i am loving the beatles and I can say (after listening to every possible source), that the remasters are c-r-a-p. The monos are usable but Japanes red wax LP's are still superior. The stereos are unlistenable! Compressed, bass-boosted, instrument-stolen crap. I have the MFSL (Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab) beatles stereo collection, pressed on extra thick unrecycled vinyl, taken from the original studio master tapes - no compression, the real deal. Shame on the new stereo release.
@rmoshammer I ws talking about e "ordinary" UK releases on Parlophone & Apple. Generally the closer the pressing date to the time & country of release ensures better sound quality as these are likely to have been pressed from the masters, which also explains your experiences of the MFSL releases, which I haven't heard. It goes without saying that I prefer the "ordinary" vinyl to the CD, but I think the 2009 remasters are better than the 1987's.
@rmoshammer I have The Beatles on vinyl, some of them original LPs, and old and the new remasters and I actually think that the new remasters sound really good. They sound way better than the old CDs for sure. Of course the original LPs and MFSL sound better, but for a digital medium, the remasters I thought were mastered really well. However, the packaging leaves a lot to be desired. All my CDs came scratched and I put them all in jewel cases.
@fatcatbuzz The problem with the the new remasters is, that they are compressed - good for iPod and car radios. On a good stereo-system or with good headphones, they sound terrible.
@rmoshammer You do make a good point about the compression. I notice that they don't have the dynamics that the original vinyl have. That's why I still try to collect early versions of every Beatles on vinyl. But, I still think that the remasters are pretty good considering. But, I really wish that they would stop hitting the ceiling with all these new remasters. All these engineers should really go back to audio school and realize what people like you and I want.
I have to roll my eyes when people get on the same arrogant high horse about having a hi-fi versus "listening on a PC." Yeah... because sound cards are so abysmal, that everything sounds like a 64kbps mp3 file on a PC. This is nonsense.
Most headphones for under 40 dollars today are more accurate than so called "hi-fi" speakers that would have cost thousands during the 70's.
Plus... decent data compression through mp3 or better yet aac/ogg/musepack is not an audio quality bottleneck.
@Username93611 I intend no hi-fi snobbery - I listen to music, not systems! But what you say is a tad far-fetched. There's every difference between a modest hi-fi separates set up and a PC/Mac playing through its own amp/speakers! Chalk & cheese. Computer music requires similar sums to traditional methods to achieve hi-fi results. Headphones CAN give similar results to speakers costing more, but within reason. (To be continued...)
@MarkPMus My Beyerdynamics for £80 don't compare with even my R3 speakers costing nearly 6 times more (in 2004) let alone studio monitors from any year that cost 10's of thousands. You don't think George Martin could have achieved such stunning results on anything less than accurate - or - dare I say it a pair of today's $40 (approx £30) headphones do you? And that needs money; similarly the 09 Remasters need more than a basic system to show what they're made of. That's all. :)
First: Yes, I think Martin could have achieved stunning results with gear that wasn't transparent. He demonstrably did.
Second: When you talk about hi-fi separates, it depends on whether you mean for LPs or CDs. CDs are digital data. The waveform is digital. So long as the reader conforms with the red book spec, they are all identical in how they retrieve the data. Then there's the digital to analog conversion, followed by amplification, followed by output to speakers.
@Username93611 I don't know enough about the internal workings of CD players, but once the data is retrieved CD players do treat it differently - for example 4x oversampling in the late 80's and Sony's Bitstream method in the early 90's. These days many hi-fi separate CD players interpolate the data to 24bit which the 80's/90's players didn't do, and that has enormous benefits.
Digital to analog converters have become more efficient, more accurate, and most of all, more inexpensive, to the point that what's included on even built-in sound cards on a motherboard is better than *anything* they had in the early 80s. Paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for a CD player is an absurd act of the misinformed.
@Username93611 No one said hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even the Wadia's I mentioned don't cost that! But my very modest Rega Apollo trounces the soundcard & analogue outs that are in my iMac - as witnessed by making CD copies of downloads and then playing them on the Apollo. Yes, tech has improved, but within reason you get what you pay for. Pay for Linn's download/ripped CD server equipment and it will sound better than a £300 laptop!
@Username93611 Google Linn hifi. Rega CD players are all designed and made in the UK. They use Japanese DAC's yes, but the rest is sourced from the UK. The "boxes" they are in contribute to the sound, so much so that they use little internal error correction gubbins, but the feet the players stand on isolate the player from external vibrations that cause skips etc Their basic player has one 24/192 DAC, whereas their more expensive ones have 2 or more. Which positively affects sound! And price.
Wow. All right. It's fine if you disagree, but essentially, no, those spikes don't affect the sound, and neither does the DAC being 24/192 instead of 24/96 or even 24/48. No human, not even at birth, can hear 24kHz tones, much less 96kHz tones, and past age 30, it's almost impossible to still be able to hear ~18kHz. Go try it.
A digital music player with an ~18-bit/~40kHz DAC exceeds human hearing capability, and in dynamic range, the physical limit of your speakers to make tinier vibrations.
I know more about the science audio engineering than I would take the time to explain to you. Honestly, no offense intended, but I have to deal with audiophiles with crazy precious metal interconnects and other inane, unscientific wastes of money that don't produce actual changes in output all the time. 500 characters isn't enough space to reply properly.
Precisely right. In just the reverse, I challenge you to point out one speaker cone capable of reproducing 20-bit resolution D.R., even with a pure analog signal. Do you truly understand what this means? It means the magnitude of the 20th bit is 1,000,000,000,000 times smaller (120dB smaller) than the magnitude of that first bit. Your eardrums can't reproduce that tiny wiggle. It's smaller than electronic noise by orders of magnitude. So are the effects of those spikes.
A CD player should cost about 40 to 50 USD in parts. All you're paying for is a Red Book CD compliant reader, a digital to analog converter, and some circuitry getting you to a line out, and if it includes a headphone jack, then whatever they stick in there for a headphone amplifier. The brand name shouldn't matter. At *all*. Unless you like the way the box looks. It's all transistors and semi-conductors made in China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan anyway.
Amplification is the one place built-in soundcards fail, and fail badly. A decent headphone amplifier requires circuitry and isolation which would both be too much of a premium on a motherboard. This is remedied for about $40, by picking up a Chu-Moy, or for slightly more, something you can plug in.
As for headphones... there are options to fit any budget, with increasing fidelity. I'm extremely happy with my Denon AH-D5000's. They beat any monitors under 2 grand.
$1800 USD laptop here I use for mixing... SRS Premium and tons of other audio calibration equipment and I can fully support your statement about 'Matchbox' that it sounds like The Beatles are sitting there playing right in front of you. And I can say the same for 'Don't Let Me Down'. For 'Let It Be'...Uhh, I'm still going to say the best thing a person can do is buy the "Let It Be...Naked" album without Phil Specter's destruction thats not repairable to the sound quality.
@RadeonZero TBH regarding LIB Naked, I just wish Paul Mc had let bygones be bygones. It's not so much the music. I know he didn't like a couple of Spector's arrangements, and yes PS was a bit of a crazy choice as producer, but I bet that re-release just stirred up a hornet's nest of hurt feelings for many people involved at the time. It must've been a horrid time to be a Beatle and the orig LP shows it. Move on! Let it be, as it were!
@p0llenp0ny The Beatles records in general are covered in edits, but Lennon's bass playing in The Long & Winding Road is awful. Spector at least had the decency to cover it in reverb!
Yes, Mark. The link you gave there is very addictive though. It got me playing the songs that is mentioned in it, hearing for what they said went on. It is very interesting! Thanks for sharing =)
@floydpink2222 Sorry it took a while to notice your comment, floydpink. Yes, I'm glad Guttenberg shared my opinions. I promise though, that today, 23rd May 2011, was the first time I read that article. I did my own research, including editing versions of Day Tripper side by side to arrive at my opinion. Guttenberg is not saying anything new when he says the differences won't be audible over lo-fi iPods etc. Until they hear it for themselves, non-enthusiasts often remain unaware of this, sadly.
What do you think about compression / limiting / Dynamic Range etc ... "Laodness War?There Are those who say that abuse too much of these methods. Graphs using from the old and new cd's to prove that the sound was compressed too, but never talk about the sound itself. These graphs are not eough, what matters is the sound, the engineers in charge of the remastering commented that they used it, but without damaging the dynamic range, seems to me that it was respected. What do yuo think about it?
@floydpink2222 If you look at my videos comparing various remasters with the vinyl originals - and some of my rambles on the same subject - you'll get my opinion on the LOUDness war! Also, see my website, the URL of which can be found on my channel.
I am glad the Beatles 2009 CD remasters did not fall victim to the loudness war. I do hear differences in them when listening to the 1990 or 1987 CD's. The original CD's sounded fine to me. I bought most of the Beatles 2009 remasters on CD though. Some good examples of good remasters are The Doors Perception box set,AC/DC 2003 CD remasters, and Black Sabbath Symptom of the Universe.Oh, and the 1994 Led Zeppelin CD remasters. Which makes me wonder if Mothership has loudness added.
@PearlJammer07 The 2009 remasters are still compressed. People are just so used to absolutely insane brickwall compression that these seem quiet. The Help! album in the '09 set seems most compressed out of all of them. Take a look at the waveform in Wavelab or something and compare it to the 80s CDs. There is definitely some peak limiting going on. Kind of wish they would have put out a non-peak limited version as well, like they did with George Harrison's stuff.
Dear Mark, what exactly are the problems with the reissued All Things Must Pass? And what is the name of the guy you mention? (Ashley?) English is my second language and I'm better in reading it than hearing it.
About the loudness war: the other side is that some old recordings have big jumps in volumes, going from very soft to very loud. I have this problem with some classical music where whispered vocals suddenly become LOUD shouts, deafening me. That's a too realistic sound for me.
Other than hearing noticeable volume difference in the remastered versions vs. prior CDs, I don't notice much difference. I'm not too impressed with the so-called mini-docs. One thing all you sticklers out there may want to check out is this-- Listen to ''Cry Baby Cry'' on vinyl vs. the new remasters. At the point where John sings ''put on specially by the children'', there is a point where his voice goes to one channel, and then returns to mono. On the remastered CD, it doesn't change.
Imagine the Beatles song book as a exhibit in a museam. Each song a masterpeice wether a simple small /2:30 secound canvas to a canvas 6X6. the secoundside of Abby road. Everysong a masterpeice. What you are doing is a form of conterfiting. Think about it . Your like an artish who makes copies of a painting and trys to sell them in your case convince people that your version is either real ,or better.
Simple, if its £65 on Ebay it is FAKE. It it's bought from a reputable seller (Amazon,HMV etc) then it will be genuine. (even though it will cost more.)
Really enjoy your reviews, which are always informative. It must be quite a challenge to present some of this information in a way that the layperson can understand, but you manage it and this layperson is very grateful! :) Keep up the good work!
Remasters ''horrible''?. No. The first four CDs from 1987 (mono) were transferred on an unaligned STEREO machine and the 1987 'Revolver' was transferred on an unaligned stereo machine. The Capitol boxes used (at best) second generation tapes. Any U.K. EMI vinyl pressings pre-1987 are the ones to go for rather than the MFSL, IMO. Bass was always rolled off for the vinyl pressings (as it always is for vinyl); what we're hearing now is the bass that is on the masters.
I would have to disagree about the bass issue. Yes I've read numerous times about bass levels being, er, somewhat 'reduced' on the original UK vinyl, BUT -- upon actually listening to (a significant number of) 1st press (mono AND stereo) UK vinyl copies vs 2009 CD (mono AND stereo) remasters - and on a decent system too (Denon amp, Vestax 06pro mixer + old/vintage '60s Kef speakers) - I'd be lying if I sed the 2009 CDs have louder/more powerful/more melodious/better bass. Vinyl wins again.
Don't forget that esp in the case of the 1st press UK Parlophone 33s + 45s, the sound was put through tube gear during the cutting & pressing process, which (inevitably) adds a lot of 'natural warmth'/bass ...
whats the deal with remastering a mono mix? and even though these albums have all but been remastered. why bother most if not all were originally recorded on analog single track by this time 8 track stereo recording but really how much better can we be remastering old recordings? after all id rather still today hear the beatles as they were intended to be heard. via vinyl so no I dont think its worth it.. the beatles sound best on vinyl!!!
hello againmark,I have beatle mag I bought in the 60s and their is a photo of them at the morcombie and wise show and the grertsch is faceing down,the pad on the back is black,everyone agrees so far,since the flash is daylight,its like a color chart and the body is black,and I have other photos that show it in black,in fact the lighting in the movie help during the lose that girl segment,hes playing the brown one,then when the lights go to white arc,it seems black,but iwasblack at my school
hello mark again,,while were on the subject,I had a semi friendly with a typical beatles fan who were not born and are trying to be like a spokesman for the era ,he playes all the songs on the gretsch 6122,hes a wise ass and has a lot of growing up to do,he says georges 6122 was dark brown,and not available in black,well I saw it at my music school in black,without a dought,a guy in england ,phils vintage,has one,george gave the first one away,got a 2nd oneand must have had a 3rdone.
hi mark,thanks for your reply to my letter,were the same age,I know their are more important things in the world than beatles cds,but I am mad from a consumers point,remember the hey jude lpin 1970,some wise exeuctive at emi put two hard days night tracks,instead of the unreleased material,get back,inner light,the promo45 of penney lane,which is a different mix,vocal and backing is not available,should have been on mono masters with the single of help,the ua hard days night would be nice too
to all beatle fans,I thought the min docum would be something special,I am sad no one has critizied them,I think there terriable,the rubber soul has no stills from the sessions,they are all from recolver,abbey rd has stills from the white lp,ppm has this boy dialog from with the lp,plus the fact they are to short ,they could have been done with more care and thought,but what do you expect from emi, the booklets have no recording info,you dont know what was recorded first,who played on what,
I agree with you and I have to say the White Album mini doc is the most patronising thing I have seen in a long time. We all know the Beatles were fighting tooth and nail during this album, and it is therefore a bit patronising of Ringo to say "Oh it was a great time, good memories of this album" etc... Ha walked out during some of it, for goodness sake!
thanks for believing me the beatles remasters 2009 are horrible. the capitol albums 1 & 2 or the mfsl vinyl far more superior, these should have been respectively remastered in dsd's like how bob ludwig and ted jensen did the rolling stones.
I never said they were horrible - just not radically different from what has come before, and differences only really appreciable on hi fi separates equipment.
Great review, Mark. I was going to do something like this at some point but now I don't think I have to because you've done such a good job. If you don't mind, I'd like to pass this on to the Beatles Facebook group I administer. Maybe drive a little traffic your way. Whattya think?
That'd be great. I have also done a cut & paste jobby of Let It Be which I've posted, showing the differences between the various editions; also if you PM with your email, I'll get the DT cut 'n' shut I've done off to you as well.
I use Beyerdynamic headphones. What do you think I used to make the edits? I didn't say I couldn't hear the differences or that there weren't any - I said a separates hifi setup will show more of what those differences actually are. Otherwise, the differences, especially between the 2 CD releases, are not so significant as to make it worth spending out for a new set, unless you want the monos. The vinyls for me are still superior. It remains to be seen if the new LPs will cut the sonic mustard.
I said that the differences are not all that apparent on cheaper equipment - not so as to make it worth spending out on yet more CD's. The records are superb on quality equipment. If you are playing the CD's on cheaper equipment I urge you to try them on good quality hi-fi. You will be knocked for 6, and the differences between the 80's and '09 CD's will be worth it. They are all good, and I wish more new masters were like these.
Great review. I have the mono box. Never realized that a lot of the subtle differences in the 45s were due to them being from mono mixes. Also, they did a nice job of re-creating the original vinyl packaging (albeit CD-sized) in the new mono box.
I'd like to get the box set, but I have heard that Mono is better for the LPs up to Help, while sterero is better from Rubber Soul on, so it might be better just to get them separately.
Well, I think I prefer the stereo MIX for Revolver. But the Mono edition is, of course, way "easier" to listen to when on headphone for example. BUT, Anyone, correct me if I'm wrong, there's distorsion on many parts of the mono remaster of the record. Well I might be exaggerating a bit, it's not all over the record. But there definitely is distorsion on some parts, and it's a shame. Also, the mono mix doesn't feature the "Hee...Hee..He..." on the intro of Got To Get You Into My Life. :P
I want both boxed sets1 I can't make up my mind which mixes I want to do without. I presume that in the mono box, you don't get a mono Abbey Rd & Let It Be? Cos thet were only ever issued in stereo? So what do you get for your extra money on the mono?
As far as I'm concerned, the proper versions were the mono ones, especially the earlier tracks. Trouble is I can't afford £200 for the mono set, which is thirty quid dearer then the stereo box set with three fewer albums!
well done my friend well done and thankyou for doing this...im loving these remastered re-issue's...and for the life of me i cant decide which i like better(mono or stereo)i seem to be leaning towards the stereo remasters.....
Hi Mark, Well I bought the Stereo box and am very pleased with it. I just wish i knew someone with a mono set. The other week i did a 2 hour radio show on the Beatles on the 9/9/09 Great responses.
i do this as well--the us mix of strawberry fields is different from the 1971 german re-mix and the us mix has better horns--at the near end, they don't pan like in the german mix and the 4 piano notes seem better in the us mix,
Good points. There are other factors regarding the new remasters. The bass, especially on the earlier tracks, is far clearer. Volume in general is hotter which always sounds edgier. (i.e."better.") And there have even been little pitch corrections. (That musicians who've been playing along to these songs for years would recognize). Vinyl is vinyl. But these are the best remasters so far. Who knows? In 5 years the technology will be improved even more.
If you listen to the songs from the reissues side by side with the records and the 87's you'll see that the volume levels are the same. Surprising, since records are supposedly not as "loud" as CD's. Louder does not always indicate "improved" as dynamic range (esp. on drum hits) is often compromised to achieve this. In interviews the engineers said that often just the transferral from tape to digital was enough to bring about the improvements they were after. Often nothing else was needed.
Actually, I've found vinyl to be louder in many cases, due to the overtones present in analogue. It depends on the mastering. Sometimes it's the compression that make something lower or louder and that in itself changed the timbre. Louder IS ALWAYS better if it is not distorted.
I beg to disagree. Often the only way they make music loud is by compression, which robs instruments of their initial attack. As a result, pace, rhythm & timing suffer. Also, in order to have loud, you must have quiet, and methods of compression these days are so brutal that quiet moments (including microdynamics) are all brought up to the same loudness level. The resultant sound is not always distorted (clipped) but sounds terrible nonetheless.
I understand all about compression. But these remasters don't sound very compressed. In fact, they're LESS compressed than the 80's remasters, yet louder.
Mark, I'm shocked that NONE of the posts of the remasters have been taken down YET! More and more just keep getting posted. I'm technologically impaired, but I do have to agree with you about the reverb on the new masters, though, even with my cheap speakers and headphones.
I said the 87 reverb was poor, binkle! :D Thenow, I don't think the new remasters are louder. And although my system is, according to the hifi hacks, in theory a bit bass light, it can give a hefty bit of thwack when it needs to. I suppose it is different ears and different tastes. Believe me, I am not a remasters fan, and would love to prove the superiority of vinyl. These remasters are not perfect, but they are a darn sight better than other so-called remasters. I am grateful.
Thanks for your reply thenowuk. If you check out the waveform of Day Tripper, you will see that there is not an awful lot of difference between the three. The advantage of playing them side by side is that it reveals the obvious "boom-tizz" ie bloated bass and shrieky treble of the 87 CD! Also, if you check out The Beatles Anomalies list (see info box), you'll find most of the squeaks, clicks and knocks, plus accidental chatter etc is left in on the 09 versions. I checked P Writer & Let It Be.
So my advice would be to play the records side by side with the remasters, through the same amp/speakers. Apart from a bit less tonal depth, the new CD's are really rather faithful, and "flat". It could be that speaker placement in particular, is affecting bass response. Make sure they're not too close to rear walls and not placed on the floor or furniture cabinets. For standmounts, dedicated stands are best. This could all be influencing the extra bass you hear.
Thanks for your mail and link(which unforunately wouldn't play on my media player!).
Last night I went round my musician freinds house(we both play and both love The Beatles) and we played at least 60 songs-comparing mono to stereo remasters. Obviously the remasters are clearer and louder BUT many of the songs are imo ruined now. For example,'Hey Bulldog'-Lennon's fantastic vocal is drowned out! ridiculous,the bass is so dominant on all tracks now (bass frequency) that much of the middle
...which is where it all happens-is now mising. The 'Love' version of 'Walrus' is so much better than the new remasters,it gels and is a coherent,warm and lovingly made mix.....forget the technicalities,the songs suffer. I honestly feel really pissed off about all this. Especially because these versions are now thye only ones stocked in stores.
Nice video-however,I don't agree that the remasters are so wonderful. The bass and drums are far too loud-instead of adding to the song they take over! this is ok in riff heavy songs but not in the more subtle numbers. Also,the drop outs and mistakes now stick out like a sore thumb and the songs don't 'gel' aswell,they sound too seperate-I am talking about the stereo mixes-the mono mixes are far more together and coherent.
Thanks for all the work you put into this Mark. I got both box sets on the 9th and they both sound amazing. I've played "Mono Masters" but haven't played "Past Masters" yet. I've got all the way up to "The White Album" and will probably start on "Yellow Submarine" tonight. My stereo system is a JVC from 1991 and it was top of the line for it's day. The 5-disc CD player still plays as good as the day I got it. The Beatles have never sounded better on CD that's for sure.
i am loving the beatles and I can say (after listening to every possible source), that the remasters are c-r-a-p. The monos are usable but Japanes red wax LP's are still superior. The stereos are unlistenable! Compressed, bass-boosted, instrument-stolen crap. I have the MFSL (Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab) beatles stereo collection, pressed on extra thick unrecycled vinyl, taken from the original studio master tapes - no compression, the real deal. Shame on the new stereo release.
rmoshammer 6 months ago
@rmoshammer I ws talking about e "ordinary" UK releases on Parlophone & Apple. Generally the closer the pressing date to the time & country of release ensures better sound quality as these are likely to have been pressed from the masters, which also explains your experiences of the MFSL releases, which I haven't heard. It goes without saying that I prefer the "ordinary" vinyl to the CD, but I think the 2009 remasters are better than the 1987's.
MarkPMus 6 months ago
@rmoshammer I have The Beatles on vinyl, some of them original LPs, and old and the new remasters and I actually think that the new remasters sound really good. They sound way better than the old CDs for sure. Of course the original LPs and MFSL sound better, but for a digital medium, the remasters I thought were mastered really well. However, the packaging leaves a lot to be desired. All my CDs came scratched and I put them all in jewel cases.
fatcatbuzz 4 months ago
@fatcatbuzz The problem with the the new remasters is, that they are compressed - good for iPod and car radios. On a good stereo-system or with good headphones, they sound terrible.
rmoshammer 4 months ago
@rmoshammer You do make a good point about the compression. I notice that they don't have the dynamics that the original vinyl have. That's why I still try to collect early versions of every Beatles on vinyl. But, I still think that the remasters are pretty good considering. But, I really wish that they would stop hitting the ceiling with all these new remasters. All these engineers should really go back to audio school and realize what people like you and I want.
fatcatbuzz 4 months ago
LP IS BEST!AND THIS IS COMING FROM A KID!!!!
tarot9230 8 months ago
I have to roll my eyes when people get on the same arrogant high horse about having a hi-fi versus "listening on a PC." Yeah... because sound cards are so abysmal, that everything sounds like a 64kbps mp3 file on a PC. This is nonsense.
Most headphones for under 40 dollars today are more accurate than so called "hi-fi" speakers that would have cost thousands during the 70's.
Plus... decent data compression through mp3 or better yet aac/ogg/musepack is not an audio quality bottleneck.
Username93611 8 months ago
@Username93611 I intend no hi-fi snobbery - I listen to music, not systems! But what you say is a tad far-fetched. There's every difference between a modest hi-fi separates set up and a PC/Mac playing through its own amp/speakers! Chalk & cheese. Computer music requires similar sums to traditional methods to achieve hi-fi results. Headphones CAN give similar results to speakers costing more, but within reason. (To be continued...)
MarkPMus 8 months ago
@MarkPMus My Beyerdynamics for £80 don't compare with even my R3 speakers costing nearly 6 times more (in 2004) let alone studio monitors from any year that cost 10's of thousands. You don't think George Martin could have achieved such stunning results on anything less than accurate - or - dare I say it a pair of today's $40 (approx £30) headphones do you? And that needs money; similarly the 09 Remasters need more than a basic system to show what they're made of. That's all. :)
MarkPMus 8 months ago
@MarkPMus
First: Yes, I think Martin could have achieved stunning results with gear that wasn't transparent. He demonstrably did.
Second: When you talk about hi-fi separates, it depends on whether you mean for LPs or CDs. CDs are digital data. The waveform is digital. So long as the reader conforms with the red book spec, they are all identical in how they retrieve the data. Then there's the digital to analog conversion, followed by amplification, followed by output to speakers.
Username93611 8 months ago
@Username93611 I don't know enough about the internal workings of CD players, but once the data is retrieved CD players do treat it differently - for example 4x oversampling in the late 80's and Sony's Bitstream method in the early 90's. These days many hi-fi separate CD players interpolate the data to 24bit which the 80's/90's players didn't do, and that has enormous benefits.
MarkPMus 8 months ago
@MarkPMus (part 2)
Digital to analog converters have become more efficient, more accurate, and most of all, more inexpensive, to the point that what's included on even built-in sound cards on a motherboard is better than *anything* they had in the early 80s. Paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for a CD player is an absurd act of the misinformed.
That leaves amplification and speakers.
Username93611 8 months ago
@Username93611 No one said hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even the Wadia's I mentioned don't cost that! But my very modest Rega Apollo trounces the soundcard & analogue outs that are in my iMac - as witnessed by making CD copies of downloads and then playing them on the Apollo. Yes, tech has improved, but within reason you get what you pay for. Pay for Linn's download/ripped CD server equipment and it will sound better than a £300 laptop!
MarkPMus 8 months ago
@MarkPMus
Who is Linn, and what is their download/ripped CD server equipment?
Username93611 8 months ago
@Username93611 Google Linn hifi. Rega CD players are all designed and made in the UK. They use Japanese DAC's yes, but the rest is sourced from the UK. The "boxes" they are in contribute to the sound, so much so that they use little internal error correction gubbins, but the feet the players stand on isolate the player from external vibrations that cause skips etc Their basic player has one 24/192 DAC, whereas their more expensive ones have 2 or more. Which positively affects sound! And price.
MarkPMus 8 months ago
Wow. All right. It's fine if you disagree, but essentially, no, those spikes don't affect the sound, and neither does the DAC being 24/192 instead of 24/96 or even 24/48. No human, not even at birth, can hear 24kHz tones, much less 96kHz tones, and past age 30, it's almost impossible to still be able to hear ~18kHz. Go try it.
A digital music player with an ~18-bit/~40kHz DAC exceeds human hearing capability, and in dynamic range, the physical limit of your speakers to make tinier vibrations.
Username93611 8 months ago
@Username93611 Learn about harmonics and how higher, and largely inaudible frequencies can affect lower frequencies.
p0llenp0ny 7 months ago
@p0llenp0ny
I know more about the science audio engineering than I would take the time to explain to you. Honestly, no offense intended, but I have to deal with audiophiles with crazy precious metal interconnects and other inane, unscientific wastes of money that don't produce actual changes in output all the time. 500 characters isn't enough space to reply properly.
Username93611 7 months ago
@Username93611 Just point out one semiconductor that is capable of accurately reproducing 24 bit resolution. I dare you. ;-)
p0llenp0ny 7 months ago
@p0ll...
Precisely right. In just the reverse, I challenge you to point out one speaker cone capable of reproducing 20-bit resolution D.R., even with a pure analog signal. Do you truly understand what this means? It means the magnitude of the 20th bit is 1,000,000,000,000 times smaller (120dB smaller) than the magnitude of that first bit. Your eardrums can't reproduce that tiny wiggle. It's smaller than electronic noise by orders of magnitude. So are the effects of those spikes.
I'm out.
Username93611 7 months ago
Also, I said hundreds *or* thousands...
A CD player should cost about 40 to 50 USD in parts. All you're paying for is a Red Book CD compliant reader, a digital to analog converter, and some circuitry getting you to a line out, and if it includes a headphone jack, then whatever they stick in there for a headphone amplifier. The brand name shouldn't matter. At *all*. Unless you like the way the box looks. It's all transistors and semi-conductors made in China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan anyway.
Username93611 8 months ago
@MarkPMus (part 3)
Amplification is the one place built-in soundcards fail, and fail badly. A decent headphone amplifier requires circuitry and isolation which would both be too much of a premium on a motherboard. This is remedied for about $40, by picking up a Chu-Moy, or for slightly more, something you can plug in.
As for headphones... there are options to fit any budget, with increasing fidelity. I'm extremely happy with my Denon AH-D5000's. They beat any monitors under 2 grand.
Username93611 8 months ago
$1800 USD laptop here I use for mixing... SRS Premium and tons of other audio calibration equipment and I can fully support your statement about 'Matchbox' that it sounds like The Beatles are sitting there playing right in front of you. And I can say the same for 'Don't Let Me Down'. For 'Let It Be'...Uhh, I'm still going to say the best thing a person can do is buy the "Let It Be...Naked" album without Phil Specter's destruction thats not repairable to the sound quality.
RadeonZero 9 months ago
@RadeonZero TBH regarding LIB Naked, I just wish Paul Mc had let bygones be bygones. It's not so much the music. I know he didn't like a couple of Spector's arrangements, and yes PS was a bit of a crazy choice as producer, but I bet that re-release just stirred up a hornet's nest of hurt feelings for many people involved at the time. It must've been a horrid time to be a Beatle and the orig LP shows it. Move on! Let it be, as it were!
MarkPMus 9 months ago
@MarkPMus Yeah. I have nothing against how the original sounded, nothing at all. But I guess I just look into music all way if I enjoy it.
RadeonZero 9 months ago
@MarkPMus I agree. Plus, McCartney's version has edits and splices all over the place.
p0llenp0ny 7 months ago
@p0llenp0ny The Beatles records in general are covered in edits, but Lennon's bass playing in The Long & Winding Road is awful. Spector at least had the decency to cover it in reverb!
MarkPMus 7 months ago
To answer the title question. YES THEY ARE!
starwarsfreak1111 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Vinyl is the same sound than the original masters (Tha tapes that were remastered) ??
I ask because both ara analoge..
ZingerBeatle 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Vinyl is the same sound than the original masters (Tha tapes that were remastered) ??
I ask because both ara analoge..
ZingerBeatle 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Vinyl is the same sound than the original masters (Tha tapes that were remastered) ??
I ask because both ara analoge..
ZingerBeatle 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Vinyl is the same sound than the original masters (Tha tapes that were remastered) ??
I ask because both ara analoge..
ZingerBeatle 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This Remasters are the best
No loudness war on this
pitchfork(dot)com/reviews/albums/13425-stereo-box-in-mono/
floydpink2222 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This Remasters are the best
No loudness war on this
pitchfork(dot)com/reviews/albums/13425-stereo-box-in-mono/
floydpink2222 1 year ago
Yes, Mark. The link you gave there is very addictive though. It got me playing the songs that is mentioned in it, hearing for what they said went on. It is very interesting! Thanks for sharing =)
yizhan123 1 year ago
nice!
duhhh187 1 year ago
Read this, is about beatles Remastered cd´s vs LP
news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-10351798-47.html
What do you think???
floydpink2222 1 year ago
@floydpink2222 Sorry it took a while to notice your comment, floydpink. Yes, I'm glad Guttenberg shared my opinions. I promise though, that today, 23rd May 2011, was the first time I read that article. I did my own research, including editing versions of Day Tripper side by side to arrive at my opinion. Guttenberg is not saying anything new when he says the differences won't be audible over lo-fi iPods etc. Until they hear it for themselves, non-enthusiasts often remain unaware of this, sadly.
MarkPMus 9 months ago
Comment removed
floydpink2222 1 year ago
Comment removed
floydpink2222 1 year ago
watch out for the $100 boxes because they could be fake bootlegs
k3304 1 year ago
What do you think about compression / limiting / Dynamic Range etc ... "Laodness War?There Are those who say that abuse too much of these methods. Graphs using from the old and new cd's to prove that the sound was compressed too, but never talk about the sound itself. These graphs are not eough, what matters is the sound, the engineers in charge of the remastering commented that they used it, but without damaging the dynamic range, seems to me that it was respected. What do yuo think about it?
floydpink2222 1 year ago
@floydpink2222 If you look at my videos comparing various remasters with the vinyl originals - and some of my rambles on the same subject - you'll get my opinion on the LOUDness war! Also, see my website, the URL of which can be found on my channel.
MarkPMus 1 year ago
Wait for the remastered vinyl versions which should be out next year.
Robohump 1 year ago
@Robohump THAT will be interesting. 180 or 200G versions done up right..I'm totally ready to add those to my Beatles vinyl collection.
For those who are interested, if you can find a DMM Version of Rubber Soul it sounds fantastic!
cranie4 1 year ago
I am glad the Beatles 2009 CD remasters did not fall victim to the loudness war. I do hear differences in them when listening to the 1990 or 1987 CD's. The original CD's sounded fine to me. I bought most of the Beatles 2009 remasters on CD though. Some good examples of good remasters are The Doors Perception box set,AC/DC 2003 CD remasters, and Black Sabbath Symptom of the Universe.Oh, and the 1994 Led Zeppelin CD remasters. Which makes me wonder if Mothership has loudness added.
PearlJammer07 1 year ago
@PearlJammer07 The 2009 remasters are still compressed. People are just so used to absolutely insane brickwall compression that these seem quiet. The Help! album in the '09 set seems most compressed out of all of them. Take a look at the waveform in Wavelab or something and compare it to the 80s CDs. There is definitely some peak limiting going on. Kind of wish they would have put out a non-peak limited version as well, like they did with George Harrison's stuff.
p0llenp0ny 7 months ago
Dear Mark, what exactly are the problems with the reissued All Things Must Pass? And what is the name of the guy you mention? (Ashley?) English is my second language and I'm better in reading it than hearing it.
About the loudness war: the other side is that some old recordings have big jumps in volumes, going from very soft to very loud. I have this problem with some classical music where whispered vocals suddenly become LOUD shouts, deafening me. That's a too realistic sound for me.
Ratelzwatel 1 year ago
Other than hearing noticeable volume difference in the remastered versions vs. prior CDs, I don't notice much difference. I'm not too impressed with the so-called mini-docs. One thing all you sticklers out there may want to check out is this-- Listen to ''Cry Baby Cry'' on vinyl vs. the new remasters. At the point where John sings ''put on specially by the children'', there is a point where his voice goes to one channel, and then returns to mono. On the remastered CD, it doesn't change.
pazzensutra 1 year ago
Imagine the Beatles song book as a exhibit in a museam. Each song a masterpeice wether a simple small /2:30 secound canvas to a canvas 6X6. the secoundside of Abby road. Everysong a masterpeice. What you are doing is a form of conterfiting. Think about it . Your like an artish who makes copies of a painting and trys to sell them in your case convince people that your version is either real ,or better.
tenorismo 1 year ago
@tenorismo What are you talking about, Tenorismo? I am saying the original vinyls are best! Certainly not into counterfeiting?!
MarkPMus 1 year ago 2
The 2009 Beatles remasters are fantastic. Especially the mono.
TheAwesomeBomb 1 year ago
I want one I want one I want one ~!!!!!!!!
But how can I make sure I get the Authentic Official Release? and NOT FAKE Chinese kind that has been going around all over the world?
Could you show me an up close image of your out side back box ??
urkingod 1 year ago
@urkingod
Simple, if its £65 on Ebay it is FAKE. It it's bought from a reputable seller (Amazon,HMV etc) then it will be genuine. (even though it will cost more.)
DBZ5371 1 year ago
Really enjoy your reviews, which are always informative. It must be quite a challenge to present some of this information in a way that the layperson can understand, but you manage it and this layperson is very grateful! :) Keep up the good work!
67Parsifal 1 year ago
and thank budda they didn't compress the crap out of it.
publicpwnership 2 years ago
Remasters ''horrible''?. No. The first four CDs from 1987 (mono) were transferred on an unaligned STEREO machine and the 1987 'Revolver' was transferred on an unaligned stereo machine. The Capitol boxes used (at best) second generation tapes. Any U.K. EMI vinyl pressings pre-1987 are the ones to go for rather than the MFSL, IMO. Bass was always rolled off for the vinyl pressings (as it always is for vinyl); what we're hearing now is the bass that is on the masters.
vinylman1cat 2 years ago
I would have to disagree about the bass issue. Yes I've read numerous times about bass levels being, er, somewhat 'reduced' on the original UK vinyl, BUT -- upon actually listening to (a significant number of) 1st press (mono AND stereo) UK vinyl copies vs 2009 CD (mono AND stereo) remasters - and on a decent system too (Denon amp, Vestax 06pro mixer + old/vintage '60s Kef speakers) - I'd be lying if I sed the 2009 CDs have louder/more powerful/more melodious/better bass. Vinyl wins again.
alaincherif 2 years ago
Don't forget that esp in the case of the 1st press UK Parlophone 33s + 45s, the sound was put through tube gear during the cutting & pressing process, which (inevitably) adds a lot of 'natural warmth'/bass ...
alaincherif 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
whats the deal with remastering a mono mix? and even though these albums have all but been remastered. why bother most if not all were originally recorded on analog single track by this time 8 track stereo recording but really how much better can we be remastering old recordings? after all id rather still today hear the beatles as they were intended to be heard. via vinyl so no I dont think its worth it.. the beatles sound best on vinyl!!!
beaurain82 2 years ago
hello againmark,I have beatle mag I bought in the 60s and their is a photo of them at the morcombie and wise show and the grertsch is faceing down,the pad on the back is black,everyone agrees so far,since the flash is daylight,its like a color chart and the body is black,and I have other photos that show it in black,in fact the lighting in the movie help during the lose that girl segment,hes playing the brown one,then when the lights go to white arc,it seems black,but iwasblack at my school
daninflorida 2 years ago
hello mark again,,while were on the subject,I had a semi friendly with a typical beatles fan who were not born and are trying to be like a spokesman for the era ,he playes all the songs on the gretsch 6122,hes a wise ass and has a lot of growing up to do,he says georges 6122 was dark brown,and not available in black,well I saw it at my music school in black,without a dought,a guy in england ,phils vintage,has one,george gave the first one away,got a 2nd oneand must have had a 3rdone.
daninflorida 2 years ago
hi mark,thanks for your reply to my letter,were the same age,I know their are more important things in the world than beatles cds,but I am mad from a consumers point,remember the hey jude lpin 1970,some wise exeuctive at emi put two hard days night tracks,instead of the unreleased material,get back,inner light,the promo45 of penney lane,which is a different mix,vocal and backing is not available,should have been on mono masters with the single of help,the ua hard days night would be nice too
daninflorida 2 years ago
to all beatle fans,I thought the min docum would be something special,I am sad no one has critizied them,I think there terriable,the rubber soul has no stills from the sessions,they are all from recolver,abbey rd has stills from the white lp,ppm has this boy dialog from with the lp,plus the fact they are to short ,they could have been done with more care and thought,but what do you expect from emi, the booklets have no recording info,you dont know what was recorded first,who played on what,
daninflorida 2 years ago
I agree with you and I have to say the White Album mini doc is the most patronising thing I have seen in a long time. We all know the Beatles were fighting tooth and nail during this album, and it is therefore a bit patronising of Ringo to say "Oh it was a great time, good memories of this album" etc... Ha walked out during some of it, for goodness sake!
MarkPMus 2 years ago 6
thanks for believing me the beatles remasters 2009 are horrible. the capitol albums 1 & 2 or the mfsl vinyl far more superior, these should have been respectively remastered in dsd's like how bob ludwig and ted jensen did the rolling stones.
Pauleyh2 2 years ago
I never said they were horrible - just not radically different from what has come before, and differences only really appreciable on hi fi separates equipment.
MarkPMus 2 years ago
Great review, Mark. I was going to do something like this at some point but now I don't think I have to because you've done such a good job. If you don't mind, I'd like to pass this on to the Beatles Facebook group I administer. Maybe drive a little traffic your way. Whattya think?
kriswright 2 years ago
That'd be great. I have also done a cut & paste jobby of Let It Be which I've posted, showing the differences between the various editions; also if you PM with your email, I'll get the DT cut 'n' shut I've done off to you as well.
MarkPMus 2 years ago
I thought you were going to play it for us. bummer
Doc141 2 years ago
Nice explanation. I started out years ago buying the cd's and once I heard an old lp I ditched them and bought vinyl from then on.
grabledl123 2 years ago
I can hear the difference. Use headphone dude
elmermojica 2 years ago
I use Beyerdynamic headphones. What do you think I used to make the edits? I didn't say I couldn't hear the differences or that there weren't any - I said a separates hifi setup will show more of what those differences actually are. Otherwise, the differences, especially between the 2 CD releases, are not so significant as to make it worth spending out for a new set, unless you want the monos. The vinyls for me are still superior. It remains to be seen if the new LPs will cut the sonic mustard.
MarkPMus 2 years ago
We can hear the differences better than you can do when you "try" to focus bogus-man!
M3town3 2 years ago
Who are you calling bogus-man, and why?
MarkPMus 2 years ago
Well isn't it a pity? excuse me.
M3town3 2 years ago
I don't think it's a pity.
mozpiano2 2 years ago
Well, I'm sorry.
M3town3 2 years ago
Can someone tell me what this little micro-conversation is about?
MarkPMus 2 years ago
I thought you couldn't hear the difference compared to the old cd albums.
The other one's got mad I guess.
headphones is almost always the best way to hear music digitally
dont'cha think?
M3town3 2 years ago
Headphones is best way to listen to a computer soundcard, but not necessarily to CD's. You need a decent set of loudspeakers, and a pumpin' amp!
MarkPMus 2 years ago
I find these remasterings a little too "crisp" and "edgy". They "pushed the envelope" a little too much
acoronab 2 years ago
@acoronab. I like it crisp. I think it is the way things should be. If you find it too edgy it is probably just your system.
publicpwnership 2 years ago
Hey man, thanks for all the insights!
vinvan 2 years ago
i can hear the diffrents!
viceisthename 2 years ago
I said that the differences are not all that apparent on cheaper equipment - not so as to make it worth spending out on yet more CD's. The records are superb on quality equipment. If you are playing the CD's on cheaper equipment I urge you to try them on good quality hi-fi. You will be knocked for 6, and the differences between the 80's and '09 CD's will be worth it. They are all good, and I wish more new masters were like these.
MarkPMus 2 years ago
okey
viceisthename 2 years ago
Thanks very much for the feedback Patrick!
johannesmclane 2 years ago
actuallly, the remasters are cheaper than the 1987 versions for some reason :D
kanzosupremo 2 years ago
Great review. I have the mono box. Never realized that a lot of the subtle differences in the 45s were due to them being from mono mixes. Also, they did a nice job of re-creating the original vinyl packaging (albeit CD-sized) in the new mono box.
Again, thanks for the great review.
redheadedgolem 2 years ago
It has nothing to do with quality on whether to purchase. Its Beatles, nuff said, where do I sign up.
northfromhere853 2 years ago
I'd like to get the box set, but I have heard that Mono is better for the LPs up to Help, while sterero is better from Rubber Soul on, so it might be better just to get them separately.
johannesmclane 2 years ago
I personally think the mono is way better for Rubber Soul. Sounds way more "coherent" to me.
And, by the way, Mark, you look like a cross-over between David Gilmour and Robert Wyatt! :D
PatrickStewart007 2 years ago
Interesting. I only have the stereo RS so cant judge! How about Revolver?
johannesmclane 2 years ago
Well, I think I prefer the stereo MIX for Revolver. But the Mono edition is, of course, way "easier" to listen to when on headphone for example. BUT, Anyone, correct me if I'm wrong, there's distorsion on many parts of the mono remaster of the record. Well I might be exaggerating a bit, it's not all over the record. But there definitely is distorsion on some parts, and it's a shame. Also, the mono mix doesn't feature the "Hee...Hee..He..." on the intro of Got To Get You Into My Life. :P
PatrickStewart007 2 years ago
A fan of Abba! A man after my own heart!
It's the mono versions I want, by the way
cbak12sg 2 years ago
I want both boxed sets1 I can't make up my mind which mixes I want to do without. I presume that in the mono box, you don't get a mono Abbey Rd & Let It Be? Cos thet were only ever issued in stereo? So what do you get for your extra money on the mono?
MarkPMus 2 years ago
As far as I'm concerned, the proper versions were the mono ones, especially the earlier tracks. Trouble is I can't afford £200 for the mono set, which is thirty quid dearer then the stereo box set with three fewer albums!
cbak12sg 2 years ago
you get all albums in the mono set because they have been remastered from the original masters which were mono
TurntableMadness 2 years ago
well done my friend well done and thankyou for doing this...im loving these remastered re-issue's...and for the life of me i cant decide which i like better(mono or stereo)i seem to be leaning towards the stereo remasters.....
joeyc09 2 years ago
Hi Mark, Well I bought the Stereo box and am very pleased with it. I just wish i knew someone with a mono set. The other week i did a 2 hour radio show on the Beatles on the 9/9/09 Great responses.
Jim Cheshire UK
MOJOMAN54 2 years ago
i do this as well--the us mix of strawberry fields is different from the 1971 german re-mix and the us mix has better horns--at the near end, they don't pan like in the german mix and the 4 piano notes seem better in the us mix,
WAYNE1980AA 2 years ago
Thank you!
Natnekker 2 years ago
is it worth it on an ipod ??
rodlazo 2 years ago
Good points. There are other factors regarding the new remasters. The bass, especially on the earlier tracks, is far clearer. Volume in general is hotter which always sounds edgier. (i.e."better.") And there have even been little pitch corrections. (That musicians who've been playing along to these songs for years would recognize). Vinyl is vinyl. But these are the best remasters so far. Who knows? In 5 years the technology will be improved even more.
plangentmusic 2 years ago
If you listen to the songs from the reissues side by side with the records and the 87's you'll see that the volume levels are the same. Surprising, since records are supposedly not as "loud" as CD's. Louder does not always indicate "improved" as dynamic range (esp. on drum hits) is often compromised to achieve this. In interviews the engineers said that often just the transferral from tape to digital was enough to bring about the improvements they were after. Often nothing else was needed.
MarkPMus 2 years ago
Actually, I've found vinyl to be louder in many cases, due to the overtones present in analogue. It depends on the mastering. Sometimes it's the compression that make something lower or louder and that in itself changed the timbre. Louder IS ALWAYS better if it is not distorted.
plangentmusic 2 years ago
I beg to disagree. Often the only way they make music loud is by compression, which robs instruments of their initial attack. As a result, pace, rhythm & timing suffer. Also, in order to have loud, you must have quiet, and methods of compression these days are so brutal that quiet moments (including microdynamics) are all brought up to the same loudness level. The resultant sound is not always distorted (clipped) but sounds terrible nonetheless.
MarkPMus 2 years ago
so are the uncompressed vinyl still your favorite at the end of the day?
Crimsonphilosophy 2 years ago
Yes, but the new remasters still sound good - better than the 1987's.
MarkPMus 2 years ago
I understand all about compression. But these remasters don't sound very compressed. In fact, they're LESS compressed than the 80's remasters, yet louder.
plangentmusic 2 years ago
Mark, I'm shocked that NONE of the posts of the remasters have been taken down YET! More and more just keep getting posted. I'm technologically impaired, but I do have to agree with you about the reverb on the new masters, though, even with my cheap speakers and headphones.
binkle1 2 years ago
I said the 87 reverb was poor, binkle! :D Thenow, I don't think the new remasters are louder. And although my system is, according to the hifi hacks, in theory a bit bass light, it can give a hefty bit of thwack when it needs to. I suppose it is different ears and different tastes. Believe me, I am not a remasters fan, and would love to prove the superiority of vinyl. These remasters are not perfect, but they are a darn sight better than other so-called remasters. I am grateful.
MarkPMus 2 years ago
Thanks for your reply thenowuk. If you check out the waveform of Day Tripper, you will see that there is not an awful lot of difference between the three. The advantage of playing them side by side is that it reveals the obvious "boom-tizz" ie bloated bass and shrieky treble of the 87 CD! Also, if you check out The Beatles Anomalies list (see info box), you'll find most of the squeaks, clicks and knocks, plus accidental chatter etc is left in on the 09 versions. I checked P Writer & Let It Be.
MarkPMus 2 years ago
So my advice would be to play the records side by side with the remasters, through the same amp/speakers. Apart from a bit less tonal depth, the new CD's are really rather faithful, and "flat". It could be that speaker placement in particular, is affecting bass response. Make sure they're not too close to rear walls and not placed on the floor or furniture cabinets. For standmounts, dedicated stands are best. This could all be influencing the extra bass you hear.
MarkPMus 2 years ago
Thanks for your mail and link(which unforunately wouldn't play on my media player!).
Last night I went round my musician freinds house(we both play and both love The Beatles) and we played at least 60 songs-comparing mono to stereo remasters. Obviously the remasters are clearer and louder BUT many of the songs are imo ruined now. For example,'Hey Bulldog'-Lennon's fantastic vocal is drowned out! ridiculous,the bass is so dominant on all tracks now (bass frequency) that much of the middle
thenowuk 2 years ago
...which is where it all happens-is now mising. The 'Love' version of 'Walrus' is so much better than the new remasters,it gels and is a coherent,warm and lovingly made mix.....forget the technicalities,the songs suffer. I honestly feel really pissed off about all this. Especially because these versions are now thye only ones stocked in stores.
thenowuk 2 years ago
Nice video-however,I don't agree that the remasters are so wonderful. The bass and drums are far too loud-instead of adding to the song they take over! this is ok in riff heavy songs but not in the more subtle numbers. Also,the drop outs and mistakes now stick out like a sore thumb and the songs don't 'gel' aswell,they sound too seperate-I am talking about the stereo mixes-the mono mixes are far more together and coherent.
thenowuk 2 years ago
Great video Mark! It would be nice to listen in depth to the audio samples that you mention
mozpiano2 2 years ago
PM me.
MarkPMus 2 years ago
Listen to the Rega P5 record deck playing Happiness Is A Warm Gun from the original vinyl, Matt.
MarkPMus 2 years ago
Thanks for all the work you put into this Mark. I got both box sets on the 9th and they both sound amazing. I've played "Mono Masters" but haven't played "Past Masters" yet. I've got all the way up to "The White Album" and will probably start on "Yellow Submarine" tonight. My stereo system is a JVC from 1991 and it was top of the line for it's day. The 5-disc CD player still plays as good as the day I got it. The Beatles have never sounded better on CD that's for sure.
MattHatter 2 years ago