nothing but BS.

beatlefreak · Post by **beatlefreak** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 4:17 pm

There's nothing wrong with being direct and to the point. But on this forum we still do it with respect for others and their opinions.

davclr · Post by **davclr** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 4:18 pm

Kris,

One ever single original British vinyl verses the
American Capitol version I've heard in my lifetime, it's exactly (sonically) the same deal.

And this began with the very first British vinyl I ever heard, which was the British stereo vinyl version of BEATLES FOR SALE in late 1964.
This was one of the reasons why I began importing them direct from EMI/HMV Oxford Street London, England for own personal collection at that time.

And NO, the differences are hardly "miniscule" claim as you may.

beatlefreak · Post by **beatlefreak** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 4:23 pm

On earlier Beatles albums, I agree with you. Capitol added reverb and created 'duophonic' images out of mono tracks because they weren't supplied with stereo masters of singles. But starting with Pepper's, they used the same stereo master that Parlophone used.

davclr · Post by **davclr** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 4:33 pm

Kris, it's not the Abbey Road tape masters in question

It's the muddy quality of safety copy masters in question and Capitol's inprecise mechanical lacquer disk cutting, low quailty of vinyl used for the records and inprecision pressing equipment orginally used in the States and in Canada.

simer4001 · Post by **simer4001** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 4:33 pm

That's a little more like it David

davclr · Post by **davclr** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 4:34 pm

QUOTE:
" ...So I would argue that your posts are nothing but BS".

Does "BS" stand for Brian Simer???

simer4001 · Post by **simer4001** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 4:45 pm

You have no idea my friend!

jt10824 · Post by **jt10824** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 5:52 pm

As many posters here (myself included) have noticed, David is one of those people who believes he knows it all (despite the extremely high BS quotient in his postings, as Brian astutely pointed out) and is very free with the insults. Don't worry, Kris, you're in good company. You, me, Geoff Emerick... eventually he'll run out of people to slag off and go back to whatever it is he does when he's not pontificating here.

beatlefreak · Post by **beatlefreak** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 6:05 pm

The bottom line is SPLHCB is a good album. Not their best - Certainly not their worst. It made a lot of people seriously rethink pop and rock music when it came out. I always pull it out and play it on its anniversary in the beginning of June.