Beatles Remasters

[gutpile]

I am blown away at the difference!! take a quick listen (18 secs)... first is 1987 version then 2009 Remastered... Below is what they looked like in Reaper... Top is new bottom is old... Must have if you're a fan!!

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_so ... ID=8131283" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[spaceace76]

I've been listening through them, they're amazing! It's really some of the best remastering I've heard in a while.

[JimiJames]

HUGE - especially on the single notes.

[OnTheFritz]

Ya know what Gut, I was skeptical until an audiophile musician friend was raving about these remasters.
He sent me a couple songs off the White Album, and I'm hearing stuff I never heard before. I have the old LP, and the standard cd.
Dear Prudence never sounded so good.

[shakti]

By all accounts, these remasters are great. Hopefully they'll spark a new trend in remastering, away from the "louder is better" trend that has completely dominated the past 10-15 years, and towards a more faithful, tasteful and refined trend. Neil Young's Archives and recent remasters are another great example of excellent mastering. Hendrix' catalogue is up for a new remastering round next year, after Sony/Legacy took over his catalogue. Here's hoping they do those albums justice!

That being said, I have not bought any of these remasters yet. I'm itching to get the mono set, but holding back because I'm hoping for hi-rez releases to contain both mono, stereo and possibly 5.1 mixes in the not too distant future. In fact, I think it's a disgrace that they've painstakingly remastered this stuff to such a high standard, in 192/96(?) resolution, and then the final result gets dumped onto the woefully inadequate 16/44 CD standard. Ridiculous in 2009, IMHO.

[spaceace76]

is there any truth to the mono mixes of the first few albums being better? i like the separation of the stereo cuts.

[gutpile]

I have both, the mono mixes are marked improvements over the '87 releases but I prefer the stereo versions for the clear separation of instruments! half the of listening to the Beatles is concentrating on a particular instrument and the stereo versions take this experience to another level! Both are killer!

Mike

[spaceace76]

exactly what i was thinking. i got a hold of the mono versions and many sound 'crowded' in comparison to the stereo versions. i would have panned certain things differently, but that's just personal preference. the stereo beatles cuts are a great experience!

[demonufo]

I wouldn't know about the earliest stereo mixes not being as good as the mono, but I would much rather listen to the original mono 1/2 track 3 3/4 ips open reel albums I have than any of the early CD issues.
The reels I have sound a lot more like those new re-issues going from the clips posted above.
I only have Please Please Me, Beatles For Sale, and With The Beatles on reel though. The rest I have are original vinyls (mostly stereo except for Rubber Soul), except for White and Let It Be which I have on modern audiophile vinyl pressings, although I was never that impressed.
Perhaps I should be looking to buy again.

Thanks Mike, just when I thought I'd have to curb my spending!

[amp boy]

i want to get the stereo set,
but after buying Neil's Harvest on DVD audio some 5 years ago and comparing to the cd...............i heard so much more....it's amazing.
So i'm hoping a dvd beatles set or blu ray comes out.
i think Classic Vinyl should be iven the rights and do all the greats with digital downloads.
Zeppelin, Floyd, Beatles.........damn i would love that.
i was broke when they actually pressed Zeppelin for a lil bit.
i was saving to get all the albums.
: (

[demonufo]

i want to get the stereo set,
but after buying Neil's Harvest on DVD audio some 5 years ago and comparing to the cd...............i heard so much more....it's amazing.
So i'm hoping a dvd beatles set or blu ray comes out.
i think Classic Vinyl should be iven the rights and do all the greats with digital downloads.
Zeppelin, Floyd, Beatles.........damn i would love that.
i was broke when they actually pressed Zeppelin for a lil bit.
i was saving to get all the albums.
: (

Digital downloads?
So you want them to do all that hard work to make them sound great again, and then undo everything they've done by compressing it for digital downloading? I'd rather hear stuff on Edison cylinders than compressed audio.
Personally I miss the demise of SACD. To me, it gave much more than DVD audio.

[amp boy]

no.....misunderstanding.

some bands......, albums are pressed on vinyl with a code for a digital download of the album as well.
i love this idea.

i'm not an audio in the know person......i just know when something sounds good.
I don't even buy cds that much.
that last one i bought was daniel lanois's here is what is, and the Page and Alison Raising sand......which i managed to score a vinyl copy later....woooo hoooo !!!!!!

i will say this BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!!!!!!!! to Sonic Youth and Matador Records for their latest album.
They marked up the LP to stupid $$$ signs.
So ya, i don't own that one.
Even saw them at a show this past summer and it was ridiculas.

It just comes down to who cares about sound, and how they engineer it....record it....and put it out.

The big thing on that Harvest dvd is because of the media capacity more tracks could be fit.......it's like editing a film.......so now i get to hear what originally was and what Neil was listening to.........not the cut to fit version which so much of everything seems to be.

Ya, i really would enjoy i high quality audio beatles collection.
so much going on....it's like reading a book as a kid and getting wrapped up in it.
: )

[yngwie308]

Experience Hendrix released the heavy weight vinyl remasters from the original 2-track mixdown-master tapes on LP a few years back and I snatched them up for $29.96 for a single Lp back in the nineties, released on MCA. Has anyone heard these, as of course I have no turntable..?? They were done by Eddie Kramer.
I do know that the vinyl mono Beatles LP's were/are commanding big bucks, from quite a while ago.
I don't doubt that the reel to reel copies are great, I am old enough to remember those and would hear them on my late dads Tandberg tape deck.
With the advent of Blu-Ray and the DVD audio CD's vrs. original vinyl.
Wouldn't original vinyl still win in an ultimate listening test, given great transcription equipment, or are the remasters able to bring out things we haven't really heard before as stated?
yngwie308

[shakti]

The EH Hendrix vinyl releases were all done from digital transfers of the masters, kind of defeating some of the purpose. The recent "Back to Black" vinyl reissue of Axis is an all-analog mastering and sounds f-in FANTASTIC! Almost like hearing the album for the first time.

Maybe we were lucky up here in Norway, but the new Sonic Youth on vinyl was only marginally more expensive than the CD, and that one too was a tremendously good-sounding pressing, with the sexiest old-school gatefold cardboard cover I've seen.

I sort of have hopes for Blu-Ray to be the format/disc which opens the gateways for hi-rez digital to the mainstream. I got a SACD player by chance in the early 00s, and fell in love with that. After discovering the difference, it's hard to go back to "regular" CDs. Not too different from old production tubes vs new ones...before you try it, you don't see what the fuss is about, but once you go back to the "inferior" stuff you realize what you're missing.

[spaceace76]

I think,the record companies should just put out the masters to anyone who buys the album, in the largest resolution possible, and people can mix/compress/enjoy them however they like. That way, people won't have to be pissed when something is 'wrong' with the latest remaster. For bands like the Beatles especially, everyone has a different interpretation of their music, a slightly different attachment to each and every line. Why not just leave it to the fans to decide how they hear the music?