Beatles Remasters 2009 - Are They Worth It?

I transferred 3 versions of Day Tripper (LP, 87 Cd and 09 Remaster) into Logic and made a chop and change version to spot the differences. I was very taken aback, shall we say.

I am aware that EMI must have web crawlers everywhere looking out for illegal broadcasts of this music. So I include the waveform in this video only.

If you want to check which pops/crackles and other "anomalies" remain on the 09 remasters, then bookmark this site. It is slightly addictive though, beware! http://wgo.signal11.org.uk/html/content/n.htm#nw

Please can we have more music recorded like this, instead of loudness war crap.

Category:

Music

Tags:

• Beatles
• Past
• Masters
• 2009
• Day
• Tripper
• Let
• It
• Be
• Long
• Tall
• Sally
• I'm
• Down
• Rega
• Apollo
• P5
• P3
• P1
• LP
• vinyl
• CD
• remaster
• hi
• fi

[rmoshammer]

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.

[MarkPMus]

@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]

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]

@tenorismo What are you talking about, Tenorismo? I am saying the original vinyls are best! Certainly not into counterfeiting?!

[fatcatbuzz]

@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.

[rmoshammer]

@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.

[fatcatbuzz]

@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.

[MarkPMus]

@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!

[Username93611]

@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.

[p0llenp0ny]

@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]

@MarkPMus I agree. Plus, McCartney's version has edits and splices all over the place.

[p0llenp0ny]

@Username93611 Just point out one semiconductor that is capable of accurately reproducing 24 bit resolution. I dare you. ;-)