Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: The Beatles Remastered (Read 13628 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The Beatles Remastered

So, coming in a couple of weeks, we'll have all the Beatles albums in stereo, and 10 in mono - if you've got nearly £400 to spare.

Has anyone heard any of it?

I've only found comments here...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music_blog...ak-preview.html
(and they don't even notice that the 1987s recordings of some of these were mono, while the new ones were stereo!)


...and lots of extracts here...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/entity/The-Beatle...TK6K/B000APTK6K
(click link on right)

...but the quality is terrible! All you can hear is that they are bright and loud.

(though there may be some compression applied to the Amazon player itself?)

Cheers,
David.

P.S. and the exclusives are on Amazon USA not Amazon UK - how dare they?!!! Still, they know where most of the audience is.

The Beatles Remastered

Reply #1 –
To answer my own post...

Quote
“We weren’t trying to make the sound modern,” says Hicks. “We just wanted to get as much clarity as possible in there. And we were always very conscious of not trying to overhype the sound. On the stereo set we have done some limiting to raise the level. [Limiting is a process by which the peaks of a signal are flattened, thereby producing a more compacted sound].

“The monos? We figured that was more a collector/audiophile thing, and we didn’t put any limiting there, so the sound is purer.”


from

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/featur...4253191485.html

Cheers,
David.

The Beatles Remastered

Reply #3 –
Quote from: extrabigmehdi on
Well I was looking at different denoizing solution,
and from what I've just read (on a forum thread)  the album Love was partly remastered by using the z-noise plugin from waves.
Unfortunately I don't think that "some guy said it on a forum" means that it must be true - I can't find any trace of this anywhere else on the internet, and I'm sure there would be (at east) a press release

I haven't tried Z-noise, but certainly X-noise and the algorithms Waves imported from Algorithmix were impressive, but still "prosumer" standard. There are other, stratospherically priced options out there, which I'm guessing The Beatles engineers are more likely to be using.

Still, I haven't listened to the interviews on Amazon in full yet - I may learn that I'm wrong!

Cheers,
David.

The Beatles Remastered

Reply #4 –
Price  of z-noise  is not as stratospherical as algorithmix, but biggest price doesn't mean biggest results.
Yep,  unless the guy have remastered the album himself, how does he know that the z-wave plugin was used.

The Beatles Remastered

Reply #5 –
The interview on Amazon USA with two of the UK engineers who did the remastering is interesting.

Especially the part about having to raise the volume and apply limiting to the stereo versions so that new fans who put the tracks on their PCs next to modern releases wouldn't hear a huge level difference (haven't they heard of ReplayGain?  ). "It's not as loud as the loudest music out there, but it's louder than the original CDs". IIRC, for their time, some of the original CDs were quite loud already.

Shame it seems that the stereo mixes won't be available anywhere without this extra limiting. (Not yet anyway! Not on CD officially anyway - there's always the original LPs and countless bootlegs / needle drops).

Missed opportunity surely? They could have applied the limiter to the individual CD album releases, but leave the limiting off the stereo box set (as they have done with the mono box set, apparently).

Cheers,
David.

The Beatles Remastered

Reply #6 –
There's an interview in the July/August 2009 issue of Resolution magazine (page 48+49) with Simon Gibson, surround mastering and restoration engineer at Abbey Road Studios.
He explains how they used CEDAR Retouch on the Beatles catalogue remastering.

The Beatles Remastered

Reply #7 –
Steve Hoffman's forum is on Part 21 of its Beatles remasters thread; each part is no less than 50 full pages. Naturally I haven't looked through the 1,000+ pages, but I've riffled through the last little bit and managed to find the following post which compares the Replaygain values of the (non-limited) mono and (limited) stereo remasters: http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost...p;postcount=151

So, like the press releases said, there's been some limiting on the stereos but nowhere near to a ear-bleeding extent. I guess the more apt comparison would be between the RG values of the 1987 and 2009 releases of the same mixes. On this score, I've done some quick checking and the difference in RG values is typically just 2-3dB or so.

As is the case with any Beatlemaniac, the 1987-8 discs have been baked into my consciousness and provide a thorough frame of reference. Any differences would of course stand out and need some adjusting to. I've given a friend's remasters a few listens and the limiting is noticeable, e.g. where it comes to drum hits. One positive thing I find with the volume boost is that some of the really soft tracks on the old discs are now not jarring compared to the songs immediately before and after -- "Here, There and Everywhere" on Revolver comes to mind. But overall, like 2bdecided says, in terms of fidelity the volume boost means the remastering of the stereo catalogue is something of a wasted opportunity and it's now rather a case of "your mileage may vary". Personally I find the volume boost gives the tracks a rather samey-samey quality when listened to at a long sitting. The EQ is well-rounded but on my system the bass is a bit forward (though that's nothing an equalizer can't fix).

I'm sticking with my old discs. Now with the volume boost and fat sound, the Beatles sound a bit like bullies!

The Beatles Remastered

Reply #8 –
There's a pretty thorough overview of the Stereo/Mono sets on Pitchfork:
Quote
In the last few years, there's been a lot of talk about the "loudness war"-- the tendency to over-compress and master albums too "hot," so that dynamic range is squashed and peak-level sounds are pushed to the point of clipping. Fortunately, that has not happened here.

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/13425-...eo-box-in-mono/

The Beatles Remastered

Reply #9 –
I think it's hilarious that people have spent the last 20 years saying how bad the original CDs sound, and suddenly people are praising them!

I don't really have the 1987 CDs baked into my consciousness - I've listened to them, but also listened to plenty of needledrops and actual vinyl in that time. One thing that drove me to buy a decent turntable was to be able to hear "I Saw Her Standing There" etc in stereo!

Many of the original mixes have very heavy compression - and some of the original mixes (specifically the mono ones) were already very loud (for the time, for a UK record label).

There have been lots of comment about how bad the original CDs were because of technological limitations at the time. To my ears, the main problem was the lack of care taken at the time! Mono vs stereo, remix vs random original mix. Clearly audible tape damage on several tracks. While converters have measurably improved since 1987, She Loves You sounded like s**t because the tape is falling apart and they just ran it through the machine as-is, not because the converter barely managed 16-bit accuracy!

Anyway, the problem now is that 9/9/09 could be a very expensive day, and given the amount of my money The Beatles have had already...

Cheers,
David.

The Beatles Remastered

Reply #10 –
Waveform plots? F*ck you, Pitchfork. I expect poor dynamic range analysis from SH.tv, but not from hipsters...

The Beatles Remastered

Reply #11 –
Just to clarify, I usually value dynamic range above much else where it comes to listenability -- my ears don't like being suffocated -- so it's very much YMMV. The strong points about the old CDs is, they weren't much tweaked and in most (?) cases they're from the same tapes as now, Sgt. Pepper being a notable exception (and yeah, "She Loves You" clearly being a pathological case, but it was fixed by 1993). I've always thought the folks complaining about those discs weren't counting their blessings, especially in view of how other catalogues were being treated at the time.

Now, I would be much more keen on the new discs if they'd done like with Pet Sounds, syncing the work parts and remixing -- in which case, many of the same folks would have more cause to complain, but this time ironically about having excess fidelity! (cue mantra about the crime of repainting the Mona Lisa, set to the plodding coda of "Glass Onion")

Right now I'm listening to the mono set and it's superb. Given the mix differences, if I had the budget, I'd be springing for the mono box before any of the stereo. My budget now consists largely of classical, so maybe it's a case of don't trust me or my opinions now that I'm a wee bit over 30!!

Quote
Many of the original mixes have very heavy compression - and some of the original mixes (specifically the mono ones) were already very loud (for the time, for a UK record label).

Which means even more compression and...  well, I just don't see why even vintage pop records would need any extra boosting, since compression is built-in from the miking on up.

As for my bit earlier about them sounding like bullies, well I happen to be an amateur musician so now, to my ego, this band sounds even more intimidating (I guess that could actually constitute an endorsement of the remasters?!).

The Beatles Remastered

Reply #12 –
Quote from: Axon on
Waveform plots? F*ck you, Pitchfork. I expect poor dynamic range analysis from SH.tv, but not from hipsters...
Given that we're talking about identical mixes (i.e. original 1960s masters copied on to CD twice without remixing, and without substantial EQ changes), I think the comparison waveform plots illustrate the amount of peak limiting on the remasters very well indeed.

I don't think anyone is suggesting they're clipped - if they were, then of course zoomed out waveform plots would be useless to confirm/deny this.

Cheers,
David.

The Beatles Remastered

Reply #13 –
I picked up Hard Days Night, Past Masters, Magical Mystery Tour and Revolver yesterday and ripped them to my hard drive last night. There is, perhaps, some very limited limiting, if you'll excuse the pun, but these are nowhere close to extreme, volume-wars cds. They sound great. With quite a bit more clarity in the early material, stronger bass and less brittle treble throughout. I can't imagine anyone preferring the '87 digital masters, though I always thought they sounded pretty good from somewhere around Help on...

P

The Beatles Remastered

Reply #14 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: Axon on
Waveform plots? F*ck you, Pitchfork. I expect poor dynamic range analysis from SH.tv, but not from hipsters...
Given that we're talking about identical mixes (i.e. original 1960s masters copied on to CD twice without remixing, and without substantial EQ changes), I think the comparison waveform plots illustrate the amount of peak limiting on the remasters very well indeed.
... True. I guess I overreacted.

Quote
I don't think anyone is suggesting they're clipped - if they were, then of course zoomed out waveform plots would be useless to confirm/deny this.
... Not true? You need zoomed in plots for that, not zoomed out.

The Beatles Remastered

Reply #15 –
Quote from: euphonic on
I'm sticking with my old discs. Now with the volume boost and fat sound, the Beatles sound a bit like bullies!
Having had the chance to listen to some more tracks, I can see what you mean. Subtle, but true.

The remasters are very like the original LPs, except with a little extra EQ, a little extra limiting, and some tape degradation (minor drop outs, general increase in distortion) that's happened over the last 40+ years.

What is surprising is just how many of the sound faults (that I associated with the LP (vinyl) medium) are on the master tapes themselves. Specifically, some of the distortion, sibilance, and in some (rare) cases the distant / weird / metallic sound of some elements of some tracks, are right there on the master tape.

Where there are audible differences between these new CDs and the original LPs ( http://www.beatledrops.com/ is a great place to hear the differences), the original LPs are more natural. It's subtle though - there are no screaming problems with these discs.

It's great to have an official release that's basically "good enough" to represent the music of the Beatles in the late 20th century. They've done about the best job they could have done. Shame we had to wait until 2009 to get it!

It's also a revelation to finally hear Twist and Shout, and especially Money, straight from the master tape. They were usually spoiled by distortion towards the end of the original LP sides, and the stereo version of Money is a great recording for the time.

Other thoughts:

They avoided using no-noise in most places, but they made quite sharp/quick fades at the end of many tracks to hide the hiss. It sounds picky, but the songs are usually short enough already without fractionally truncated fade outs!

Some of the stereo mixes (not just the early ones) sound very strange through headphones. Even the bizarre stereo mixes rock through speakers more than the mono ones (IMO - it's a really contentious point), but through headphones they just fall apart. If they were smart, they'd do some subtle or not-so-subtle remixing for iTunes, but they won't of course.

Finally, when the original CDs came out, lots of excuses were made for the decisions and choices at the time. Many "faults" were pointed out in the early stereo mixes as a justification for releasing only the mono ones at that time. Yet in this new release, AFAICT every one of those "faults" has remained - even some that were "corrected" on some vinyl releases. Not a problem, in that we have faithful CD versions of the original LPs, but a problem in that by the 1970s some things already weren't good enough in these mixes, and suddenly in 2009 they are good enough.

I suppose certain "true" Beatles fans can now start complaining that they weren't remixed. And if they are ever remixed, people can complain that it wasn't done in the way that pleased them. If you ask me, the only solution is to release the multi-tracks and let fans mix them themselves.

(If EMI hadn't successfully campaigned for an extension to copyright term in the UK, they'd be out of copyright next decade and we could all be legally remixing and releasing Beatles tracks. (and doing it legally, the writers of the songs would still get paid).)

Cheers,
David.

The Beatles Remastered

Reply #16 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Many "faults" were pointed out in the early stereo mixes as a justification for releasing only the mono ones at that time. Yet in this new release, AFAICT every one of those "faults" has remained - even some that were "corrected" on some vinyl releases.


At least the fixed the drop-out in the left channel at around 1'53 in Day Tripper. But that has also been fixed in 1.

Overall I think they did a pretty good job. I think the limiting/compression is very moderate and doesn't annoy me. But haven't been listening too much yet.

What I don't understand is that many people claim a difference as between day and night (for instance on amazon.com). While they differences compared to the old versions vary from album to album, it's mostly rather subtle. Exceptions are of course the first four albums in stereo. Also, I always thought that the original CD versions were pretty good, while others claimed how awful they sound.

To provide a more drastic difference, remixes would have been necessary. Like the Yellow Submarine Songtrack, that I do not like particularly.
But I'm happy the way the remasters turned out, and I'll probably won't keep the old versions on my hard disk.

The Beatles Remastered

Reply #17 –
All I can say is that I gave them a close listen and it's fascinating how they really started as a hillbilly-music cover band which suddenly got big.

I'm sure that issues in the recording exist, but honestly...I don't really care  It's about appreciating the melody

The Beatles Remastered

Reply #18 –
I recently heard a few albums of the 2009 Remasters. I really like Revolver and Rubber Soul remasters. Although they arent my favorite Beatles albums (that goes to Abbey Road), the remasters really give them a much needed dimension which I found missing in the previous version. Sgt. Peppers, is really well done, specially When I'm 64 and Shes Leaving Home.

I really recommend the remasters to Beatles fans, they cost a lot, but I'm sure they have a certain niche to it.