The Beatles: Red & Blue album 1993-2010 comparison

As requested, here's a "short" comparison of some of the tracks on the original Red and Blue album vs the 2010 remastered editions.

No intention of violating copyright rules!
I don't own the rights to any of these songs or images. Copyright is owned by EMI Records Ltd.

Category:

Music

Tags:

• the
• beatles
• red
• and
• blue
• album
• comparison
• 2010
• remasters
• remastered
• original
• ringo
• starr
• paul
• mccartney
• george
• harrison
• john
• lennon

[iyouwas]

Congrats on being the first I've come across to review these albums.  Let me tell you first, that I too just received both, from QVC here in the states. Came with a slipcase to hold both albums, a Hallmark stamp from 1964, and 10 mini pictures. Unfortunately, I'm not impressed with the remaster. Seems to me, to have taken away alot of the presence/high-end that the originals had. But, as a whole, I'm happy with the packaging and goodies that it came with. BEATLES FOREVER!!

[Gasoline85]

@iyouwas Yeah, I don't hear that much difference between the 1993-versions and the 2010 remastered ones. Still, nice packaging!

[Antolennon]

Please Please me is the same...

'hand' is more 'enhanced' to my ears;

'all my loving' same as 1993

'ticket' like hand pumps more from the beginning intro;

'help!'...wow...is much powerful..it puts you into the movie:)

'day tripper' a little bit more power..

'pepper's' best version for me is, still, the yellow sub soundtrack one even if the 2nd remaster is better than the 1st

'while my gtr' is the same...the same goes for 'long & winding rd'..

I continue cleaning my kitchen listening to it..

[d4seasons]

@Gasoline85 i own the 1993 plastic box edition. no need for the 2010 edition. just as good.

[nmycon]

@CarthyOnline you're completely right about remastering vs. remixing, however the "remastered" Red & Blue albums use the same tracks as the 2009 remasters. I would have preferred if they had cleaned up the digital masters, but instead they just plucked the tracks that had been remixed (from the original analog tapes) in 2009 and put them together in the same track list as the original Red/Blue albums.

[CarthyOnline]

@nmycon Remastering and remixing aren't the same - but some of the processes involved may be the similar. The remasters used the late-'80s digital masters (or '93 digital masters for the red/blue albums) and basically 'cleaned them up' rather than making any major changes to their essential character. The Yellow Sub Songtrack CD I mentioned went back to the original 60s studio analogue multi-tracks (not the 'masters') and fully remixed them - changed the levels, EQ, stereo balance, etc.

[nmycon]

@CarthyOnline remastering is just remixing, but not changing the "integrity" of the original song. There is the disco remixing where you ad a beat and other sound effects, this would ruin the Beatles' songs. For the 2009 remasters, they converted all of the analog tapes to digital, and re-mixed them, which created the remastered versions. You can't really "remaster" a song, you can re-mix it and create a new master track, deemed the re-master.

[CarthyOnline]

@nmycon They're not 'remixed', just 'remastered' which is not the same thing. So these ARE essentially just enhanced/cleaned up versions of the '93 digital masters. The 1999 Yellow Submarine "Songtrack" CD is the only fully 'remixed' Beatles release and it did a good job of 'correcting' some tracks where the original stereo balance was distracting. "Hey Bulldog" for instance is virtually unlistenable in the original stereo mix but the remix is much better - and the mono remaster is better still!

[davidfishmanb]

The 1993 version definitely sounds better. It's clearer, brighter, and more true to life.

[nmycon]

@westfield90 they did remix them, do you think they just "enhanced" the digital files from the 1993 release? not at all! or do you mean remix like adding a disco beat or something?