The Beatles - vinyl from digital "masters"
- Thread starter rbbert
- Start date
I only have the regular CAN/U.S. pressings, so it'll be interesting to compare those to the new ones. At only $23 a pop, I may just buy Abbey Road or Let It Be and see.
It was no dig. Auditory memory is short. Listen to any of them, mep. The older stuff benefitted a bit more from the remastering than the white album forward. Sorry, but I missed your good faith and saw your same old argument about not having a vinyl rig disqualifying my opinion. Maybe you weren't going there. My expectation bias. But this isn't about vinyl, or analog vs digital. Those remasters are broadly considered one of he most successful remastering projects yet. The original Beatles masters have always been less than good. The remasters are the best masters of that catalogue available, and they are digital. Can someone talk themselves into believing that the MFSL box sounds better just because it came off of a tape? I'm sure they can. I'm sure they will.
Tim
Tim,
Can you point us to any reviews and critics about the quality of the recordings released after these remasterings? I would love to read them.
I am not asking for reviews that reproduce 90% of the press release, sample one of two CDs and just say they sound great
I am addressing reviews from people who compare them with the existing vinyl recordings. Most people seem to accepted that the first CD masterings were poor and inferior to the vinyl, IMHO comparisons with the CD are not meaningful.
I am not asking for reviews that reproduce 90% of the press release, sample one of two CDs and just say they sound great
Any reviews that compare them to existing vinyl recordings will be audiophile reviews, and I will distrust them, and their pre-determined prejudice against all things digital, as much as you will distrust everything that doesn't fit your view. We would dance this old dance and end up where we started. Suffice it to say that I hear things in these masters that I have not heard in The Beatles recordings before, on any medium, and I trust my ears. If that's not good enough for you, you might just consider that they are re-MASTERS, not re-CDs or re-vinyls. They went back to the masters, the things from which the vinyl was created, and the endeavored to improve upon them. Many thought they did, including, evidently, the surviving Beatles.
Here's the Google search:http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=The+Beatles+re-masters+reviews&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8. I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding something that will reinforce your existing beliefs.
Perhaps even better, here's a search on Steve Hoffman's Music Forum, the net's epicenter of masters, pressings and all other media OCD activity. I'm sure you can, and will, find whichever POV you prefer there, as well:http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/search.php?searchid=14041137.
Enjoy.
Tim
Last edited:
Tim-Here’s the deal: Micro is right. Asking you to compare bad CDs against the remastered versions tells those of us who own the LPs nothing in regards to how they compare. And really, the remastered CDs are going to sound different than any version of the vinyl and it may well come down to what mastering version you like better vice another analog vs. digital debate.
I can tell you that since the Mytek Stereo 192 DAC entered my system that I have gained a new found respect for the green apple 24/44.1 flac files that I have previously crapped on numerous times.
I can tell you that since the Mytek Stereo 192 DAC entered my system that I have gained a new found respect for the green apple 24/44.1 flac files that I have previously crapped on numerous times.
Fair point. You may very well prefer an old vinyl version to the remasters. You may prefer the new masters on vinyl over the 24/44.1. Preference is preference. If you're really interested in the process, though, this is probably the best article on the net, written by folks who know the subject matter rather well:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct09/articles/beatlesremasters.htm
Yes they speak in terms of how the re-masters compare to the 80s CDs, not how they compare to any vinyl version. I doubt the possibility of the vinyl being superior occurred to them.
Tim
Tim,
You made a strong statement about the quality of these masters using the words broadly considered . As you seemed to be more knowledgeable on the subject than most of us I just asked for some specific references that support your view, not indications to carry research . You inform me that it is just based on what you hear and trust.
Did not learn a lot from your answer, but thanks anyway.
BTW, I was not interested in the vinyl specifics, but when the recordings were released I did not have access to master tapes of them, so it is my references for the originals.
I did. I was pretty involved in the Hoffman forum at the time and followed the threads there, and the press coverage, from the time the remasters were rumored, until it was known that the project was in process. Seemed like it went on forever. The guys on that forum are not fans of remasters, and while some eagerly anticipated the release, many didn't expect much except an expensive re-issue package. I continued to follow the story, there and in the press, through the release of the stereo and mono sets. I read the reactions on the forum, I read the reviews in the mainstream music press, I read reviews, like the SOS article I posted a link to here, in the pro press as well.
"Broadly considered" the best masters of that catalog to date is exactly how I would characterize the conclusion of that story, a story I followed for a few years.
Does that story for years and reading all those reviews make me more knowledgable on the subject than most of you? I really have no idea. But if you want to read what I read and learn what I learned, the internet has probably preserved most of it. Follow the links.
And I gave you what I could.
I can't support my impression of a few years of following that story to its conclusion with a couple of examples, micro. That would be "narrowly exemplified," not "broadly considered." You want to learn about the anticipation, expectation and reaction to The Beatles Remastered? You want to know why, after following the story for years, to its conclusion, i think it is broadly considered to be the best version of that catalog? You're going to need a broad view. I opened the window for you. Look through it if your interested. Or don't. In the end you're going to prefer what you prefer anyway.
Tim
I've owned lots of versions of the Beatles catalog, including the original CD's, the individual MFSL LP's (all of them but not the box), every original British album on Japanese pressings (as well as Hey Jude) and some on 1970's UK pressings. Admittedly I'm not a fan of LP's, but keeping that in mind I like the sound on the mono CD box to be the most satisfying for almost all the material represented there, and the 24/44.1 files for most of the rest. Take it FWIW.
I have the mono and stereo remasters. I love the monos, particularly for the early material, but sometimes the stereo, while the hard-panning can be a bit weird, just sounds better to me. More open and natural...though using the word natural is really odd for these recordings...they're not. I agree some of the monos are great, but some of them feel narrow - pushed to the phantom center of stereo.
Tim
Listened to both the Capitol and Apple US/CAN releases of Abbey Road and Let It Be on the weekend. The Apple pressings sounded more open and vibrant, so I'll use those in a comparison to the new ones. I'm by no means in a rush to buy more Beatles LP's, but I'd buy them if I thought they were superior.
Correction. The 24/192 archives were Eq'd and prepared for the LPs, then downsampled to 24/96. This is a fact.
I was merely using the best information available at the time, and the basic point remains; no 24/96 or 24/192 digital release.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |