HydrogenAudio

CD-R and Audio Hardware => Vinyl => Topic started by: 2Bdecided on 2012-09-28 11:35:01

Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-09-28 11:35:01
Stereo 12th / 13th November...
http://thebeatles.com/#/news/Vinyl (http://thebeatles.com/#/news/Vinyl)

Mono coming in 2013.


I'm just waiting for the first claim of how much better they sound than the CDs.

For me, the only vaguely interesting thing is whether these will be cut without peak limiting. Given that they applied the same peak limiting to the 24-bit ultra-expensive USB apple release, I doubt we'll escape it here.


However, it'll (hopefully!) be a much cheaper way of owning and playing Beatles vinyl than tracking down originals, and they'll sound better than most of the 1988 vinyl remasters. (Though for Help and Rubber Soul, they'll be the same masters!). The Beatles website is mostly selling the "experience" of playing vinyl, rather than any actual sonic superiority. How strange for a vinyl press release to be TOS 8 compliant!

Cheers,
David.

P.S. and so it starts...
Quote
linuxglobe    on 27th Sep 12: “I just want to own Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road on audiophile 180 gram vinyl; I have a usb turntable, easily import into my iPhone! I *HEART* Los Beatles!!!  @MarkusMcLaughln
Yeah, 'cause obviously...
digital file > vinyl stamper > vinyl > USB turntable(!!!!) > iTunes > iPhone
will sound better than
digital file > CD > iTunes > iPhone!
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: itisljar on 2012-09-28 12:22:07
Aren't the original masters bad sounding, full of hiss and noise?
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: LordWarlock on 2012-09-28 12:30:40
Hiss and noise? That's still better than compressed to death, at least for my ears.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: markanini on 2012-09-28 15:44:23
Aren't the original masters bad sounding, full of hiss and noise?

About the same as other recordings from that period.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: derty2 on 2012-09-28 18:35:57
Official technical info on this release...
Quote
Manufactured on 180-gram, audiophile quality vinyl with replicated artwork, the 14 albums return to their original glory with details including the poster in The Beatles (The White Album), the Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Heart Club Band’s cut-outs, and special inner bags for some of the titles. Each album will be available individually, and accompanied by a stunning, elegantly designed 252-page hardbound book in a lavish boxed edition which is limited to 50,000 copies worldwide.

    The book, exclusive to the boxed edition, is authored by award-winning radio producer Kevin Howlett and features a dedicated chapter for each of the albums, as well as insight into the creation of the remasters and how the vinyl albums were prepared. The 12”x12” book showcases a wealth of photographs spanning The Beatles’ recording career, including many images which were not included in the 2009 CD booklets.

    The titles include The Beatles’ 12 original UK albums, first released between 1963 and 1970, the US-originated Magical Mystery Tour, now part of the group’s core catalogue, and Past Masters, Volumes One & Two, featuring non-album A-sides and B-sides, EP tracks and rarities.

    Since it was recorded, The Beatles’ music has been heard on a variety of formats – from chunky reel-to-reel tapes and eight-track cartridges to invisible computer files. But there has never been a more romantic or thrilling medium for music than a long-playing twelve-inch disc. We ‘play’ records. The process of carefully slipping the disc out of the sleeve, cleaning it and lowering the stylus provides a personal involvement in the reproduction of the music.

    In September, 2009, The Beatles’ remastered albums on CD graced charts around the world. Seventeen million album sales within seven months was resounding evidence of the timeless relevance of their legacy. Through five decades, the music of The Beatles has captivated generation upon generation.

    For producer Rick Rubin, surveying The Beatles’ recorded achievements is akin to witnessing a miracle. “If we look at it by today’s standards, whoever the most popular bands in the world are, they will typically put out an album every four years,” Rubin said in a 2009 radio series interview. “So, let’s say two albums as an eight year cycle. And think of the growth or change between those two albums. The idea that The Beatles made thirteen albums in seven years and went through that arc of change… it can’t be done. Truthfully, I think of it as proof of God, because it’s beyond man’s ability.”

    There has always been demand for The Beatles’ albums on vinyl. Indeed, 2011’s best-selling vinyl LP in the United States was Abbey Road. Following the success of The Beatles’ acclaimed, GRAMMY Award-winning 2009 CD remasters, it was decided that the sound experts at EMI’s Abbey Road Studios should create new versions of The Beatles’ vinyl LPs. The project demanded the same meticulous approach taken for the CD releases, and the brief was a simple one: cut the digital remasters to vinyl with an absolute minimum of compromise to the sound. However, the process involved to do that was far from simple.

    The first stage in transferring the sound of a master recording to vinyl is the creation of a disc to be used during vinyl manufacture. There were two options to consider. A Direct Metal Master (DMM), developed in the late seventies, allows sound to be cut directly into a stainless steel disc coated with a hard copper alloy. The older, alternative method is to cut the sound into the soft lacquer coating on a nickel disc – the first of several steps leading to the production of a stamper to press the vinyl.

    A ‘blind’ listening test was arranged to choose between a ‘lacquer’ or ‘copper’ cut. Using both methods, A Hard Day’s Night was pressed with ten seconds of silence at the beginning and end of each side. This allowed not only the reproduction of the music to be assessed, but also the noise made by the vinyl itself. After much discussion, two factors swung the decision towards using the lacquer process. First, it was judged to create a warmer sound than a DMM. Secondly, there was a practical advantage of having ‘blank’ discs of a consistent quality when cutting lacquers.

    The next step was to use the Neumann VMS80 cutting lathe at Abbey Road. Following thorough mechanical and electrical tests to ensure it was operating in peak condition, engineer Sean Magee cut the LPs in chronological release order. He used the original 24-bit remasters rather than the 16-bit versions that were required for CD production. It was also decided to use the remasters that had not undergone ‘limiting’ – a procedure to increase the sound level, which is deemed necessary for most current pop CDs.

    Having made initial test cuts, Magee pinpointed any sound problems that can occur during playback of vinyl records. To rectify them, changes were made to the remasters with a Digital Audio Workstation. For example, each vinyl album was listened to for any ‘sibilant episodes’ – vocal distortion that can occur on consonant sounds such as S and T. These were corrected by reducing the level in the very small portion of sound causing the undesired effect. Similarly, any likelihood of ‘inner-groove distortion’ was addressed. As the stylus approaches the centre of the record, it is liable to track the groove less accurately. This can affect the high-middle frequencies, producing a ‘mushy’ sound particularly noticeable on vocals. Using what Magee has described as ‘surgical EQ,’ problem frequencies were identified and reduced in level to compensate for this.

    The last phase of the vinyl mastering process began with the arrival of the first batches of test pressings made from master lacquers that had been sent to the two pressing plant factories. Stringent quality tests identified any noise or click appearing on more than one test pressing in the same place. If this happened, it was clear that the undesired sounds had been introduced either during the cutting or the pressing stage and so the test records were rejected. In the quest to achieve the highest quality possible, the Abbey Road team worked closely with the pressing factories and the manufacturers of the lacquer and cutting styli.

    An additional and unusual challenge was to ensure the proper playback of the sounds embedded in the ‘lock-groove’ at the end of side two of Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. Requiring a combination of good timing and luck, it had always been a lengthy and costly process to make it work properly. In fact, it was so tricky, it had never been attempted for American pressings of the LP. Naturally, Sean Magee and the team perfected this and the garbled message is heard as originally intended on the remastered Sgt. Pepper LP.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: Blueshirt on 2012-09-28 23:57:46
Official technical info on this release...

After reading all that official info, all I can say is... wow!  I didn't expect them to put in that much work on them. They sound like interesting releases.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: shakey_snake on 2012-09-29 03:57:32
Aren't the original masters bad sounding, full of hiss and noise?

You mean "sounds like vinyl?" 
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: mzil on 2012-09-29 04:08:11
Notice the goal was not a nearly indistinguishable copy of the master tape, ie transparency, but rather a "desirable" coloration they call "warmth":

Quote
After much discussion, two factors swung the decision towards using the lacquer process. First, it was judged to create a warmer sound than a DMM.


Also, how much do you want to bet the "blind" test wasn't level matched (to a small fraction of a dB using instrumentation). They simply picked the one that was a tad louder! [Tiny level differences are notoriously misinterpreted as a change in quality, not quantity.]

Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: punkrockdude on 2012-09-29 10:34:05
I would like to hear the inner groove distortion technique since inner groove distortion is in my opinion maybe vinyl's biggest flaw.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: derty2 on 2012-09-29 15:22:58
Recent excerpts from Steve Hoffman forums

     --------------------------------------
     Email exchange between an Inquisitive Fan and Abbey Road Studios about this release.

           From Inquisitive Fan:
           "...were these mastered using the 24/192 digital masters..."

           Reply from Abbey Road Studios:
           "...The original tapes were copied to digital at 24/192k. The tracks were then remastered at 24/96 and the vinyl was cut from these 24/96K masters..."


     --------------------------------------
     User comment:

           "...Heard from a contact in the record industry that the vinyl versions will be made by Pallas/Germany..."
 
 
 
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: itisljar on 2012-09-29 16:38:35
Aren't the original masters bad sounding, full of hiss and noise?

You mean "sounds like vinyl?" 


I don't see the point. Originals are for sure hissy and lost it's original quality, and they are making masters out of them?
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: derty2 on 2012-09-29 17:44:11
The original tapes were 'raw' copied to digital 24/192 in the year 2009 and have already been mastered for CD and and released as a box set back then.
For this vinyl release --three years later-- the engineers have made a new mastering from the digital 24/192 'raw' copy.
They decided not to use limiting/compression as was used on the CD release, and downsampled the files to 24/96 for use by the vinyl cutting plant.

The vinyl is being pressed from 24/96 sources...
Considering the extreme attention to detail that has gone into making this, and considering that the vast majority of people buying this set will be "Hi-Res Is Nirvana, Fuck Logic" audiophiles, I do not understand why the engineers didn't just hand over the 24/192 mastering to the cutting plant. Why did they downsample to 24/96 before cutting?
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: lvqcl on 2012-09-29 18:10:58
Quote
I do not understand why the engineers didn't just hand over the 24/192 mastering to the cutting plant. Why did they downsample to 24/96 before cutting?

IMHO "The tracks were then remastered at 24/96 and the vinyl was cut from these 24/96K masters" means that the tracks were downsampled before mastering, not just before cutting.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: itisljar on 2012-09-29 19:24:18
I am not into that. Sell these files, rather than pressing vinyls out of them. Hell, you could do SACD, DVD-A, or regular audio CD, I seriously doubt that there is anything useful above 15 kHz on master tapes...
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: derty2 on 2012-09-29 19:45:50
Your 'comment' was addressed in 2009, the year of the CD release.

This release --3 years later-- is for the "Hi-Res Is Nirvana, Fuck Logic" audiophile community.

The upper atmosphere of the audiophile world and old men who run the music business still have power
and this is their their time, their game, their status symbol, their toy, their thing to own; logic is only part of the picture.
I can see an old cuban-cigar-chomping music biz executive clad in an Armani suit pulling out one of these discs
and placing it on his hundred thousand dollar turntable then sitting back on his Italian leather couch.
I can see many old non-music biz executives doing this too.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: _if on 2012-09-30 04:28:54
Quote
Having made initial test cuts, Magee pinpointed any sound problems that can occur during playback of vinyl records. To rectify them, changes were made to the remasters with a Digital Audio Workstation. For example, each vinyl album was listened to for any ‘sibilant episodes’ – vocal distortion that can occur on consonant sounds such as S and T. These were corrected by reducing the level in the very small portion of sound causing the undesired effect. Similarly, any likelihood of ‘inner-groove distortion’ was addressed. As the stylus approaches the centre of the record, it is liable to track the groove less accurately. This can affect the high-middle frequencies, producing a ‘mushy’ sound particularly noticeable on vocals. Using what Magee has described as ‘surgical EQ,’ problem frequencies were identified and reduced in level to compensate for this.


This is nice and all and it's too bad it couldn't have been done as the norm back when vinyl was the best sounding format available, but man, this sure makes a good case for how much better digital is.

I wonder if they'll ever release the non-limited masters digitally. Paul McCartney has been very kind in making them available for his remastered albums, but the company seems either to have a plan for making as much money out of these Beatles albums as possible by spacing out releases on different formats, or they don't want people to have a perfect version so they don't take away all reasons to buy the albums again later. Really, I doubt the compression and limiting made much of an audible difference if you were to match levels since it wasn't done to an extreme, there's just a wave of anti-compression sentiment amongst audiophiles due to the loudness wars. What I'd ideally like to see is remixes, whether stereo or surround, from the multi-tracks like they did with the Yellow Submarine Songtrack, which would remove a tape generation and (hopefully) be mixed better than they were in the '60s. That would be a legitimate reason to shell out for them again after the remasters. Of course, there's also a purist, "original is best! All changes are bad!" mentality to be overcome there too, unfortunately.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: Batman321 on 2012-09-30 09:25:51
Quote
Having made initial test cuts, Magee pinpointed any sound problems that can occur during playback of vinyl records. To rectify them, changes were made to the remasters with a Digital Audio Workstation. For example, each vinyl album was listened to for any ‘sibilant episodes’ – vocal distortion that can occur on consonant sounds such as S and T. These were corrected by reducing the level in the very small portion of sound causing the undesired effect. Similarly, any likelihood of ‘inner-groove distortion’ was addressed. As the stylus approaches the centre of the record, it is liable to track the groove less accurately. This can affect the high-middle frequencies, producing a ‘mushy’ sound particularly noticeable on vocals. Using what Magee has described as ‘surgical EQ,’ problem frequencies were identified and reduced in level to compensate for this.


This is nice and all and it's too bad it couldn't have been done as the norm back when vinyl was the best sounding format available, but man, this sure makes a good case for how much better digital is.

I wonder if they'll ever release the non-limited masters digitally. Paul McCartney has been very kind in making them available for his remastered albums, but the company seems either to have a plan for making as much money out of these Beatles albums as possible by spacing out releases on different formats, or they don't want people to have a perfect version so they don't take away all reasons to buy the albums again later. Really, I doubt the compression and limiting made much of an audible difference if you were to match levels since it wasn't done to an extreme, there's just a wave of anti-compression sentiment amongst audiophiles due to the loudness wars. What I'd ideally like to see is remixes, whether stereo or surround, from the multi-tracks like they did with the Yellow Submarine Songtrack, which would remove a tape generation and (hopefully) be mixed better than they were in the '60s. That would be a legitimate reason to shell out for them again after the remasters. Of course, there's also a purist, "original is best! All changes are bad!" mentality to be overcome there too, unfortunately.



Remixes!!

That would be a very good reason to buy more Beatles albums.

I'm one of those few herectics who love the 80s digital remixes of Help! and Rubber Soul.

Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: LithosZA on 2012-09-30 10:26:53
Arghh, just release an un-limited/uncompressed version in 44.1Khz/16bit and I would be very happy. All this 'HD audio' crap is getting on my nerves. In my opinion SD <= 44.1Khz and HD is 44.1Khz.

It is a complete waste to go and make vinyls out of the new masters. It doesn't make any sense...
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-10-01 10:46:15
It's nice they aren't including the peak limiting, it's irrelevant (IMO) that it's cut from 24-bits, and it just proves what a nasty format vinyl is that they have to selectively butcher the tracks with EQ to make them play nicely. It's worse than you might think, because they already removed what they considered "excessive" sibilance in 2009, so it sounds like they're having to go further to make nice sounding vinyl.

They did play around with EQ lots in vinyl's heyday to make cutting and tracking easier - but not using DAWs to spot-"correct" difficult moments.


Whether it's the EQ or the peak limiting or the restoration or the tape degradation, the 2009 CD issues don't sound as natural as the original UK vinyl IMO. Take a listen to various comparisons here...
http://beatledrops.com/ (http://beatledrops.com/)
(HA TOS compliant - they're only short samples)
...and it seems (to my ears) that (overlooking the obvious vinyl flaws on some of those samples) the modern CDs, and the "highly regarded" MFSL issues have a "processed/EQ'd" sound that is absent from the originals. Though I think the 2009 CDs sound nice, and the new vinyl may sound slightly better or worse. Apart from the tapes ageing, it may sound better than the original vinyl - though will never be worth as much  Finding original vinyl that plays well is as much of a challenge as affording it - though early 1970s pressings are much cheaper and sound about as good to my ears.


What you can clearly hear on the 2009 CDs (and on the original vinyl, but to a lesser extent) is that this is pop music and is recorded as pop music. George Martin was quite capable of producing exquisite "audiophile" style recordings at Abbey Road in the 1960s - before, during and after the time he was working with The Beatles. But when recording The Beatles, he took a different approach - he and his engineers were trying to produce loud punchy recordings, and a sound that tried to compete with the pop productions that came out of America. He was also having to do a lot of "processing" (overdubbing, tape loops, etc etc) on primitive equipment. The result is (intentionally?) grungy - and would have been far more so on typical 1960s replay equipment. Sometimes it sounds distorted or distant, like a badly copied tape. Whereas listen to the flip side of Yellow Submarine - recorded as "classical" music - very few tape faults there.

He and his team did keep very high engineering standards, except on the last two albums, where his absence (LIB) and new equipment (AR) means they're even further away from "audiophile" quality.

IMO the "hissy" nature of 50 year old audio tape isn't really a block to enjoying audiophile-level sound reproduction - it's how well the original recordings were made, how well they've survived, and how well they're remastered that determines whether they still sound great today.
Earliest "stunning" stereo recording I have...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jump-For-Joy-Peggy.../dp/B002BEXED8/ (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jump-For-Joy-Peggy-Lee/dp/B002BEXED8/)
...plenty of tape hiss in some tracks, and some strange microphone positioning on others, but still quite amazing.

Other George Martin recordings show none of the "grunginess" that plagues some Beatles tracks - when he was recording Jazz or Comedy he created recordings that sound about as good as they could. In the same years that he recorded "lo-fi" Beatles, tracks, he gave a very "Hi-Fi" treatment to The Temperance Seven and Peter Sellers etc.

In short, I don't accept that old recording have to sound bad, and I suspect some of the "badness" of the Beatles recordings is intentional.

Cheers,
David.

P.S. Yes, remixes please. Before the tapes have rotted further (though I believe they have 24/96 digital copies of all the multitracks), and before I'm too old to appreciate them. It's very strange that we have 1988 mixes of Help and Rubber Soul, but 1960s mixes of everything else as the "official" versions - H + RS weren't the worst mixes, and aren't really better in their 1988 incarnation.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: derty2 on 2012-10-01 20:01:41
To remix or not to remix classic albums - An interview with Steven Wilson (audio engineer and musician):
Quote
What’s been particularly noteworthy about Wilson’s solo career is its synergy with his remix work on the King Crimson catalog . . . “I don’t understand people who make these rules for themselves,” Wilson concludes. “I’ve had people come up to me and say, ‘You shouldn’t remix albums; you shouldn’t tamper.’ ‘Uh, okay, why exactly?’ The answer: ‘Because that was the way they [the artists] intended it.’ No, actually; if you talk to Robert Fripp, you’ll see that a lot of those [King Crimson] records were mixed under duress, under time constraints and under financial constraints, with all kinds of inter-band politics going on. So they were never mixed the way they wanted, and now they are. People said that about [Jethro Tull's] Aqualung (Chrysalis, 1971), and I found that what was on the tapes sounded very good. I think that one of the great things about that particular mix is that it proves that what they recorded in the studio was very good, it was just the mix that had gone wrong. And you can do a lot now; you can do so much with modern technology to make things sparkle. I’d love to do Soft Machine’s Third (Columbia, 1970).”


Read the full article here (http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=42991) (allaboutjazz.com)
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: RonaldDumsfeld on 2012-10-01 23:13:23
Looking forward to hearing the mono versions when they become available.

Although I suspect they will be priced outside my range unfortunately.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: _if on 2012-10-02 06:37:56
Looking forward to hearing the mono versions when they become available.

But the mono CDs had no compression or limiting done to them. Any record release made from those remasters as a starting point is going to just be trying to sound like they already do on CD.

...and it seems (to my ears) that (overlooking the obvious vinyl flaws on some of those samples) the modern CDs, and the "highly regarded" MFSL issues have a "processed/EQ'd" sound that is absent from the originals.

Don't you think though since both the MFSL and 2009 remasters were done from the original tapes that it's the original releases that are actually the inaccurate ones? You may think they sound better, but that doesn't mean they're more faithful.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: greynol on 2012-10-02 07:13:10
Are you suggesting that MSFL doesn't apply EQ to the titles they remaster?  I make no claims about being an authority on the subject, but if your answer is yes then reading this sentiment would be a first for me.  My general experience with their releases is that the midrange has been sucked out of them.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: _if on 2012-10-02 08:27:56
I trust the new remasters weren't batch-processed with EQ applied to entire tracks. If 2Bdecided thinks both sets sound wrong, that might be an indication it's the original issues, which likely had less quality control and possibly an extra tape generation, are the less accurate ones. I didn't invest much time in comparing on Beatledrops, but I checked "With a Little Help From My Friends" and thought the 2009 CD sounded pretty similar to the original UK, with the MFSL indeed sounding like the treble was enhanced. But we can't be sure he has a completely tonally neutral signal path that isn't brightening up all recordings. I have read others say MFSL releases are brighter though.

But I have noticed people tend to give MFSL a worse rap than they deserve. I have no conclusive knowledge of whether or not how much they process their releases, but specifically, I was reading on the Steve Hoffman forums people's opinions of the best-sounding releases of Pink Floyd albums on CD. In the case of Dark Side of the Moon and The Wall, the general consensus was that their original CD issues sounded the best and the MFSLs were inferior to the 1982 Japanese "Black Triangle" DSOTM and whoever put out The Wall first before the remasters, I don't remember. I tracked down all four of these to A/B compare and my ears' findings were that the supposed Holy Grail that is the original Japanese sounded a bit duller (not that you'd really notice without listening back-to-back). That may be because MFSL equalized it, or it could because the Japanese one was taken from a copy instead of the original master. The difference wasn't huge so my bet is on option B. People said MFSL compressed DSOTM, which inspection and comparison of the waveform showed fairly surely they had not. Basically the same situation with The Wall too, so I'm guessing these kind of statements originate from before it was easy to rip two CDs and compare them without the delay of switching discs and find out how they really sound next to each other. Not to lump 2Bdecided or you, greynol, in with the Steve Hoffman people, but as I said, if both the MFSL issue and the new masters seem to sound unnatural and we pretty much know this latest remastering didn't make any radical changes, I can't feel totally confident but it's fairly reasonable to assume the original release is inaccurate, even if it is aurally pleasing inaccuracy.

Sorry if that's too off-topic. I contemplated deleting that paragraph before deciding maybe someone would have something useful to add.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-10-02 09:27:22
I'm only judging from the Beetledrops website - I don't own any Beatles MFSL vinyl myself. What I hear is bass and treble boosted - and that's compared to virtually every other release.

You could argue various UK vinyl issues were a little bass light for modern tastes, and some later ones had the treble boosted. But there's no release anywhere that has the same EQ as the MFSL vinyl.

I know it's the job of a mastering engineer to make the final result sound good - few mastering engineers make a flat transfer of the studio tape - if they did, they would be out of a job. It just sounds to me like MFSL is out on its own in its approach.

I don't have any axe to grind. I'm quite happy listening to the 2009 CDs - it's lovely to not have to listen to vinyl faults - I was just indulging.

EDIT: but since you mentioned SHF...
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthre...ht=#post8116030 (http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?p=8116030&highlight=#post8116030)

...I love the vitriol over there that they dared to use 24/192 digital sampling in the mastering rather than an all analogue mastering chain.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: cliveb on 2012-10-02 13:54:16
Other George Martin recordings show none of the "grunginess" that plagues some Beatles tracks - when he was recording Jazz or Comedy he created recordings that sound about as good as they could. In the same years that he recorded "lo-fi" Beatles, tracks, he gave a very "Hi-Fi" treatment to The Temperance Seven and Peter Sellers etc.

Interesting comments. I appreciate that you are a serious Beatles scholar, so what follows is just my casual observation...

IMHO, most Beatles recordings sound significantly cleaner than contemporary recordings of other pop/rock acts. Take a listen to things like Spencer Davis, Yardbirds, Cream, Hendrix, etc and they sound much worse to me (sound quality wise) than the Beatles albums.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: mzil on 2012-10-02 14:54:44
Regarding EQ, since none of us have heard the master recordings directly, I don't think any of us here (or posters in other forums) are in a position to comment on which release is the most faithful and transparent to the original tapes. One might correctly comment "this one is too bright compared to the others" or "this one is too boomy compared to the others" but for all we know that "bright" or "boomy" version might actually be the most accurate and have the highest fidelity to the original tape!
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: greynol on 2012-10-02 15:13:50
The point that seems to be overlooked about MFSL is that they tend to have exaggerated bass and treble across the board; it's apparent on a variety titles by multiple artists, not just the Beatles.

When you consider that these titles were originally released by different labels it isn't a big leap to conclude that the trend found in MFSL releases is attributable to MFSL practices.  Otherwise, we are left thinking that everyone else has colluded to use too much midrange.  IOW, a conspiracy theory.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-10-02 16:37:30
Other George Martin recordings show none of the "grunginess" that plagues some Beatles tracks - when he was recording Jazz or Comedy he created recordings that sound about as good as they could. In the same years that he recorded "lo-fi" Beatles, tracks, he gave a very "Hi-Fi" treatment to The Temperance Seven and Peter Sellers etc.

Interesting comments. I appreciate that you are a serious Beatles scholar
That's funny!  I bet you've transferred more vinyl than I've ever listened to.
Quote
... so what follows is just my casual observation...

IMHO, most Beatles recordings sound significantly cleaner than contemporary recordings of other pop/rock acts. Take a listen to things like Spencer Davis, Yardbirds, Cream, Hendrix, etc and they sound much worse to me (sound quality wise) than the Beatles albums.
Yes, I agree. There's a large UK/US divide, and in the UK there seems to be quite a divide between different recording studios / record companies (and recordings made somewhere that couldn't be called a recording studio!). And George Martin & team always cared about quality (minimised tape generations etc).  Also, some other EMI pop records sound almost too "hifi" compared with the examples you cite. But I think GM's Beatles stuff is "grungier" than his other stuff. IMO.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-10-02 16:41:00
Regarding EQ, since none of us have heard the master recordings directly
...well, no, but at least in the case of The Beatles there are enough bootlegs around, some of known provenance, to have a rough idea what they sound like.

As greynol said though, there does seem to be a clear trend, so even with no reference, it's hardly wild speculation.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: mzil on 2012-10-02 22:48:34
The point that seems to be overlooked about MFSL is that they tend to have exaggerated bass and treble across the board; it's apparent on a variety titles by multiple artists, not just the Beatles.

TOS 8 violation. "Everybody knows" and/or "It's as plain as day, just listen to it" doesn't prove anything. Do you have a link to a MFSL document which states "we exaggerate the bass and treble across the board"? Or a spectrographic analysis were we do have access to the original tapes to compare their releases to?
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: greynol on 2012-10-02 22:54:59
ABX?!?

Are we now claiming that different masters all sound the same?

Give it a rest.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: mzil on 2012-10-02 23:59:22
ABX?!?

Are we now claiming that different masters all sound the same?

Give it a rest.

The topic I quoted you on is MFSL releases, not all masters from all sources. What I am asking for is objective evidence to back your claim besides "well just listen to it yourself, can't you hear it?" or "everybody knows". ABX would be one example, but others I would be interested in include measurements showing they have been EQ'd by an amount we all would generally expect to be audible. [many dB, not tenths of a dB, for example] This could come in the form of an independent spectrographic analysis by a third party, or perhaps a statement from MFSL supporting that they do this sort of EQ you claim they do.

TOS #8: "All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims..."

"MFSL ...tend to have exaggerated bass and treble across the board" would be an example of "a statement concerning subjective sound quality". I'm kindly asking for objective evidence to support this statement, that's all.

I never stated my beliefs on the matter, they aren't set in stone, but I have a vague recollection that MFSL claim they do minimal processing.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: Porcus on 2012-10-03 00:12:24
Are you saying that you were not trolling when you requested a spectrogram for TOS #8 compliance?
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: greynol on 2012-10-03 00:20:00
mzil,

I'll gladly show you logs demonstrating I can distinguish a difference between an MFSL mastering and a non-MFSL mastering if you like.  Graphs will not be forthcoming. As to original source tapes, yeah buddy, you got me there.  And to that point, you're right, we're not certain of anything.

Provided there are differences between masterings (hardly controversial!) and MFSL releases have a commonality amongst them when compared to non-MFSL releases (I am ignorant of this being controversial, save for your lone concern), where would this lead us?  MFSL is closer, non-MFSL is closer or neither is closer.  The principle of Occam's Razor kinda tosses the first example in favor for the other two, does it not?

Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: mzil on 2012-10-03 01:07:47
Are you saying that you were not trolling when you requested a spectrogram for TOS #8 compliance?

I was not trolling. I am asking for evidence to help me make an informed decision.

He made a statement which contradicts my original understanding of how they, MFSL, operate. His statement was regarding EQ. I don't know about you, but the first thing that pops into my head when one needs to measure EQ differences, objectively, was spectrographs, but if they are a sore topic here because they are used for other mischief/shenanigans, as I suspect, then I'm sorry to have brought them up [I'm not a prolific poster or reader of this forum; please note my low post count compared to most of you here]; any other method would be just fine by me.

And just to prove that I'm not pulling this claim that they do minimal (if any) EQ, at all, to their recordings "out of nowhere", and just making it up out of thin air because I am "a troll", as you have just suggested, might I point out that wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MFSL) pretty much supports this, too:

"As with the company's record pressings, no dynamic range compression was used in the production of the CDs. For the most part, no equalization was used either, so CDs are essentially straight transfers of the original master tape." [emphasis mine]
---

Just for the record, I think a rule that shuns claims of audible differences, without objective evidence to back them, is the coolest thing ever! GO SCIENCE! I'm a strong believer in evidence based science, careful level matching, protocols which eliminate observer bias, and all the other things I get the feeling most people here stand for. However, all these rules should apply to everyone, me included.

Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: krabapple on 2012-10-03 02:35:42
The point that seems to be overlooked about MFSL is that they tend to have exaggerated bass and treble across the board; it's apparent on a variety titles by multiple artists, not just the Beatles.



MFSL has employed a few different mastering engineers over the years, so I would find this surprising if true.  They ahve also released music as LPs, tapes, CDs and SACDs so I would be surprised if what you trend holds true across Mofi's entire history.

AFAIK, they have only ever tackled the Beatles on vinyl, and that was years ago.


I don't necessarily hold that Mofi does 'flat' transfers as a rule...but I agree with _if that unless you've heard the masters, played back on a 'flat' system, and compared them to a CD on the same system, none of us can say which mastering is closest to the masters.  It might even be best NOT to sound like the masters....they aren't always that great sounding, and sometimes are *intended* to be 'helped' (e.g., in the days of LP, mixdown master engineer leaving instructions for LP mastering engineers -- apparenlty Yes 'Fragile' is an example of this)
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: krabapple on 2012-10-03 02:42:46
Regarding EQ, since none of us have heard the master recordings directly
...well, no, but at least in the case of The Beatles there are enough bootlegs around, some of known provenance, to have a rough idea what they sound like.

As greynol said though, there does seem to be a clear trend,



Does there?  Do we have a significantly large  sample of comparative frequency plots such that we can make claims about trends across Mofi's entire output (which extends back decades)? Or is it essentially audiophile lore? 

On another forum I post to, Shawn Britton (current ME for Mofi) occasionally posts; I could pose a question to him about EQ practice, but I can't guarantee he'd answer.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: mzil on 2012-10-03 04:54:11
mzil,

I'll gladly show you logs demonstrating I can distinguish a difference between an MFSL mastering and a non-MFSL mastering if you like.

Well since you offered, OK, sure, please do. Thanks.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: greynol on 2012-10-03 05:29:58
Here you go:
Code: [Select]
foo_abx 1.3.1 report
foobar2000 v0.9.4.2
2012/10/02 21:24:01

File A: C:\Documents and Settings\greynol\Desktop\Pink Floyd\dsotm - breathe (capitol).flac
File B: C:\Documents and Settings\greynol\Desktop\Pink Floyd\dsotm - breathe (mfsl).flac

21:24:01 : Test started.
21:24:59 : 01/01  50.0%
21:25:06 : 02/02  25.0%
21:25:10 : 03/03  12.5%
21:25:17 : 04/04  6.3%
21:25:22 : 05/05  3.1%
21:25:25 : 06/06  1.6%
21:25:29 : 07/07  0.8%
21:25:33 : 08/08  0.4%
21:25:36 : 09/09  0.2%
21:25:41 : 10/10  0.1%
21:25:46 : 11/11  0.0%
21:25:51 : 12/12  0.0%
21:26:04 : 13/13  0.0%
21:26:07 : 14/14  0.0%
21:26:11 : 15/15  0.0%
21:26:17 : 16/16  0.0%
21:26:22 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 16/16 (0.0%)
MFSL is bass heavy and mids are supressed

[attachment=7134:dsotm___...capitol_.flac][attachment=7135:dsotm___...e__mfsl_.flac]
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: mzil on 2012-10-03 07:13:59
There's a huge difference in the audio level, but thanks.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: Porcus on 2012-10-03 08:19:44
There's a huge difference in the audio level, but thanks.


ReplayGain. Or foo_abx.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: cliveb on 2012-10-03 09:20:38
But I think GM's Beatles stuff is "grungier" than his other stuff. IMO.

Presumably by "GM's other stuff" you are referring to jazz & classical. He's done other pop/rock, and off the top of my head I'd say Wired by Jeff Beck is easily as grungy (in a very enjoyable way) as any Beatles stuff. Blow by Blow is much cleaner, and IMHO sounds a bit restrained and therefore less enjoyable. Grunge can be good!
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: Porcus on 2012-10-03 10:18:50
Are you saying that you were not trolling when you requested a spectrogram for TOS #8 compliance?

I was not trolling.


OK. I did assume you were trolling, when you requested a graph, quoted part of TOS #8 and omitted the part that explicitely rules out graphs as acceptable evidence.

Actually I think you are in principle right. I know that is said the most polite way to state a “get real!”, but anyway, argument follows:

- There is no need to prove that different masterings sound different (recall that “mastering” is really a shortened-down phrase for what once was called “pre-mastering”, which is not merely the transfer of audio signal, it has a mixing element to it)
- However, a “remastered” sticker does not prove that any such changes have actually been made. And even if the masters aren't bit-by-bit the same, there need not have been any audible changes made, despite marketing claims to the contrary. And even if it isn't an outright lie, what does a “40th anniversary remaster” really mean? That it was remastered again? Or that they repackaged a previous remaster?
- What is in principle the difference between (I) a marketing buzz trying to fool users to buy a reproduction device that makes no audible difference, and (II) a marketing buzz trying to fool users to buy a new and “improved” release which has no audible difference?


Consider this statement: “The new 'Mastered for iTunes' version sounds much better than the previous one i bought from iTunes last year”.


There is this discussion over the content of TOS#8 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=97224) where, IMHO, the wording and the practice are not in line.  One example could be this – TOS #8 is certainly not suited for comparing music, and not different recordings, and arguably not different (pre-)masterings. Assuming that they are indeed diffferent (pre-)masterings, differing by mixing elements.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: greynol on 2012-10-03 10:42:18
ReplayGain. Or foo_abx.

I'm confused about the ". Or"

I instructed fb2k to use RG during the ABX session.  Distinguishing a difference was trivial enough without the level difference. Also I played the sample back from the beginning each time without fast switching since they will not time-align except at that point.

Anyway, I do not pretend to have proven anything with a single sample point taken from CD.  Since I do not plan on testing every MoFi title available to me, I'll gladly concede (again) that I don't know what is true. I will not concede to a comment in a wikipedia article, however; especially when I was told by mzil that appeals to authority/popularity were specifically disallowed. If this requirement is now off the table, google will readily show what krabapple is suggesting is only lore.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: RonaldDumsfeld on 2012-10-03 17:00:22
Quote
Looking forward to hearing the mono versions when they become available.


Quote
But the mono CDs had no compression or limiting done to them. Any record release made from those remasters as a starting point is going to just be trying to sound like they already do on CD.


Aha! I thought we were generally agreed that vinyl and CD do not sound the same?

Those early albums were meant to be played on vinyl and in mono. On fairly crappy gear, even by today's standards.

This might turn out to be one of those rare occasions where the vinyl really does sound 'better' than the digital version. 

I'm looking forward to putting a 1962 Denon DL-103 on my 1972 Technics 1210 and cranking up the volume until distortion sets in. Might even buy an Avontone......
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: mzil on 2012-10-03 18:32:30
The point that seems to be overlooked about MFSL is that they tend to have exaggerated bass and treble across the board; it's apparent on a variety titles by multiple artists, not just the Beatles..

Yeah, I admit it, I hear the bass boost on that DSOTM cut too [if I'm allowed to say that without ABX documentation!] compared to the original, however "exaggerated treble" doesn't seem accurate, at least not in my quick cursory listening of  this cut in particular. Too bad we don't have the master tape though.

"Smiley face" EQ has been a long time, simplistic accusation against (some) audio products, and I guess song engineering. I've heard it used against Bose speakers for years, for example, however rather than accept it at face value I instead keep an open mind. [I've never really ever wanted to listen to a Bose speaker, nor have read many objective reviews that plot their FR, so who knows? Maybe its true, maybe not.]
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: greynol on 2012-10-03 18:49:08
If you boost the bass and treble, or cut the mids, the shape is basically the same.  If you want to hear an unbalanced treble response, listen to the clips in the link David gave.

Whether you have an open mind or are skeptical depends on how you wish to spin your words.  My mind is open to the possibility that the claim in that wikipedia article about no use of EQ is false.

Either way, I'm distancing myself from the sweeping claim I made earlier. MFSL could be closer to the Beatles original master tapes but I seriously doubt it.  Even if they were, I prefer something more balanced, tyvm.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: mzil on 2012-10-03 18:52:11
I don't necessarily hold that Mofi does 'flat' transfers as a rule...but I agree with _if that unless you've heard the masters, played back on a 'flat' system, and compared them to a CD on the same system, none of us can say which mastering is closest to the masters.  It might even be best NOT to sound like the masters....they aren't always that great sounding, and sometimes are *intended* to be 'helped'

Plus, the Beatles were mixed largely on Altec 605 drivers in 612 cabinets, EMI's standard, valve amps with only 25 watts (and I'm not sure that's even by current FTC rules, but at least those Altecs are reasonably efficient), and S.G. Brown type Super K headphones*, especially as they moved to their later more complex albums. All "junk" by today's audiophile standards. Who would want a final EQ decided upon using that swill?!

*based on a design made originally for tank crews, in war, to provide radio voice intelligibility and noise isolation above all else!
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: krabapple on 2012-10-03 19:35:53
Actually I think you are in principle right. I know that is said the most polite way to state a “get real!”, but anyway, argument follows:

- There is no need to prove that different masterings sound different



I don't think anyone is asking to see proof of that.  The proposition at issue is that MFSL releases have been typically mastered with 'smiley face' EQ.  What's being pointed out are the difficulties in proving *that* assertion. 

One can say (and measure, and hear) with certainly that mastering X is 'smiley faced' compared to mastering Y, but one is limited to speculating on *why* that is.

It's a pedantic point but I was not sure it was being fully acknowledged here.  It has been now.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: mzil on 2012-10-03 19:42:20
^Exactly.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: Porcus on 2012-10-03 19:55:58
ReplayGain. Or foo_abx.

I'm confused about the ". Or"


Yeah, your log shows what you used. But if mzil (whom I actually quoted) does not want to use fb2k, it is still easy to level volume.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: greynol on 2012-10-03 20:56:17
One can say (and measure, and hear) with certainly that mastering X is 'smiley faced' compared to mastering Y, but one is limited to speculating on *why* that is.

The converse would be that all the other labels are all colluding to employ a frowny face unless it just happened to be done independently by chance.  Of course this is still assuming that what you're crying "lore" is actually reality: that people are claiming that most MFSL releases have a "typical sound" and that is regardless of who has walked trough the doors over their history.

It's a pedantic point but I was not sure it was being fully acknowledged here. Has it been now or will it appear to be conveniently overlooked once again?
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: mzil on 2012-10-03 21:42:37
One can say (and measure, and hear) with certainly that mastering X is 'smiley faced' compared to mastering Y, but one is limited to speculating on *why* that is.

The converse would be that all the other labels are all colluding to employ a frowny face unless it just happened to be done independently by chance.

That's not the converse of what he said and there's no reason to lump "all other labels" as being just one way, "frowny face EQ" or otherwise. They may all be different from one another, as just one possibility, for example. Another is that they are all the same, or at least very similar, but there are reasons for that and it's not because of chance and not because of collusion.


There is no one "correct" EQ and different companies may be shooting for different ones for many differing reasons/goals.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: greynol on 2012-10-03 21:47:15
Now you're being pedantic and of course there's a reason or have you not been following along?

Were you thinking that by "all other labels" that I meant to include those who produced titles MFSL never remastered?  I assure you I did not.

If MFSL has a typical sound relative to everyone else and that sound is flat relative to the source material then how is it incorrect to suggest that everyone else is employing a frowny face to the source material?

Wow, even after your edit, you still don't seem to get it.  The initial suggestion being refuted was that MFSL was closer to the originals.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: Porcus on 2012-10-03 21:52:15
For further confusion, throw in the reported DSOTM pressing with pre-emphasis without setting the TOC flag right (http://www.discogs.com/Pink-Floyd-The-Dark-Side-Of-The-Moon/release/667546). Morons, if correct ...
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: greynol on 2012-10-03 22:12:21
If you apply de-emphasis to the Capitol sample, rescan RG and compare it to MFSL you'll find the newly de-emphasized sample has less treble than the MFSL with the MFSL sample still sounding boomy.  IOW, the result is that the Capitol has even more mid-range compared to the MFSL title.

[attachment=7136:dsotm___..._deemph_.flac]
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: mzil on 2012-10-03 22:17:03
Were you thinking that by "all other labels" that I meant to include those who produced titles MFSL never remastered?

No. [*Not sure where that came from?*]

Please re-read my last post which I have edited.

Quote
If MFSL has a typical sound relative to everyone else and that sound is flat relative to the source material then how is it incorrect to suggest that everyone else is employing a frowny face to the source material?


There are a lot of "ifs" in that question but I think my edited post addresses some of the possibilities.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: greynol on 2012-10-03 22:19:46
[*Not sure where that came from?*]

A blind guess in an attempt to understand your POV.  A plain no would have sufficed.

Please re-read my last post which I have edited.

I did.  While other labels may be different than one another they would all have a frowny face EQ relative to MFSL.  Assuming that the MFSL is flat then it clearly suggests everyone else is employing a frown (the reason doesn't matter).  The only "if" is the assumption that the lore is true.

Heaven forbid I have to repeat myself, but there appears to be another point that has been overlooked:
[Either] MFSL is closer, non-MFSL is closer or neither is closer.  The principle of Occam's Razor kinda tosses the first example in favor for the other two, does it not?

Please try to refrain from nit-picking my use of the word "point" to describe what is technically a question.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: mzil on 2012-10-03 23:11:31
If MFSL has a typical sound relative to everyone else ..

= if #1, and I'm going to assume you mean an averaging of everyone else's EQ curve in total, they all may be different

Quote
.. and that sound is flat relative to the source material

= if #2, [I never said it was an absolute fact, I think I said " I vaguely recall" and said the EQ might be "minimal" and that I'm searching for more info.]

Quote
how is it incorrect to suggest that everyone else is employing a frowny face to the source material?


"a frowny face", singular? What makes you believe all sources except MFSL have identical EQ's?  Some may be big frowns, others small frowns, some with sideway smirks, and some may have smiley faces too, but they are more mild than MFSL's smiley face EQ, so in an analysis against MFSL's EQ it would show it was more frowny, comparatively, however both are smiley to the original source.[Just as an example]

Without access to the original master tape, we will just never be sure. All we can do is compare the copies against eachother, but we will never know for sure which comes closest to the original tape or which had the closest sound to what the Beatles were hearing through those awful headphones and awful speakers back then.

I have other projects I have to attend to and can't devote any more time to this thread. I also see that previous post(s) have changed so what I've just written above may have inaccuracies, misquotes, or may have already been addressed, but I have no time to attend to them. DOH. Sorry. Bye all!
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: greynol on 2012-10-03 23:15:04
1) Aside attempting to address your comment about there being no reason to lump labels together (I have good reason!), it doesn't matter to me what you said or didn't say. The discussion was in progress before you entered:
Don't you think though since both the MFSL and 2009 remasters were done from the original tapes that it's the original releases that are actually the inaccurate ones? You may think they sound better, but that doesn't mean they're more faithful.

2) The degree of smile or frown does not matter.  It was about a trend or tendency.  The question was whether the lore (if believed) was correct in attributing a smile to MFSL or incorrect in attributing a smile when it should instead be attributing a frown to everyone else.  The second scenario was posed in an attempt to give MFSL marketing the benefit of the doubt in light of the "evidence."

The simplest conclusion (Occam's Razor) is that MFSL does employ EQ and is therefore not guaranteed to be the most flat transfer, regardless of how they market their product.

If it turns out that the lore is baloney and there is no trend or tendency then MFSL may very well always be a flat transfer; we simply can't infer any conclusions through inductive reasoning.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: godrick on 2012-10-04 00:28:17
For further confusion, throw in the reported DSOTM pressing with pre-emphasis without setting the TOC flag right (http://www.discogs.com/Pink-Floyd-The-Dark-Side-Of-The-Moon/release/667546). Morons, if correct ...



I think I may have this disc, and did not previously know this had pre-emphasis (I solely rely on dBpoweramp (DMC) to detect pre-emphasis, DMC did not flag my disc as having it, but don't know exactly how DMC detects pre-emphasis).  Perhaps a thread split is good to address several questions I have regarding this, or a redirect to a previous thread if this has been already covered in detail.  thanks!
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: greynol on 2012-10-04 00:33:11
If there is no topic to bump, feel free to start a new one.  Let's not discuss it here.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: krabapple on 2012-10-04 05:48:34
Do we know that MFSL's versions are typically smiley faced compared to all other versions of the same release?

How many masterings of DSOtM are there, anyway?
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: eahm on 2012-10-04 07:24:25
Do we know that MFSL's versions are typically smiley faced compared to all other versions of the same release?

How many masterings of DSOtM are there, anyway?

CDs: http://pinkfloydarchives.com/Articles/DSOTMCDM.htm (http://pinkfloydarchives.com/Articles/DSOTMCDM.htm)
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: Batman321 on 2012-10-04 08:35:42
Do we know that MFSL's versions are typically smiley faced compared to all other versions of the same release?

How many masterings of DSOtM are there, anyway?

CDs: http://pinkfloydarchives.com/Articles/DSOTMCDM.htm (http://pinkfloydarchives.com/Articles/DSOTMCDM.htm)




What pressings of the Beatles albums were made directly from the original master tapes and not from tape copies? My guess is that only the first UK pressings used the original masters.

Is this the first time that they are being pressed from digital masters?

Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: Ed Seedhouse on 2012-10-04 16:32:53
Whether you have an open mind or are skeptical depends on how you wish to spin your words.  My mind is open to the possibility that the claim in that wikipedia article about no use of EQ is false.


This is just pejorative.  Any true skeptic will have an open mind and to suggest that there is a dichotomy is insulting.  A "skeptic" that will not change his mind when presented with appropriate evidence isn't a skeptic.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: Ed Seedhouse on 2012-10-04 18:39:01
Whether you have an open mind or are skeptical depends on how you wish to spin your words.  My mind is open to the possibility that the claim in that wikipedia article about no use of EQ is false.


This is just pejorative.  Any true skeptic will have an open mind and to suggest that there is a dichotomy is insulting.  A "skeptic" who will not change their mind when presented with appropriate evidence isn't a skeptic.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: Batman321 on 2012-10-04 19:18:53
Please go back to the topic.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: krabapple on 2012-10-04 20:41:47
Do we know that MFSL's versions are typically smiley faced compared to all other versions of the same release?

How many masterings of DSOtM are there, anyway?

CDs: http://pinkfloydarchives.com/Articles/DSOTMCDM.htm (http://pinkfloydarchives.com/Articles/DSOTMCDM.htm)


ye gods!  and that only covers CDs/SACDs, through 2002!
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: krabapple on 2012-10-04 20:49:44
It occurs to me that I own a number of MFSL CDs....and in a few cases I also have 'standard issue' versions to compare to.  For many, I don't.  Perhaps we could crowd source this, and test lore against data.  For a given MFSL mastering, decide on a track to compare, and generate a frequency plot for the MFSL and other versions, using a standard FFT setting. I would use Audition to do this; don't know what other applications are out there...



Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: greynol on 2012-10-04 23:20:20
to suggest that there is a dichotomy is insulting

To suggest that I suggested that is insulting.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-10-05 10:00:00
Regarding EQ, since none of us have heard the master recordings directly
...well, no, but at least in the case of The Beatles there are enough bootlegs around, some of known provenance, to have a rough idea what they sound like.

As greynol said though, there does seem to be a clear trend,



Does there?  Do we have a significantly large  sample of comparative frequency plots such that we can make claims about trends across Mofi's entire output (which extends back decades)? Or is it essentially audiophile lore?
I meant specifically the "clear trend" of all other Beatles releases having less bass and/or less treble than the MoFi ones - nothing more.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-10-05 10:08:08
What pressings of the Beatles albums were made directly from the original master tapes and not from tape copies? My guess is that only the first UK pressings used the original masters.
I have no idea. But on a related note, this is fascinating for Beatles geeks...
http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/beatles/ (http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/beatles/)

Quote
Is this the first time that they are being pressed from digital masters?
No, there were vinyl releases that matched the 1987 CD remasters (original albums) and the 1993 CD remasters (red and blue albums). Plus the newer releases that never had analogue masters. In terms of vinyl quality, the 1987 ones are good (though I only own one!), but in terms of mastering, I'm not sure why anyone would want that mono PPM remaster with audible tape damage.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-10-05 10:16:48
I just want to tell you, absolutely definitively, that there are audiophile record companies that talk the talk about "absolute straight transfers of master tapes" and "no EQ, compression, etc" - while using every trick in the book to create the "nice" "audiophile" sound that their customers expect. They would, privately, find it strange that anyone would avoid using EQ if, by using it, it subjectively improved the sound. They would be cautious about using compression, but would sometimes use things that added harmonic distortion. They care passionately about the sound, and work very hard on the marketing - but what the customers want to read in the marketing isn't actually how that great sound is created.

You can hardly blame them. Some mastering engineers are 100% honest about what they do, and audiophile people turn their noses up at it. Same processes and results from other engineers, but because they claim to have done none of these "dirty" things, audiophile people praise them.

I have no idea what happens at MoFi, before anyone tries to make the connection.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: _if on 2012-10-05 19:47:35
You can hardly blame them. Some mastering engineers are 100% honest about what they do, and audiophile people turn their noses up at it. Same processes and results from other engineers, but because they claim to have done none of these "dirty" things, audiophile people praise them.


Yes, I've seen lately a lot of skepticism about the very process of mastering when it boils down to it. Some vehemently hate the idea of compression, some seem to think virtually everything sounds artificially bright, that original Japanese Dark Side of the Moon is supposed to be so grand because it's allegedly a completely flat digitization of the tape (copy) the company had, as if it was perfect after mixing and mastering would just ruin it. There are indeed bad masterings and destructive practices, but some people really want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

It occurs to me that I own a number of MFSL CDs....and in a few cases I also have 'standard issue' versions to compare to.  For many, I don't.  Perhaps we could crowd source this, and test lore against data.  For a given MFSL mastering, decide on a track to compare, and generate a frequency plot for the MFSL and other versions, using a standard FFT setting. I would use Audition to do this; don't know what other applications are out there...


This is a fantastic idea!
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: derty2 on 2012-11-12 19:19:18
Sean Magee has confirmed today that the vinyl is cut from unlimited 24-bit/44.1 kHz files, not 96 kHz as previously believed.

Read his comments here:
Code: [Select]
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=8238940&postcount=585
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: Batman321 on 2012-11-12 20:12:35
Sean Magee has confirmed today that the vinyl is cut from unlimited 24-bit/44.1 kHz files, not 96 kHz as previously believed.

Read his comments here:
Code: [Select]
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=8238940&postcount=585



I'm having fun reading... That forum is full of analog-beatle extremists... no matter if God himself tell them that 44.1 KHz are good enough, they'll keep asking for 24/192 'hirez' transfers. or even 'full analogue remastering'.

Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: greynol on 2012-11-12 21:15:15
It could have been cut from 16/44.1 and no one would have been the wiser.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-11-13 11:56:46
Sean Magee has confirmed today that the vinyl is cut from unlimited 24-bit/44.1 kHz files, not 96 kHz as previously believed.
The perfect way of releasing unlimited 44.1kHz files isn't via vinyl.

It could have been cut from 16/44.1 and no one would have been the wiser.
No audible difference, but unless you filtered it out the 16-bit noise shaped dither might be detectable on a vinyl pressing using spectral analysis. It's trivially easy to see on the CDs, because there's often little else around 20kHz.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-11-14 13:26:49
I'm having fun reading... That forum is full of analog-beatle extremists... no matter if God himself tell them that 44.1 KHz are good enough, they'll keep asking for 24/192 'hirez' transfers. or even 'full analogue remastering'.
...and meanwhile there are people posting who can't even spot the difference between fake and real stereo (!!!!!!!!!!), and people posting who can't hear that the USB Apple has just the same peak limiting as the CDs. Not to mention that people don't realise that when you see 48kHz coming off an LP, it's mostly (if not completely) distortion. (I can get 48kHz music-related signals off my 78s - even acoustic ones - but I'm not daft enough to believe that they're a representation of anything in the recording room).

But 24-bits clearly sounds better than 16-bits, higher sample rates are better, and all-analogue is better still.

It's amazing what differences people hear when they're told about them!

Cheers,
David.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-11-16 17:15:24
It seems many of the copies sold in the US have pressing problems.

Gee, if only they could invent an audio format where minute differences in the manufacturing process didn't have an impact on the actual sound...



Cheers,
David.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: Batman321 on 2012-11-16 20:03:31
Looks like the quality control guys at Rainbo Records were on holiday.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: Batman321 on 2012-11-16 22:18:44
warped vinyl
lots of clicks and pops
scratches
weird constant noises
non-fills (still not sure what it is)
inner groove distortion
pre-echo or print trhough
off-center labels
dirt
fingerprints

Some of the problems reported thus far....
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: Ed Seedhouse on 2012-11-16 23:00:51
warped vinyl
lots of clicks and pops
scratches
weird constant noises
non-fills (still not sure what it is)
inner groove distortion
pre-echo or print trhough
off-center labels
dirt
fingerprints

Some of the problems reported thus far....


Sounds like your usual vinyl record!
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-11-19 11:51:00
non-fills (still not sure what it is)
It's where the vinyl doesn't fill the mould during manufacture, so the top of the grooves are incomplete. If the problem stretches down into the part of the groove in contact with the stylus, you get very strange and nasty sounds.

(never experienced it myself, but it has its own wikipedia article!)


Sounds like your usual vinyl record!
Not new ones that retail at $20! Though as someone pointed out, it's really cute that they've reproduced one of the aspects of the original 1960s Beatles vinyl releases: the ones in the UK are decent quality, while the ones in America are really shoddy.

EDIT: From the comments on the Fremer review comes this sample of what a faulty US pressing sounds like...
http://www.mediafire.com/file/txpqlv3qa1ftry7/SAMPLE.mp3 (http://www.mediafire.com/file/txpqlv3qa1ftry7/SAMPLE.mp3)
!!!!!!!!!

Cheers,
David.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-11-20 17:59:51
The guy who remastered the Beatles vinyl quotes the HA wiki over on the SH forums...
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/beat...12#post-8261615 (http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/beatles-remasters-on-vinyl-part-9.301900/page-12#post-8261615)



Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: Batman321 on 2012-11-20 19:42:47
The guy who remastered the Beatles vinyl quotes the HA wiki over on the SH forums...
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/beat...12#post-8261615 (http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/beatles-remasters-on-vinyl-part-9.301900/page-12#post-8261615)



Some guy just said:

"Given the lack of basic understanding of vinyl and the gross misinformed prejudices against vinyl prevalent at Hydrogen Audio I would suggest you use references with at least some credibility here. Not saying you are wrong but you are not going to help your case using such ridiculously bad references."


     
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: greynol on 2012-11-20 21:21:35
Just an FYI:
That some guy is a disgruntled HA member (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showuser=71796) who is no longer allowed to post due to repeated trolling.  From his posts here he's hardly demonstrated any technical acumen to level such an opinion and be taken seriously.

The funny thing is that there is nothing legitimately controversial about what was quoted and he essentially left himself an out, making the post look even more foolish.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: Porcus on 2012-11-20 21:26:22
Some guy just said:

"Given the lack of basic understanding of vinyl and the gross misinformed prejudices against vinyl prevalent at Hydrogen Audio I would suggest you use references with at least some credibility here. Not saying you are wrong but you are not going to help your case using such ridiculously bad references."


 



Of course. Hydrogenaudio is a place where they require blind tests before you can claim that anything is better than anything else, but the darn fathersuckers over there won't accept that vinyl is better even when they finally have accepted that you can blindly tell the LP from the CD!!!!!!!elevenhundredandeleven

Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: krabapple on 2012-11-21 14:09:49
The guy who remastered the Beatles vinyl quotes the HA wiki over on the SH forums...
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/beat...12#post-8261615 (http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/beatles-remasters-on-vinyl-part-9.301900/page-12#post-8261615)




Yeah, but some of what third is saying is itself strange...or else I'm just not parsing his words right (he says he's dyslexic, so maybe his writing isn't reflecting his views well).  To wit, answering whether  "when these higher resolution files are properly downsampled and dithered to Reed Book [sic] standard do they sound exactly like the originals?"  he writes

Quote
192/24 down to 44.1 16bit pcm? no they wouldn't, if this was done digitally, with noise shaping etc, how could it. If the conversion to 44.1 from 192 was done in the analog domain...ie analog eq, that would be a different kettle of fish.


and in the middle of one his answers, this startling claim appears:

Quote
As for all analog, there is no doubt that this is superior to digital.


I'm glad he's countering some of the usual Hoffman forum nonsense, but is he making coherent sense?


Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: greynol on 2012-11-21 14:33:25
There's a reason I don't read too many discussions on forums like sh.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-11-22 11:52:34
is he making coherent sense?
Maybe not, but by saying 44.1kHz was enough to master vinyl, he was a counter-cultural revolutionary over on the SHF .

I do enjoy the Fremer reviews - once he heard it was 44.1kHz, you knew he was going to hate the whole lot. He didn't really need to play them

It's a funny old world.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: krabapple on 2012-11-23 09:51:11
I do enjoy the Fremer reviews - once he heard it was 44.1kHz, you knew he was going to hate the whole lot. He didn't really need to play them



I learn from that Hoffman thread that Fremer started out as a standup comic....to me, he's still one
Title: Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl
Post by: Batman321 on 2012-11-23 19:06:40
I do enjoy the Fremer reviews - once he heard it was 44.1kHz, you knew he was going to hate the whole lot. He didn't really need to play them



I learn from that Hoffman thread that Fremer started out as a standup comic....to me, he's still one



I enjoyed his review of Sgt. Pepper, he says this could be the best or at least one of the best releases of Sgt. Pepper ever.