The Beatles Remastered:Are you Buying?

neil.gader -- Thu, 08/20/2009 - 09:54

Is anyone planning on purchasing the new remastered Beatles box sets when they arrive 09/09/09? Mono or Stereo? Is there a particular album you're esp. excited about? And finally is anyone going to be running direct A/B comparisons with the vintage vinyl? Looking forward to hearing from one and all.

sheepherder -- Thu, 08/20/2009 - 14:48

 No never owned a Beatles 45, LP or Cd and have no plans are purchasing the remastered CDs.  Always thought the Monkees and he Archies were better bands the Beatles!  Damn that Archie  man Veronica is high maintenance and a Jimmy Choo kind of girl. Betty would be happy wth a pair of 9 West from Macy's.

Shenandoah Valley, VA

mecolwell -- Thu, 08/20/2009 - 16:07

Good afternoon.
I own all the Beatles albums on Parlophone, and they are early pressings, as I learned  from some great tidbits a while ago, by Michael Fremer on how to tell the vintage, and they are all in pristine condition, like smooth glass and sound great. So, I am interested in hearing the new Beatles remasters, as they seemed to have done it right and tried, their words "to preserve the integrity of the original recordings".
Yes, they went with Pro Tools, applied, sparingly, de-hissing programs, and compressed a bit, but it seems like they have taken care with each and every track, track by track, to insure a great sounding set of material.
The earlier Mobile Fidelity LP's, sourced from the Original Stereo Masters were eq'ed somewhat, and Geoeff Emerick (long time Beatle engineer) once said, again, his words "rubbish". He has long  thought the original Parlophones were " the closest to what I heard at Abbey Road".
So, we'll see how the Stereo mix has been done, albeit a slight bit of compression (why, as they were already compressed and limited opon the original mixing sessions), and the Stereo version only??  The Mono was left alone.
I will buy the stereo box set, as I always thought they sounded better, but the makers (Beatles/George Martin/Geoeff Emerick), all mixed to mono everything up to and including Pepper, and, in most cases, none of the Beatles were even involved with the stereo mixes. The mono Pepper is so different from the stereo it is like a new record!  Alas, I have one, but a Capitol and scratchy.
And must be pulling our legs.....The Monkees and The Archies were no bands at all, just studio musicians. The Monkees played no instruments, with the exception of Michael Nesmith, an excellent musician. Just "TV Shows".
Mike Colwell


neil.gader -- Thu, 08/20/2009 - 17:20

In the brief snippets I heard at a press conference at Capitol Records they certainly had a bit more punch and presence as well as a smoother top-at least compared to the lousy 1987 CDs. But you're right, the acid test will be against the original LPs-particularly the Parlophones. I've got the MoFi Box set and it does have its appeal with the fairly quiet surfaces and low level detail but they are a bit hyped on top at times which is a shame since we haven't had any opportunities since to hear new pristine transfers to vinyl from the orginal master tapes. Question is; in how good a shape are those tapes? Everything ages, including 40 year old EMI 811. I know what you mean about the Monos but I'm still looking forward to hearing Sgt Pepper in mono again. I too have a lousy Capitol copy!

Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound

mecolwell -- Fri, 08/21/2009 - 09:01

Hi, Neil.
You are completely right to ask what shape the tapes are in after all these years.
I had the experience of remastering a set of music I recorded in the 70's on a Tascam 4 track 15IPS machine on Scotch 355 (I think), and I used some of the same processes to bounce tracks, etc, as that's what we had at the time. The tapes sounded good, and the final result, saved to CD, finally, sounded great. I did have to clean the heads after every run-through of the individual tracks, and it did take some time to do the project.
It was worth it all, as the result was better than the mixes I did  originally back then. And, it is preserved on digital, no further degradation.
I did make a set of analog "safety copies", just in case.


firedog -- Sun, 08/23/2009 - 05:02

Neil, from what I've read, the original tapes have been very well cared for. But Giles Martin found that they weren't backed up properly, and part of his time on the remastering project was spent making hi-res digital backups of all the original tapes.

Gerry Willwerth (not verified) -- Thu, 08/20/2009 - 21:23

These upcoming releases center around some of the greatest and most important pop music ever made. There will be those for whom no treatment of the material will ever be totally satisfactory.  But I am very excited to hear what they have in store for us tireless Beatlemaniacs. I expect to be pleasantly surprised.  As for Mr. Colwell's comment about the Monkees' lack of musicianship, well, how can I address his ignorance and wrongheadedness?  Efforts still continue in the campaign to get Mickey, Davy, Mike and Peter into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.                                                                                                                  GERRY IN FORT LAUDERDALE

sheepherder -- Fri, 08/21/2009 - 06:40

In their heyday the Monkees sold more records than Beatles. The Archies were Donny Boy Kirscher's replacement for the Monkees after the boys decided they wanted to be a real band.  The Monkees as musicians were as talented as most pop bands today and back then.  Mickey,Davey, Peter and Mike made one of the biggest mistakes ever in the history of pop and music when they demanded to be a real band and play their own music instead of the bubble gum pop Donny wanted then to record. I would have taken the money and the groupies over recording my own songs.
The Beatles were a very nice white bread pop band.  Yesterday's version of Destiny Child or Sugarland and white soceity's version of the Supremes.   Hell Kenny Chesney is Jimmy Buffet light  and Jimmy warmed over for Top 40 and the radio.   Kenny doing a Bob Marley and the Wailers songs is jsut today's bubblegum.        
The Beatles and Beach Boys are way over hyped for their contributions to pop.   Beach Boys knew very little about surfing or cars. Only one Beach Boy actually surfed.  If you opened the hood of Chevy the Beach Boys wouldn't know the difference between a "409" and a Rat Motor 396 or 427. They were Hollywood creation just like the surf movies of the 60's and neither depicted the car or surf culture correctly. Or for that matter were anywhere in the ball park.
I prefer the contributions of the Stones, Black Sabbath especially Ozzie,  The Who and  Zepplin to the nice sugary pop crap of the Beatles from that era.  Or James Brown and Sun Records.
And maybe one day Chuck Berry will get his do for his contributions. Damn if Chuck was white he would be the King and not the pretender Elvis.
The Beatles were a nice pop band at just the right time no more no less.  There success was based more on their publicity machine and the times then  ability as musicians and song writers.  

Shenandoah Valley, VA

Derek (not verified) -- Thu, 09/03/2009 - 17:23

The Beatles over hyped for their contribution? Are you SERIOUS? Sure their first few albums are bubblegum (and overrated), but from Revolver on they were massive innovators in the field of music recording. They've inspired millions of musicians with their groundbreaking use of splicing, looping, bouncing of tracks, backwards playback and song structure (just to name a few). They brought psychedlic rock to the masses. And all of this with a friggin 4-track recorder. I won't diss the Stones, Who, or Zepplin (all great bands, though not nearly as consistant as The Beatles were in just 6 years), and I'll give you Sabbath, though I'm not a fan. And Chuck Berry was incredible (way better than Elvis), though after about half a dozen of his songs they all start to sound the same.
The only reason The Monkees ever amounted to jack-**** is because they had great songwriters like Harry Nilsson (massively underrated) penning songs for them. But they were a Beatles knock-off for their enitre careers. And The Archies??? Jesus Christ!

Mike Scarpitti (not verified) -- Tue, 12/01/2009 - 18:11

If you have seen only one Ansel Adams photograph, you haven't seen them all. If you have seen two Ansel Adams photographs, you have seen them all.

Ditto for everyone who made pop/rock records in the 60s except the Beatles. Lesley Gore is still alive. What awful music she was responsible for...

Derek (not verified) -- Thu, 09/03/2009 - 17:23

The Beatles over hyped for their contribution? Are you SERIOUS? Sure their first few albums are bubblegum (and overrated), but from Revolver on they were massive innovators in the field of music recording. They've inspired millions of musicians with their groundbreaking use of splicing, looping, bouncing of tracks, backwards playback and song structure (just to name a few). They brought psychedlic rock to the masses. And all of this with a friggin 4-track recorder. I won't diss the Stones, Who, or Zepplin (all great bands, though not nearly as consistant as The Beatles were in just 6 years), and I'll give you Sabbath, though I'm not a fan. And Chuck Berry was incredible (way better than Elvis), though after about half a dozen of his songs they all start to sound the same.
The only reason The Monkees ever amounted to jack-**** is because they had great songwriters like Harry Nilsson (massively underrated) penning songs for them. But they were a Beatles knock-off for their enitre careers. And The Archies??? Jesus Christ!

neil.gader -- Thu, 09/03/2009 - 17:29

Amen twice!!!

Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound

mecolwell -- Sat, 09/05/2009 - 08:53

Amen thrice!!!!!


Saint Dick (not verified) -- Fri, 09/11/2009 - 16:48

Buddy Holly is the TRUE king of Rock & Roll - which the Beatles themselves acknowledge - Beatles are by far the best band EVER. Can't believe we have to defend the Beatles to someone who says the Monkees were better - I thought so too, in highschool, but I grew up and apprecite what they did for ALL of Music - If Buddy Holly is the roots of Rock & Roll, the Beatles are the solid trunk, with branches going everywhere, including Rap, Heavy Metal, Pop and of course, Rock and Roll

neil.gader -- Fri, 09/11/2009 - 16:59

thanks St. D! Couldn't agree more.

Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound

m130man (not verified) -- Thu, 01/21/2010 - 14:06

dude ,you are sooooooo wrong about the Beatles,but to each his own....however if you like Zeppelin'' so much it would be niceto see you spell their name correctly

mecolwell -- Fri, 08/21/2009 - 08:14

I always loved the Monkees, and had their records, still have a couple LP's. I always loved the Stones, Chuck Berry, Zeppelin, James Brown, on and on.
Maybe the Beatles mean so much to me because of my age, and I grew up with them through High School, and my life somewhat followed their evolution, as I was 17 in the "Summer Of Love" in 1967.
The Lennon, McCartney songwriting team was very strong, however, with Lennon being more edgy and McCartney being  more the balladeer.
The Monkees, when they wanted to play on their own, flopped, not surprisingly, and all their big hits are done by studio musicians, but, of course, they sang on the tracks. 
Probably why they are not in the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame, but my opinion is that they should be for their contribution to the music of the time.


neil.gader -- Fri, 08/21/2009 - 14:03

Keep in mind that the ONLY reason a spin-off band like  the Monkees existed is due to a calculated attempt (and a successful one) to glom on to the Beatles popularity and riff- via episodic television- on "A Hard Day's Night". I don't think any other comparison is really relevant to this thread. The fact is , it's the Beatles that are being remastered to be enjoyed by millions worldwide, discovered and appreciated by new generations. And not insignificantly their music is still continually covered (and sampled) by new artists.  That is proof in and of itself of their contribution to  music. Smart marketing has always been a part of the commericial pop music scene but ultimately there has to be some substance that underpins the product. And btw, I always liked the Monkees and still do-they really grew from being a parlor joke to real band.

Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound

mecolwell -- Fri, 08/21/2009 - 16:02

To Neil:
Amen, Brother!!
So, now, back to the topic at hand, the Beatles discussions, and the remasters...."the game is afoot"...


neil.gader -- Fri, 08/21/2009 - 16:20

I think what may be the most interesting issue that comes up with these remasterings will be between how close they adhere to the original Parlophone releases but in the event that they take liberties,  whether people still like them or even prefer these newer interpretations. This could end up becoming an argument between an originalist faction and a musicality faction.

Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound

Bill Tweed (not verified) -- Sat, 08/22/2009 - 02:38

   I'm the odd man out here, as my Beatles collection is all digital; I sold off my albums (including the Mo-Fi Magical Mystery Tour) in the early
nineties & my worn-out Beatle singles a couple years ago on eBay (for $145!). My interest in the remasters is this: my copy of ABBEY ROAD
is not the 1987 issue but a Japanese import I bought in 1984 and which, to my ears, always sounded a bit murky and down in level (from tapes
several generations removed from the masters?). I therefore will definitely be getting the "new" ABBEY ROAD to see if there is indeed im-
provement. The sonics of LOVE leave me hopeful.
   BTW, I do have a turntable (Technics SL1800 w/ ADC QLM 30 MK. III) but prefer the convenience and sound of digital for my limited budget.
   2nd point - the number of standards the Beatles produced (& the Beach Boys too, for that matter) and their profound influence on popular
music surpass any of the other bands that were mentioned. My life was changed forever on 2-9-64 and created the interest in music that I
enjoy to this day (2,000+ albums in CD, SACD, DVD-A & LP formats, plus DVD concert videos). I rest my case.

mecolwell -- Sun, 08/23/2009 - 09:55

And a great case it is, indeed!


mecolwell -- Sat, 08/22/2009 - 10:28

Good Morning.
A great point, in that even the original Parlophones were not sourced from the Master Tapes, but copies sent to the plant(s). So, one may say that the new set may be better, as the source was the original Master Tapes.
Something I am looking forward to hearing, is "Side Two" of "Magical Mystery Tour". Originally, In England, it was an EP set, on two 7" discs, only with the songs from the film. It was released here in the US as an album, and later worldwide, too, as "Magical Mystery Tour Plus Other Songs". The "other songs", on side two, "Hello Goodbye", Strawberry Fields Forever", Penny Lane", Baby You're A Rich Man", and "All You Need Is Love", were in the awful "Duophonic", a mono with simulated stereo with each channel being eq'ed differently. Even the MoFi box set was presented that way. However, on the German pressing only (EMI Electrola-Apple), "Seite 2":, presented these in true stereo, and "Baby You're A Rich Man" has to be heard to be believed!  There is no comparison! The bass is deep and tight, and it  all sounds wonderful.  I hope the new set presents it this way, as it should be. If it is in fake stereo, the German LP version will still be the one to own.
As always. "Enjoy".


Ralph Sorrentino (not verified) -- Sat, 08/22/2009 - 12:16

 Have pre-ordered stereo box set on Amazon.  Can't wait to get it.  I grew up in NY and remember seeing them for the first time on TV when they performed on the Ed Sullivan show.  I remember tuning in to the top 40 countdown every week on WMCA-540AM to hear their songs.  I remember the Shea Stadium concert although I was not there.  The memories that these songs evoke are priceless.  I will probably host a dinner and listening night at my house one night after the box set arrives with close friends, open some excellent wine and let everyone choose their favorites songs.  
The '87 re-masters are terrible.  The true test will be how they sound against Parlaphone vinyl.  I hope I don't regret ordering the stereo set instead of the mono.  In my lifetime there are a few "perfect" LPs.  A perfect LP is one that you can only play from start to finish; no skipping songs.  Rubber Soul, Abbey Road, Sgt. Peppers, Magical Mystery tour.  All perfect in my view.  

mecolwell -- Sat, 08/22/2009 - 13:05

WMCA..oh yeah!
I lived in Northern NJ from 1959-1966, and I used to listen to Murray The K on WMCA and Cousin Brucie, Dan Ingram over at WABC-770.
"Seventy-Seven, Double-U- A- B- C..ding!!"
My Dad, also Ralph, rest his soul, took me and a friend over to NYC and we got off the Subway at the Ed Sullivan Theater to be a part of the event, but, alas, not part of the show.
The mono box set, on Amazon is now sold out, and still may be available elsewhere, but it was to be a limited run, 10,000, I think.
I always preferred the stereo Parlophones, but what Capitol did to ruin the stereos from day 1 through Pepper, was inexcusable, and their monos sounded better . The Capitol Box set is rubbish, too, as they used the reverb soaked, distortion- riddled anomolies of their version of the "master".
"Enjoy" the wine and dinner..too bad I live on the West Coast (Oregon), or I'd join you for a great cab.


firedog -- Sun, 08/23/2009 - 05:13

Hi All-

I ordered the mono set, plus the stereo of Abbey Road and Let it Be (they don't come in mono). My guess is that I'll end up buying some of the other albums in stereo too at some point.

I've always thought that most of the albums, especially the earlier ones, sound better in mono.

In addition, the mono didn't go through added volume compression - and I hate most modern pop/rock pressings, as the overdone volume compression sounds bad and gives me a headache (literally). Based on my experience with the "Capitol Series" remasters, I expect the new remasters to sound good and reveal detail we didn't hear before.

I have old vinyl-all the Capitol, and some of the Parlophone, but based on the recent "Capitol" series remasters, I have no problem with digital re-issues. I thought they were faithful versions of the original vinyl.

I expect the new remasters to become my "standard" Beatles listen. I've got a very good digital setup and prefer listening in digital these days. I'm excited only b/c that I've read that the remasters sound good and that they do reveal detail that we couldn't hear before.

neil.gader -- Sun, 08/23/2009 - 12:15

Yes, I think what makes the early monos so interesting is that since these were the only mixes engineered with the Beatles present it brings fans closer to what they actually heard, the choices they made and finally approved. Even Paul was quoted as saying in the latest Rolling Stone that mono was the way they heard things in their own head-it was what they grew up on. I'm not a Luddite and I prefer stereo but in this instance the monos offer rare  insights to their creative process.

Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound

mecolwell -- Thu, 08/27/2009 - 08:57

Good Morning, Good Morning, Good Morning-a!!!
Yeah, from Sgt Pepper! I did a re-listen to my Mono Sgt. Pepper the other day, and it is very different from the stereo mix, and they spent over 2 weeks hashing out the mono mix, then The Beatles went home, and George Martin and Geoeff Emerick completed the Stereo mix in a couple days. I do think the mono is really interesting, but still feel that the stereo mix is more polished, and most likely George and Geoeff did it so fast because they had just spent so much time wih it that it was easier to complete. I do think the stereo sounds better, and not as rough, with some of the tape flutter issues, timing issues that I hear on the Mono.
The Mono is still very cool to me.


neil.gader -- Thu, 08/27/2009 - 10:09

It's an interesting discussion, mono versus stereo. The Beatles themselves were mono guys essentially, this was how they were raised. An argument could and has been made about artisitic intent. Since the mono Pepper is what they worked on and approved does it more approximate everything that they wanted to hear in the final mix, at least more so than the stereo which was kind of the forgotten child in the equation? It's also true that on at least some of the albums, the stereos weren't even mixed until weeks or even month later, at least one reason for the many differences that can be heard.

Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound

mecolwell -- Thu, 08/27/2009 - 19:16

Yes, interesting, indeed.
The Monos are the artistic versions approved by the Beatles, for sure.
They sure were "mono guys", and that should be appreciated in the artistic equation.
I'd love to hear one of the mono Pepper Cd's, and compare to my Capitol LP, as the Capitol sounds very muddy, and just doesn't have any real high-end, to speak of.  Maybe just my copy, as it was used, when I bought it recently, but it is fairly quiet, and looks clean.
I have never heard the Parlophone Mono version, but I suspect it blows away the Capitol, like all the other Parlophones do.
It wouldn't surprise me if Capitol did some more  "fussing" with the master, like so much of the earlier stuff.


neil.gader -- Thu, 08/27/2009 - 19:30

My Capitol mono sounds like mud too. I enjoy it for the different mixing cues and so forth. Otherwise it's not pleasant. I remain eternally hopeful.

Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound

mecolwell -- Tue, 09/01/2009 - 08:19

I wonder how "Pepper" sounds on the Capitol CD?
As much as I hate how Capitol raped everything up to Pepper, I think they left Pepper pretty much alone.  So, the Capitol CD from the box set (I don't own it, nor have heard it), may be  a pretty good representation of the mono mix, as both stereo and mono were presented on the Capitol box set ( so, EMI, why did you not do that for us????). Better than our muddy Capitol LP's??


mecolwell -- Wed, 09/02/2009 - 19:09

I'll reply to myself!!
Checking further, Pepper is not included in the Capitol Box Set, so no mono Papper on CD there.
It was just a thought...maybe a way to get a good mono Pepper.


Davey (not verified) -- Thu, 08/27/2009 - 16:46

I can't help but be skeptical. You really have to wonder if the new Beatles releases really are the best. Why not go hi-rez like Neil Young and release it in Blu-Ray? Why not give us the mono and stereo on one disc (the early Beatles stuff typically clocks in at about 35 minutes so theres plenty of room for the stereo stuff) and save us a few bucks.
It all smacks of a horrific cash grab. I really hope I'm wrong , but how many "new improved, re-mastered, extra tracks, SBM,complete with original art work, cd's do you have to buy before the alarm bells go off.
As Johnny (Lydon)Rotten said "Do you feel like you've been conned"?
Right now,yes.

neil.gader -- Thu, 08/27/2009 - 19:27

It may sound like anarchy but I don't think higher bit rates are guaranteed to make a better disc. I've heard some of the DVD-Audio efforts and they positively stink. It's high-rez garbage. My belief is that it's all about the original master and the engineer that does the transfer. There are some brilliant sounding CDs and loads of horrible LPs, go figure. As for the Beatles, I totally get what you're saying. HOwever, historcally they've been pretty conservative with their reissues and tend to be behind the curve. It took 22 years between this digital remastering and the first one after all. They might just be betting against Blu-ray as a viable storage format-I just don't know.  But to your point, I'm sure they've got something up their sleeve in the high rez department. These remasterings are probably their swan song to the CD.
In any case, I just received these new discs for review in TAS. So far I'm pretty impressed. they won't please everybody but they just kill the '87 discs. Truly. And I hate to admit it, but the early monos sound wonderful.

Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound

mecolwell -- Fri, 08/28/2009 - 08:04

Hi, Neil.
So, I am dying to know: is "Side Two" of  "Magical Mystery Tour", with "Baby You're A Rich man" in particular, in true stereo or the "duophonic"???
How are they compared to the Parlophones?
I have the stereo box pre-ordered, too.


neil.gader -- Fri, 08/28/2009 - 11:37

Sorry, I haven't gotten to MMT yet but I swear I will today and will report back. Duophonic...yeech! That's why I find the early processed stereo disc so unlistenable, the monos creaming them. I've done a little AB listening with vinyl, but not much yet. the vinyl tends to lay back a little bit, possess an almost indefinable delicacy on softer tunes like Yesterday and In My Life but, on the rockers the remasters have a midrange forward punch and bass impact that vinyl can't quite match. A bit of compression might explain the tight, even bass lines. Some purists might get pissy but on the other hand McCartney has never sounded so good.

Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound

mecolwell -- Fri, 08/28/2009 - 15:08

Yes, some may get pissy, but  no matter what they did, some would get pissy, I suppose. They could do "needle drops" of pristine Parlophones, or direct copies of the mastertapes, and some would be upset about some aspect.
Seems like the discussion on why no High-Res release, like BD, is pure and simple. It is a numbers game, and I suspect they could never even break even with a BD set, much less make a profit. These days, it is what it is.
  I am excited to get the set, and seems like it will be a great one, at that.
Yes, perhaps the slight compression makes it a bit more punchy, but if you say McCartney has never sounded better, then, well, sounds like we have a winner!!


James Walley (not verified) -- Sat, 10/10/2009 - 18:06

"Duophonic...yeech! That's why I find the early processed stereo disc so unlistenable, the monos creaming them."
Neil, the new stereo CDs of the early albums are in true stereo, not duophonic.  The problem with the first two albums is that they were recorded to two-track, and the only way to do stereo was to route one track to each channel, meaning that, instead of a true stereo "mix," you generally got one track (left channel) with the basic instrumental tracks and the other (right channel) with the voices and any random instrument they overdubbed at the same time -- meaning, of course, that there was no stereo image at all, just different parts of the mono recording sent to different speakers.  The only exception to this is "Money (That's What I Want)" on With The Beatles, where they had to bounce the tracks down to a second machine to add other parts -- that's why it's the only track on those two albums with a centered lead vocal.  I still prefer (obviously) the mono of those two albums, but the stereo versions are not duophonic or otherwise fake stereo.

firedog -- Sat, 08/29/2009 - 01:45

From what I've read, the MMT cuts are in true stereo. Maybe Neil can tell what he's hearing.

neil.gader -- Thu, 09/03/2009 - 09:16

they certainly sound like it to me. It's interesting but as the Beatles and George Martin get familiar with stereo mixing you can almost hear what mustve been many discussions about positioning tracks in the mix. By MMT, instruments and vocals have a better spread, improved imaging and less of the nasty hard-panning of the earlier stereos. Obviously by MMT, White Album, Abbey Road and Let It be, they'd worked out most of  the kinks.

Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound

Ralph Sorrentino (not verified) -- Fri, 08/28/2009 - 23:21

 Neil, thanks for the post.  I know your system is detailed in every article you write but can you refresh us on the system you are using ?  What are your thoughts on Rubber Soul?

neil.gader -- Sat, 08/29/2009 - 09:38

 The system for the purpose of this evaluation is comprised of the Sonus Faber Liuto or ATC SCM20-2 loudspeakers, Plinius Hiato int amp (300Wpc), Simaudio CD3.3 player and for analog playback comparisons, a Sota Cosmos table with SME Series V tonearm. Cabling is Synergistic Tesla Apex. The discs sound uniformily excellent. More than ever you'll note song-to-song differences in tonal emphasis, balance, mix-the transfer is so clean that low level details are much easier to perceive. McCartney's bass playing has never been clearer and dynamic. Not a surprise given the limitations of the vinyl of the day but it could also be due to some eq and compression. Will these please everyone, probably not. But I still have to conclude that Apple really got it right with this one. That in and of itself is a huge relief.

Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound

firedog -- Sat, 08/29/2009 - 11:28

Hi Neil-

Do we get to hear from you sometime how the Liuto sounds, especially in comparison to other speakers in its class? (Sorry for the off topic comment).


neil.gader -- Sat, 08/29/2009 - 13:16

My review of the Liuto will be published by the end of the year. Check out my blog post on them from a couple weeks ago.

Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound

Cemil Gandur -- Sat, 08/29/2009 - 03:24

 Does anyone know if they will also be released on vinyl?

neil.gader -- Sat, 08/29/2009 - 09:09

 I posed this question to an Apple Records exec and In an off the cuff reply he said it was more a matter of when than if. I think it would be a great opportunity for them but the sooner the better. We'll see. 

Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound

Cemil Gandur -- Sat, 08/29/2009 - 14:23

 Thanks Neil, I'll wait then. 

neil.gader -- Sat, 08/29/2009 - 14:36

You're a patient man Zeb. I sure hope it's sooner! Judging by these discs I'd love to hear them take one last stab at a primo vinyl collection.

Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound

Cemil Gandur -- Sun, 08/30/2009 - 01:32

 I've got most of it on old scratched vinyl anyway.
Frankly, I much prefer LPs for the sound and will definitely buy the LPs when they come out. I've already been suckered a few times, with about 5 or 6 versions of KOB in my house and 3 of the Genesis Gabriel period, though the latter has the redeeming quality that the CD reissue set has DVDs as well. Perhaps to round that particular one off, I should get the European SACD set :)  

mecolwell -- Sat, 08/29/2009 - 14:41

Hi, all.
It is interesting that vinyl versions are a pretty sure thing, while SACD is not being considered, as that's a really good sounding format, albeit a relatively dead one, these days, only supported by a few labels anymore, and many more labels doing vinyl today than SACD. Remember the Stones SACD's, being Hybrid, they would play CD/SACD, and sounded pretty good. But, that was while SACD still had a breath of life in it.
So, the Vinyl and CD's will, I am sure, be what we are left with for posterity.
It will be interesting to compare the new vinyl with the new CD's, too.
I bet they will sound pretty close.


All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.