Beatles remastered - worth it?

Beatles remastered - worth it?

Author
Discussion

djmck30

Original Poster:

258 posts

192 months

Thursday 10th September 2009
quotequote all
Simple question to anyone who's heard the new reissued/remastered stuff:

is there a noticable improvement in quality from the existing releases, or have they simply compressed all the dynamic range out of the recordings in order to make it sound better when downloaded from itunes etc?


EdJ

1,317 posts

201 months

Thursday 10th September 2009
quotequote all
The review headlines I read at the weekend were very positive, but when you read the text of the review, they only talked about the albums themselves rather than the sound improvement.

I suspect that it's just another way to make money out of the same old stuff and probably not worth buying it again. If you are new to the albums however, then maybe worth a go.

djmck30

Original Poster:

258 posts

192 months

Thursday 10th September 2009
quotequote all
If that's the case I may well leave my money in pocket and stick with the old stuff!!


Scrubs

958 posts

210 months

Saturday 12th September 2009
quotequote all
Spent a couple of hours with the stereo set this morning and wow, just wow. I'm not an expert on reviewing remastering jobs, or even music, but this really is a phenomenal achievement. Admittedly, I haven't sat down and listened to all the albums in their entirety, but I did listen to 'Rubber Soul' all the way through, and I think it is probably the album they have really minted in this set. It just sounds so, so dynamic in comparison to the CD I had previously.

I was worried about stereo seperation, and on my test set-up this morning, which is a Linn amp feeding top of the range Ultrasone cans, seperation is still very noticeable. It is almost as if you are in the studio, at times, with drums being on that side, and a bit of bass over there, but said headphones are noted for this, as they are used for studio work. Listening through speakers, the result is a delight. My ultimate test though, 'Eleanor Rigby' still doesn't quite pull it off. There is still a very odd heavy emphasis to the right chnnel, for the vocal, with some bleed into the left, which gives it a slightly off-centre sound, which never sat right with me and still doesn't quite.

The member who is going to be most pleased with this set though is Ringo, as his drums have never sounded better. They absolutely kick here and really give the recordings an amazingly dynamic sound. Even the early tracks really pack a punch.

I did a very quick comparison with this set and the Love release and to my ears, I prefer these new releases by far. A definite improvement in every regard, with less distortion on vocals etc as well as simply a cleaner sound all round. A direct comparison between 'I Want to Hold Your Hand' shows perfectly, just how much an improvement these new masters are. You can pick out every instrument here, whereas the Love release is a lot muddier. There is just more drive to this set.

As I say, I am no expert and I have not listened to every track, but this is pretty special. I will be demoing the mono set before deciding which to go for, but those of you who plumped for the stereo will be chuffed I'm sure.

GetCarter

29,571 posts

285 months

Saturday 12th September 2009
quotequote all
I bought 'With' - and I wish I hadn't.

Evangelion

7,905 posts

184 months

Saturday 12th September 2009
quotequote all
GetCarter said:
I bought 'With' - and I wish I hadn't.
Tell me why!

Evil Jack

1,620 posts

234 months

Saturday 12th September 2009
quotequote all
Evangelion said:
GetCarter said:
I bought 'With' - and I wish I hadn't.
Tell me why!
It won't be long.

GetCarter

29,571 posts

285 months

Sunday 13th September 2009
quotequote all
Evangelion said:
GetCarter said:
I bought 'With' - and I wish I hadn't.
Tell me why!
Unfortunately they sent me the stereo version which is a complete joke. If you're buying it, buy the CORRECT (mono) version (which I believe they have released this month as well). Mono is how it was supposed to sound. The purile separation of all the voices on one speaker and all the instruments on the other beggars belief.

Evangelion

7,905 posts

184 months

Sunday 13th September 2009
quotequote all
GetCarter said:
Mono is how it was supposed to sound. The purile separation of all the voices on one speaker and all the instruments on the other beggars belief.
Because it was originally done on a two-track recorder this was the only way they could do stereo. Abbey Road actually took delivery of their first four-track during the recording of With... but I don't know which, if any, of the songs on the album used it. Anybody got that huge book on the Beatles recording sessions and can look it up for us?

GetCarter

29,571 posts

285 months

Sunday 13th September 2009
quotequote all
Original was mono & 2 track stereo, released in 87 on CD in mono now available in mono and hateful stereo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_the_beatles

Just to give you an idea of how hateful it is in stereo, check out left & right channels

http://www.stevecarter.com/rubbish.mp3
http://www.stevecarter.com/rubbish2.mp3

Out of interest, George Martin on Mono v Stereo: "when I heard what they'd done, I thought they were dreadful. They had presented me with the stereo versions".

Edited by GetCarter on Sunday 13th September 09:21

Evangelion

7,905 posts

184 months

Sunday 13th September 2009
quotequote all
I have a cassete version of With ... that was recorded from the original vinyl, and i've just given it a listen. All the instruments are on the left and all the vocals on the right, with the exception of Money which has vocals in the centre, piano right and everything else left. Is yours like this? Perhaps it was the only song on the album where they used the 4-track.