The Beatles Remasters Review and Discussion Thread

[ozz]

Waiting on the next batch they are sold out in my area(box set) so hopefully Tuesday.

 

[ssportclay]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkAngel /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is a great idea and this is how new remasters should have been released, both stereo and mono tracks for each album on 1Cd............

This idea has a lot of merit but I would rather see the stereo CDs released with an added SACD layer and retail in the store @ $8.99 each. These are old recordings after all and a lot of people would bight down on that one. When the CD format came out, no one took it really seriously until the Beatles release in 1987. No one takes the SACD format seriously to this day. Perhaps the Beatles catalog in SACD at a reasonable price would turn things around. I have no doubt that a lot of SACD machines would get sold as a result.

 

[Happyprozak]

I'm pretty disappointed in this thread. I came here because I wanted to hear opinions on the remasters and whether stereo or mono was better. I came here because I listen through headphones and although I wouldn't call myself an audiophile I do care about sound. The comments on sound quality are sparse and really ruin it for people like myself and what the original poster intended.

I know some people love the Beatles because they were revolutionary and the historical significance in culture was astronomical but I wish people would have a better understanding of how nostalgia works. If they did, we wouldn't be seeing posts about how everything has gone to ****.

As a 26 year old guy who's only heard the Beatles through the radio and is not vested in the culture, I'm mainly interested in how the Beatles music holds up to the test of time.

I hear the mono box set is the set to get but it's supposed to be a limited edition with no chance of buying individual cds. So I'm really wondering whether or not I should order a set on amazon before they become ebay gold.

 

[scytheavatar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happyprozak /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm pretty disappointed in this thread. I came here because I wanted to hear opinions on the remasters and whether stereo or mono was better. I came here because I listen through headphones and although I wouldn't call myself an audiophile I do care about sound. The comments on sound quality are sparse and really ruin it for people like myself and what the original poster intended. I know some people love the Beatles because they were revolutionary and the historical significance in culture was astronomical but I wish people would have a better understanding of how nostalgia works. If they did, we wouldn't be seeing posts about how everything has gone to ****. As a 26 year old guy who's only heard the Beatles through the radio and is not vested in the culture, I'm mainly interested in how the Beatles music holds up to the test of time. I hear the mono box set is the set to get but it's supposed to be a limited edition with no chance of buying individual cds. So I'm really wondering whether or not I should order a set on amazon before they become ebay gold.

The whole mono vs stereo issue has been discussed a lot of times before, in head-fi and elsewhere; the new remasters wouldn't change that issue. As mentioned before the new stereo masters is a good but not a huge improvement from the 1989 masters, the whole stereo panning issue still exist and it can be very annoying, although whether or not it's as annoying as the zero soundstage of the mono Beatles is down to personal preference. But as someone has mentioned before the sound quality of the 2009 mono boxset is nothing special compared to the various audiophile mono mixes that has been done before. So unless you care about the collectivity and value of the CDs (and the mono boxset is likely to become a collector's item) I don't see a reason to pay more for mono music. If not for the stereo panning issue the music of The Beatles has aged very well and you must hate quality music if you don't like what that's in Abbey Road or Sgt Peppers.

And I suggest that before you wish people would have a better understanding of how nostalgia works, you should learn to have a better understanding of how a forum works. Cause there has been lots of reviews of how the new Beatles sound like already and there's nothing more to be said.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssportclay /img/forum/go_quote.gif This idea has a lot of merit but I would rather see the stereo CDs released with an added SACD layer and retail in the store @ $8.99 each. These are old recordings after all and a lot of people would bight down on that one. When the CD format came out, no one took it really seriously until the Beatles release in 1987. No one takes the SACD format seriously to this day. Perhaps the Beatles catalog in SACD at a reasonable price would turn things around. I have no doubt that a lot of SACD machines would get sold as a result.

I'd love the Beatles on SACD, as well. But I don't think it'd be capable of making the format mainstream, which I don't think is possible today. SACD will survive in its niche as the successor to reel-to-reel.

 

[tstarn06]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happyprozak /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm pretty disappointed in this thread. I came here because I wanted to hear opinions on the remasters and whether stereo or mono was better. I came here because I listen through headphones and although I wouldn't call myself an audiophile I do care about sound. The comments on sound quality are sparse and really ruin it for people like myself and what the original poster intended. I know some people love the Beatles because they were revolutionary and the historical significance in culture was astronomical but I wish people would have a better understanding of how nostalgia works. If they did, we wouldn't be seeing posts about how everything has gone to ****. As a 26 year old guy who's only heard the Beatles through the radio and is not vested in the culture, I'm mainly interested in how the Beatles music holds up to the test of time. I hear the mono box set is the set to get but it's supposed to be a limited edition with no chance of buying individual cds. So I'm really wondering whether or not I should order a set on amazon before they become ebay gold.

So is wondering whether the Beatles music "holds up to the test of time" the point of this thread? I don't think so. It's as OT as other posts about the boxed sets/remastered CDs that are not specifically about whether the stereo or mono is better, which as someone has already pointed out, has been discussed on HF many times (albeit regarding older remasters or vinyl).

Also, there are plenty of comments/opinions on this thread about mono vs. stereo boxed set differences, and there will no doubt be more. But the Beatles' music standing the test of time is another topic altogether.

Oh, and please explain how nostalgia works, since so many posters, including me, here apparently don't.

As for spinning "ebay gold," I guess your real mission isn't so much to decide which boxed set is best, but which one can turn into $$$ for your pockets. Noting wrong with capitalism, but hardly the mark of someone serious about deciding which set to buy based on SQ.

 

[Sordel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scytheavatar /img/forum/go_quote.gif The whole mono vs stereo issue has been discussed a lot of times before, in head-fi and elsewhere; the new remasters wouldn't change that issue. As mentioned before the new stereo masters is a good but not a huge improvement from the 1989 masters, the whole stereo panning issue still exist and it can be very annoying, although whether or not it's as annoying as the zero soundstage of the mono Beatles is down to personal preference. But as someone has mentioned before the sound quality of the 2009 mono boxset is nothing special compared to the various audiophile mono mixes that has been done before. So unless you care about the collectivity and value of the CDs (and the mono boxset is likely to become a collector's item) I don't see a reason to pay more for mono music. If not for the stereo panning issue the music of The Beatles has aged very well and you must hate quality music if you don't like what that's in Abbey Road or Sgt Peppers.you must hate quality music if you don't like what that's in Abbey Road or Sgt Peppers And I suggest that before you wish people would have a better understanding of how nostalgia works, you should learn to have a better understanding of how a forum works. Cause there has been lots of reviews of how the new Beatles sound like already and there's nothing more to be said.

Wow, what a rude answer.

1) The mono-vs.-stereo discussion has been had many times before on Head-Fi, like just about every other discussion we have here. No reason not to have it again.

2) Someone may have mentioned that the sound quality of the new mono masters is "nothing special compared to the various audiophile mono mixes that has been done before" but that doesn't seem to be the consensus view, and it would need to be substantiated with detailed evidence.

3) "you must hate quality music if you don't like what that's in Abbey Road or Sgt Peppers". Or maybe the poster hasn't heard those albums yet? Actually, I can imagine a classical or jazz fan really loving quality music yet not liking The Beatles ... the comment is just flat wrong.

4) "there has [sic] been lots of reviews of how the new Beatles sound like already and there's nothing more to be said". Well, I think that you will find that there is more to be said actually, not least because most of the professional reviews were done by journalists who had to listen to new masters on the speakers at Abbey Road and had no way to compare the new recordings with the old on domestic systems. This is a case where advance reviews are pretty much completely untrustworthy, because the reviewers who were given the exclusive opportunity to hear the remasters were carefully controlled by EMI.

Going back to Happyprozack's question: if you have the money, it seems smart to buy the mono boxed set, because you aren't going to lose much money if you decide to sell it on, whereas it would cost you a lot of money to buy it if you wait until it sells out.

The Beatles' music has held up pretty well and most people seem to like at least some of it. Personally, I knew the earlier work far less than Beatles songs from their psychedelic phase. Hearing afresh songs for which I have no particular nostalgia, however, it is pretty clear to me that even had they burned out after three albums The Beatles would still have been a pretty major pop band of their time; when you include their more innovative material, it's hard to see them as anything less than one of the most important and creative bands of the rock era.

 

[ssportclay]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'd love the Beatles on SACD, as well. But I don't think it'd be capable of making the format mainstream, which I don't think is possible today. SACD will survive in its niche as the successor to reel-to-reel.

The Beatles release on the CD format made the compact disc mainstream. Before this historic event the future of the compact disc was really quite shaky and without the Beatles, the compact disc could have ended up as a footnote like the Elcassette or the HD DVD. You could be correct that the Hybrid SACD has no chance as the future compatible format but with a Beatles release at reasonable prices there could be a chance. People will obviously not purchase Hybrid SACSs if they aren't available and without a Beatles catalog available on this format, the format has no chance for a future. History does tend to repeat itself and could the Beatles catalog rescue the Hybrid SACD like it saved the compact disc?

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif The top 40 has been mostly lousy since the 1960s

Top 40 in the 70's and '80's was actually quite diverse and interesting compared to the '60's. I mean, in the 60's, bands could have 4 separate hits with variations of the same song (ex. Gary Puckett, Troggs).

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssportclay /img/forum/go_quote.gif The Beatles release on the CD format made the compact disc mainstream. Before this historic event the future of the compact disc was really quite shaky and without the Beatles, the compact disc could have ended up as a footnote like the Elcassette or the HD DVD. You could be correct that the Hybrid SACD has no chance as the future compatible format but with a Beatles release at reasonable prices there could be a chance. People will obviously not purchase Hybrid SACSs if they aren't available and without a Beatles catalog available on this format, the format has no chance for a future. History does tend to repeat itself and could the Beatles catalog rescue the Hybrid SACD like it saved the compact disc?

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.

 

[evanft]

Posting in an awesome thread.

I think the remasters sound great.

 

[DavidMahler]

This may be the wrong thread to ask this question....as after reading this thread I've seen a lot of animocity towards people who maybe steer away from the OP......but I think it's a worthy question.....

Does the release of these remasters mean that the Capitol Boxes series have forever been squashed....meaning we will never have Yesterday And Today on CD, nor the American Revolver, Hey Jude album and such..... I really would like to have an official copy of Yesterday And Today just for nostalgia reasons...... anyone know whether or not this project has officially bit squashed?

 

[scytheavatar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sordel /img/forum/go_quote.gif 4) "there has [sic] been lots of reviews of how the new Beatles sound like already and there's nothing more to be said". Well, I think that you will find that there is more to be said actually, not least because most of the professional reviews were done by journalists who had to listen to new masters on the speakers at Abbey Road and had no way to compare the new recordings with the old on domestic systems. This is a case where advance reviews are pretty much completely untrustworthy, because the reviewers who were given the exclusive opportunity to hear the remasters were carefully controlled by EMI.

I am not talking about "advance reviews"... I am talking about the numerous reviews that has already been given in this thread, which certain moaning posers seem to conveniently ignore. I think those posers are far more annoying and rude than any off topic post, cause this is a good thread and there has been many good reviews on it, concerning the mono vs stereo issue too, so I am not sure what the heck some people want.

 

[Happyprozak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scytheavatar /img/forum/go_quote.gif The whole mono vs stereo issue has been discussed a lot of times before, in head-fi and elsewhere; the new remasters wouldn't change that issue. As mentioned before the new stereo masters is a good but not a huge improvement from the 1989 masters, the whole stereo panning issue still exist and it can be very annoying, although whether or not it's as annoying as the zero soundstage of the mono Beatles is down to personal preference. But as someone has mentioned before the sound quality of the 2009 mono boxset is nothing special compared to the various audiophile mono mixes that has been done before. So unless you care about the collectivity and value of the CDs (and the mono boxset is likely to become a collector's item) I don't see a reason to pay more for mono music. If not for the stereo panning issue the music of The Beatles has aged very well and you must hate quality music if you don't like what that's in Abbey Road or Sgt Peppers. And I suggest that before you wish people would have a better understanding of how nostalgia works, you should learn to have a better understanding of how a forum works. Cause there has been lots of reviews of how the new Beatles sound like already and there's nothing more to be said.

As far as I know the mono sets are only available on LP and now CD and the only way to get the mono sets is through the remasters of the CDs at least for me as I really don't care to get LP. Not that I'm against the format, but I'm not going to buy new equipment for a few records on LP. I don't know how much things changed in the remasters thats why I came to this thread.

As for your last comments, I know how a forum works. People can post just about anything they want and be almost as rude as they want. This thread was made SPECIFICALLY for sound quality. The original poster could not have been anymore clear.

As for your very last comment, are you suggesting that because the topic has been discussed and that nothing more needs to be said that we shouldn't talk about it? Do you not see the irony? Because people gushing over their nostalgia over the Beatles has also been covered numerous times and the same argument can be made for that. In the meantime this thread was made SPECIFICALLY for the sound quality of the remasters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tstarn06 /img/forum/go_quote.gif So is wondering whether the Beatles music "holds up to the test of time" the point of this thread? I don't think so. It's as OT as other posts about the boxed sets/remastered CDs that are not specifically about whether the stereo or mono is better, which as someone has already pointed out, has been discussed on HF many times (albeit regarding older remasters or vinyl). Also, there are plenty of comments/opinions on this thread about mono vs. stereo boxed set differences, and there will no doubt be more. But the Beatles' music standing the test of time is another topic altogether. Oh, and please explain how nostalgia works, since so many posters, including me, here apparently don't. As for spinning "ebay gold," I guess your real mission isn't so much to decide which boxed set is best, but which one can turn into $$$ for your pockets. Noting wrong with capitalism, but hardly the mark of someone serious about deciding which set to buy based on SQ.

Ok you're right whether the Beatles music stands the test of time is off topic but you're wrong in that it is "more" off-topic. It still has something to do with the quality of the music.

There are NOT plenty of comments on the quality of the remasters on this thread. There are more off-topic posts than on topic posts and if you want to read only the posts on the quality of music its a chore weeding out all the other ones. THATS what ruins the thread.

Sure I'll explain how nostalgia works. In fact I got about 3/4's of the way through the first post before I said "whatever". If you read back you'll find that the post talks about how snotty and arrogant the music clerks at the record store were. He talks about how the experience was less than optimal and now recalls it as being a great experience and only vaguely realizes how the nostalgia is getting the better of him. Nostalgia works by recollecting past events and believing them to be better than what they actually were at the time. It makes the past seem more brilliant than it actually was. That's an effect of nostalgia often has on people. That's why he thinks everything has gone to ****. If he realized the effect nostalgia is having on him he might have thought twice about his record store experience.

And the "ebay gold" thing, please don't be petty. You're accusing me of something you don't know anything about. I'm not interested in buying the mono boxed set to make a profit. I'm interested in buying it before it goes "ebay gold" so I don't have to pay an extra premium on ebay if I want to buy it. But you automatically think I'm only interested in "spinning" a profit right? I bet you feel quiet silly now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scytheavatar /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am not talking about "advanced reviews"... I am talking about the numerous reviews that has already been given in this thread, which certain moaning posers seem to conveniently ignore. I think those posers are far more annoying and rude than any off topic post, cause this is a good thread and there has been many good reviews already, concerning the mono vs stereo issue too, so I am not sure what the heck some people want.

I don't want to scan through numerous off topic posts to find information on what the original post was intended to be. After 3-4 pages of off topic posts with not much substance I got irritated myself. The original poster made it VERY SPECIFIC that he wanted to only discuss the sound quality of the remasters but people ignored it. That was rude in itself. Then to hammer him because he's trying to keep things on topic is even more rude.

There's no reason why a separate post to discuss what the Beatles and the remasters mean to you could not have been made. That's the rude part. No one is saying not to do this, there are other places to go do this so that the original intent of this thread would not have been ruined. I know I'm not adding anything to this thread now but the truth is that 9 pages of mostly off topic posts has ruined this thread. There's no saving it now. The original poster edited out his remarks and left as well. I seriously don't understand why people didn't take these off topic discussions somewhere else. Too lazy to start their own threads? Or too rude to care?

 

[scytheavatar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happyprozak /img/forum/go_quote.gif As for your very last comment, are you suggesting that because the topic has been discussed and that nothing more needs to be said that we shouldn't talk about it?

I am saying that your moaning about weeding out all the off topic posts shows that you do not understand how a forum works. There has been lots of reviews concerning the sound quality of the remasters in this topic, so what else do you want? And concerning the mono vs stereo issue, it's something nobody can tell you an answer to. 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.