The Beatles, new and improved

Bagdad Harry wrote:

So we should all rush out and buy them??? And toss out all the old 8 track tapes of Yellow Submarine?
Should be able to just trade up when new old music comes out....
Anybody that buys them because they were re-mastered should buy a bridge in Brooklyn as well!

Jack Zippy wrote:

<quoted text>Never throw out those Beatle 8-tracks they are collectors items not very many people can say they have Abbey Road on 8-track.

awc wrote:

<quoted text>I would love to own the remasters, but money is an issue.
I am very happy with the sound quality of the cd's from the 80's, they work for me, at least for now.
I started out buying their albums and videos, then rebought them all on cd and dvd, group and solo.
Compare the sound quality of a download to a cd, big difference.

Jack Zippy wrote:

<quoted text>Yea CD's sound pretty darn good compared to the old records albums I still have It's hard for to imagine you not getting into the Beatles in 1979 or sooner But I am about 14 years older than you.I got into the beatles in 1963 when I was 10 years old but I had older brothers who also dug the Beatles.I miss the album covers and art work of the sixties very groovy stuff man.

BBB wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey guys, how's it going?
I'd have to disagree that the (old) CDs sound "better" than vinyl. Yes, if your old vinyl LPs are scratched or you have a cheap turntable. But with quality audio equipment the vinyl actually plays better than the CD, IMO...
Other thing to consider is that on some of the US LPs the sound quality wasn't good even brand new due to crap like "synthesized" (ie fake) "stereo" which found it's way onto several Beatle albums and various tracks. The idea of "stereo" had been around since the 50s but wasn't nearly as popular in Britain as it was in the US...the Beatles recorded and engineered all their albums (except "Abbey Road") in "mono" and the "stereo" versions were usually created afterwards - some of the early albums were converted by sound engineers who worked for Capitol, not EMI. That's why alot of Beatle tracks that are in "stereo" have all the voices on one track and most or all the music on the other - the original master was reconfigured for stereo rather than recorded in a true stereo mode...
Some examples of "bad stereo" songs that I can think of are "I'm Down" and "Only a Northern Song"; on both they got the "stereo" effect by taking a mono recording and using an equalizer to shave the treble off of one speaker and the bass off of the other... supposed to fool your ears into thinking it is true stereo, but in reality it was true crap...
And then, of course, there is "I am the Walrus" where they lost the stereo master reel for the last 2 minutes or so of the song; listen carefully and you can hear the change from true stereo to that fake hi / lo equalized junk... This song was not "fixed until the "Love" CD that came out a year or 2 ago - on that track you get true stereo all the way to the end of the track...
OK I guess i'm rambling on a bit here... just haven't been round here for a while so I am a bit "gabby"...
Parting thought - does anyone else think the "Rock Band" carictatures of John and George look more realistic than Paul and Ringo's do?

Bagdad Harry wrote:

<quoted text>
You are wrong about the audio quality of vinyl compared to CD's. Digital music has a greater dynamic range...enough said...

BBB wrote:

<quoted text>
........ the band much preferred the mono mix over the now familiar "all the guitars on one channel, bass and drums on the other" stereo mess. John especially wanted the guitars as loud and dominant as possible on the recording, which is captured perfectly in the mono form, but "watered down" considerably in stereo; it basically 'ruins' the song. After the first 45 pressing - and then on pretty much every other issue of the track ("Hey Jude (Beatles Again)", "1967-1970", "Rock n' Roll Music", etc. the engineers switched back to the (yukky) stereo version.
If you are lucky enough to have the true mono 1st pressing 45 - which I have - and you play it against any of the stereo versions... the difference is remarkable.

Bagdad Harry wrote:

So we should all rush out and buy them??? And toss out all the old 8 track tapes of Yellow Submarine?
Should be able to just trade up when new old music comes out....
Anybody that buys them because they were re-mastered should buy a bridge in Brooklyn as well!

BBB wrote:

<quoted text>
Bagdad -
Yes, it's true that digital has greater dynamic range... "modern" digital, that is.
What I mean by that is that all Beatles album CDs - up until the remasters release yesterday - were all done way back in 1987, when the digital technology was not as advanced, clean, etc. as it is today.
The original Beatles CDs all suffer from a lower sound quality than more recent CD releases like "Love" "Let it Be (Naked)" or even the "Anthology" sets...
If you compare (for example)"Back in the USSR", "Something" or "Come Together" from "Love" to the same tracks on "The Beatles" and "Abbey Road" CDs you can hear a difference in both the high and bottom ends, as well as a noticeably higher degree of presence on the more recent releases.
Furthermore, even though "Let it Be (Naked)" features stripped-down versions of the original album tracks, again the overall sound experience is more realistic and the dynamic range is wider as well...
And I'm also glad to hear Apple / EMI / whoever has FINALLY gotten "Revolution" right... back in it's original MONO format.
The first pressings of the "Hey Jude / Revolution" 45 that came out in 1968 had "Hey Jude" in stereo, and "Revolution" in mono; even though both sides said "stereo" on the label. That was because the band much preferrred the mono mix over the now familiar "all the guitars on one channel, bass and drums on the other" stereo mess. John especially wanted the guitars as loud and dominant as possible on the recording, which is captured perfectly in the mono form, but "watered down" considerably in stereo; it basically 'ruins' the song. After the first 45 pressing - and then on pretty much every other issue of the track ("Hey Jude (Beatles Again)", "1967-1970", "Rock n' Roll Music", etc. the engineers switched back to the (yukky) stereo version.
If you are lucky enough to have the true mono 1st pressing 45 - which I have - and you play it against any of the stereo versions... the difference is remarkable.

Bagdad Harry wrote:

<quoted text>
You are wrong about the audio quality of vinyl compared to CD's. Digital music has a greater dynamic range...enough said...
as for the stereo horror stories....
Never forgive them for stereo"izing" Get off my cloud....it is just nasty....
Some things are just better left the original intended way. Early stereo had problems especially in the panning department..,..
Thanks god for the lowly Op Amp!

True Blue wrote:

<quoted text>Have to agree with you. I have been disappointed by remastered stuff in the past. For instance I decided to get the Doors first album on c.d. and found that they had changed the balance between intstruments and added in things ( mostly stupid yelling by Morrison ) that had probably been left out for good reason. I now check the reviews on Amazon to avoid " improved " versions of the old stuff. As for a whole new re-issue of the Beatles recordings..I'll pass, I have all thier stuff on c.d. and it sounds fine. in a few years they will be re-packaging the whole body of work and marketing as " un - remastered "and " the way it was meant to be heard."

BBB wrote:

<quoted text>
Bagdad -
Yes, it's true that digital has greater dynamic range... "modern" digital, that is.
What I mean by that is that all Beatles album CDs - up until the remasters release yesterday - were all done way back in 1987, when the digital technology was not as advanced, clean, etc. as it is today.
The original Beatles CDs all suffer from a lower sound quality than more recent CD releases like "Love" "Let it Be (Naked)" or even the "Anthology" sets...
If you compare (for example)"Back in the USSR", "Something" or "Come Together" from "Love" to the same tracks on "The Beatles" and "Abbey Road" CDs you can hear a difference in both the high and bottom ends, as well as a noticeably higher degree of presence on the more recent releases.
Furthermore, even though "Let it Be (Naked)" features stripped-down versions of the original album tracks, again the overall sound experience is more realistic and the dynamic range is wider as well...
And I'm also glad to hear Apple / EMI / whoever has FINALLY gotten "Revolution" right... back in it's original MONO format.
The first pressings of the "Hey Jude / Revolution" 45 that came out in 1968 had "Hey Jude" in stereo, and "Revolution" in mono; even though both sides said "stereo" on the label. That was because the band much preferrred the mono mix over the now familiar "all the guitars on one channel, bass and drums on the other" stereo mess. John especially wanted the guitars as loud and dominant as possible on the recording, which is captured perfectly in the mono form, but "watered down" considerably in stereo; it basically 'ruins' the song. After the first 45 pressing - and then on pretty much every other issue of the track ("Hey Jude (Beatles Again)", "1967-1970", "Rock n' Roll Music", etc. the engineers switched back to the (yukky) stereo version.
If you are lucky enough to have the true mono 1st pressing 45 - which I have - and you play it against any of the stereo versions... the difference is remarkable.

awc wrote:

<quoted text>
Hello BBB,
I have to admit that I don't know much about the mono/stereo mixes of songs,even though I owned the American originals from the 60's, which I have to say were very horrible.
I love the British original releases much better, much clearer.
For now I'm going to keep my original issue cd's, they sound good enough for me, but I would to hear a difference in sound in the new cd's vs. the originals.

THE REPORTER wrote:

<quoted text>
You can't use "LOVE" as a comparison because that is a RE-MIX as well as remaster. These new CD's are louder than the old 1987 ones, THAT IS ALL!...THEY ARE THE SAME otherwise.
A pair of "state of the art" headphones would do just as well, and cheaper too.

BBB wrote:

<quoted text>
The "remix" factor on "Love" was as much editing the tracks as it was a true sound remix. Almost all the tracks feature shortened versions of original songs, or 2 songs mixed together ("Within You, Without You" / "Tomorrow Never Knows" for example); or songs with extra bits added on. In any event, there is still an improvement in sound QUALITY apart from the remix factor...
Maybe a better example would be this:
Try listening to the tracks on "Beatles 1" (released in 2000) and comparing them to the same tracks on the original CDs (released 1987). Different digital mastering techniques / equipment was used for "1" that weren't around in 1987.
The differences are subtle, but they ARE there - Better signal-to-noise ratio, less high end "hiss" (especially on the early stuff and the "Abbey Road" & "Let it Be" cuts - which were recorded on a portable 8-track recorder in 1969 because John's pal "Magic" Alex Mardas never finished the 72 - track recorder he claimed he could build for them) and greater dynamic range are there - that is, if you have a discerning ear and good enough audio equipment to hear the difference.