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.
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.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Neil, a thought. I have a pre-amp with a mono switch (ARC REF3). Have you tried playing the stereo remasters in mono? Does that make any sense to you? I was wondering if the earlier albums would sound better this way. I'm still stressing out over whether I bought the right set (I have the stereo set on pre-order). Thanks.
Interesting thought but it wouldn't be the same as the original mono mixes.the mono effect would be created in your preamp and bear no relation to what the Beatles created in the studio. It would merely take the LR stereo mix and "fold" them together identically into each speaker. Remember, the mono mixes were engineered independantly of the stereo mixes, with sometimes as much as months having elapsed between mastering sessions. they are completely different animals-often with distinctly different cues, balances and gain, somtimes even speed. For what it's worth, if I was just to order one set, I would go stereo all the way. The monos are interesting, even electrifying in the case of the earliest albums but over their whole catalog stereo is the choice for me.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Ralph, I'll defer to the opinions of some of the others on this site, but I also have run stereo through the "mono switch", and have sometimes found the result to sound "better" than the original stereo signal. I think sometimes this was not truly better, but often less distracting than the imprefections that seemed to be present in the stereo tracks. Mono seemed to be more tolerant of defects (in less than perfect surfaces on discs), or maybe just sounded like it in my mind.
For now, I'm waiting to decide on whether to spring for the big bucks on the new set. My ears (60+ years old) have been exposed to too many years of jet engines and aircraft carrier noises to allow me to make any valid claims to being able to resolve subtle differences in the versions of the cuts that are more nearly the same. Don't let my wife find out, or my funding for system improvements will find its way into other household budget lines. Still, I'd like to hear the new releases, and I'm leaning toward the stereo versions. Personal favorite is Rubber Soul and Revolver.
Saw this early review:
http://www.tonepublications.com/music/beatles-box-in-stereo-and-mono/
Synopsis: All the remasters sound great. Mono is better up through Rubber Soul. After that it is debatable, with stereo getting a slight nod.
I think the early monos are the way to go-the first four albums were strictly two track and four track and the stereo was totally processed. But by Rubber Soul and Revolver the stereos have some advantages in spite of the hard-panning. Bass tightens up and is more detailed, the mixes have more impact dynamically. But Sgt Pepper is truly wonderful in mono and is almost a new experience if you haven't heard it before , especially in such pristine form. I'll be posting a blog in the next day or so about my impressions in greater detail.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Once again, the first four stereo albums were not "totally processed." The first two were two-track, and the resulting "wide" stereo seems really weird. However, A Hard Day's Night and (especially) Beatles For Sale have very nice stereo mixes from the four-track. By comparison, the mono of BFS strikes me as very congested. Oddly, Martin went back to the wide stereo of the first two albums for Rubber Soul -- I understand it was so that the stereo LP would play back in the proper balance when played on a mono turntable. Go figure.
Revolver and Sgt. Pepper are tricky cases. By and large, I prefer the mono until the final track on each, but the effect of the backwards tape loops on "Tomorrow Never Knows" and the orchestral climaxes on "A Day In The Life" envelop the listener in stereo, and thus become more overwhelming, while the mono, coming from a single point in front of the listener, have much less impact. Strangely, so far, I prefer the "white album" in mono, even though it was only released that way in the U.K., and stereo was obviously the main priority by that time.
Hi Neil,
I ordered the mono box set, and will pick up the stereo versions where necessary. I also own the Mobile Fidelity vinyl box set in pristine condition and am anxious to compare the vinyl to the cds. I don't see how the cds could sound better than the vinyl, but I'm a vinyl junkie and bring that bias to my listening.
best,
bill
Good Morning, Good morning, good morning!
Yes, a "Pepper" ripoff, but a loving one.
I ordered the stereo set, but want a good mono of "Pepper", as my original Capitol sounds like mud.
I also am a vinyl guy, and have all the original Parlophones, which are pristine and quiet. I made CD copies of the MoFi box set a few years ago, but it doesn't sound as good as my current LP playback system, by a big margin, and the set I borrowed was somewhat noisy. I currently use a Linn/ProJect Tube Box/ Sumiko BPS EVO3 as an analog front end. MoFi did (I suppose) use the mastertapes, but they eq'ed them, and Geoeff Emerick did not like them, and said that the Parlophones were the "closest to what I heard at Abbey Road".
Interestingly, the MoFi "Side Two" of "Magical Mystery Tour" was the processed stereo used by the Capitol US version, not the true stereo! As far as I can tell, the German LP is the only version which presents "Side Two" in true stereo. From what I have read, the stereo box set preserves the stereo in it's true form (hopefully!!).
I am hopeful that the new box set will better the Parlophones, in that the care taken to preserve the sound, and the mastertapes used as the source, as the Parlophones even, used copies sent to the pressing plants, not the masters. If anyone can shed some light on whether this is true, or not, please jump in!
Now, LP copies of these new masters would be interesting, but, I am sure, very, very expensive.
We will see soon!!
Mike
VinylGuy
My sources tell me that only the earliest UK Parlophones were cut from the original analog masters and that every pressing subsequent, from Japanese pressings to Mofi Box sets were struck from copies. I too, love the idea of a new set of premium vinyl but as good as the new discs sound does anyone really think that the original analog masters sound the way they did on Day One over forty years ago?
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Hi, Neil.
Interesting, that the early Parlophones were cut from the masters, and even the MoFi set were done from copies. Guess that's why my Parlophones sound so great.
MoFi has said that they always, and did use the "Original Master" as a source, but "Magical Mystery Tour", "Side two" was most definitely the "duophonic" fake eq'ed "stereo" that Capitol used, surely a copy sent from England. The only true stereo I have heard, so far, is the German pressing.
So, maybe the early Parlophones will still be the closest to the original stereo master tapes, given tht 40 years have passed. The tapes supposedly have been well cared for, and have exibited no oxide shedding, but 40 years is a while, and the magnetic particles have, most certainally, by the laws of physics, done some re-alignment.
Interesting, reading the Geoff Emerick book, the "masters" were really copies of copies, as they did multiple reductions from 4 track to 4 track, sometimes as many as 4 or 5 times. That's why some of the material on the "Anthology", while not the complete song, or take, or complete, sounds so great, especially the bass and drums being so punchy, as they are further back in the reductions, closer to the originals.
I have heard a couple tracks from the new CD set, one stereo and one mono (Because-stereo and Baby You're A Rich Man-mono) on our local radio station, and they sounded really punchy, clean, and, at least on analog FM, really well-done. This station, an AOR station, sounds really good, using limited amounts of compression, and does not eq the crap out of their signal, and even plays vinyl on occasion, too.
They are going to play all 256 tracks in "Alpha-Beaticle Order" beginning at 6:00AM on Wed. I am sure they have put them all on their server, like most, if not all their material. Actually, from what I have read, CD's off a server (or CDR-copies for that matter) sound better than the cd itself.
I anxiously will await my stereo set to arrive in the mail.
Enjoy
Mike
VinylGuy
I've got the mono box on order. I have original mono UK pressings of everything up to the White Album and prefer the monos (except for the White Album), but as for running direct comparisons I'm way too backed up to go there with two Blue Note and two Impulse series keeping me always three steps behind. No doubt I'll hear things in the CD that will prompt the occasional comparison, but more likely I'll just sit back and enjoy have the boys in both formats. Not to mention being able to have these albums on my iPhone to enjoy on the road.
Dennis Davis
Hi-Fi+
I'll be interested to know what you think, Dennis. My view is that they did a fine job, treated the music with reverence while giving the sound a little midrange/upper bass "boost" of energy at the mastering stage. thankfully they left the top-end pretty much alone IMHO.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
I have to hear Rubber Soul. For my money its as good and maybe even better than Sgt.Pepper. The real problem with the mono releases seems to be availability. Amazon.ca is sold out and a couple of the big box stores up here are saying that either they can't get the mono box set at all or don't think they can move a $250 CDN (give or take) cd set.
Maybe i'll just sit back and wait for the vinyl. In the mean time i've got the new Black Crowes on vinyl, new John Fogerty, yeah I'll survive (but I really do want to hear "In My Life" all done up.
Amazon have already announced that the "limit" on the number of mono boxes has been lifted and that there will be more.
You can sign up on site to be notified when the set will be available again.
why am I not surprised at that news?
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
A BBC radio show with George Martin about recording the Beatles catalogue. Quite interesting. My favorite bit is the revelation that the Beatles could have moved to 4 track recording (from 2 track) earlier, but no one at EMI/Parlaphone told George Martin the new machine was available, so he didn't know about it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00mc0cc
A BBC radio show with George Martin about recording the Beatles catalogue. Quite interesting. My favorite bit is the revelation that the Beatles could have moved to 4 track recording (from 2 track) earlier, but no one at EMI/Parlaphone told George Martin the new machine was available, so he didn't know about it.
thanks for the link! EMI was also slow to adopt new technologies. They balked at bringing in the new 8 track which sent the Beatles to Trident Studios, I believe, to give it a go.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Yes, they talk about that in the show. Pretty amazing when you can hear (even before the remasters) what a good recording Abbey Road is (done on 8 track).
If memory serves, EMI also didn't want to bring in digital back in 1980-81. They only did so when Paul (their biggest selling artist back then), walked into the Chairman's office and demanded it. His next album, "Tug of War" was the first to have a digital component (the album insert says "mixed digitally").
Yes- AB SO LUTELY
I cant wait to get it ....and all this jibberish of comparisons of the Beatles ....to the Monkees and the Archies is laughable.
I am sure John Lennon is laughing too.
Also, Beatles Rock Band is out this week, seeding a new generation of fans !!!!!!
I agree TV shows vs. a renowned extensive catalog is laughable now let’s move on. The current direction of this thread (although reminiscent of great Paul is dead discussions) is interesting and merits follow up. Maybe an in depth article based on interviews with those still living and reviews of the sonic qualities of the various formats, pressings and releases.
However, discussion seems to have gone off track of the initial question. With limited resources how best spend your money Mono or Stereo?
I think this is the most frustrating aspect of the two box sets-that they didn't provide an all out collector's combo package. Or since some of the early albums are so short offer stereo/mono versions on the same disc like they did with Please, Please Me and With The Beatles (but that combo is only available in the mono box). While mono was definitive early on, you can also hear how stereo was beginning to have its own artistic merit with Rubber Soul and Revolver. EMI/Apple probably didnt want to confuse the issue by offering too many versions but I really think there would have been a market for an effectively priced Stereo/Mono bundle.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
With limited resources how best spend your money Mono or Stereo?
For me, it will be mono box, maybe supplemented with individual titles in stereo (since these are available separately).
And yes, I couldn't resist and wait for the LPs - though I am sure to take that particular plunge when they are released.
I hope I have some insight to this all..
"Abbey Road" was recorded at, well, Abbey Road, in Studio Two.
They had just installed the 8 track machine, which, like the new mixing board was all solid state, and they did not like the sound, as it had a quite different, much more sterile sound from the old tubed equipment previously used.
It also made the process more sterile, as there were more options to isolate the instruments, and less artistic choices having to be made due to limitations, like having to fold 4 tracks to a new set of 4, and so on and on.
They were able to achieve what they wanted, eventually, and it all sounds quite good, and the band played together a lot, like in the old days.
The album, from the start, was supposed to be "done like we used to do", with George (Martin) actually doing the producing.
It sounds very tight and together, especially considering that they all, by this point, hated each other.
All this info is from the book "Here There And Everywhere...My Life Recording The Music Of The Beatles", written by Geoefff Emerick, with Howard Massey (Gotham Books)..... an essential read to anyone interested in the Beatles. From Geoff's point of view, the mono vs stereo debate about the earlier works, including "Pepper" has only one answer.........hint: guess which?
I am, right now, in my second reading of it, it is so interesting.
"Pepper" was an especially good chapter of their recording adventures, and creative juices!!
Enjoy!
Mike
VinylGuy
Mike,
It's interesting that with all our discussion of mono vs stereo I still don't hear anyone raving that any Beatles recording deserves to be on a Super Disc list. Certainly there is a degree of transparency and detail but were these ever pop music state of the art? Do you disagree?
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Unless I'm wrong, the stereo LP of Revolver wound up on a similar list in last year's recommended components issue. Not the Super Disc list itself, but something along the lines of "recordings that were excellent both artistically and in sound quality."
I would love the Beatles on a High-res format.
RH has long stated, and stands by the statement that "a properly set up LP playback system will sound better than any CD".
So, for the last "nth" of detail from these remasters, An SACD version, or High-Res Blu-ray would be the best digital source available.
Who would buy them, however? SACD is virtually dead, only kept alive from a few audiophile labels like Linn, Harmonia Mundi, and even Sony, it's inventor has abandoned it.
Discussion is, that SACD's DSD format is not as commonplace in the studios, so maybe a reason for it's lack of support. Also, I have read it has it's own sonic issues, but, what format doesn't? Sounds pretty good to me, however.
Blu-ray High-res audio seems to be of no interest to most, either.
So, vinyl, with it's popular resurgence, will be, probably, out highest res format we'll see on these remasters (if at all). Vinyl seems to be alive and well, being accepted my many labels, supported by many, and liked by many, as well, including, strangely, 20-somethings.
Yes, I'd love to have an SACD box set, but it would be (doesn't need to be!) probably around $4-500. The vinyl reissues, when they re finally done, will most likely be about $25-30 a pop, double what the CD's are.
So, that is my two cents to all!
Any thoughts??
Enjoy.
Mike
VinylGuy
Hi-res downloads are a small but growing market, for about $15 an album. Don't be surprised if they are made available in 2-3 years.
As far as the sound of vinyl, I won't argue. But I can say the same thing about digital:"a properly set up" digital system will sound better than what most people think CD sounds like, and arguably as good as vinyl - especially with hi-res files. Most of the people who say digital can't sound good haven't heard a "proper" digital system.
Absolutely!
A great digital setup can sound great, too!
Mike
VinylGuy
I agree, digital can sound fantastic. I think it all depends on the chain and the engineer managing it. In a way I think its wise for EMI to wait on the hi-rez stuff. The market is clearly not there yet and nobody really knows whether Blu-ray is going to take off in the way DVD did. As for vinyl what would most interest me is whether they choose to use the original analog master tapes or take the easy way out and rely on the archived 24-bit/192kHz masters they produced for these new box sets. You have to wonder how many more times they want to take those tapes out of the vault.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Well, Neil, I think the Parlophones will remain the LP of choice, if we want the Original Stereo Master in it's unaltered form, I suspect.
I'd bet the vinyl re-issues will use the new digital remasters, don't you think?
Today is 09-08-09, so "Tomorrow never Knows"!
Mike
VinylGuy
I agree about the Parlophones. the Mofis have a lot to recommend them but the rising treble can get annoying at times. I would love to see them take one last pass at vinyl reissues, especially given the better vinyl formulations, and pressing quality available. A great mastering engineer today, a Doug Sax or Bernie Grundman could really make a difference.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Neil,
Thanks for the information and critique. Very thorough and informative EXCEPT there's no mention of the cost!
Jack D II
I just checked out Amazon (no endorsment implied) and the box sets are currently sold out and they are awaiting a new shipment. the so-called limited edition Mono Box is being extended in production so there will be many more than just the 10,000 units initially shipped. The boxes run about $220 per box or slightly less for the stereo.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Hi-
Sites other than Amazon (such as Beatles.com) are already reporting that some pre-orders won't get shipped till October! The mono box, especially, is a problem; EMI apparently severely underestimated demand, and the set is only made in Japan - I think because of the packaging. Amazon says all its orders that were previously accepted will be shipped on time.
Some retailers are also reporting that they've been allocated only 3 stereo box sets for Sept 9.
A major marketing mess for EMI, as they've succeeding in building up expectations and can't deliver. They are going to lose a lot of potential sales.
Boy, am I glad I pre-ordered as soon as it was possible.
They may have lost some early sales but remember there's still the holidays!
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
As long as the tapes are properly wound and stored, there should be little deterioration over the years. The original BASF recordings made in 1935 of Sir Thomas Beecham could still be played as long as the acetate film was treated gently. (The recordings themselves would sound superior to the sound in 1935 due to better electronics and better head design.) EMI used their own tape as well as BASF tape for some of the recordings, and neither was plagued by the hydroscopic polyester binder that Agfa and Ampex used in the 1960s. That binder caused the infamous sticky tape syndrome that could temporarily be alleviated once or twice by driving the water molecules out by "baking" the tape.
The simpler ferric oxides used in those days was relatively stable. Paramagnetic particles and broken particles do sometimes alter their magnetic orientation over time and cause print-through. That print effect is reversible by winding the tape tails out so that rewinding it for playback from the beginning will reduce print dramatically in the first hour or so. (The particles themselves cannot lose their magnetic charge, only their orientation from another source; in print-through, that source is the layers above and below the layer in question.) EMI was always aware of the value of their recorded media, unlike Motown who recorded over their 2-inch masters of their artists in order to reuse the tape.
thanks for the great response and primer on tape longevity. Would EMI 811 tape tend to get brittle over time? Can you make any sweeping assumptions regarding the normal aging of this tape over forty years? That is, would one expect the upper treble to become attenuated over the decades, or any other portion of the freqeuncy band?
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
I agree on the great primer on tapes.
I would also be interested about the high frequency extension over 40+ years. "My" high frequency extension, ahem, isn't what it used to be...
Also, yeah in the hands of Doug Sax or Bernie Grundman...."A Spledid Time (would be) Is Guaranteed For All!
Mike
VinylGuy
EMI 811 stock used a PET film stock (polyethelyne terephthalte) that all tape manufacturers used after the switch from cellulose acetate in the latter half of the 1950s. PET, the same plastic as used in soda bottles, does not have the problems with growing brittle over time that the acetate stock does. The critical mechanical issue with tape stock is an even wind with even tension throughout the pack and storage in a stable environment so that the pack remains with evenly spread tension. Tape wound at high speed and subjected to great degrees of temperature and humidity fluctuations will swell and shrink unvenly and create tremendous pressures within a tape pack in some areas great enough to force layers to stick together. That could pose a serious problem with the tape surfaces.
High frequency wavelength patterns are on the surface of the tape. Increasing recording bias decreases high frequency response mainly because it forces the short wavelengths deeper into the tape coating and further away from the pickup head. A properly recorded tape can lose high frequency response over time if subjected to magnetic forces or if the tape suffers from magnetostrictive forces caused by pressures from capstans and pinch rollers, but these factors play a role for cassette tape, not for studio tape. High frequency response in a studio tape depends more on recording speed than on the coercivity of specialized oxides. The short wavelength patterns recorded on a studio tape at 15 ips or 30 ips are not likely to deteriorate over time (unless exposed to other magnetic forces). The trick in retrieving the sound is to use a playback head that is as close to the original as possible in terms of its gap width and to have calibrated playback equalization so that there is no emphasis on the short wavelengths on different playback equipment. In my experience, that means a few decibels of boost beyond 15 kHz--an area where many of us, in addition to mecolwell, have less high frequency extension than we used to. The 40-year old tapes should be better than 50-year old ears.
and thanks again for your valuable contribution. the last line kind of says it all doesn't it??
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Sigh!
Sadly, it is so true!
Great primer, too.
Mike
VinylGuy
Hi All-
Hope you're enjoying your boxed sets. I haven't received mine yet b/c it has to be shipped overseas.
I bought the mono set. I'd like to hear from anyone who has access to both - and let me hear which stereo albums you think are the most essential to get (not including those not released in mono, of course).
I've already read several reviews, and there is contradictory info.
Some say from Rubber Soul on, get the stereo. One review particularly praised Help! as sounding especially good in stereo. Another, said The White Album was astounding in mono, and not in stereo.
What do you think?
I picked up my Stereo set, yesterday, and have begun listening to it.
First, being a "Vinyl Guy", and a purist who wants to hear this material "as is", I am happy to report that, to my ears, what I am hearing is every bit the equal to what I hear off the original Parlophone LP's, and feel that the little bit of "sweetening" that was used does indeed make a subtle improvement, and was used very lightly. For example, "She Loves You", from "Past Masters Vol 1", has always had a very audible change of sound, as a couple takes were used, and spliced together. It's still there, but smoothed over a bit, but it only makes an improvement, not altering the integrity.
They all sound alive, without any of the awful sound from "Let It be, Naked", which was so processed and "de-noised", that all the life and air was completely gone. This "Let It be" sounds full of life, like the LP does, with the air around everything, not like what I call the "Naked CD: "Let It Be..Naked..With A Condom"! It's so wrapped up, it sounds dry and unnatural.
The discs are way cool, also, with the silkscreening resembling the original Parlophone LP labels, and are very accurate, down to the use of "Apple" when Apple was the LP label. Even, "Magical Mystery Tour", which was, originally an EP set, on Parlophone, and an actual album here in the states, has the rainbow "Capitol" label. But, the Capitol here had "side two" in fake stereo, and the German LP was the only place to get true stereo..till now. The engineers got it right, and "side two" sounds glorious, in true stereo and it's wonderful sounding.
So, from this "Vinyl Guy", a hearty "Thumbs up!! Four years well spent on this project, and it shows!!
It will sit proudly next to my original Parlophone LP's!
The Mono?? That would be the way to hear it as "the lads" wanted it, so I may spring for it, as well.
"A Splendid Time Is Guaranteed For All".
Enjoy!
Mike
VinylGuy
Tomorrow I'll be posting in my blog my full review of the Beatles Remasters as it will appear in The Absolute Sound in a month or so. The editors decided that since this is an unprecedented release and somewhat time sensitive, the review should be posted before the print edition. I hope you all enjoy the piece! And, I look forward to your posts.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Neil, I'm dying to read your review of the Remasters. Allan Kozinn, the renowned musicologist, classical music critic and resident Beatles scholar at The New York Times, said in his review last Sunday that, "...the new transfers are so good that this thrice-familiar music sounds fresher than ever." I'm eager to hear whether, from an audiophile's perspective, you agree with that assessment.
I have been buying The Beatles catalog since I was 3. I'm now 49. I have umpteen versions of LPs and CDs, etc. I'm feeling very disapointed and ripped off. Why are these re-masters (done at 24/192) being released in the same old 16/44 format again? I suppose they'll release a Blu-ray version next year?
BTW, so far for the most part, I have preffered the sound quality of the MFSL LPs.
Norman Varney
A/V RoomService, Ltd.
Hmm, reissued on my 64th birthday no less! Since I have vinyl originals of all the main Albums in mono mostly except for "...for sale" I see little point in forking out for these. As for "Re-masters" I was rather dissapointed with the "uncluttered" version of Let it Be and actually preferred the Phil Spector arrangements- even after the murder conviction!. MInd you I'm probably one of the few on this forum that saw the Beatles live before "uberfame" and while I appreciated the excitement they produced in the fillies, live, they proved somewhat of a dissapointment to be frank: oh so slightly out of tune and their vocals were in need of polish: good old George Martin; the sixth Beatle! I'm sure the price will be pretty exhorbitant too - got to make those sheckels my life!
Happy Birthday!
If you have the originals on Capitol, then run, don't walk to get the new remaster.
If you own all original Parlophones, then the stereo set will still sound great, and I am now leaning to the CD over the vinyl (I own all the original Parlophones).
yeah, the "Let It be, naked" was a sonic disaster, just raped by noise reduction, and them trying to make it quiet. Listen to it on the remaster..a world apart!
Mike
VinylGuy
To those who are interested the complete text of my review of the Beatles Remasters is now posted at blog site. Hope you enjoy it and it spurs further discussion.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound