Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 08:28:53 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Beatles Remasters [split topic]

Started by weirdbeard, April 07, 2009, 11:31:13 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Hans Resist

Quote from: madhair60 on September 07, 2009, 03:39:45 PM
I'm only just now getting into The Beatles.  Seems a good time to do so.  Why haven't I before?  Because I'm fucking ignorant, I suppose.

Where do I start?

Starting point for me was The Blue Album, which my music teacher gave me on tape. "Problem" is you'd have to buy all the remasters from Pepper onwards to compile it in this quality, and the Love remix could be the only way we'll get a comparable master of A Day In The Life with a pure intro. Revolver was where I jumped in after The Blue Album, it didn't exactly put me off them.


This stuff is going to keep me going for ages: Old Brown Shoe completely fucking rocks now.

Jemble Fred

Quote from: Hans Resist on September 07, 2009, 07:26:11 PM
Old Brown Shoe completely fucking rocks now.

It already did. Hard. I presume you mean it now ROCKS!!!

It's amazing how evocative these albums are, for me mainly of rainy university years in 97-99, more than thirty years after they were released.

Today, so far, I've listened to 'Please Please Me', 'With The Beatles', 'Help!', 'Rubber Soul' and 'Revolver' (twice).  Currently spinning the orchestral half of the 'Yellow Submarine' album.  Such warmth from these new remasters, particularly 'Revolver' which is still much better than 'Rubber Soul'.

lipsink

Quote from: madhair60 on September 07, 2009, 03:39:45 PM
I'm only just now getting into The Beatles.  Seems a good time to do so.  Why haven't I before?  Because I'm fucking ignorant, I suppose.

Where do I start?

I'd recommend 'Revolution 9'. It's the catchiest thing they've written. The rest of their stuff isn't as poppy though.

But seriously. Yeah, the Blue Album or The Red Album. Or Past Masters vol 1 and 2.

Egyptian Feast

Abbey Road. Holy fuck. Is that what it's meant to sound like?

Incredible, truly incredible. 'Maxwell's Silver Hammer' is currently blowing me away, and I fucking hate 'Maxwell's Silver Hammer'. I'll be in a puddle by the time the medley ends.

I've not made it to 'Abbey Road' yet.  Sounds like I need to brace myself.  That said, I've never owned a copy of 'Abbey Road', be it on old unremastered CD or otherwise.  I'm guessing my relative unfamiliarity with the album will mean I'll not hear the new sonic brilliance.


weekender

It's the songs that matter, it really is.  The White Album is the Beatles going their own way (best Beatles album ever), and Let It Be (worst Beatles album ever) is them fucking with each other.

There's so much fun on Abbey Road, but you might get the feeling that it's the Beatles pissing about in the early afternoon following a massive drunken fight the night before.  Which, of course, it is.  That's why it's great.

Looking forward to it.  Need to finish 'Beatles For Sale' first.

Egyptian Feast

I don't think I've sat and properly listened to Abbey Road in a long time, but it's one of my favourite Beatles LPs (The White Album just shades it. Can't wait to hear what that sounds like now!) and I thought I knew it inside out until today. You really can tell the difference - just try a track as over-familiar as 'Here Comes The Sun'. I can't wait to re-acquaint myself with the rest.

El Unicornio, mang

I wasn't even that big of a fan of Abbey Road before but it does feel like hearing it with fresh ears. I compared the old one to the new one with headphones and the drums are punchier, the bass is less muddy and bloated, the guitar is crystal clear and the vocals are smooth and distinct. It almost sounds like the old release of it is being heard underwater.

I'm definitely not a geek when it comes to audio clarity, and the songs are great regardless, but they've really done something special with these. And thank god they resisted the urge to just put everything through a compressor and make it all as loud as every other album that's out these days.

Tokyo Sexwhale

I've downloaded these as FLACS - what's the BEST way to convert them to a mp3, so I can stick them on the ipod.

Or am I better off burning them to CDs and putting them on the stereo?

Or both...Yes I want to do both.

Hans Resist

Converting FLAC to .nrg will let you mount then rip CD images for iPod incredibly quickly, with iTunes recognising everything for tagging, or just burn them for a CD player and rip those. There's a Nero FLAC plug-in out there, you needn't convert them to WAVs first.

Winamp plays FLACs beautifully as they are, it's how I'm going until the box arrives on Wednesday.

Jemble Fred

I'm just gonna buy Abbey Road on Wednesday, I should own at least one proper album... May as well order Let It Be Naked too, I've never given it a proper listen.

biggytitbo

Presumably Let It Be reverts to the hideous Spector version on these then?

biggytitbo


Marty McFly

Without wishing to sound like a broken (Beatles) record, with all these questions about stereo versus mono, the bottom line is this:

The Beatles recorded everything in mono, up to and including The White Album. The mono mixes were the ones they spent the time on, usually mixing them in the same sessions as the actual recordings. In most cases - as shown on the site I linked to above - the stereo mixes were done days or even weeks later, usually without any direct involvement from anyone in the band.

As far as I'm concerned, this is what matters. You can debate about certain instruments being better defined or easier to hear in a stereo mix, or a stereo mix containing a few seconds of tambourine or guitar or handclap or harmony or whatever that's different to the mono, but this is extraneous. The mono mixes were the ones that the band cared about: AM radio, the broadcasting format of the time, was mono; every 45rpm single was mono (because those are what DJs played on the air). I regard any of the mono mixes as 'templates' from which the stereo ones were made. The monos remain the definitive article, and they always will.

Of course this is without referring to any comments made by the band and those associated with them, that The Beatles were meant to be heard in mono. John Lennon certainly made that statement regarding Sgt Pepper.

McQ

Eep! I'm currently trying to figure out if I can justify spending £199.99 on the Mono box set. I was so excited about it until I saw the price. If I sell all The Beatles CDs I currently have (Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Pepper and The White Album) I can probably raise about £28 to put towards it. This box set is the kind of thing that's not going to come down in price, ever, isn't it? Bloody The Beatles and their expensive wares!

Marty McFly

Well, not that I'd dream of it, of course, but a complete set of the mono albums is only about 440mb downloaded.

And I'd never dream of searching for 'beatles mono remastered sire 2009' in Google to find out where to get them, either.

Serge

No, I'm with you on that, I can't imagine what sort of person would be sitting here typing away like this while calmly downloading all of the mono versions at the same time.

{cough!}

We blasted out 'Revolver' and 'Sgt Pepper' in the shop today, taking special care to whack the volume up for the orchestral rushes on 'A Day In The Life'. Fantastic.

El Unicornio, mang

Quote from: Marty McFly on September 07, 2009, 11:11:05 PM


As far as I'm concerned, this is what matters. You can debate about certain instruments being better defined or easier to hear in a stereo mix, or a stereo mix containing a few seconds of tambourine or guitar or handclap or harmony or whatever that's different to the mono, but this is extraneous. The mono mixes were the ones that the band cared about: AM radio, the broadcasting format of the time, was mono; every 45rpm single was mono (because those are what DJs played on the air). I regard any of the mono mixes as 'templates' from which the stereo ones were made. The monos remain the definitive article, and they always will.
.

My own (further) two cents on this matter:  I'm more interested in hearing a clear sound of what The Beatles sounded like as a band, than hearing what The Beatles thought sounded good to their ears after they'd recorded and mixed them (bearing in mind they weren't producers). You're getting a clearer aural image of The Beatles with stereo as there is space between the instruments, with mono you're getting The Beatles flattened out for record, like they've been pushed through a funnel. That may have sounded fine on granny's old record player or a tinny wireless, but with CDs and modern hi-fi systems it seems to me like taking a step back, even if it is "what they would have wanted". They haven't altered anything on the songs anyway, just widened the sound a bit.

That said, the mono remasters are fantastic so I'd be happy with either, but personally I'm going to opt for stereo vs. mono on a few of the remasters.

Famous Mortimer

Now, I remember reading about the mono / stereo thing from one of the many Beatles books I had as a younger 'un. Martin spent ages getting the levels right for the mono one, but when it came to the stereo versions all he did was separate the sounds into two separate channels. Now, that doesn't mean the stereo one was worse, but it seems this story has grown and grown down the years to the point where if you listen to the stereo versions you're some sort of philistine. When Lennon said they were supposed to be listened to in mono he wasn't talking about these stereo remasters.

What am I trying to say? Don't know. I did get both sets last night and they both sound absolutely fine.

lipsink

'Piggies' sounds great in mono, frightening in places. Haven't tried the stereo version yet.

And in 'Golden Slumbers' you can really hear every ache of McCartney's voice.


Retinend

what's so great about these releases? Were the previous CD versions so lousily mastered?

Ballad of Ballard Berkley

Quote from: Retinend on September 08, 2009, 11:10:58 AMWere the previous CD versions so lousily mastered?

Yes. I'm no audiophile, but the previous CD masters sounded quite flat and thin, and not how they were supposed to sound at all. As others have said, it's bizarre that Apple have been content to mistreat the Beatles catalogue on CD for so long. 

Lfbarfe

The problems with the original masters were that on the mono albums, they used a stereo tape deck with a badly adjusted azimuth, so the two channels were slightly out of kilter with each other, when they should have been identical - ideally a single track head should have been used, but failing that, a properly adjusted stereo head and a summing of the channels would have been better. Then there's the state-of-the-art 1987 mastering. Analogue-digital converters have come a long way in 22 years. I suspect that these reissues have been mastered with far more care and attention, which begins with using the right gear to transfer the tapes.

lipsink

I love 'Revolver' now. I used to hate how flat it sounded.

Jemble Fred

I have to admit that A Hard Day's Night sounded no better to me in this all-new Mono version than my seventh-generation cassette recording. First album I can say that about, although I'm not sure why. It did still sound fantastic, but it just always did, to me. Could it be because that was ultimately taken from vinyl, whereas most of my other Beatles cassettes were taped from CD?

gmoney

Just listened to Abbey Road. Wow. It's so warm and alive, I seriously can't stop grinning.

jutl

Yes, cynical copyright term extension never sounded so good.