The Beatles Remasters Review and Discussion Thread

[scytheavatar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happyprozak /img/forum/go_quote.gif After 3-4 pages of off topic posts with not much substance I got irritated myself.

Let us list out what has been discuss in page 8, shall we?

ssportclay - "The new release sounds as good as it probably gets and any LP competitors are probably really no better. For anyone needing any Beatles music, these are the ones to own."

DavidMahler - "I'm listening to the album again.......it really is an excellent remaster..........listening with my HD800 and the bass is super full."

scytheavatar - "I'll add that IMHO the 1987 master was never as bad as what some people make them out to be and the 2009 masters aren't that big of an improvement because there isn't that much room for improvement. Still a very nice upgrade "

chadbang - replying to me

greenhorn - replying to markl's off topic nonsense

Sordel - "It's a never-ending gravy train but I'm very happy that I hopped aboard for the mono set. "

ssportclay - more off topic nonsense

greenhorn - Off topic nonsense X 3

Dublo7 - "Currently listening to Help! I think it sounds absolutely incredible. I can't believe how crisp and dynamic it sounds."

ssportclay - Off topic nonsense X 4

evanft - "The mono box is so amazing. Everything is about it is top rate. "

hawk - " They were sampled at 24/192 not 24/96 btw. "

DarkAngel - "As I listen to the stereo versions again I become more and more unhappy with the exaggerated stereo effects and long to hear the mono versions."

chadbang - "Get these discs guys!"

That's 9 on topic posts and 4 off topic posts.

 

[Eric M]

Anyone know what the intended mix of Hey Jude is?

Overall I like the monos more, but the only time preferred the stereo was for the beginning of "With A Little Help From My Friends". The stereo sound more spacious to me, instead of all the sounds getting mushed together.

 

[Sordel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scytheavatar /img/forum/go_quote.gif Those pro-mono people conveniently ignore how lacking the whole mono format can be. How much experience do you have with mono music? If you haven't heard a lot of mono music now is not a good time to experiment with it, the stereo box set is probably a safer bet.

Well, this is the specific question that my first post in this thread was addressing. I have never been "pro-mono" and was in fact always strongly anti-mono. Far from ignoring how lacking the mono format can be, I saw mono simplistically as a 50% reduction in available musical detail .... something which I now know to be completely wrong. Had the instrumental tracks been mic'd in stereo you could at least have made a case for that interpretation, but the fact is that you are listening to mono recordings either way; the only difference is whether the tracks are divided into two channels or not, which is not the same thing as stereo as it has been understood for the last forty years.

This is a great time to experiment with mono, because The Beatles in Mono is one of a comparatively small number of cases where the mono recordings are of a high standard and directly comparable: not only with stereo masters of their day, but with cleaned up stereo masters of today.

If I found that the mono versions were just not as good as the 1987 masters, I hope that I would have been honest enough to report that and move onto the stereo boxed set, but in fact my experience has been that the mono set is much better than I could possibly have expected. My advice to anyone curious about the mono vs. stereo question would be to get these new releases.

Sure, your mileage may vary from mine, but anyone who is interested enough in sound quality to spend a lot of time on Head-Fi really owes it to themself to have an informed opinion on this question.

The best vindication of the mono set that I can offer is this. My wife - who is no fan of The Beatles and doesn't really care about sound quality (at least, to the degree reflected in these forums) - has really enjoyed listening to the mono masters, and doesn't notice that there is anything "wrong" with them. I think that if I were somehow straining to see past the drawbacks of mono, she (with no investment in the argument) would pretty soon remind me of them.

 

[Arainach]

After listening to the Mono and Stereo box sets (and the 1987 sets), I can safely say that I'm a huge fan of the Stereo Box Set. Maybe I just don't "get" it, but the mono sounds decidedly lacking in detail and general feel compared to the Stereo remasters. The vocals in particular sound MUCH more natural on the stereo mixes. I'm happy with my purchase and have no real intention of buying the Mono box set.

 

[LFF]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif After listening to the Mono and Stereo box sets (and the 1987 sets), I can safely say that I'm a huge fan of the Stereo Box Set. Maybe I just don't "get" it, but the mono sounds decidedly lacking in detail and general feel compared to the Stereo remasters. The vocals in particular sound MUCH more natural on the stereo mixes. I'm happy with my purchase and have no real intention of buying the Mono box set.

That's probably because the mono box set needs a little help. You really need to tweak the mono recordings for them to sound their best.

 

[ssportclay]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif The market has already made its decision to trend away from physical disc-based media. MP3s are outselling CDs even though they have less quality; why would SACD be any different? Besides, I really don't see the Beatles recordings as having enough fidelity to be clearly distinguishable between CD and SACD.

You bring up an interesting question. I always thought that MP3s were generally made from CD masters in one form or another. How many MP3 albums are there out there that just don't exist in the CD format?

 

[tstarn06]

@Happyprozack..."But you automatically think I'm only interested in "spinning" a profit right? I bet you feel quiet silly now."

Not any sillier than you should for moaning about all the OT posts and then saying one of your main reasons for posting was to find out if the Beatles music can stand the test of time.

I apologize for thinking the worst of your ebay comment. As for the nostalgia issue, it just doesn't bother me. Don't like it? Don't read it.

I think the thread is fine, and not the disaster you made it out to be. I've read a lot of interesting comments about the mono box, which I don't have, and probably won't buy based on what I have read here. So to me, it works, OT posts and all.

 

[rxxdoc]

I have listened to a bit of both the Stereo and Mono remasters. I like them both, but for different purposes.

For portable and headphones, I like the Mono remasters.

The very wide stereo mixes just don't feel right in my head (the best way I can explain it). The really wide stereo mixes almost hurt my head. Using ear buds just does not work with the stereo recordings. They don't give a proper sound stage for me. Even with proper headphones, the early stereo remasters make it seem that 1/2 the band is standing directly to the right of me and the other 1/2 are directly to the left of me. With headphones on, there often seems that nothing is in front of me. There is no sound stage. Of course the later recordings sound much more properly balanced and sound really good with headphones.

With speaker systems, I like the wide stereo. I grew up with that sound (yes I am old), and I love hearing the wide stereo in both the home and car stereo.

The mono remasters sound great and I do remember listening to many mono sources when I was growing up.

My only complaint with the Stereo remasters is they seem too loud. I know that engineers want to give music punch, but everything seems pushed up and in my face (best way I can explain it). I really have a hard time finding the right volume. Sometimes it seems glaring and brash.

Still it sounds better than when I played my first Beatles 45 in my Close N'play. "She was just seventeen" and I was 10. I bought the 45 for ten cents. (Damn, I'm old!)

 

[pcf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidMahler /img/forum/go_quote.gif For a while now I've grown accustomed to the "Black Triangle" Remaster of Abbey Road which actually was released before the 1987 master, and really just a very very good needle drop. This remaster is still an improvement on that as well. I'm a big fan of Dr Ebbetts work, though I've never heard his Abbey Road MFSL needle drop. [/i]

Thanks for your great in depth review. After reading your expressions on the new Abbey Road , I got curious and spent sometime comparing the new remaster cd to the Black Triangle (original, not a copy) and Dr Ebbetts MFSL.
Within a few seconds, I could tell the Dr Ebbetts cd was the weakest one and I put it away soon afterwards. But the other two are not that clear out. The 2009 cd is louder so I had to do some volume adjustment to start, it has lots of detail and good bass; good separation of vocals and instrument. Generally more up-front sounding than the BT. The BT does sound a bit laid back and lacks details initially but after a while you realize that everything is there, it is just presented in more even manner- more analog sounding if you like. At the end, I think the 2009 remaster wins out overall but I would have been happy with the Black Triangle if that was the only version I had.
By the way, correct me if I'm wrong- I thought the BT was an offical release from Toshiba before it was pulled so was mastered from the tape rather than vinyl?
I also dug out some Ulra Rare Trax boolegs (supposd to be transfered from stolen original master tapes and difinitely better sounding than the 87 releases). They don't have the same takes as the remaster cds but in term of sound quality they also come close. The 2009 cds again win out with a richer and more detailed sound.
So, it is time to put everything away. We only need the new remasters.

 

[Five Notes]

Just received the stereo box (EU version) from Amazon UK today. Ordered on 9/9/09 and received on 9/14/09.
Also, ordered the mono box from Amazon US on 9/9/09, still waiting.

Looking forward to bliss the next few days.

 

[phreaknupallnite]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjisme /img/forum/go_quote.gif I thought he was crystal clear what he started this thread for -- it was explained in his OP. And, if there was any confusion, he restated/clarified a couple of times. So I think this criticism is unwarranted.

I disagree, but it doesn't matter since he deleted his original post as well as sent PM's to everyone that p*ssed him off. How nice.

 

[phreaknupallnite]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif yes, he was bullying people. he sent me a PM (which I didn't even read, btw).

....sent one to me as well.

 

[LFF]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Five Notes /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just received the stereo box (EU version) from Amazon UK today. Ordered on 9/9/09 and received on 9/14/09. Also, ordered the mono box from Amazon US on 9/9/09, still waiting. Looking forward to bliss the next few days.

You'll be in for a sure treat!

 

[DavidMahler]

I haven't been able to listen to all the mono / stereo remasters of course. But one of the key things which was always missing from the Beatles official catalog was Sgt Pepper in mono on CD. The mono Sgt Pepper is where its at. And I'm tempted to say that anyone who truly adores the album and is familiar with both mixes will tell you that it's a whole different (and better) experience in mono. If you ever want to hear how good mono can be, listen to Sgt Pepper this way. For years I've enjoyed the Dr Ebbetts mono vinyl rip. The new mono remaster is understandably better for these reasons

1. The instruments are clearer
2. The dynamic range doesn't feel filtered.....what I mean by this is on the vinyl rips I've heard, particularly in "Lucy" where the vocal climaxes are there's a feeling of over saturation, as if the vinyl is slightly over filled with sound. It actually can be quite nice when listened to on a good vinyl set up, but it doesn't have the same effect when transferred to CD)
3. There is less leakage between songs (On the vinyl rips I've heard, you can hear the track start up about half a second before the actually begins)
4. The EQ is a bit sharper and creates more space around the voice. LFF has stated that he knows or guesses that this was a flat transfer. It's possible it was. It certainly doesn't sound compressed, but I would be surprised if a few EQ adjustments were not made before transfering.

The ONLY critism I would make about this transfer is that it is slightly bass shy.......but we're talking really deep bass.


I am not going to go into great detail as to why I prefer the mono mix to the stereo mix. I will say that for the most part, the mono mix possesses louder drums and thus comes off more rockish than theatrical. Sgt Pepper, because of it's thematic design can become broadway sounding, which is not bad for you Sondheim fanatics, but for those who love rock music, the mono Pepper is just more rocking. The Beatles personally mixed the mono mix and a lot of time and care was put into the mix by the 4 of them, George Martin and Geoff Emerick. It is essential that Sgt Pepper's mix, and the soundpicture it creates be considered just as heavily as the compositions themselves. The Stereo mix has a few benefits in my opinion. Firstly, She's Leaving Home is a half step lower in E Major on the Stereo mix. I believe the song was originally recorded in E Major, but Paul being a micromanager decided that F Major (as it appears on the Mono) was better suited for its place on the album between Fixing A Hole (in F Minor) and Mr Kite in (C Minor)......F Major is definitely more parallel to these two keys than is E Major, and I know Paul was very sensitive to way the album segwayed, so I am merely guessing that this is why the song appears in F Major in the version which he had part in mixing. As a song, I prefer the slightly slower and more poignant key of E Major. But in the context of the album, F Major feels more a part of what's going on. The other minor improvement of the Stereo mix is the segway from Good Morning into the Sgt Pepper reprise. The splice between the chicken noise into the electric guitar is a slightly more cohesive. Aside from these two details, I wholly prefer the Mono Sgt Pepper.

I will follow-up this review with a review of all their albums, one by one

 

[donunus]

By the way, I notice that on Magical Mystery Tour for example that the new stereo remaster sounds like there is some crossfeed remixing compared to Dr Ebbets. I thought people always argued that we were getting the original mix. Anyway, I like the 2009 stereo remaster better than Dr Ebbets because of this crossfeed and for the overall sound. Try Penny Lane and you will hear the difference of the L+R mix right away.