Apple Corps and EMI Music have announced that the entire Beatles catalog will be digitally remastered.:D. The date will be Sept. 9th 09.. the same day as the Beatles "Rock Band" will be released. Here is the link from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/04/07/beatles.remastered.catalogue/index.html, yea, yea ,yea

Great news. Hopefully the remasters won't be for the iPod generation - overly compressed and way too "hot" killing the dynamics.

larry

Further news about the process:The process was described as a lengthy procedure done a track at a time. They used a Pro Tools workstation operating at 24-bit 192 kHz resolution.. Sound was described as extraordinary by all accounts..Lets keep our fingers crossed..

Further news about the process:The process was described as a lengthy procedure done a track at a time. They used a Pro Tools workstation operating at 24-bit 192 kHz resolution.. Sound was described as extraordinary by all accounts..Lets keep our fingers crossed..

God news, definitely something I'd be very interested in.

Good news for sure but I'm still waiting for the follow-up to the DVD-A of Love....haven't heard anything about that yet.

Sounds interesting and I'm not much of a Beatles fan....

I am a huge Beatles fan and can't wait for 9-9-09.

Great news. Hopefully the remasters won't be for the iPod generation - overly compressed and way too "hot" killing the dynamics.

larry
Agreed. Hopefully, "They also slightly boosted the volume levels." != dynamic compression.

Agreed. Hopefully, "They also slightly boosted the volume levels." != dynamic compression. As long as the added gain doesn't cause clipping somewhere in the mastering "chain".

larry

According to the NY Times article "Fewer than 5 of the 525 minutes of music were subjected to noise reduction." Lennon was always fond of the #9, ex: One after 909, Revolution #9.. As a big Beatles fan, (check my signature), I anxiously await 9/09/09 for the cds and Rock Band release
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/arts/music/08beat.html

Albums are up for pre-order at various retailers. Don't see either of the Box Sets available though...

I'm a big Beatles fan too. But I already have all the albums on CD. And since I mainly listen to them in MP3 format, I'm not sure what benefit I'd get from the new releases. And I hate the thought of buying every album a 3rd time, LP, CD, and now this, especially with money being tight with the recession.

Listening to new "Abbey Road" right now! I'd normally post this on an another forum but it's closed probably because of the Beatles remastered. Very happy with this CD. Better separation of instruments. Better bass. Next is "Let It Be." Can't wait for mono box! Anyone else listening?

Best review I've seen!
http://www.avclub.com/articles/chuck-klosterman-repeats-the-beatles,32560/

thanks thom. I'm going to be chuckling the rest of the day over that one.

Will probably only pick up Abbey Road and Sgt. Pepper until later, or else put them on the Christmas list to the wife.

I'VE got a question to ask about the mono or the stereo beatles cd's remastered editions. If you have a receiver that has a mono/stereo switch as my sx-1980 pioneer has, will there be a sonic difference when playing a stereo cd then switching to mono, than if I played the mono cd version??

Except that an article I read says they applied compression to the Beatles catalogue to make it sound louder to compete with all the new music. Exactly what audiophiles (and various musicians and some producers) have been railing against! Could mean bye-bye dynamic range, hello "Loudness Wars."

Except that an article I read says they applied compression to the Beatles catalogue to make it sound louder to compete with all the new music. Exactly what audiophiles (and various musicians and some producers) have been railing against! Could mean bye-bye dynamic range, hello "Loudness Wars."

I'm in favor of making music louder so I don't have to exert the energy to turn the volume knob (or even push the button on the remote).

Ordered from Amazon...$180:eek:
They better live up to their reputation or I'll be blaming you guys!

I'VE got a question to ask about the mono or the stereo beatles cd's remastered editions. If you have a receiver that has a mono/stereo switch as my sx-1980 pioneer has, will there be a sonic difference when playing a stereo cd then switching to mono, than if I played the mono cd version??Yes. The mono version is not simply the stereo version mixed into one speaker :)

Otherwise who would buy the mono box set?

The mono box set is aimed at audiophiles and hard core fans. Especially those who had the original vinyl albums. Even many later albums were mixed in mono first and most time was spent on those mixes.

However, once the mono sets are taken off the market, the entire catalog will only be available in stereo.

Except that an article I read says they applied compression to the Beatles catalogue to make it sound louder to compete with all the new music. Exactly what audiophiles (and various musicians and some producers) have been railing against! Could mean bye-bye dynamic range, hello "Loudness Wars."Not sure where you read that article, but the recording industry trades I follow have all been explicit that there was no compression and judicious limiting used.

Here's a Mix Online article:
http://mixonline.com/news/beatles_remastered_2009_0909/

Ordered from Amazon...$180:eek:
They better live up to their reputation or I'll be blaming you guys!

Let us know if it does. I'm on the fence about re-purchasing the CD's yet again. If the improvement is immediately obvious then I'll do it but otherwise I'll pass.

I picked up the re-mastered Abbey Road & the White Album today and wow, did they ever do a good job - I've never heard the Beatles sound so good!! The bass and vocals are exceptional.

Let us know if it does. I'm on the fence about re-purchasing the CD's yet again. If the improvement is immediately obvious then I'll do it but otherwise I'll pass.I do have the release of a few years back called "Number Ones" (?) or something like that.
I'll compare the AQ and let ya know.
I have a very good 2ch. system.

Except that an article I read says they applied compression to the Beatles catalogue to make it sound louder to compete with all the new music. Exactly what audiophiles (and various musicians and some producers) have been railing against! Could mean bye-bye dynamic range, hello "Loudness Wars."

I did not read this or other articles regarding the compression issue prior to purchasing the stereo box set; I wish I had, and might have saved $200.

Many might disagree with me, but from the first listen, I could tell something was wrong... the "live" sound of many of their recordings is missing in this set. Sure, it's louder, and it might sound nifty on some systems.

If your system is revealing, and if you have experienced that "you are there" revelation with better recordings, then you might not like what you hear from these new remasters.

As always, YMMV...

I read about the compression in an article/review of the box set in Canada's National Newspaper (Globe and Mail). The article - an interesting one comparing the listening experience of the mono vs the stereo box set - is reprinted here online:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/two-new-ways-to-love-the-fab-four/article1278560/

From that article:

"The new stereo versions are almost all noticeably louder than the mono, because EMI decided to add extra compression to the songs, to bring them closer to the escalating loudness of recent rock music. (They also have more bass, which is usually a benefit.) Compression is a way of making things louder by narrowing the dynamic range (essentially squashing the quietest and loudest extremes), then boosting the overall volume of the compact resultant sound. What you gain in volume, however, you lose in dynamic variety.

The extra compression (or “limiting”) is presumably meant to lure the iPod generation, which is accustomed to louder overall sounds."

I read about the compression in an article/review of the box set in Canada's National Newspaper (Globe and Mail). The article - an interesting one comparing the listening experience of the mono vs the stereo box set - is reprinted here online:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/two-new-ways-to-love-the-fab-four/article1278560/

From that article:

"The new stereo versions are almost all noticeably louder than the mono, because EMI decided to add extra compression to the songs, to bring them closer to the escalating loudness of recent rock music. (They also have more bass, which is usually a benefit.) Compression is a way of making things louder by narrowing the dynamic range (essentially squashing the quietest and loudest extremes), then boosting the overall volume of the compact resultant sound. What you gain in volume, however, you lose in dynamic variety.

The extra compression (or “limiting”) is presumably meant to lure the iPod generation, which is accustomed to louder overall sounds."

Shouldn't they have been attempting to do the opposite? Why kill dynamic range when you're trying to improve the quality of the recordings? Of course, what do I know? Most things I've read have stated the remasters are great.

I read about the compression in an article/review of the box set in Canada's National Newspaper (Globe and Mail). The article - an interesting one comparing the listening experience of the mono vs the stereo box set - is reprinted here online:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/two-new-ways-to-love-the-fab-four/article1278560/

From that article:

"The new stereo versions are almost all noticeably louder than the mono, because EMI decided to add extra compression to the songs, to bring them closer to the escalating loudness of recent rock music. (They also have more bass, which is usually a benefit.) Compression is a way of making things louder by narrowing the dynamic range (essentially squashing the quietest and loudest extremes), then boosting the overall volume of the compact resultant sound. What you gain in volume, however, you lose in dynamic variety.

The extra compression (or “limiting”) is presumably meant to lure the iPod generation, which is accustomed to louder overall sounds."

Did they run the songs through some software comparing new discs to the old discs to show the clipped peaks or did they just assume? Raising the gain doesn't necessarily mean they had to clip or compress if there was headroom to spare. I'm not saying they didn't botch things, but there are ways to measure.

If somebody hasn't posted comparison graphs yet, most likely there will be soon.

larry

The current Rolling Stone says there is "slight compression"-apparently it was the most hotly debated issue among those doing the remastering. For me, they got it right-the sound is at least as impressive as the Neil Young archives. The first two discs do sound a little strange in stereo but have the benifit of much more detail-John and George's guitars are clearly defined, as well as Ringo's drumming. And the bass is a revelation-who knew Paul was that good? Once you get to For Sale, when they began using 4 track recording, the stereo sounds much more natural, and you still get that increased seperation and clarity. I played disc 1 of Past Masters last night, and unlike the above post was stuck by how live the recordings sounded-She Loves you in paticular comes off sounding like a live track.

And the bass is a revelation-who knew Paul was that good?Many, many, many did - including most professional musicians, who have always greatly admired and appreciated his playing.

I certainly always knew myself. Even when I was very young and first bought and listened to the "Paperback Writer"/"Rain" single.

Well, I bow to your superior ears:) Seriously, I always knew he was good-now I think he was great.

I did not read this or other articles regarding the compression issue prior to purchasing the stereo box set; I wish I had, and might have saved $200.

Many might disagree with me, but from the first listen, I could tell something was wrong... the "live" sound of many of their recordings is missing in this set. Sure, it's louder, and it might sound nifty on some systems.

If your system is revealing, and if you have experienced that "you are there" revelation with better recordings, then you might not like what you hear from these new remasters.

As always, YMMV...
Regarding the compression/limiting issue, Bruce Spizer, explained in an interview earlier this year, that the volume was raised on most, if not all remastered tracks, in keeping with more modern releases. Because of this, a slight amount of Limiting was necessarily applied to prevent signal clipping. I do not recall that there was any mention of compression. However, many people confuse the two with each other, and will often repeat that compression was used, as it is a more familiar term. I think that was probably the case with the Canadian report.
I had read the interview before making my purchase, and had hoped that Mr. Spizer was correct in that only slight limiting had been used. Well, in terms of how my system reveals such things, Mr. Spizer's interpretation of slight Limiting, leaves something to be desired. The difference to me was night and day, and not in a pretty way I'm afraid. Mr. Spizer might be one of those who feel there is only a relatively small difference between atomic and hydrogen bombs. Getting back to his interview, for a second, he also stated that they had made every attempt to maintain the sonic integrity of the original lps, which right there should have served as a warning. Also, admitting that any sort of limiting was applied makes that statement rather contradictory. He further stated that the volume increase, and subsequent use of limiting, was used to make the recordings sound more pleasing to the modern generation (who must apparently all be considered quite deaf and rather ignorant of any musical nuances).
Now there are probably a variety of reasons why someone might like the sound of the new Remasters. They may only be comparing them to the original '87 cds, which were horrible in comparison to even the original lps, and especially in comparison to audiophile recordings. They may have a sound system that for whatever reason works well with the limiting that was done. They might just be tone deaf (I'm not pointing fingers here :)). They might simply not recognize what is and is not accurate sound reproduction. Or they might simply have specialized tastes that coincide with the remastered results. Etc., etc.
I have noticed that a lot of people are simply ga, ga about the first 4 cds, most likely because they have never heard them in stereo before (at least in the digital format), as the original first 4 cds were released only in mono. I conclude this in part because I hear far more varying opinions regarding the other cds, than with those 4.
As to my references regarding various Beatle recordings, and their varying quality, I, myself, have pristine digital transfers of virtually all Beatle recordings made, except for the mono’s, which have never been that appealing to me (sorry mono fans). These include the original Parlaphone lps, original Capitol lps, later Blue Box Parlaphone lps, Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab audiophile lps, ’87 cds, Capitol Volume #1 & #2 cd sets, etc. etc., including most of the Beatle tracks as they appear on individual Beatle’s solo lps/cds, etc.
I was fortunate enough to buy only the individual Remastered cds, not the boxed set, and at a great price at Target, which also included free $5 gift cards for every two cds (double cds count as one). That really made my day! Unfortunately that is where the fun stopped.:eek:
Worrying a little that I might not be completely happy with the remastering results I carefully chose to open and listen to ‘With the Beatles’, as my first selection. I did so because I wanted to see how the remastering affected not only the early fake stereo tracks, but also the centered stereo tracks. Money, the last track on the cd, is the very first track released in centered stereo, all the others previously were separate 2-track mono recordings, or fake stereo as they are sometimes referred to, which were used to produce the mono releases at that time. George Martin still claims that the first two albums were never intended to be released in the fake stereo versions, but apparently he was not always informed of EMI’s plans, or paid much attention to them for that matter, as records do show that fake stereo versions were released at the same time as the original mono lp releases. Why the second two albums were released only as mono cds in ’87 is really unclear because they were all recorded in centered stereo, and sounded lovely that way, even on the early lps.
The good news: 3 of the 14 tracks showed little if any affect from the limiting used (maybe they only had little, if any, applied). All of the track's vocals were decidedly cleaner than even the best audiophile recordings I have of them (that really is nice). The top end (cymbals, etc.) were nice and crisp (not quite as nice as the MFSL recordings, but much better than the ’87 cds). Minor editing snafus had been removed, though I never considered them an issue. The bass was mostly restored, so you could actually hear Paul's bass and Ringo's drums (a big plus).
The bad news: 11 of the tracks suffered severely from the Limiting that was applied. When you combine that with the added volume, the music (the vocals in particular) was very in your face, so to speak. Many seem to think that was somehow an improvement. However, if you had ever heard the Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab audiophile recordings of these same tracks, on a good system, which reveal far more nuances than any other recordings, you would most likely admit that it was not. For one, the limiting basically deleted most of the subtle ambience that the recordings had. Now most systems might never reveal that ambience properly in the first place, but if you had ever heard it, even with just a decent set of headphones, you would know what I am talking about. The vocals in particular suffered the most from the applied limiting, as many now come across as though the singer is virtually trying to swallow the microphone. The instruments, for the most part don't suffer that much from the limiting, but there are parts, here and there, where an already compressed instrument recording, which had been mixed in during the original recordings, now sounds extremely bloated. Additionally, while the bass is now clearly discernable, the Limiting, or perhaps the eq that was applied (yes, they also admitted to applying some eq), has had the affect of seemingly raising the fundamental of the bass by at least a partial octave. I have found posted frequency response graphs of a number of the new tracks, which were compared to the original '87 recordings, and there was often a significant bass boost in the 100hz area on the new tracks (not an ideal area to boost by any means), as opposed to a more pleasing level in the 60-80hz range or so. Because of that boost the bass, while seemingly improved to many people, can also sound quite bloated and annoying if you are used to the better recordings of this music, and/or depending upon your playback system as well.
On my system the new traits are quite obvious, and the annoying ones are really just way too much. After listening to just the one new cd, I spent time going through a particular Beatle’s forum to see what people there thought of the various new cds. As expected there were widely varying opinions. After evaluating all of that along with what I had just heard myself, I plan on returning all of the unopened cds.
Considering how long I had waited for this too happen, the realization of the Remastering process turning out so poorly (at least for me), makes me a bit sick and extremely disappointed with EMI. If one has ever heard the dvd-audio portion of the ‘Love’ dvd, one would immediately realize just how much musical information is contained in the actual original Beatle’s recordings, and which was not included on the Remastered cds. Apparently, EMI is going to milk this every which way they can. They release the so-so cds first, which the average person, and may others as well, will want to pick up, because no information regarding further releases has been yet been officially offered. Then they release audiophile lps (yes, lps!) a few months or more later (this has already been leaked by a reputable industry insider, and even the pressing plant is known). And then, who knows how much later, they finally release the hi-rez stereo and multi-track recordings, which they have apparently already worked on, also according to industry insider reports. Nice scheme. I just hope enough of their fans are still alive when the final releases come out!;)
But remember, music is in the ear of the beholder, so to speak, so don’t let me rain on your parade if you are happy with the new Remasters.:D

Well, I bow to your superior ears:) Seriously, I always knew he was good-now I think he was great.His playing is so melodic. He's fantastic.

But remember, music is in the ear of the beholder, so to speak, so don’t let me rain on your parade if you are happy with the new Remasters.:DI bought Revolver, Rubber Soul, The White Album and Past Masters last night from Target.

To me, it sounded like the least messed around stuff of the bunch was The White Album, and the "Hey Jude" material from PM. If anything, they were just "cleaner".

Unfortunately, the most fatiguing was my favorite album of them all - Revolver. It did sound like it was compressed or leveled to the point where every song, and every voice and instrument in every song throughout the whole album was exactly the same volume.

Rubber Soul was just a bit louder than before - not really distortedly so, though (was actually more disappointed that they took out the false start to "I'm Looking Through You").

I can't say the bass sounded "bloated" on anything, though - at least not with my system and speakers. It's mainly just cleaner, and actually nice to be able to make it out now. But everything definitely is louder and more equalized now. It has it's good points and it's bad points. Some of it can be a bit fatiguing, though.

I bought Revolver, Rubber Soul, The White Album and Past Masters last night from Target.

To me, it sounded like the least messed around stuff of the bunch was The White Album, and the "Hey Jude" material from PM. If anything, they were just "cleaner".

Unfortunately, the most fatiguing was my favorite album of them all - Revolver. It did sound like it was compressed or leveled to the point where every song, and every voice and instrument in every song throughout the whole album was exactly the same volume.

Rubber Soul was just a bit louder - not really distortedly so, though (was actually more disappointed that they took out the false start to "I'm Looking Through You").

I can't say the bass sounded "bloated" on anything, though - at least not with my system and speakers. It's mainly just cleaner, and actually nice to be able to make it out now. But everything definitely is louder and more equalized now. It has it's good points and it's bad points. Some of it can be a bit fatiguing, though.

I think the general consenus has been that the latter material has had less done to it. I would definitely agree that the Remasters are a bit cleaner, especially compared to the '87 cds. I am hoping ever so much that the stereo versions do get released again in some form without the limiting, I think they could be really fantastic.
What I found, regarding listening fatigue, was that the eq-ed bass was getting to me. After switching back and forth between my MFSL version and the Remastered WTB I found that the Remastered version was really starting to irritate the ears after awhile. However, from reading various reviews it sounds like each album was handled somewhat uniquely. There does not seem to be any sort of pattern as to how they were treated. Therefore the bass, etc. could be quite different from one to another. I've also seen many reports of people saying that little bits and pieces of vocals or instruments have either been strangely buried within the new tracks or brought overly to the front. I am guessing the limiting is behind much of that, as it can overemphasize some material while causing background material to seemingly shrink even further into the background.
Yeah, a lot of people are disappointed about some of the little odds and ends that they removed, which really had lent character to the albums. That's part of why I have never been a fan of Let It Be- Naked.
Perhaps my bloated bass comment was not quite as accurate as it could have been, but also remember I was only referring to the WTB cd. It could sound quite different on all the others. Perhaps slightly unfocused or just slightly less sharp would have been more correct, if that makes any sense. I think it was the exagerated upper fundamental that creates that sense. The bass on the MFSL version on the otherhand is quite tight, and the fundamental is nice and low, just how you would like it. When I acquired my first set of MFSL discs I was absolutely blown away at how much bass the latter albums in particular had. There was nary a trace of it, in comparison, on the '87 cds, and from what I have heard they have still limited it a bit on the Remasters. Only the Love dvd-audio tracks really show just how much extension there really was, and how dynamic it was.

What the heck is all this?
You guys are making it sound like buying CDs of this band is the WRONG thing to do.:confused:

Gee, thanx...

What the heck is all this?
You guys are making it sound like buying CDs of this band is the WRONG thing to do.:confused:

Gee, thanx...

Well, given your post count you have to know that you're on a site filled with rather picky enthusiasts. :) There are bound to be people with substantial knowledge about mastering, as appears to be the case with Q-Authority, who are going to dissect the new recordings and give their opinion. As always, it boils down to one thing, what do YOUR ears tell you? If you like how the new remasters sound on your system then that's all that matters.

I do understand your sentiment, though. Sometimes reading these forums is a bad thing. I obsessed over my plasma purchase and often felt like no display was going to be good. I finally said screw it, I'll buy what I think I'll like and I don't care what the posts on AVS say. You know what, I LOVE my Panny, even though the Kuro fanboys say the black levels are poor.

If you want the remasters, buy em!

Good thread going over in the 2 Channel Audio forum about the cds titled "Official "I just spent too much money but, screw it, it's the Beatles" thread.. Wonder why we can't buy the monos separate? Seems the best deal is Past Masters for $13 at BB..

I would agree with 'RolandOG', if you think they sound okay, go ahead and enjoy. Just because they weren't remastered the way I would have preferred doesn't mean others won't enjoy them. The only thing I would consider is that if you are on a strict budget, and want the very best, then you might want to wait until the hi-rez versions are released, which might have some minor eq work, etc., done to them, but will be devoid of Limiting, or any other such major sound altering process, which I feel is the real culprit on the new Remasters. Unfortunately, there is no known timetable for when the hi-rez versions will be released. I'm sure EMI will want to milk the cd releases for awhile before doing so. If you want to compromise, and have never had digital copies of the first 4 albums in stereo before, buy them to start with, see if you like them, and then go from there. At least you'll have stereo versions of them, which should be a nice change, unless you're a mono fanatic :), and while the first two cds are only the fake stereo (which I still greatly enjoy), the second two are superb centered vocal stereo. Oh, and if you are a mono fan, those releases supposedly had no Limiting applied to them, so the results should be at least a bit better.
Now not to cause anyone any more headaches, over decision making, but here is a little background on my preferences. For years, I too only had the standard '87 cds, and was really only miffed at EMI for choosing to release the first 4 cds in only mono, as I had always had the stereo cassettes, etc., and had grown up with the stereo lps. Also, apparently my older sisters bought the stereo versions when they first came out, and not the mono, so I was very much hooked on it from the git go. Though I often played around with my playback systems, up to the current period, I was never what you would call an audiophile, by any means (I’m still not sure I qualify in regards to that term, but that’s okay). However, about 6 years ago I decided to go on a mission to find quality stereo copies of the first 4 cds, no matter how they were done (I was just that fed up). I had no real knowledge of the Beatles' recording history until then, and was in for a big, and quite pleasant, surprise. Heck, I hadn't even been aware that EMI had released Beatles' albums in entirely different forms in Britain until the '87 cds came out.:o And I had believed that they had only released the first four in mono. I didn’t even know that the MFSL set actually contained the British stereo versions of all the lps. To show my real ignorance back then, I had thought the MFSL set contained the Capitol versions, which for quite some time I had thought the whole world had.:o
To make a long story short (sort of), I eventually found that pristine digital transfers of virtually all the Beatles' various releases were to be had if one knew where to look, and if one also had the patience of Job, in order to gain certain people's trust (as many of these copies would not be considered legal releases, so to speak:eek::)). About this same time I also decided that to do justice to the quality of the transfers I was able to attain, I should also start working on my sound system in order to do them justice. Well, needless to say, I have come a long way in regards to my playback system, and in terms of my knowledge regarding the Beatles' recording history.
When I first obtained copies of the Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab releases I was quite blown away by how much better they were than all of the '87 cds. How in the world were lps, of any kind, supposed to sound better than official cd releases?! After all, they were both released at about the same period, and a transfer from the master tapes to digital format had to contain all of the original recording information, didn't it?! Well, that is a story that has never really been fully explained, but I can tell you, unequivocally, that EMI incredibly botched the original '87 cd transfers. For whatever reason, they have been determined to stay well behind the US in terms of recording technology. For instance, George Martin still maintains that there just wasn't very good stereo recording equipment when they first started recording the Beatles, but you will find comparatively superb sounding stereo recordings of other British artists from the same time period, including quite decent sounding tracks of the Beatles with Tony Sheridan, which were recorded well before the Beatles EMI sessions, and lord knows companies in the US had had great stereo equipment for quite some time before this. George also laments that digital recording/transfer equipment, at the time of the first cd release, was quite lacking. Well, that also is a bit of a sham, as there was some very good, if not widely used, digital recording and transfer equipment during and before this period. Hundreds, if not thousands, of cds had been produced by this time, and there are quite a few of them that sound every bit as good as one would expect.
Well, moving along, I eventually pieced together a playback system I was very happy with, and got my hands on a multitude of varying Beatles' releases. It was then that I discovered a rather unique quirk regarding virtually the entire Beatles catalog, the early releases in particular. They have a particular harmonics to them that can sound rather good on just a plain old vanilla everyday playback system (which a good friend of mine has) and at the same time sound rather lacking on what should be a pretty darn good one. What was really frustrating was that more modern recordings sounded, what I thought at the time, was pretty decent on the same system. Well, I spent months tweaking my system, and in the end I finally hit pay dirt. After one or two final tweaks one day, it was if the doors of heaven had opened.:D Seriously!:) The MFSL transfers suddenly went from okay (but certainly better than the '87 cds), to phenomenal. There was an ambient air to the vocals and instruments you might find hard to believe. There was also deep tight and dynamic bass on almost all tracks. Not quite that much on the early ones, but still pretty darn good. I had no idea that lps had ever been able to contain that much information. My hat is off to the people who engineered that stuff, as they did a truly incredible job. What was also interesting, was that while my more modern recordings had also improved, they had done so to a much lesser degree, but then, for whatever reason, they had not necessarily sounded that bad to start with for the most part. The cruel ending, however, is that while I had managed to pull this all off in a rented house with a near perfect listening room, which I had spent months tweaking, I then got a two month notice from the landlord stating that they wanted to move back in.:eek: No good work ever goes unpunished, so to speak!:D I've been relegated to a much less perfect listening environment ever since, but hope to be correcting that before too long.
So getting back to the Remasters issue, I, and I am sure, another million people or so, had been waiting for decades in great anticipation for EMI to rerelease the Beatles catalog in remastered form. They finally do so, and of all things they choose to apply Limiting on a great number of the tracks, and also seem to have still limited somewhat such things as the full bass potential that the original recordings hold. I can tell you personally that the MFSL 'White Album', among others has a wealth of silky smooth very extended, and very dynamic bass, that, at least for me, was virtually beyond belief for an lp. Or just listen to the dvd-audio track of 'Love', as it is complete proof of just how really good the majority of the original Beatles' recordings actually are, and how much frequency response is still being left off the new cds.
So, while the new Remasters, probably to a large extent, are better than the '87 cds, they are not the last word in regards to ultimate fidelity. To me, EMI has shortchanged the public as a whole, by giving such little credit to the listening preferences of the average fan. They perhaps have also once again played God in terms of just how they think the Beatles should sound, by maintaining fidelity closer to average good lp quality, instead of the ultimate cd quality, as there is substantial proof that there is more to the recordings than they are releasing. In fact, quality transfers of the original 60’s era lps are for the most part, substantially preferred to the ’87 cds.
So yes, I have been spoiled, in terms of having heard the potential of the Beatles' recordings, and am very disappointed with the new releases. However, there are at the very least, probably numerous bits and pieces of wonderful sonic discoveries for many people to be had on the new cds, especially as not all of the tracks appear to have been heavily altered with the limiting process. So, though I may come across as rather sarcastic;), don't let me be the final judge on this matter. Everyone has to be their own critic. Happy listening!

I have an original Mobil Fidelity Master lp of Abbey Road and was wondering how the new release would sound compared to it.

I have an original Mobil Fidelity Master lp of Abbey Road and was wondering how the new release would sound compared to it.
I haven't listened to the new remastered cd of it, to compare to my MFSL transfer of that lp, but I always felt that the MFSL version of Abbey Road could have been done a little bit better. Not that it was bad, as it was certainly far better than the '87 cd version, but that it was not quite as good as some of the other later MFSL lps. The 'Love' dvd-audio tracks from Abbey Road show just how incredible they can be though. Wow, would I love to have dvd-audio versions of all the Beatles' material!:) As a contrast, I have a pristine transfer of a Japanese Abbey Road lp, which sounds absolutley beautiful at moderate listening levels, but falls apart when turned up much, while the MFSL version does not.
I have read numerous opinons on the new cds, including those on Abbey Road, at a specialty Beatles forum, and I would say that while it is definitely considered much better than the '87 cd, it is not necessarily the equal of the MFSL lp. That of course is dependant upon one's particular listening preferences though. I think many people are mistaking the effects from the Limiting that was used here and there, with dynamics. Yes, many parts do sound particulary louder, than on the '87 cds, and that will bring out bits and pieces of the music not really heard previously, but they are not really more dynamic. If you listen more carefully you may well notice that often everything about the tracks sounds louder. There are no large peaks and valleys. That is not dynamics at work. With such varied opinions out there, one is really left to buy the new cds and see for themselves. Hopefully, some people will be able to borrow a friend's new cd before making any decisions.:D

wow, time really flashes by, 40 years since Let it Be, 40 years since the breakup.
They were a band for about only 10 years and recorded for 7 but made history and greatness that can't be measured, surreal.

wow, time really flashes by, 40 years since Let it Be, 40 years since the breakup.
They were a band for about only 10 years and recorded for 7 but made history and greatness that can't be measured, surreal.Couldn't agree more.
I just got done taking my ears thru the new set and am astonished at how MANY GREAT songs they made.
It is mind-blowing....one right after another.
The harmonies, the tunes, the envelope-pushing, it is just incredible.
There was only ONE Beatles.;)

Even what would be considered "throwaways" for them were world's better than most band's music (especially with their later stuff. I mean, can you believe that something like "Hey, Bulldog" was basically a "filler song"?).

I've had The Beatles Mono Box Set in my Amazon shopping cart for months now and the price hasn't dropped below $189.99. I definitely want the set but it seems like a lot for *only* ten albums. I know there are Marketplace sellers who have it for less but some of those are counterfeit.

Has anyone picked this box set up for less than $189.99? Has anyone bought it at that price and regretted it? Does anyone think it will go down anytime soon? Thanks.

Limiting *is* compression. They are the same thing. Limiting is defined generally as compression with a compression ratio of 10 or 20 or so or more.

Digital brickwall type limiting, which I assumed was used if it was done in ProTools, is just compression with an infinite ratio and some smart rounding off of the peaks that are getting shaved off, since the limiter can 'look ahead' and see what's coming and react to it more intelligently than just shaving the tops of the peaks off (which would be heard as noisy distortion since it creates basically square waves.) But it's still compression, by definition. You shave off peaks and raise the overall level by the amount you shaved off. So the dynamic range is reduced.

It can be done with minimal damage if what you are doing is just knocking down a few louder peaks that came out a good bit louder than the rest of the peaks. Then really it amounts to just raising the volume pretty much since you'll never notice a handful of snare hits being reduced in volume a bit.

But of course it does still change the nature of the sound, because you then raise the level to bring the now shaved off peaks back up to just under 0dBFS level, so you are raising the average level. So you'll hear things you didn't necessary hear before, or hear more of things that you didn't hear so much of before.

Anyway, it all depends on how tasteful they were in applying the limiting. It can be done very transparently for a few more dB of average level. Or it can be abused and change the nature of the song pretty drastically, not because necessarily you hear the limiting working, but because the relationship between the louder and softer parts have now changed significantly. They've gotten closer together.

Thank you for the thoughtful lesson on compression - limiting. You nailed it and made me understand it on a much deeper level. As a musician, I struggle with it. I hate producing music that isn't as loud as everything else out there. But then I hate the sound I hear when I start using compression. It's probably because I created it uncompressed and have grown fond of what I've made.

What really opened my eyes to the trend of squashing dynamics was when I was pointed to this site (http://dr.loudness-war.info/). Ever since, I have been contributing greatly to the database. I have modern remasters of albums that literally lost around 10dB of dynamic range when compared to the initial pressings.

Thank you for the thoughtful lesson on compression - limiting. You nailed it and made me understand it on a much deeper level. As a musician, I struggle with it. I hate producing music that isn't as loud as everything else out there. But then I hate the sound I hear when I start using compression. It's probably because I created it uncompressed and have grown fond of what I've made.

Not to say that compression is bad. All rock music back to the 60s has pretty much had a significant amount of compression. It was just done much more tastefull. And there's a difference also between compression of individual tracks during the tracking or mixing of a song, and the overall limiting that's done on the final track. Most any rock song will probably have 6dB or more of compression on a vocal, drums, or bass track, or on a relative clean guitar power chord thing or acoustic guitar part. Without that, those parts would be jumping all over the place and sound pretty bad.

Only the very best artists can really do that 100% themselves, by way of mic technique or playing technique. It's really hard to do. Remember that when you hear something live, you are generally a good ways back from the back in a fairly large space. The dynamic range tends to get washed out in that kind of situation. But when recording, you are typically hearing things mic'ed up fairly close where you hear everything. So it's just harder to get the kind of consistency that even music back in the 60s and 70s would have had for certain types of tracks.

And, also, back then they were tracking to tape. To keep the signal to noise ratio reasonable, they had to track at pretty hot levels. That generally meant that they had to have a compressor in the tracking chain, since there wasn't much room between a good level and too much level to tape. So for that reason as well, and because tape itself as you push it harder provides a not huge but noticeable type of natural compression as the oxide particles saturate from the higher signal levels, we are just used to hearing that sound of compression. And it's not a bad thing for rock and pop type music at all as long as it's not overdone.

At the point of mixing, a lot of folks in the rock/pop world will also do some 'glue compression', means putting a compressor over the final stereo mixdown bus and setting it so that it just bounces the needle, usually just a few dB at the most in the loudest sections. This overall compression, because it's applied to the whole mix, often has a nice effect that increases the overall sense of cohesion in the mix. Sometimes it's not needed, sometimes it really sounds good.

Then there's the mastering step. This is something that has changed a lot. Back in the day, mastering was about making sure the song wasn't going to cause the cutting lathe used to make the master molds for the vinyl pressings jump out of the groove and stuff like that, and also getting each song at appropriate levels across the album so that they had a desired ebb and flow, and often adding a little more compression and EQ and whatnot. Basically just a bit of polishing. If the mix is really good, none might be required.

Then came digital, and the digital limiter, which effectively can remove all dynamics if you want. That's when it really got abusive. Literally some stuff these days may not have more than a couple dB of difference between the louder and softer parts. In the digital world, the stuff above related to mastering really isn't like that anymore. It's more just getting a good pair of ears for a second opinion and maybe a little tweaking. But, because of the loudness war, it generally involves also just cranking up the overall limiting on the stereo track more and more to 'be competitive'.

That's been going on so long now that a lot of kids think that something that's not crushed to death doesn't sound right, since all the music they've listened to in their lives has been like that. And of course added to that the fact that with digital you can automate every single track to an incredible amount of detail. Many particularly polished pop tracks these days might have every single syllable of a vocal automated to keep it at just a particular level, and maybe even the EQ on the track to change for every phrase if not almost every syllable. Drums are replaced with samples. The bad timing of players is corrected. The bad pitch of singers is corrected. There are tools to automatically realing background singers exactly with the lead vocal. And on and on.

It's horrendously artificial, and has nothing at all to do with actual human performance. And in fact it's creating a situation where an actual human performance sounds 'amateur', in the sense that it isn't nearly as accurate as the professional stuff, which of course never actually happened. It was created in the mix, not by the performers.

The crazy thing is that, with the advent of digital, unlike in the tape world, it's possible to have significant dynamics without noise issues. But, instead, it's been used to have way less dynamics than tape based stuff ever did. Just as the internet, digital communications technology, which was supposed to create a level playing field where every artist can get his stuff out there, is quicky destroying the music industry through massive theft and a complete lack of any filtering system, and with everyone thinking that they can sit in their bedrooms and make hits without spending the years to learn how to do it.

Question for you experts, from someone who understands none of the technical details:

My wife nicknamed these the "more cowbell" editions. To us, it sounds like an engineer heard things/instruments buried deep down in the mixes and decided that we really wanted to hear them. So now they are emphasized disproportionately. I find the new CD's academically interesting, as I now better understand all the components of the overall sound. But if I just want to listen to music, I greatly prefer the older CD mixes.

Are the "blends" really altered in these versions? Or am I just an old fuddy-duddy who likes the old because "that's the way it used to be"?

i guess i'm not a very good audiophile or my equipment sucks
but i can discern very little difference in the sound of the remasters.

slightly cleaner is about all i can pick up.

Overall, I was pretty pleased with what I heard from the stereo set, apart from Revolver. I kept thinking the vocals that were centered (For No One, Got To Get You Into My Life, She Said She Said, etc) weren't as loud as they were before.

Hard Day's Night and Beatles For Sale were damn good. Three John vocal tracks on Tell Me Why? Never heard THAT before!

I'm still miffed that the Help and Rubber Soul stereo remasters were the '86 remixes. The original stereos are on the mono cds.

I love the fact that the albums are shorter than 40 minutes (apart from TWA and Abbey Road), I can put two albums on one cd.