Remastered Beatles albums, did they get it right this time?
Will the new CDs sound better than the LPs?
(Credit: Steve Guttenberg)I read the news today, oh boy: The entire Beatles catalog has been remastered for CD and is coming September 9 of this year. Sounds like deja vu all over again; these rumors pop up all the time, but this time it's for real. Maybe.
That said, I'm happy no one's saying the phrase "Remastered for MP3." That's too scary a concept. MP3 sounds so awful, remastering hardly seems necessary.
Each CD will be packaged with replicated original UK album art, including expanded booklets containing original and newly written liner notes and rare photos. For a limited period, each CD will be embedded with a brief documentary film about the album. Two new Beatles boxed CD collections will also be released, one box features the mono mixes favored by some die-hard Beatles fans. Why, I have no idea.
The original (British) versions of the twelve albums were first released on CD in 1987; they sounded thin and bright, without a hint of the LPs' analog warmth. It was hardly an auspicious beginning for the digital Beatles music.
The "Let It Be... Naked" CD, released in 2003, was remixed and reedited, there was no attempt to be faithful to the original album. It sounded a bit better than the 1987 version, but just barely. So all we can do is hope the newly tweaked versions are worth waiting 22 years for.
I bought the two Capitol four-disc sets, "The Beatles: The Capitol Years Volumes 1 & 2," when they were released a few years ago. They sounded fine, though hardly revelatory. My original American, British, and Japanese mastered LPs sounded better.
Actually, the best sounding Beatles CDs so far are "The Beatles Anthology" releases from 1995. Those were cleaner, more dynamic, with more extended bass, and clearer treble than the earlier CDs.
Whatever, here's hoping the new CDs sound more like the Anthologies. No matter what, I'll buy 'em and see for myself.
Will you? Or are you more interested in the MP3 versions?
If both are the same price, would you be tempted to buy the CDs? Would the booklet and rumored video extras tempt you?
Or will you stick with whatever Beatles albums you already own?
Then again, isn't it a little late to redo the CDs?
The Beatles: Rock Band video game is also due on 9/9/09.
Steve Guttenberg is a frequent contributor to magazines and Web sites including Home Entertainment, Playback, and Ultimate AV. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. 
I might be putting the chicken before the egg, being that I haven't heard the CD's as yet, but perhaps the name of this newly remastered series should be (and I'm hoping not) "The Beatles : Digitally Remastered & Sterilized For Your Protection" which begs me to ask has Apple/EMI gone to far in trying to build the perfect beast.
One more thing, I'm going out to buy a new box of Q-Tip's so I can listen to these CD's on my audiophile stereo system just as the peep's @ Abby Road (for better or worse) intended me to hear it.
Number: 9 Number: 9 Number: 09
I hope my question doesn't fall too far away from the main subject of this article.
Tnx.
Even though they are dead, how wonderful would it have been if they'd put them on Blu-Ray as audio releases? Dolby TrueHD is a lossless encoding method capable of 24-bit/192 kHz audio! Artists of their popularity and importance would have immediately Blu-Ray a commercially viable hi-def format. They missed their chance (and we're missing the fidelity).
How much do you want to bet that they will release these box sets and then release 24 bit/192 khz versions a year later? Movie studios double dip all the time so ti wouldn't surprise me if they did it with music as well.
Come on EMI, get this right!
Isn't SASD the format that won't play back on some equipment thanks to DRM built into it?
Whether its a digital file or on a CD I don't really care. The Love album is proof that even a "crappy MP3" can sound a heck of a lot better than just about all the previous Beatles CD's.
Also, thought Let It Be... Naked sounded significantly better than Let It Be. But not as good as Love.
Maybe I'm just a cynic here, but I have yet to actually see a study that proves people can hear a difference between 44.1/16 and 192/24. Their also dealing with ancient magnetic tape, some of which was only recorded at 15ips, so high frequency extension into the stratosphere is essentially moot.
"Please, please tell me they did not remaster Phil Spector's abortion."
Yes, they did.
Well the answer to this is: The Mono versions were the only versions that the Beatles themselves were directly involved with and approved. In the 60s, stereo was sort of an after thought , especially in the first half of their career. The mono mix are extremely different than the stereo mixes and there are many fans, collectors and musicologists who prefer or at least are very interested.
Having said that, most buys, Joe Public won't be interested and will only go for the stereo so it would have been a waste to add mono discs in the same package as the stereo versions.
One could argue that Rubber Soul and even the White album are more interesting in Mono.
So that's why!!
versions of rhythm tracks and vocals before the multi generational bouncing and pre-mixing began. Apparently the process was quite laborous, having to re-sync individual tracks with other tracks that came much later in the recording process. The end result is a mix that is fuller and punchier.
(compare the low tom hits in the bridge section of Lucy in The Sky with Diamonds from Seargent Pepper with the remixed version on Yellow Submarine. Huge difference. All in all I agree with EMI's decision to release the original ablums with the original mixes mono and stereo, cleaned up. Although I am far from a purist and would love to hear the whole collection re-mixed, I understand that this was the way the music was originally intended to be heard.
1) Steve, can you really hear the difference between a VBR encoded MP3 and a CD? I'd bet you wouldn't be able to make out the difference with any kind of regularity in a double-blind test, even in a great listening environment. Sure, anyone can easily see the difference in an frequency analyzer but at your age (not meant as a dig) if you can hear above 18k, I'd be surprised.
2) The tapes that brought us the Anthology CDs were cleaned up considerably. I'm not sure any hardcore Beatles fan would like to see that level of sterilization applied to the official catalog, whereas a more casual listener might appreciate the difference. I don't think they're going to do that here. A perfect example of what to expect in terms of sound quality might be The Beatles One and the recent US remasters (excellent work by Ted Jensen who somehow gets blamed for the Death Magnetic sounding so bad). If you can't appreciate the subtle improvements on those mastering jobs over the originals and are advocating a full digital restoration a la the Anthology albums, then you have no business referring to yourself as an "audiophile."
3) Not only are the mono mixes the real mixes approved by the band, compared to the stereo mixes which were often done years later without their presence, the mono mixes just sound considerably different. Sometimes entirely different takes were used. Sgt. Pepper in mono features a lot of ADT (automatic double tracking) on the vocals. Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds is a perfect example. It's got that trippy ADT chorus effect on the vocal in mono, which is completely absent from the stereo mix. She's Leaving Home is considerably faster in mono and played at the original tempo (yes, they slowed the mix down for the stereo release). Sgt. Pepper and The White Album both sound considerably different in mono. Don't Pass Me By is faster in mono and features more fiddle. The drums, bass, and vocal on Helter Skelter are considerably louder in the mono mix, making you understand why Paul thought it was the hardest rocking thing recorded by any band at the time. In fact, the drums on Beatles records are almost always more prominently featured on the mono mixes.
That's not to say I'm a purist by any means. But I will be picking up both box sets (note to self: start saving now).
Also, I don't know if this was mentioned here or not, but I thought the remastered tracks on Beatles' "1" CD sounded much better than they did on the original CD releases.
Thom Osburn / Atlanta
Because this stuff was originally mixed for mono, with the stereo mixes being more or less an afterthought. It was assumed that the kids would be listening to this stuff on low end monaural equipment such as portable record players and AM radios, and the songs were mixed to sound as good as possible on that kind of equipment. The Beatles were involved in the mono mixes, while the stereo mixes were left to studio technicians.
I plan on buying the mono boxed set if I can save enough pop bottles and tin cans by then.
and the stereo version is knocked off in a couple of days WITHOUT
their participation, you better bet that MONO is the proper way to hear this album.
That's why collectors want this on cd in mono.
Geoff Emerick received a GRAMMY for engineering this album,
HE has stated repeatedly that the mono version is "the truth"
Ken Scott, who worked on the White Album (before becoming
David Bowie's producer) has echoed this sentiment, as did the late
Norman Smith, who engineered all their records up to 'Rubber Soul'.
Producer George Martin disowned the first four albums in stereo long ago.
He's also embarrassed by his mixing choices on the 1965 stereo 'Rubber Soul'
Thom Osburn / Atlanta
Ah Steve, you continually-befuddled luddite. It's not *MP3s* that sound bad (MP3s at decent bitrates have been shown in double-blind studies to be indistinguishable from the CDs they are derived from). It's *remastering for the MP3-based world* that's the problem: that is, when producers and engineers strip all dynamics and subtlety from the recording to make it sound "louder" through a crappy iPod pre-amp or "better" in a high-noise mobile listening environment. The critical point being: these recordings sound bad as MP3s, but sound equally bad in the CD version.
*This* is the worry I have about the Beatles remasters.
Proof: there have been double blind studies done with professional music/stereo reviewers in proper conditions. They correctly identify differences about 90% of the time, including differences between recordings and or playback equipment that are much more subtle than mp3 vs uncompressed.
The "remastering for an mp3 based world" that you refer to is what's known as volume compression and started to be done heavily in the mid 90's. Before that it was done for LPs also (so the needle wouldn't jump off the vinyl in loud passages and so that the grooves would actually physically fit on the vinyl), but was done in the minimal amount necessary to make LP production and playback possible. It isn't actually related to mp3s and their popularity. See "volume wars" on youtube for a good explanation of the modern over-use of volume compression.
As far as the 2009 Beatles remasters, they are done from the final master tapes in mono and stereo - not remixed and not heavily altered. So the mix will be the same as the original LPs, but the detail and resolution should be better.
Acc'd to interviews with engineers on the project there were:
minor digital corrections were made to eliminate elements such as extraneous noises (not directly connected to the recording session or by the Beatles) and to clean up items such as tape drop offs and sibliances.
EQ was applied in some cases, supposedly lightly
Tapes hiss was reduced (not eliminated) on only 1% of the material.
Mono wasn't volume compressed, stereo was "lightly' compressed.
In short, these remasters should sound superior to what we've heard before, but since the indivdual 2, 4, and 8 tracks were not worked on (again, just the original masters were used) they will not be different like the LOVE albums or others that were redone using the individual original tracks.
However, the mono versions weren't better sounding than the stereo versions, in fact in most cases I believe the stereo versions sounded better.
Native5280 made the point that the stereo versions were electronically manipulated versions of the original mono masters. This is not true for the original UK Parlophone stereo records. Some of the songs on the U.S. Capitol record releases and the United Artist movie soundtrack of "A Hard Days Night Night" were derived from the mono masters. With the filming of AHDN, United Artist got the rights for the soundtrack album in the U.S.. They were scared that if they didn't get the soundtrack out fast, they would miss out on Beatlemania. Consequently, when the mono masters were finished, but the stereo masters were still being worked on, they decided to doctor the mono masters that EMI had sent them and call them "stereo".
The stereo versions of the albums were mastered within days or certainly within weeks of the mono versions, except for the singles which were often not included on albums and only available on 45s or EPs. The first two albums were recorded on a two track tape machine. The voices were all recorded on one track so that they could be balanced with the instruments on the mono mix down. On the stereo version, you're getting the recording directly from the original two track master, with all the singing on the right side. Even though the two track recording didn't give a modern "stereo" presentation, you still get more "hall ambience" in the sound from the studio recording. This gives you more of a "you are there with the Beatles" while they are recording than what you will hear from the mono masters. This is really noticeable on the first album, as it was essentially recorded live.
At the end of the second album and on both the third and fourth albums (A Hard Days Night and Beatles For Sale), a 4 track tape recorder was used. This meant that the stereo mix down resulted in a true, modern stereo mix with the singing in the center and instruments in both the left and right channels. George Martin did not like the first two albums released in stereo because he said they were never meant to be released in stereo. However, there is nothing wrong with the true stereo presentation of the third and fourth albums.
In terms of whether or not the Beatles were present during the mixing of the early Beatles stereo masters, it doesn't matter, as they were still in a learning process. If you have not heard the original stereo Parlophone LP of "A Hard Days Night", you are in for a treat when the new remastered stereo cds are released. You will hear piano parts that you didn't even know were there on "Any time At All" and "Things We Said Today" , if you've only heard the mono versions. George's Rickenbacker 12 string guitar is buried on the mono version of "I Should Have Known Better", when you hear the stereo version, you will be blown away. The 12 string chime like ending on "A Hard Days Night" is chopped off on the mono version. On the stereo version, you can hear it in its entirety - so much for the extra care in making the mono masters. On the stereo version of "I'll Be Back", John and George trade accoustic guitar licks separately in the left and right channels. This is all lost in the mono version.
You will definitely hear a lot more detail on the stereo tracks than the mono, if you have a good stereo and if you are going to take the time to really listen to them. If not, it doesn't really matter.
The sound is very different from the original CD releases. Some quirky stuff, like Paul mixing down the bass on A Little Help From My Friends, which is quite weird at first. But the revelatory difference is how the voices project out from the instruments. The voices are significantly more human (frailty, especially, emerges) and approachable. That can be good or bad of course. It certainly takes some getting used to. I think overall it's good, but I've listened to these songs so many hundreds of times that finding something new is always a treat, and that's part of what listening to the Beatles is about anyway.
- by sirsparky June 17, 2009 12:52 PM PDT
- Please release these on DVD at 24/96.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (51 Comments)I WILL buy those. I'm not TOUCHING the new CD's.
There are now two distinct classes of audio consumers: mp3 and Hi Fi.
Please cater to your Hi Fi customers so they are not forced to grab what they can off the torrent sites.
You can still double dip when you re-release them in another fifteen years on Blu Ray.