The Beatles Remasters- The Stereo Albums and The Beatles In Mono.
.jpg)
The year was 1987 and digital audio was still emerging unsteadily from its technological stone-age. The year was also noteworthy for the highly anticipated, first-ever release of the Beatles catalog on compact disc. Although the transfers were engineered under the watchful eye of the Beatles longtime producer George Martin the discs were met with a collective sigh of dismay and reinforced the view that digital sound wasn’t ready for primetime. Dry and brittle, flat and cold–it was as some would argue, perversely soulless. Most audiophiles scurried back to the safety of their turntables and treasure trove of Beatles vinyl, the early EMI/Parlophones, the later Japanese pressings and the 1982 Mobile Fidelity Beatles Box.
Twenty-two years later, EMI/Apple Records has taken another stab at setting the record straight by releasing the fully remastered Beatles catalog. But this time they have hit the mark. Housed in a pair of shining CD box sets they are a sonic triumph that have, more or less, completely avoided the pitfalls of their predecessor’s dubious past–even if they’re almost pre-destined not to please all comers. Certainly analog loyalists with the toniest turntable rigs will nitpick these discs to death. But the newfound energy, detail and transparency these remasters embody are a quantum leap from 1987. And for the legions of younger listeners without the benefit of the best Beatles vinyl these discs will be nothing short of a revelation.
Released as two individually distributed box CD sets–a stereo collection and The Beatles in Mono– the former includes the 13 core UK albums plus Past Masters Volume I and II compiled on one disc. Individual albums are housed in glossy eco-friendly DigiPacks and feature the original cover art with insightful historical and recording notes by producer and documentarian Kevin Howlett . Each stereo disc also contains a QuickTime mini-doc depicting the making of each album. The box includes a bonus DVD compilation of these non-controversial “Anthology-lite” videos as well.
.jpg)
Although the stereo albums are available individually, not so for the mono recordings (pictured above). They’ll be restricted to the box set and include all 10 titles plus the Mono Masters and alas, no mini-docs. But as a bonus the mono “Help” and “Rubber Soul” disc will include the original 1965 stereo mixes which had not been previously released on CD. Said to be targeted at collectors EMI will limit the run to 10,000 units. Why mono? The Beatles’ albums were recorded during the transitional era of mono to stereo and all but their final pair of records, Abbey Road and Let It Be were mixed to mono. More importantly only the monos were mixed with the Fab Four present in the control room. For many this distinction alone makes the mono set the more accurate barometer of the band’s intent. Generally, the overall packaging of individual discs is well done, but the slip cases hinder easy access and are hardly posh. Sensing an opportunity, a company is marketing its own storage solution; check out The Beatles Box of Vision in a separate blog)
The remastering project was led by veteran Abbey Road project coordinator Allan Rouse, engineer Guy Massey and audio restoration engineer Simon Gibson and spanned a period of four years. Exhaustive research and listening tests were conducted prior to committing the original EMI 811 analogue master tapes to the digital medium. Even the earliest UK vinyl pressings were on hand for comparison. Working song-by-song from vintage Studer tape machines, the state-of-the-art transfer was completed using a Pro Tools workstation running at 24-bit/192kHz resolution via a Prism Sound A/D convertor. In all instances the artistic integrity of the songs trumped technical considerations and only the rare glitch–a click, a vocal mike pop, or a rough edit were improved when possible. De-noising technology was used but sparingly–only five of 525 minutes of running time was processed in this fashion. More provocative was the use of compression on the stereo transfers. A common way of bumping up the overall volume and sonically fattening today’s pop music the engineers stated that at most, a modest +3-4dB of compression was used–a drop in the bucket compared with the signal crunching +12-13dB often used today.
For even the most casual Beatles fan, the improvement in sonics from these remasters will be nothing less than thrilling. Like a painstaking restoration of a work of art the Beatles music sounds as if an almost imperceptible-build-up of decades-old glaze was suddenly removed from the surface of the sonic canvas revealing the artist’s bright and bold original palette. And compared with the 1987 CDs, the remasters are warmer, more detailed, and possess a livelier midrange energy and distinctively fuller bloom in the lower mids and upper bass. The treble is non-edgy and tonally more akin to the Parlophone LPs. They also, mercifully avoid the treble boost of the otherwise solid MoFi Box set. Taken together, you’ll hear more clang to “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer”. Ringo’s drum fills are fuller and louder. The string orchestra and winds of “Good Night” more fluid and naturalistic. Whether it was the fuzzy guitar feedback of “I Feel Fine” the open-chord intro of “A Hard Day’s Night” the crashing final chord and squeaky piano bench that concludes “A Day In the Life”, as the discs continued to spin, one iconic moment after another reclaimed my attention and provided new insights.
But above all it’s the glorious singing and rich inventive harmonies and double-tracked vocals that shimmer and shine and electrify with ranges of expression broader and more transparent than ever before. Like freshly minted coins, Paul’s tender “Mother Nature’s Son” and John’s acerbic “Good Morning Good Morning” hardly sound like the same songs. And you’re going to want to grab a soothing glass of milk after Lennon’s lacerating, volcanic “Twist and Shout” vocal.
However depending on which camp you’ve pitched your tent, you’ll either be delighted or disenchanted with the well-muscled bass reproduction. For purists, this may likely be the most controversial aspect of these remasters. However, acolytes of Paul McCartney will thrill at the clarity and acrobatic dexterity of his bass lines. Ringo’s fans will be equally stunned at the reverberant impact off the skins. But I’ve never heard “Fixing A Hole” with a footprint this heavy before. Certainly a touch of compression would account for some of the added punch and presence in the low end but to these ears a bit of added bass EQ also seems likely. Tasteful certainly–accurate, doubtful. And as good as these remasters are, they still retain trace elements of digital sterility, and the best Beatles LPs rival them in some areas with an almost organic, airy delicacy.
As for the mono recordings, they are so good they may unwittingly revive a cult. The strong central image actually permits the early two-track material more bang and integrity (and yes, layering) over the hard-panned processed stereo versions–where a lead vocal was often isolated in one channel while bass, drums, and guitar piggybacked in the other. Overall they sound a bit softer and lack the tight bottom end of the later stereos, but then there’s a track like “Helter Skelter” from The White Album which, in its immediacy and speed will rip your driver a new diaphragm. However the best part of the mono set is easily Sgt. Pepper, the album where one can argue that the notably unique mono and the stereo versions cross the finish line in a dead heat. I wouldn’t choose the mono set over the stereo discs but for completists willing to explore the subtle discrepancies and minutiae buried in the rival mixes, the monos are special.
.jpg)
At a pre-launch press conference I attended at Capitol Records this past June (see picture below), key issues remain tantalizingly unaddressed–like a potential Blu-ray disc box that combines a refreshed Beatles anthology in high definition with high-resolution versions of the albums? Also, Apple Records is keenly aware of surging turntable sales but do they see this as an opportunity for one last royal 180gram box set? And if so, would EMI go to the trouble of cutting vinyl from the original masters or just use the newly archived 24-bit/192kHz files? Regarding vinyl, the Apple exec paused as if to ponder the possibilities, “It’s not a matter of if, only a matter of when.” he replied. As for whether the analog masters will once more be pressed into service, the answer is out there, somewhere, or as the late John Lennon once sang, “Nothing is real”.
TAS' Neil Gader, Guy Massey & Allan Rouse
Discussion Topics
- Brief Comparison of the Magico Ultimate II, Magico M5 and mbl 101e
Editor Commentary on Reviewed Equipment
- Bad Firmware Update to Oppo BDP-83
- Anyone bought the new Sony BDP-S350 BD player?
- Oppo BDP-83 Blu Ray Player
Comments
Neil- If I purchased the stereo version and listened with my preamp on mono would this be the same as the mono version?
No-The actual Beatles monos are unique mixes engineered at the time the recordings were made. Using your preamp, you would merely be folding the LR channels of the stereo mix onto one another. A form of mono yes, but derived from the unique stereo mix.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Pictures of the packaging and artwork on AVguide are first rate and the set could be worth the price for this alone. I own Mobile Fidelity’s 14 album vinyl set #8880 of the Beatles has anyone made a comparison to that vinyl of the new CD’s?
Thanks for the reply.
audio geek
Audio geek,
I find the Mofis extremely detailed on top, probably too much so. You can actually hear more tape hiss on the Mofis versus the CDs-not a good sign since it's often been discussed that Mofi was known to use a bit too much treble EQ as the occasion arose. the remasters are better balanced through the mids, a little more forward and dynamic, and have generally tighter and often louder bass, though not always. to my ears more of my UK vinyl sounds closer to the remasters than the mobile fidelity. But then again, the mobile fidelity's have much cleaner surfaces. that said, there's still something special about the Mofis and I'd never trade them for the world.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Hi, Neil.
I don't own the MoFi, but had the occasion to borrow a copy back in the 90's, and made CD copies of them.
Unfortunately, this set was plagued with noise, and I did it on my old playback system, nowhere near the Linn setup I now have, with a tube preamp. I do agree, the MoFi was equalized and not truly accurate to the master.
My Parlophones sound pretty close to the CD's, but, I gotta say I am preferring the CD's to these Parlophones.
The first one I a/b'ed was Rubber Soul, and the CD had a presence missing from the LP. Interestingly, this CD was sourced from the earlier George Martin remix from the 4 track master, so it's not an apples and oranges comparison, since the digital remaster from the 4 track is one analog generation up the food chain. So, I went to "Revolver", which the "analogue master" was used, and I still thought the CD, while closer to the Parlophone, had something the LP lacked, as far as punch, vocal presence, and bass. The compression may be the reason, but the CD sounded really great to me, and I have listened to a lot of them, they all are spectacular, even ih their "CD resolution".
Mike
VinylGuy
I must be either deaf or have a bad box set. The remasters' sound quality is poor! The overall sound is muffled compared to many other issued releases. they sound as if someone installed a bedsheet in front of the speakers! The MoFi's are much better, cleaner and detailed as such. I was expecting sound quality closer to the Beatles 1 release. which as far as I am concerned sound fantastic!! I am highly dissappointed and if I could return the set for my money, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Shame on the so called "professionals" who mastered these CD's. Doesn't anyone listen and compare product before it goes out the door?
Wow, Charlie, quite a different view here!
By all accounts, the stereo box set is as close as we will surely get to the original masters, and are very well-balanced sounding. Spending 4 years on the project, the team transferred all the tracks, one by one, from vintage Studer analog decks, and spent lots of time comparing to the master and the Parlophone LP's, and a team decision was done track by track to make it as close as possible to the original, using very small amounts of de-noising and compression.
"1", by contrast, is overly compressed, and "features" a large amount of Sonic Solutions' de-noising, which removes all it's life and air. It sounds pretty dead, to me. I have a really good, if not "reference" playback system, with a Cambridge Audio CD player, and Linn 'table, with vacuum tube amplification, with B&W loudspeakers, and the CD's sound as good, if not better than the Parlophone LP's, long thought to be the standard.
Put it up on E-bay, as you can turn a great profit, from what I see there.
As always, just "enjoy".
Mike
VinylGuy
"I was expecting sound quality closer to the Beatles 1 release. which as far as I am concerned sound fantastic!!"
The sound you just heard was my jaw hitting the floor after reading that comment. 1 is widely considered a sonic travesty -- by far the worst-sounding release of Beatles recordings.
Charlie:
Your hearing is fine. I agree with nearly everything that you said. The dynamics of the stereo remasters are limited by compression. And the “in your face” presentation is irritating.
The Beatles 1 release was fine (not perfect though). I can listen to it and enjoy it immensely without ever thinking about its sonic short-comings. This is something that I cannot do with the stereo remasters! I too was hoping for the remasters to be at least at this level. I also liked Let It Be Naked in terms of pure sonics and speculated that the remasters would sound a lot like it (minus the alternate takes and mixes of course!). That would have seemed likely since the production teams were pretty much the same.
I have not heard the MoFi vinyl box set so I can’t comment on it. I do own three individual MoFi releases though… MMT is pretty good, but TWA and AR sound like they were made from 25th generation tapes – they are totally lifeless! My best Beatles on vinyl have been the Japanese imports, followed by the UK Parlophones, and a few select Capitol Rainbows and Apples.
I don’t know how they got out the door either. My guess is that no one did any long term A/B comparisons at equal volume levels against any of the previous versions.
I hope no one thinks that I like the 1987 versions because I don’t. But at least they don’t give me listener fatigue. And let there be no doubt - I like the vinyl the best.
I have a pretty good system: Sota Sapphire/Origin Live Encounter/Koetsu Black, Arcam CD 23 player, K&K Audio phono preamp (kind of like the Art Audio Vinyl Reference), Belles preamp, Belles amplifier, and Spendor speakers.
Neil,
What's the bottom line on these two box sets? I see many, many, directly opposing views of on the sound quality of these two sets! Even some of the reviews on Amazon are quite negative.
Also, will this set be released on vinyl?
thx
hs
nm
I was able to score the Stereo Box set on day 1, and I have a high quality Vinyl playback system, and all the original Parlophones.
That said, I am duly impressed at the detail I hear, and the overall sound, as it rivals if not betters the Parlophones. I haven't done an a/b, yet, but the set is impressive, down to the silkscreening of the original LP labels. I would expect the vinyl to be a bit less "digital" here and there, however.
Great 4 year effort. I agree 100% with you, Neil, on this review!!
Yes, since they were done at 24 bit-196k, we can only lust after a BD or DSD SACD High-res version.
As far as new vinyl, the cost of a box would be astronomical, and most likely made from the digital restorations, not the analog masters, so I'll keep my Parlophones, but the Box will sit proudly next to them!
Enjoy
Mike
VinylGuy
Mike the "Vinyl Guy" is an "audio buddy" of mine and believe me he knows his Beatles vinyl and digital material probably as good as anyone. I look forward to your A/B results Michael......
Lee W.
Hi, Lee, and everyone.
Lee (stingray4) and I had a lengthy phone discussion, last night on the whole thing (he lives in the Bay Area and I live in Portland, Or), and we both agree the set sounds fantastic. He has a higher-end setup than mine, mine being no slouch, but his is at "the top".
He doesn't have a vinyl system anymore, preferring CD's quietness, and we often discuss vinyl vs cd, a neverending discussion, but we both agree on this 100%, in that the CD's sound fabulous. And this is just the stereo version. I am now thinking about the mono, as well.
We both own Cambridge Audio players (his is the excellent 840, while mine is the 640cV2), and what I hear on an a/b sounds, to me, better than the Parlophones, but I add that they are close. If one is coming from a Capitol world, LP or CD, these new remasters will be a revalatory experience. From the Parlophone world, very close, but, so far, I have always preferred the CD, slightly. And, as quiet as my Parlophones are, still, they can never be as quiet as a CD!
As always, Enjoy!
Mike
VinylGuy
"And as good as these remasters are, they still retain trace elements of digital sterility, and the best Beatles LPs rival them in some areas with an almost organic, airy delicacy."
That is your opinion, which is NOT shared by the lead engineers, who say the LPs are in no way accurate or transparent to the master tapes. You got this one wrong.
Of course that's my opinion based on listening to every CD and compairing them to many of the original LPs. Did you do the same?
I didn't say the vinyl surpasses them only that they "rival them in some areas". "No way accurate?" I don't recall reading anything of the kind from Allan Rouse or Guy Massey. they did state that the limitations of LP cutting and playback were much more restricted back in the 1960s but they said nothing about their overall lack of accuracy.
And futher when I did ask them face to face at Capitol Records if there was more resolution to be had at the higher archival resolution of 24-bit/192kHz, they smiled, didn't reply and moved on to the next question- clearly there is some resolution left on the table to market at a later date which EMI/Apple will no doubt do.
Let's not forget my larger point-I love and admire these remasters! Are they the final end all and be all? They're close but I don't think so.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
See my comments above to stingray4, regarding a/b's with the Parlophones, and, Neil, I agree with you!
Mike
VinylGuy
Thank you for very informative and intelligent reply. I too suspect master tape clones will be available at a later date.
As far as the engineers...I would refer you the Beatles cover feature in Rolling Stone two issues ago where the engineers clearly state the LPs were severely compromised. And to my mind, rolling off the bass and a compression to squeesze this amazing music on to the original LP is in no way accurate to the original source.
Regards. And I'm hoping my Amazon order arrived tomorrow!
Cool-you know, I'm not a vinyl absolutist. there simply are aspects of analog that remain impressive even today-perhaps even more so today given the better vinyl formuations, pressings and turntables/cartridges available to pull every detail off the record. And please let me (us) know what you think when the order arrives! Looking forward to hearing from you.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Well, Im not a digital absolutest either. I own a Revox Reel to Reel! When I was 15 my dad transferred all my Beatles LPS to reel to reel, and I loved it.
And I dont think there is any question you are right, LP playback is better today than ever, in reference to the chain you refer to above.
I guess Im senstive to Vinlyl fetishists who are truly maniacal win the dogma they spread about how Vinyl beats digital everytime. Occasionaly they throw cds a bone with respect to bass extension. I don' t think you are in that camp, but I had a knee jerk reaction. (Although not as bad "You Lie!"! by that pathetic piece of excrement Republican Senator the other night!)
Wow...........another self righteous, COMPASSIONATEl, left wing loon, who happens to love Spendor. That republican probably said some things
which could not compare to the things that you THINK about saying. Sheesh: With a mouth and ears like yours,, how can a SPENDOR be in such
an ugly house!!
Well, Im not a digital absolutest either. I own a Revox Reel to Reel! When I was 15 my dad transferred all my Beatles LPS to reel to reel, and I loved it.
And I dont think there is any question you are right, LP playback is better today than ever, in reference to the chain you refer to above.
I guess Im senstive to Vinlyl fetishists who are truly maniacal win the dogma they spread about how Vinyl beats digital everytime. Occasionaly they throw cds a bone with respect to bass extension. I don' t think you are in that camp, but I had a knee jerk reaction. (Although not as bad "You Lie!"! by that pathetic piece of excrement Republican Senator the other night!)
thank you, thank you for that final parenthetical! Truly caught me off guard. Joe Wilson's outburst was an outrageous breach of decorum and he should be congressionally censured. I hope he his!
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
While we are getting politcal, and I dont mind at all..what is OUTRAGEOUS is that during the Bush Cheney years protesters were kept over a mile
away at every Bush appearance, hundreds were arrested at Cheney appearance for simply yelling at him in protest, their constitiona right, and journalists
and media outfits were punished, threatened, and bullied for question the Retard in Chief.
Now we have people bringing assault rifles to Presidential appearances, total and utter distortions by Fox News and their ilk, and Republicans insulting the
President on national TV. Yes Sir, THAT is outrageous. Now where is my box set!!
Com'on guys - i was really enjoying this review until this bit...
Don't go all left coast on us and let this go. While I can't believe the gall or support his decision to shout out during the speech, the bill as written does allow both inclusion of illegal aliens and funds for abortions. Our most respected leader is not being forthright about these facts according to CNN....
"... it [The report] also noted that the bill does not specify a citizenship verification system, something that critics say creates a loophole for undocumented immigrants to receive subsidies anyway. The report, released Tuesday, "undermines the claims of the president and others that illegal immigrants would not be covered under the House version of the bill," Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, told CNN.
Also - "...the amendment sponsored by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) that was approved by the committee will actually mandate federal payment for elective abortions..."
That's not from me but CNN - a notoriously Right Leaning News source... So, now that the facts are straight, let's just get back to the Digitally Remastered Beattles albums....
Hi Neil,
Great review of the newly released Beatles box set. As always your reviews are informative and well written. I was lucky enough to have pre-ordered the box set from Amazon.com and got it right away. I have owned almost every Beatles record on vinyl and every CD at some point over the years and to my ears this new box set sounds incredible and hands down the best remaster to date. I won't bother commenting on the vinyl vs CD debate but want to report from a different prespective. Having been both an "audiophile" and musican for several years, I wanted to comment on this new box set from more of a musican's point of view. Dispite the known documentation regarding musicans usually having "midfi" stereo systems for home use (this used to be noted quite often in Stereophile a few years ago when interviewing musicians), I used my highend listening (music only) system to listen to these CDs (Conrad Johnson, Audio Research Corp, Aerial Accoustics, Cambridge 840C-RH had his review on this CD player correct, Benchmark, Richard Gray, and MIT). Being a bass player myself and having covered Beatles songs in bands since junior high school, I was immediately blown away by Paul's bass lines. Never before have I heard his Hofner or Ric cut through the mix with such great clarity and punch (almost like replacing dead strings with a new set) and not be lost in the overall mix, which had often been the case. The bottom end is now big/full and clean with detail. You can actually hear Paul sliding his right hand up and down the neck changing notes and his fingering position (reminds me a little of what you hear with classic guitar). I never really heard this much on past Beatles CDs or vinyl as his bass usually seemed somewhat compressed and lost somewhere in the overall mix. I just love being able to hear Paul's bass lines in a whole new light. I also noticed how much more realistic Ringo's drums sounded. Cymbals sounded, well like cymbals instead of white noise and the kick drum/bass pedal and bass guitar were totally locked in more than I had ever noticed before. George and John's guitars were easily distinuishable from each other and not bleeding together. And the vocals, well in a word amazing. The cleanest I have ever heard them on any format. This new box set is a great achievement to both die hard Beatles fans as well as the casual fan, both longterm or a newbie. Now how about a DSD SACD box set?
Lee W.
You should be aware that the SACD ship has sailed. They chose not to do a DSD archival tranfer from the original tapes. So NOT gonna happen.
Actually, I would not say that the SACD ship "has sailed". I would call it a nitch market more like LDs were. Check out Amazon, Acoustic Sounds, Music Direct, etc. Still more than 5000 titles available and there are still new releases coming out on a reguilar basis (Marantz and other manufacturers are still producing SACD players too). That being said, SACDs now days are mostly limited to classical and jazz titles and on the higher end labels. I am not sure "they decided not to do a DSD archival transfer from the original tapes" for the Beatles box set. They may have not even considered it for that matter and never put it on the table as an option. It would of been nice if they followed suite to the Rollling Stones remasters of a few years ago that included SACD tracks. The ship may be at the dock, but it has not quite sailed as of yet.
I stand by my statement. But I was referring speficfically to the Beatles transders, not the SACD market in general.
They are done. They did 192khs/24bit PCM archiving. There will be no further use of the analog tapes. So foged aboud id. No SACDS.
The fact the Stones did not follow up is a major nail in the coffin.
Well, your comment appeared to be referring to SACDs in general as you stated the SACD ship had sailed instead of directlly to the Beatles box set. I was only suggesting that it was too bad that they did not include SACD tracks as I suspect most everyone else who reads this thread feels (well, those who have heard DSD SACDs). You can stand by your statement that the SACD "ship has sailed", but the facts and data show that there are still several thousand titles available on SACD and folks are still buying SACDs (check Amazon's and the other dealers that stock SACDs sales data). I don't believe that Marantz and others would continue to produce SACD players including highend models costing thousands of dollars if there was no profit margin. Other new hardware including home theater processors (i.e. Integra DHC 9.9) and even some blu-ray players can play SACDs (The new Oppo BDP-83 comes to mind). Yes, SACD never took off unfortunately but as I said it is currently a niche product and the ship may be at the dock but has not yet sailed.
I mostly agree with your assesment. I must emphasize it IS a niche format, and the sales numbers are comically low in comparison to Redbook, hence $30 plus titles from Mofi etc. Good luck with that.
I will say that SACD is not perfect. Ive heard some titles that were just too smooth. But I do hear the more analog like sound that many are raving about.
I own the OPPO uni player, and not to burst bubbles, but it converts DSD to PCM before outputing analog, as do many cheaper players.
I own the Oppo BDP-83 Blu-ray combi player but use it in my home theater for Blu-ray movies and have Marantz and Sony dedicated SACD players in my seperate listening system. No worries about bursting bubbles. Actually, if you refer to page 57 (#3) of the Oppo BDP-83 manual, the Oppo only converts SACDs to PCM with the HDMI output if you choose the PCM option. You can also send the DSD data over the HDMI output without any conversion (the DSD option). For the analog audio outputs (which is probably the best option), DSD data is converted into an analog signal directly by the internal DACs. I agree that the cost of SACDs are expensive and have noted twice that it is a niche product much like LDs were. Of course sales numbers are lower compared to CDs. CDs have been around since the early 80s and there are 100's of thousands of titles available for less money not to mention the large used market. Sales numbers were always lower for LD's compared to VCR tapes as well as Blu-ray sales compared to DVDs (although Blu-ray sales have been steadily increasing). SACDs will never be more than a niche product but compared to reguilar redbook CDs, the DSD SACDs are sonically superior to my ears. However, reguilar CDs can also sound excellent if done right as we have seen with the new Beatles box set.
Just to be clear, on the standard Oppo player, DSD is converted to PCM before being outputted to analog output.
What I find interesting is most of the detractors of Redbook cd focus on 44/16 as the culprit. They listen to specs and never even consider it might sound good. The main reason many cds sound like crap is absolutely due to horrendous engineering, loudness wars, Pro Tools, and tone deaf producers. Garbage in Garbage out.
Fremer is the biggest culprit in bashing cds. I dont think you are like that since you have not mentioned sampling rates or other audiophile fodder. If you prefer SACD I have no doubt you really think it sounds better. To my ears, some of them have no transient excitement, are articficially smooth, and over rated. Not all.
I did hear SACD on the Ayre Uni player in my own system and again was not at all inspired to go run out and start a SACD collection.
I think biggest problem was high expectations with the format. I read so much hype about it could never live up.
It should not have been called SUPER Audio CD. They should have called it High Resolution CD.
I am not clear as to the "standard" Oppo player and which Oppo player(s) you are referring to. But the new BDP-83 Blu-ray player from what I read in Kris Deeing's review and my phone call recently to Oppo tech support, the BDP-83 with SACDs actually converts the native DSD "or" PCM version to analog and routes it to the analog outputs via the player's DACs. From what I can tell it does not convent DSD to PCM then to analog. I don't use the Oppo for music or SACDs but in my home theater for Blu-ray movies. I use dedicated SACD players in my music only rig so I can't comment how the Oppo actually sounds with SACDs (I can say it is a fantastic Blu-ray player though and maybe currently the best at any price). I totally agree with the rest of what you said about CDs and "high resolution CD". I listen to mostly classical and jazz SACDs and all the A/B comparisions I have done so far all favor DSD SACD to it's CD counter part on the same material. As I suspect you know, all SACDs are not created equal so some may sound better than others just like CDs (I have heard redbook CDs for that matter that were so well done that they sounded as good if not better than a poorly mastered SACD). Check out some of the higher end labels like Linn, Telarc, Harmonia Mundi, Channel Classics, to name a few as they have produced some of the best sounding SACDs resulting in overall superior sound compared to the same album on redbook CD. I see no point to debate sampling rates or other "audiophile fodder". It's already been done.
Oppo makes only two players currently..the Blu Ray player and the 981, which plays everything but Blu Ray.
Its an op amp based player that does convert DSD to PCM first. It DOES output SACD in the clear over HDMI.. yeh sure, but where do you stick it?
The real strength of SACD is clearly native DSD recordings.
The problem is if you are not into classical or jazz, good luck. You are buying "high resolution" music and not music you want to hear. Ehh.
The BDP-83 has an option in the setup menu that gives you a choice of DSD or PCM. If you select DSD, the source goes directly to the DACs without PCM processing to the DACs and analog outputs. If you set it to PCM, the DSD source will go from DSD to PCM then to the DACs to the analog outputs. I called Oppo today and they confirmed this. I can't speak for the 981 but the BDP-83 will process SACD DSD signals and send them directly to the DACs/analog outputs without PCM processing. This universal player is a steal at it's price point and just received an A+ in Stereophile's Recommended Components. That surely says something as it is in the same catagory as players costing $10,000 plus.
Amen, Brother, and long time audiobuddy.
Well said and agreed!
Sometimes all the "audiophile fodder" gets in the way of my long mantra..."enjoy"!
Mike
VinylGuy
Amen, Brother!!
Mike
VinylGuy
The Oppo converts DSD to PCM if you tell it to. It will output DSD via HDMI to a reciever that can handle it.
Please get your facts straight. No excuses, you own it!
From a "musician's point of view":
Lee is certainally a professional musician, and knows his stuff! he also knows great sound, and has a killer high-end music playback system, which makes him unique in that a lot of musicians seem to listen on less resolving systems, usually very simple and inexpensive.
The bass has never been so fluid sounding, and those vocals! Perhaps due to the compression, but I am not aware of it, like most pop compressed recordings are, in that they sound like crap.
Mike
VinylGuy
Hey Mike, thanks for the kind words.
-thanks for a great post. Doubtful about the SACD but perhaps hi-rez downloads in the future? You know, the Beatles still haven't concluded a deal with iTunes. I wonder what's in the offing?
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Thanks Neil. Not to mention that Michael Jackson's estate still has the copy rights to most of the Beatles songs (Nothern Songs) from what I have read recently. Have you heard anything about this?
Lee W.
Neil, is it possible to tell us what speakers the team used to monitor the mastering sessions? Id LOVE to know!
Good question, I think they use B&W 801s at Abbey Road. Rouse and Massey also stated that they would often listen in other studio control rooms within Abbey Road to double check their work. But I don't know whether they used B&Ws throughout.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Thanks! Interesting choice. Id would have expected nothing less.
Michael Jackson has no rights over the Beatles' recordings. Jackson, through his partnership with Sony ATV, owns the publishing rights to the lyrics and musical notes. EMI still owns the master recordings and The Beatles' company, Apple, controls all marketing and licensing pertaining to the group and its related products..
Hi-
I have the mono box and some of the stereo CD's coming, but listened to the stereo box CD's belonging to a friend. Haven't listened to everything yet, but here are my impressions:
1. Best feature: being able to hear Paul's bass. You can really hear detail you couldn't hear before.
2. Improved drum sound. Good for Ringo, he will get more credit for his not insubsubstantial skills as a drummer. Together with the bass sound improvement, we get further confirmation of what a highly musical, propulsive rhythm section Paul and Ringo were.
3. On the cuts with acoustic guitar, I love being able to hear the fingers on the strings.
4. Vocals are much more audible, and with more detail. Hard to believe, but even on the oft played "Yesterday", we can pick up nuances in the vocal we couldn't hear before.
5. John Lennon once called "Ticket to Ride" the "first heavy metal track". I think he was only half serious, but with the remaster we can definitely hear what he meant.
6. Overall, I thoroughly enjoy these.
7. Negative aspects: I don't like the volume compression on some of the tracks. Even though the engineers claim they used it lightly, some of it seems excessive to me. Example: Side 2 of MMT had too much boost for my taste. But I do like "Baby You're a Rich Man" - it rocks my subwoofer, which is fed from a digital crossover that limits it to 60hz signals or less. That didn't happen before.
8. It will be interesting for me to compare the mono discs (not volume compressed) when they arrive. I also thought percussion instruments such as tambourines sounded a bit "digital"- harsh and metallic - and overly boosted - on many of the tracks, although on other tracks I thought they were fine.
9. If only I can get someone to buy me the "Beatles Box of Vision" as a gift, I'll really be in Beatles' Heaven.
I can agree with all your comments, but one thing.
I have the only stereo LP version of "MMT", the German pressing, which they used the true stereo master for "side two", and "Baby You're A Rich Man" just blows away the fake stereo we are used to, even from, surprisingly, the MoFi box set. But, the heavy compression on the new CD sounds the same as from the LP, almost identically so, so I think it must have been recorded that way. Geoeff Emerick used it for effect, I think.
Enjoy!
Mike
VinylGuy
the stereo box is simply wonderful never heard beatles like this!
Thanks for the detailed, eloquent review. For those of us with skinny wallets looking for some guidance about which set to buy -- either the stereo or the mono, because we can't get both -- you seem to come to down pretty clearly on the side of the stereo set -- to quote your review, "I wouldn’t choose the mono set over the stereo discs...." The almost religious zeal of some mono advocates makes one hesitate, but I'm taking the implicit lead from your level-headed comments and ordering the stereo set. Thanks again.
Overall, it's the stereo set that many of us are most familiar with. It really is a matter of taste. While the monos have that solid central image, the greater sense of instument and vocal separation on the later stereos make them equally attractive. It's really the first four albums that really sound strange in the processed stereo of the era. these clearly sound better in the original mono. One alternative to the stereo box is to consider the mono box (since none of the 10 titles are availble singly) and then fill in your collection with the individually available stereo titles like Abbey Road, Let It be, and so forth. Still, if your limit is one box-stick with the stereo.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Ok. Got my box set. Will have to wait until US Open is over to dive in.
But I have an interesting question. I own the two Beatles Capital Albums sets. Now I just don't understand why that never got the press it deserved as they sound INCREDIBLE. I actually thought they were so good, I could live them and no future remasters. Yes, I know they are the "American" version of the albums up until Rubber Soul I believe, but I had those LPs growing up.
I can't wait to compare the new set to the Capital Albums remasters. All I can tell you is Rubber Soul on the latter is so good, I almost can't believe it did not get universal praise. Very, very odd.
It may take you that long to get all the plastic off and attempt to pull the discs out of the tight sleeves. The worst thing about this set as Neil mentioned is trying to get the CDs out of the cardboard sleeves. A major pain. If you are referring to the two Capital CD box sets of a couple years ago (this was unclear) there is no comparision. The 9/9/09 box set rules. I traded in all of my Capital Beatle CDs including the two Capitol box sets at the used record store this morning. Mike the Vinyl guy knows all about how the Capital box sets were mastered so hopefully he will comment here when he gets back from the CSN concert he is attending.
Yes, I was referring to the Capital Box sets from 2006. ( I believe) I think they sound excellent. They said Ted Jensen mastered them from the original tapes. YesI know that those tapes were "adjusted" for American audiences..reverb, eq, etc...but I knew those original LPs.
Secondly, I would love to know what your dude knows about the mastering.
I have so far put on MMT, and RS. I had put on the Capital Album release of RS a few weeks ago as preperation. I have to tell you, they each have their
strengths. It may be different with the other titles. Also, damned if Im not tempted to get the Mono box STRICTLY to get the original stereo mixes of RS and
Help.
By the way, I had no particular issue with unwrapping or getting the cd out of the sleeve. Although I would have liked a plastic LP like sleeve for the discs.
Here is where it gets complicated....the Help and RS mixes prepared by George Martin in 1985 were done in digital. Big Mistake. Early digital was every
bit as bad as they say. Rubber Soul and Help sound sterile to me. I STRONGLY prefer the Capital Album versions. They are lush and immediate. If I had the coin, I really would order the mono box for those two titles alone.
To my ears the 9/9/09 box set sounds better on all accounts (listen to the bass for example-it has never sounded so good). The Capital box set is not much of an improvement sonically over the original Capital CDs IMO. I have heard mixed reviews about the mono set. But it is a matter of personal taste and preference I suppose. I suspect the mono set is also excellent but only have the stereo set on hand. I do like the sleeves that come with the Capital box set though. Some of the sleeves on the new box set are difficult to get the disc out of (The White Album comes to mind). Yes, an LP type paper or plast6ic interior sleeve would have been a nice touch.
Hi-
I'll take the minority view and chime in that I like some of the Capitol versions. Mainly the harder rock songs on "The Beatles Second Album".
I like the added reverb/echo on some of the songs and think it makes them sound fuller and harder. That said, I'm sure I'll only be listening to the new Remasters from now on, with perhaps an occasional listen to the Capitol albums for comparison's sake.
Well, I am back from the CS&N show last night (Joe, their drummer is a 42 years friend of mine..it was fun!). Neil and Stephen are planning a Buffalo Springfield reunion tour next year..you heard it here first!
Now, back to the Beatles. Here is what I know, anyone jump in to comment, disagree, or agree, hope it is all interesting, as that is the intent.
The Beatles signed with George Martin to EMI, and in England, that was, actually at the time, their comedy label, Parlophone,and US was Capitol (spelled with an "o").
Here's where it gets confusing.
The early Beatle releases in England were always on Parlophone, beginning with "Please Please Me". They wanted to not include singles, as an artistic, maybe $$ decision, feeling that the albums should all be new, and the singles were on their own. That would change, later in the cycle.
The masters were copied and sent to the States, and, early on, I have no idea why on this one, it just is what it is, were on, several labels, the "She Loves You" single on "Swan", and "Twist And Shout", Tollie, and the first album was on Vee Jay, along with a single or two, mostly the "Please Please Me" UK album tracks. Now, when Capitol got hold of them, the songs, they thought that the US market was not ready for such a "clean" sound, and added distortion and reverb to th copy, to make a new master, now 3 generations down, at the violent protest of George Martin. They also wanted ro re-sequence the albums, make their own titles, having less tracks, including a few hits..singles, and more albums. Again, George Martin, and the Beatles protested, loudly, to closed ears.
The US releases had no artistic approval from the makers.
Anyone that can shed light on the Swan, Vee-Jay, Tollie mess, jump in..I am all ears.
Every Beatle US release up to Pepper had a different sequencing, and some different titles..."Beatles IV", for example, was, mostly, "Beatles For Sale", with different sequencing, an, of course, the added, not approved reverb and distortions.
When Pepper came out, Capitol finally chose to... let it be, no pun intended, and it was essentially the same as the Parlophone release, and mixes, and I mean mixes as stereo and mono were whole different animals as far as the mix, and final result.
So, the Capitol Box Sets were only the US albums, did not include Pepper forward (I believe-I never oned them), and "featured" the 3rd generation "US Master", along with the distorted and reverb added, still not artistically endorsed.
They were supposed to remain true to the original vinyl releases, per Capitol's statements, which I suppose they did, but still were not what was intended. IMHO...crap. Just my humble opinion..your mileage may vary.
That said, if you grew up in the Capitol world, this is what is familiar, and those would sound great on CD.
"I grew up with these" is a great argument, which I understand, but, artistically, still not right. The Capitols are very interesting, from a historical point of view, and I suppose I wish I still had them (I have a few still).
I, in 1967, (I was 17) heard the first "Rubber Soul" on Parlophone, and immediately started to get them all, ditching my Capitols. When a new release came out, I would always get the import, as I had a great source then to get them, almost day and date to the US releases.
So, what you have in your hand with these remasters is the best, so far, of all the material, albums, hits (Past Masters), as the artists intended. Plus, of course, the two new tracks done posthumously "Free As A Bird", and "Real Love", from the Anthology.
The debate as to using the later digital remaster for "Rubber Soul" and "Help" is a good one....why not use the analog(ue) master, like the rest? Maybe as a respect to/for George Martin, who was not involved with this 4 year project.
So, that's about all I know about it.
Enjoy! Whichever one it is!
Mike
VinylGuy
http://www.beatlescollecting.com/the-beatles/faqs/the-story-of-the-capit...
http://www.dermon.com/Beatles/Veejay.htm
http://www.beatlesagain.com/barchive/capitol.html
http://www.beatlesagain.com/barchive/b4capitl.html
Everything and more about the early Beatles releases in the US. More article and links on these sites, if you're interested.
Cool! Thanks for the links!
I am sure it will be enlightening and enjoyable reading.
Mike
VinylGuy
What great links!
Thanks for all the great info.
I really enjoyed reading it all. Whew, what a mess the Beatles" catalog(s) is/are/have been over the years!
Gives one a headache!
Mike
VinylGuy
Yes, but look at all the extra cash Capitol/EMI has managed to get out of suckers like me as a result over the years. If I didn't know better, I'd think it was intentional.
hehehehe
Mike
VinylGuy
Thanks for all the info. Let me focus just on the issue of Help and Rubber Soul. In direct comparisons, the Capital Box cd versions, to me, are superior. They are more natural sounding, and acoustic guitars are more woody, and vocals richer. There is no contest. I guess what Im saying is 2nd gen analog masters sound better than a 1985 digital master. And i dont believe for the American Help, Rubber Soul, or Revolver for that matter, were screwed around with. I really dont hear any distortion or reverb on these three.
Im a huge proponet of digital, but even I know that mid 80's digital sucked big time. George Martin made a big mistake by mixing these two titles to digital.
The new cds sound dull, and DO have a sterlility about them. Not so the rest of the titles in the Stereo Box.
Bottom line, they really should have releases the original stereo mixes on the STEREO BOX sets and no the Mono set. Bad, bad judgment.
Thanks for the info.
I have the original Parlophone LP's, and I'll compare the new set and those carefully.
Maybe the distortions on the later were just due to the inferior vinyl vs the Parlophone vinyl of the day.
I agree, why use the digital remaster instead of the original analogue masters?
Enjoy.
Mike
VinylGuy
>>>Anyone that can shed light on the Swan, Vee-Jay, Tollie mess, jump in..I am all ears.
In spite of the fact that EMI was the parent of Capitol, they could not initially get Capitol U.S. to release Beatles material. So they licensed the tracks to these other small independent labels. I've heard George Martin talk about this in interviews, although it does make one wonder if/why the producer was involved in "foreign" licensing deals.
Vee-Jay's 'Introducing the Beatles" is a particularly interesting case because they released no less than three different versions of the album, but all with the same catalog number. The first version (released 7/22/63) was the UK "Please, Please Me" album but without "Ask Me Why" or "Please Please Me". The second version (released 1/27/64) included those tracks, but left off "Love Me Do" (version #2 with Ringo on tambourine) and 'PS I Love You". The third version included those tracks, but left off "Anna" and "Ask Me Why". Capitol later got the rights back and released it as "The Early Years" (3/22/1965) without "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" which they had already released on Meet the Beatles, "Misery" and "There's A Place".
Although the UK versions were the obviously the "canon", in Capitol's defense, they wanted to release the latest material and Meet the Beatles wasn't released until 1/20/1964, just weeks before the Ed Sullivan show appearances. In addition, the reason why UK albums generally had 14 tracks and US albums had only 11 or 12 is because US engineers liked to cut much "hotter" (which at the time, most UK groups also wanted - that's why the Stones came to the U.S. to record albums - they wanted the distortion that UK labels decried) and because royalties were paid differently in the US - based on the track, rather than based on the percentage of the album in the UK. Also, in the US, standard practice for your typical rock/pop act was to release some hit singles, then take the last two, usually along with the "b" sides and issue an album with eight more tracks, usually quickly recorded covers of other hits or songs published by the label's publishing company. Except for some jazz albums and acts like Sinatra, albums were not considered concepts until the Beatles developed that idea, whether consciously or sub-consciously, by Abbey Road (although George Martin insists that even Pepper is not a concept album.)
In any case, once Capitol released "Meet the Beatles", the die was cast and the US albums were going to be a mess until Sgt. Pepper, although there were a few cases where US fans got to hear some songs first. Three tracks from UK Revolver were released on "Yesterday & Today" two months earlier. And "Bad Boy" which appeared in the U.S. on Beatles VI, wasn't released in the UK until the first compilation albums.
The other mess was "A Hard Day's Night". United Artists only made the film to get a soundtrack album - they had no expectation that the film was going to make any money. The mystery to me is how they released the soundtrack album on 6/26/64 (2 weeks earlier than the UK release, by the way) and Capitol was able to release "Something New" with 5 of the 7 tracks of the UA Soundtrack album (although not the title track) and 8 of the 13 tracks released on the UK album, just one month after UA released "A Hard Day's Night."
It's accurate that the Beatles did not want to reissue singles on albums in the UK, because they didn't want to rip-off their fans (or so they said.) Compared to average income, records were far more expensive in the UK than in the US and the UK economy was not doing well. That's one of the reasons why stereo was not a factor in the UK (but it was a factor in the US, especially starting in late '66 when stereo rock appeared on FM). But in my opinion, the Beatles, George Martin et al, misread the market because the U.S. was the largest market for Beatles recordings by far and stereo systems (both "suitcase" stereos and hi-fi systems from Fisher, Scott, Harmon-Kardon, McIntosh, Dyna, AR, etc.) were a big part of the market in the U.S., especially by the time Pepper was released. I remember the U.S. FM stereo rock stations making a really big deal out of the stereo sound mix for Pepper. So much so that for years I thought the stories that the mono mix was the "preferred" mix had to of been bogus.
What a great post with a lot of great info.
Thanks, Marty!
Mike
VinylGuy
"Anyone that can shed light on the Swan, Vee-Jay, Tollie mess, jump in..I am all ears."
The basic situation was that, when EMI first tried to get Capitol to release the Beatles in the U.S., the latter refused, likely on the grounds that "British rock'n'roll entertainers have always flopped in the U.S.A." Thus, EMI had to market their recordings through whichever small labels were willing to pick them up. This only changed when Ed Sullivan, in late November of 1963, announced he was booking the Beatles on his show for early the next year, and Capitol decided they better get off the stick and start releasing (and heavily promoting) them themselves, just in case the Sullivan exposure made them a bigger success than anyone expected.
By the way, as to the difference between Parlophone and Capitol -- although it seems outrageous to us now, there was nothing odd about albums from foreign acts being re-sequenced or modified when released over here. After all, an album was nothing but a hit single or two and a lot of filler tracks, right? (And, to be honest, some of the U.S. releases were put together with a certain point in mind -- Rubber Soul, for instance, had some of the harder and more psychedelic tracks removed and replaced with acoustic tracks from EMI's Help! LP as an attempt to make it more of a "folk-rock" album at the time that style was taking off here.) It only ended with Sgt. Pepper because the Beatles, at the time, required a contract revision that dictated all further albums be released in the same format in the U.S as in England.
Of course, what many here seem to be forgetting in regards to the British Beatles LP pressings is that there is not "a Parlophone version" but many DIFFERENT Parlophone versions cut at different times, on different machines, by different engineers. I'm sure the new CDs might sound better than the worst sounding pressings, but it's not fair to assume that you know what the "Parlophone LP version" sounds like if you've only played one or two copies...
That is so true!
Michael Fremer had a pretty comprehensive article once, and how to identify which stamper, etc, was used, and all my copies are early on, in the run, but not first pressings.
Great point about "which Parlophone"??
Mike
VinylGuy
I too was disappointed that SACD was not on the menu for these releases.
The "Genesis" remasters on SACD were stunning over CD.
But this comment is interesting:
"At a pre-launch press conference I attended at Capitol Records this past June (see picture below), key issues remain tantalizingly unaddressed–like a potential Blu-ray disc box that combines a refreshed Beatles anthology in high definition with high-resolution versions of the albums?"
I now experience HD DTS Master and quite frankly this would be an excellent format.
Music moving to this format would be logical.
You can claim all you want that "SACD lives!" because there are still some players and a few releases, but the format is dead and even Sony has seemed to have completely given up on the format -- try to find a Sony CD or DVD player that has SACD capability. In fact, as far as I can tell, they've replaced the Dylan hybrid SACD remasters with standard versions.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of consumers could not hear the difference between hi-resolution formats and Redbook. And even if they could, it's pretty obvious the market has chosen the convenience of portable listening over sound quality. A "big system" today is when you plug your iPod into a one-chip amp/3" speaker combo.
SACD and DVD-Audio sales were so small, in 2008 the RIAA stopped breaking them out separately and reported them together along with cassette singles, of all things. In 2008, only 200,000 units of SACD, DVD-Audio and cassette singles were sold in total. That pales even in comparison with vinyl LPs, which sold 2.9 million units (and is still nothing - 6/10 of 1% of long form unit sales.) Both hi-res audio and vinyl LPs are nothing more than rounding errors in terms of their impact on the market. Niche markets indeed. I'd bet for 2009 that the hi-res formats drop to below 100,000 units. It will be interesting to see where vinyl is.
For all the hype about the Beatles remasters, both positive and negative, when you look at the sales figures to date, there have been more posts about the albums than actual sales units.
I think you'll see Dolby True HD and DTS HD Master Audio used on Blu-Ray music video releases (concerts and the like), but I don't think you're going to see the music industry move at all to these formats unless the marketplace does a complete reversal and once again embraces high quality music reproduction.
Yes, Marty, the RIAA numbers are pretty revealing.
Surprising that vinyl sales are so far above SACD, but vinyl is making a resurgence, but still a small niche, but a loyal following.
Just something about the sound, even with it's shortcomings, that pleases immensely, a presence and warmth. Robert Harley once called vinyl LP's the "barbeque" of music, as "getting there is half the enjoyment", or something like that (RH, clear it up with the correct statement).
I agree, as I love vinyl.
But, I love the sound of the Beatle CD's.
Enjoy.
Mike
VinylGuy
What are the chances that individual mono CD's will become available? Neil, any word from your EMI buddies on that? Otherwise, I guess I'll just keep checking eBay for people looking to break up their sets and make a little profit.
I'll pose the question although I doubt they'll give me a straight answer. It is interesting though that the so-called limited edition Mono Box is increasing production to meet demand. Obviously, they were testing the waters and found there was a lot more interest in monos than they thought. that gives me reason to believe they might release them, or perhaps the more popular ones, individually.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Hi, Neil.
Do you know if the Capitol Box Sets used the real mono masters, or were they just "folded" stereo mixes? The mono Capitol "Norwegian Wood" had a cough after "she asked me to stay and told me to sit anywhere..", not in the stereo or the Parlophones, or the remasters, indicating a possible different take. And, then there's the false start on the Capitol stereo only of "I'm Looking Through You". ??
I picked up Capitol #1, to have, from a historical and nostalgic perspective, and at that, these 4 albums sound really good on CD, "for what it is".
They are really comfy, like an old shoe, they fit and feel great, but, like an old shoe, they do stink, as well, being very altered versions of the original intended sequencing/sound , with no input from the Beatles on sound or sequencing.
The added reverb and overall muck makes them inaccurate from the perspective of what they wanted them to be, but if we grew up with these, it is cool, so I enjoy it on that level. The CDs trounce the old Capitol overly cut and noisy vinyl, to be sure.
I have had Original Parlophones since I first heard "Rubber Soul" in '67, and that's my perspective from that point till now, and the new (stereo) box set sounds fabulous! I do wish they used the "analogue masters" for "Rubber Soul", and "Help", however, not the later George Martin digitals.
I do have a bid on the Capitol Second Box on E-Bay.
Mike
VinylGuy
Hi Mike,
I don't know the answer to that question-Perhaps someone will weigh in while I check it out. As for your last point regarding the Martin remasters of Help & RS-I agree that the originals should have been included with the Stereo Box but at least you can hear them in the Mono box.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Hey, Neil.
There are 4 great links "up above" in the thread from "firedog", and it's pretty much anything and everything about the Beatles, Capitol, Parlophones, Vee-Jay, Tollie, etc.
I bought a used copy of Capitol's Box Set Vol. 1, used, locally, mostly for reference and just to have, and it varies sonically from really good, to gross, the gross being when Capitol mucked it up.
It feels really comfortable, like an old shoe, but like an old shoe, it can get a bit stinky at times, but it's still pretty cool.
I have a Volume 2 Capitol bid on E-bay, which I may get, but it is the first, "non-corrected" version (I didn't know that before I bid, but I'll keep my commitment), and they made the monos from a "Folded" rather than the Mono master on "Rubber Soul", and "Help". I have the mono Capitol Rubber Soul, so no big deal, bit it will be good to have the capitol Stereo analog master CD of that title, albeit in it's American abbreviated version, minus tracks from the Stereo Box, and Parlophone LP.
Read the threads up there, and I think you'll find them pretty interesting.
Enjoy!
Mike
VinylGuy
SACD and DVD-Audio sales were so small, in 2008 the RIAA stopped breaking them out separately and reported them together along with cassette singles, of all things. In 2008, only 200,000 units of SACD, DVD-Audio and cassette singles were sold in total. That pales even in comparison with vinyl LPs, which sold 2.9 million units (and is still nothing - 6/10 of 1% of long form unit sales.) Both hi-res audio and vinyl LPs are nothing more than rounding errors in terms of their impact on the market. Niche markets indeed. I'd bet for 2009 that the hi-res formats drop to below 100,000 units. It will be interesting to see where vinyl is.
Right - by the same token, equipment produced by the all the high end manufacturers put together, are just a rounding error in the number of total audio equipment sold in the world. Does that mean, they should all close their doors and we should all be listening to JVC boomboxes or equivalent?
Agreed, SACD and DVD-Audio are niche market products. However, the fact that the Genesis boxes were issued on dual CD/SACD in the UK, with the SACD being far superior to the CD, makes it incomprehensible why this was not so in the US. As you mention, the vast majority of consumers don't care about SACD or CD for that matter: They will be listening to mp3 versions of this anyway - perhaps they should have avoided all the bother, and issued them only on mp3 for downloads, since we're pandering to the lowest common denominator here.
If you want an interesting look at the new sets, please see the following story (see link) concerning Beatles maniacs listening to the sets. The audition took place on a $120,000 system using DCS, Ayre, Wilson and Transparent Audio equipment at Audio Consultants near Chicago. On a song by song basis, both the mono and stereo sets had their good points. Unfortunately, the whole article is too short. I wish it covered half the catalog. I also wish I had been there.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/music/chi-0906-beatles-fanss...
Unfortuantely, the mono stereo comparisons in this article are of limited usefullness-at least when the group preferred the stereo versions. The problem is that the mono tracks were on a burned disc. Marc Caro (the Tribune reporter) only had the stereo set and his colleague at the Tribune who had the mono set would not let him borrow it. Instead, he ripped the tracks he wanted to use to a hard drive using ALC (which may be lossless for bits, but not for sound) and then burned the tracks he wanted to a TDK CD-R (which are not expecially good sounding either). In many of the cases where the group preferred the stereo version it was because of better resolution and transparency, but the burned mono tracks were no doubt deficient in these areas compared to the original CDs.
Unfortuantely, the mono stereo comparisons in this article are of limited usefullness-at least when the group preferred the stereo versions. The problem is that the mono tracks were on a burned disc. Marc Caro (the Tribune reporter) only had the stereo set and his colleague at the Tribune who had the mono set would not let him borrow it. Instead, he ripped the tracks he wanted to use to a hard drive using ALC (which may be lossless for bits, but not for sound) and then burned the tracks he wanted to a TDK CD-R (which are not expecially good sounding either). In many of the cases where the group preferred the stereo version it was because of better resolution and transparency, but the burned mono tracks were no doubt deficient in these areas compared to the original CDs.
Did you notice a serious drop out (actually the track is cut off) in the iconic harmonica riff that opens I Should Have Known Better? Also a couple of the remastered tracks on Past Masters sounded a bit . . . shrill. Comment?
The Mono Remasters
Had some time to listen to the Mono Remasters now, and I've been able to compare them to the stereo. Overall, the same improvements as the stereo in bass, drums, voice, and overall detail.
If I had to choose only one copy of each CD, I'd buy the first 6 albums (through Revolver) in mono, and the rest in stereo. These 6 mono CD's have more overall punch and life, and sound more musical to me. The difference between the mixes is less pronounced on Rubber Soul and Revolver, but still there in my opinion. I might back down on Revolver and buy the stereo CD if you argued with me, though - some of the cuts do sound better on the stereo CD.
I'll admit that this conclusion is partially due to my dislike of the hard left-right stereo panning in the stereo releases up through Revolver, but that contributes to my perception of the stereo as sounding a bit "artificial". I also didn't find the percussion instruments to be overly pumped up on the mono, as I did on some cuts on the stereo CDs.
There are a few exceptions to this. Most particularly the "Help!" album. The movie songs from Help ("side one") sound a bit anemic in mono (like they're coming from far away), and not in stereo (Even the '65 stereo mix found as a bonus on the mono CD is superior sounding). Especially the song "Help!" itself, which is somehow lacking life in mono. I find this curious, as I don't hear this wimpy sound on the Rubber Soul mono, and the two albums were recorded only months apart - and, as far as I understand, on similar equipment. Maybe the pressure of the movie schedule rushed the production of the first recordings too much.
The one exception here is "Ticket to Ride" which is more tough and hard rock sounding in Mono. The mono version is worth the price of the CD for me.
However, one question: why not leave the version of "I've Just Seen a Face" with the mistaken intro on the CD mono version? I'm pretty sure it's there on my US mono Rubber Soul LP from '65. (I don't want to take it out to check) and is a fun curiosity. Was it just the US LP in mono that used that version? In any case it should have been used on the mono CD's, IMO.
Rubber Soul: Both versions sound good. But again, the mono sounds better to me, mainly because of the primitive use of stereo back in '65. I also don't like the sound of the '87 digital mixes used to make the 2009 stereo Help and Rubber Soul. I even prefer the stereo versions based on the the analogue '65 mixes that was added to the Mono Box to the versions from the stereo Box. Just another reason to buy the mono CD's of Help and Rubber Soul - you get the bonus of better sounding stereo version, anyway.
Revolver: more or less a tie. "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "Yellow Submarine" do sound better in stereo, partially because the sound effects work better; "Eleanor Rigby" and "Good Day Sunshine" are better in mono.
Starting with Sgt Pepper, I find the stereo CD's superior overall. The improved use of stereo imaging definitely adds space and depth to the music that isn't found in the mono recordings. "Side 2" of the stereo MMT is clearly superior to the mono, even though I think the percussion sounds are boosted a bit too much on the stereo CD. "Baby You're a Rich Man", which I commented on in an earlier post, sounds almost like a different song in stereo. Again, just this tune makes the CD worth buying.
I was a bit disappointed in the mono Sgt. Pepper. Maybe my expectations were too high. I find a few of the cuts a bit flat sounding and lacking energy in relation to the stereo - especially the title song and the reprise. Overall the mono sounds good, and the differences with the stereo are interesting in some places (e.g. the vocal in "Lucy in the Sky"), but it doesn't have anything in SQ to make me absolutely recommend it over the stereo. I also think that the version differences in sound effects, etc. are a reason to buy the stereo - they are just brought off better on the stereo version. Maybe this is one case where leaving the stereo mix to be done after the mono was of some benefit to the result.
Again, some of my reaction may be due to the fact that I grew up with the stereo mix, but I've had a digital copy of the mono Pepper LP available for a while, so it isn't as if hearing the mono was a new, strange experience for me.
The "White Album": sounds good in mono, but again, I just prefer the effect of stereo when reasonably well done. I don't think there's anything in the mono version that makes me feel it's a "must have".
"Yellow Submarine Soundtrack": don't buy the new CD - buy the DVD from a few years ago. It's a REMIX, and the movie songs sound superior there. Plus, it's in 5.1.
Abbey Road: the stereo CD is great. I have a habit of using "Come Together" as one of my test songs when making equipement changes or listening to new gear. The remaster just sounds great, as does the rest of the CD.
Interesting observations!
I have the stereo box set, not the monos, and the Capitol Vol 1 and 2, with the corrected version of 2 (and all the stereo Parlophone LP's).
I really like the new remaster, but wish they had used the analog(ue) "Rubber Soul" and "Help" as the source.
I also wish they had given us both stereo and mono on the remaster set, like Capitol did.
The false start from "Rubber Soul" is on "I'm Looking Through You", and is only present on the stereo Capitol, making that copy unique. Strange.
But, strange seems to be the norm when it comes to the Beatles and their recordings, and different versions, album sequencing, and track listing and titling, sound quality, etc.
Enjoy.
Mike
VinylGuy
Thanks to Vinyl Guy for correcting my comment about " I'm Looking Through You" and the false start. I should have known better, as they say, than to depend on my memory for such details.
I've listened to the mono Pepper a couple of more times now, and it is growing on me. However, when I A/B it to the stereo remaster, I still definitely prefer the stereo for its spatial and imaging characteristics.
BTW, I just read that the mono and stereo remasters of the song "Help!" are based on different performances, so this may account for the fact that I don't think the mono version compares to the stereo one.
I just got rid of my box set on Ebay! As I respect you all and your opinion is very valuble. I am recording engineer having worked in some of the best rooms in NYC. I would think that I know a little bit about how some things are supposed to sound. This sound of remasters is quite awful! The mono remasters are even worse! Guys, in the studio, we mix using average speakers. We only reference to higher end speakers after we mix, or in some cases we A/B as we go just to make sure the mix works in all systems. If we hear that something doesn't sit well in the mix, we will go back and make adjustments until all is as good as can be. In all, we monitor on average speakers. Our objective is if we can make it sound fantastic on the average speakers, it will sound killer on higher end speakers. That being said, when I compared the remasters against other releases such as The Capitol Albums box, the difference was astonishing! The Capitol Box is taken from multi generation masters and they are of superior quality to the new remasters!! I know this is going to sound crude to some of you audiophile folks but a good test is to load an MP3 player with all versions, remasters, old masters,capitol box, etc. after this is done, go track by track and compare the other versions to the sound of the remasters. You will be amazed at the difference. As I mentioned in an earlier in post, the sonics are as if a blanket has been placed in front of the speakers. This is not acceptable!! Not in this day and age! I have taken my Mobile Fidelity box set of vinyl and have remastered it myself in the studio using some of the old vintage tube equipment we have for my personal listening experience. You'd be shocked at the sonic quality difference between that and the new remasters. After I transfered the MOFI set to CD, I went around to different rooms to audition the results and they are mind blowing!! I used Genelec monitors to master the LP's and was able to play them through Westlakes and Urei state of the art monitors that allowed me to reference the bass response. As far as I'm concerened, I don't care if they (EMI) ever remasters them again. I have the ultimate set.
The stereo remasters are terrible.
The 1987 versions, when volume adjusted, are reasonably close detail-wise, but do not have without the severe compression problem. The remasters have this "in-your-face" presentation that is very wearing.
It befuddles me why Past Masters Volume 1 & 2 still exist. Those tracks should have been added to the albums as bonus tracks.
Maybe my Mono Box Set will be better... if it ever arrives.
I don't like PPM and WTB in stereo at all.
I think my best bet is to keep spinning vinyl :-)
RiverRat
The Mono Box doesn't have added compression. But I'm guessing that you won't like it anyway - it does have equalization changes, etc.
As far as Past Masters, part of the idea of the Reissues ever since 1987 is to make them reflect the original Parlophone catalogue. I think the Beatles themselves didn't want the Past Masters tracks on the albums, as they were all single or EP tracks, and released as such - not on albums.
Of course, the fact that such an arrangement is also more profitable for EMI/Capitol and the Beatles is also inescapable.
If they were looking to be logical and add value, they would have released CDs containing both the mono and stereo versions of the albums. They could also have sold these for a premium price, if they were only looking to maximize profits. I bet most people who bought the Mono Box would have been happy to pay for such a release.
firedog:
I understand the reasoning behind the Past Masters. It was a Beatles decision not put a song on an album if it had already appeared on a 45 or an EP. They did not want to give the appearance of ripping off the UK fans. But if I’m playing a Beatles album, I want to hear the singles (and usually the “B” sides) that go along with it without having to play a few select tracks from PM1 or PM2. The inconvenience is basically being caused by a music format related decision made in 1963. If money was the issue with bonus tracks, then I would happily pony up a little more for the album. If original track sequence purity was an issue, then the CD player could be programmed to not play the bonus tracks which could either be at the end or the beginning of an album. I actually re-sequence Beatles For Sale anyway: I have the rock and roll covers moved to the end with Rock and Roll Music being the last one and the Beatles written songs and the rock-a-billys left alone.
I went back and compared the first four stereo remasters to the equivalent albums in the Capitol Box sets. I liked the Capitol stereo versions much, much better (duophonic warts and all!). I still don’t like PPM and WTB in stereo, but I must confess that the Capitol versions are a bit more palatable. That big empty hole in the middle is just too much, though.
Except for Help and several stereo tracks on Beatles 65, I have always liked the Capitol Box sets. I did not like the instrumental tracks on Help (and I didn’t like them on LP either). I would much rather it been sequenced like the Parlophone version. Capitol, of course, was just being true to their original release, but still… Anyway, I just wish that they had continued that series with a volume 3.
I’m glad that I held off on getting rid of my 1987 versions. I initially liked the stereo re-masters, but it wasn’t long until the compression/equalization problems finally got to me.
My Mono Box Set finally arrived. My first impression is that it is veiled and closed in, but I have a lot more listening to do.
As we suspected, Beatles stereo remasters to be released in digital format on Apple usb device for Christmas.
And official confirmation that vinyl re-issues of the new 2009 stereo remasters are in the offing (with changes for vinyl).
The marketing machine rolls on!
http://www.mojo4music.com/blog/2009/11/entire_beatles_catalogue_on_on.html
http://www.mojo4music.com/blog/2009/11/beatles_vinyl_remasters_on_the.html
Post new comment