Beatles remasters 2009 Are They Worth It? Part 2

[zeromant80]

I prefer the Mono remaster boxset (2009) over the stereo one

[MusicalGold]

The Annoying Wisper is gone!

[THEwilliamcheek]

Haha, I dearly love vinyl, but I thinks your turntable here is just a leeetle bit quick (=brightness!).

[floydpink2222]

This Remasters are the best

No loudness war on this

pitchfork(dot)com/reviews/albu­ms/13425-stereo-box-in-mono/

[floydpink2222]

however sound Great!!!!!

[floydpink2222]

Read this, is about beatles Remastered cd´s vs LP

news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-103­­51798-47.html

What do you think???

[tystnu]

Would be interesting to add the 24bit FLAC files from the Apple USB as comparision. ;) I believe that they're as close to the master tapes as we will ever get. Yes, better than LP!

The downside is that I think Apple did something wrong in the process of making those FLAC files for the USB. I have heard people receving error messages for several of the albums when playing them.

I guess we will have to wait another 10 years for perfection! :( ....

[floydpink2222]

@tystnu The human ear can not tell the difference between 24 bit and 16 bit FLAC (CD), the sound is exactly the same on cd for us.

Do some research on internet about it

[tystnu]

@floydpink2222 The main point is that the mix is often much better nowdays on these formats with studio master quality 24/96 or even 24/192.

There you have the biggest difference.

[floydpink2222]

@tystnu Yea i know, there is a realy big difference. Its so big that masters in quality 24/96 or 24/192 saund is exactly the same for human ear.

There are so many studys randomized double-blind tha proofs there is no diference in sound because the bit rate is so high. You can tell the difference between formats like MP3, MP4, FLAC etc like i do but not on this CD´s although they were in super audio CD or DVD or whatever. I thought the same like you till i do lot of research about it.

[floydpink2222]

@tystnu Do you think vinyl sound better? Never herad them on vinyl....

[tystnu]

@floydpink2222 actually, I haven't heard them on proper eqipment on vinyl so I can't really tell. If they use the same mix for digital as for the vinyl edition, i'm quite sure that the digital format will conquer, but the main "issue" is often that they use more care when doing the vinyl mix than the digital one (except lately on studio masters 24/88, 96 , 192).

[halo3346]

when it gets to the vinyl you hear crackles but the 2009 you can hear everything clear. the 80s one sounds ok but not great

[HankF89]

Damn, the vinyl really is better, it's a lot clearer in the upper register. Too bad I don't have the equipment to transfer vinyl to pc...

[soundman4545]

I guess I find it hard too compare vinyl to CD. I'm a veteran audio engineer and have over the years have mastered audio for both formats. Given that both formats have technical limitations if you are looking for shear warmth in your listening experience, stick with vinyl. I do recommnend the 2009 CD releases though, for those who hated the 1987 remastering job. The increased resolution, warmth and dynamic impact make it well worth the purchase price.

[soundman4545]

To do a correct comparison with the album, you need to find a first pressing of it.

[MarkPMus]

@soundman4545 Point taken, but I am doing a general comparison with whatever is freely available. I would also need a much more sophisticated parallel tracking record player with £15k worth of arm and cartridge but this is a real world test, being posted on YT which does its own fair share of audio barbarianism! It continues from part 1, where my message is, nothing beats the LP's.

[TheOneBeatleManiac]

All we have different opinions. 87 remaster, few songs sounded ok but the quality was poor.

The Vinyl, it's beatiful, problem, is that has all clicks, pops, and hiss, i have Let It Be and Abbey Road (and more) on LP and sounds wonderful.

09 Remaster, was long, awaited, great, surpasses the 87 and later years and bootlegs.

But for a bit, vinyl wins, has a more clear sound; on 09 remasters the basses are slightly overpassed. Other dissapointment is that they didn't remixed stereo.

[urkingod]

WOW.... I could also HEAR the clear sharp sound over here on my computer here USA.

[phlizmo]

i just love the "hair" on vinyl... takes me back

[wodrummerworld]

it seems the bottom line is that the vinyl record LP and good turntable and hi fi system are worth it, or on a modest budget the 2009 remake is worth it. it's a shame those original cd's didn't have the quality of the record played on a real good system. except price-wise. okay, looks like I'm going around in circles here. You have a NICE TURNTABLE and system, maybe that's the bottom line.

[MarkPMus]

Well any CD or record will obviously sound better on a high end system. My 1987 Beatles CD's sounded very harsh on my first Realistic/Tandy hi-fi separate CD player. On better equipment I have grown to appreciate them. So really my 2009 remaster bottom line is, "don't expect the sonic earth to move if your equipment is not capable of revealing it!" The best a CD/Radio/Cassette machine could offer is something that sounded barely passable and wouldn't hint at any of the joys on the CD!

[MOJOMAN54]

I bought the Beatles Stereo box but the Mono is out of my reach.Iv'e not heard people talking about the Capitol US album box sets that have Mono cuts on.

[MarkPMus]

The US cuts will likely be different mixes of the mono songs. Often Capitol wanted the songs before they were ready for release in the UK, hence the differences. As such, the US mixes will be of interest to those who just own the UK releases.

[PAULisDEADMANnumber9]

the mono sounds better and more authentic, but stereo kicks ass too. i fortunately have both box sets, but i dont mean to brag. ;)

[MOJOMAN54]

Dear Mark,Thanks for the reply.I have fronted a 60s radio show for 18 years now.i recently bought a 16Ch Analogue mixer for pre production when my studio is up+running.I have a Samsung mp and 10MP cameras.Had hoped to use these for Youtube vids but had been told I need a  camcorder for Youtube.Your Beatles vids etc have been most interesting.like to pick your brains. Best wishes Jim

[MOJOMAN54]

Hi Mark, Ii find your videos very interesting and informative.Can you please tell me what camera you use to make them?

Jim

[MarkPMus]

JIm, my camera is rubbish! I use the iMac's built in one which isn't too bad during daylight hours, and the little video function of a Canon compact camera for any videos that I make out of the iMac's line of vision. Both are hopeless in low light conditions.

[rulebritannia1991]

what exactly was going on in the 80s? I never realized how garbage those issues were!

[MarkPMus]

Well they are not that bad. They went to the multitracks and re-created some of the effects with 80's digital reverb. The 2009's are made from the masters, ie they had all the 60's effects on them as they are a tape generation later. That said, there is very little difference between the 2 CD's here. The LP is obviously different, but equipment can make it sound like that. My Ortofon 2M Blue cartridge transfer of this is brighter still.

[mozpiano2]

The 2009 stereo remasters use the 1987 Martin remixes for Rubber Soul and Help! The original 1960's stereo mixes of these 2 albums are in the mono box set. As far as I know they are the only albums to be remixed in the 1987 CD issues, though not an expert on The Beatles digital history!

[MarkPMus]

The jury is out on that one. Certainly I have heard the rumours, but the interviews from reputable sources all say that they were remastered from the original master tapes. Apparently, the Emitape they were recorded onto was stored in perfect conditions and has survived very well. The tape was not deteriorating and didn't even need to be baked. So there would seem to be no reason to use Martin's 80's work. In GM's defence btw I would say he made the best use poss of 80's technology.

[mozpiano2]

My research indicates that, for the most part, the 1987 CDs were remasters (not remixes) from the stereo versions. Martin decided to remix Rubber Soul and Help!, as he felt that those albums had a cruddy original stereo mix. The 2009 Rubber Soul booklet clearly states that Martin's 1987 Digital Remixes were used by the remastering team. The original 60's stereo mixes are in the 2009 Mono Box set. In all, the 2009 versions are all remasters of the 60's mixes, and also of the 1987 Martin remixes.

[MarkPMus]

Well the LP might have been as loud as the others but I am loathe to do much in the way of pop removal that when normalised would have made it so. But it gives a general idea. In terms of EQ the 87 Cd would seem to be dullest, and the LP the brightest. In am just trying to say, is not a level playing field, is all.

[WABC77]

Perhaps the best A / B / C comparison I've seen (heard)!

I would have thought the CD would have been "brighter" than the LP, but obviously that is not the case.

Nice work!