The Beatles remasters: An audiophile review
The Mono Box may be the preferred option for hard-core Beatles fans.
(Credit: Apple Records)Tone Audio's Bob Gendron scored advance copies of "The Beatles Stereo Box Set" and "The Beatles Mono Box Set" of the complete Beatles catalog. Four years in the making, Gendron thinks the remasters are a feast for the ears.
Tone Audio is an audiophile Web site, so when I read Gendron's claims of "Near-miraculous improvements in the key areas of information retrieval, hidden details, palpable physicality, expanded midrange, transient presence, and frequency response" to the remastered sound, I was jazzed. Bass, never a strong suit on Beatles recordings, has been improved, so we get to hear more oomph from Paul McCartney's bass and Ringo Starr's percussion. I can hardly wait.
Gendron seems to favor the mono box, mostly because the Beatles and their producer, George Martin, lavished their attention on the mono mixes of the original albums; stereo was an afterthought. Me, I'm a stereo kind of guy, so I'll start with the stereo set. And yes, I'll report back after I've had time to mull over the sound for myself. The Rolling Stones' recent remasters are nothing to write home about, that's why I've remained mum about them. Remastering, all by itself, is no guarantee of improved sound quality.
The Stereo Box will be the one I get.
(Credit: Apple Records)Hats off to Tone Audio and Bob Gendron for a comprehensive review.
Both box sets have "sold out" even before they're out on Amazon; Amazon has a FAQ page to ease the minds of anxious Beatles buyers. Apparently, somebody is still buying music.
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. 
For instance Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds has the ADT effects on the lead vocal in the mono mix, but it's entirely absent in the stereo mix. It would cause listeners to ask what was so trippy and revolutionary about this song if all they ever heard was the stereo mix. In mono, the psychedelia is all there. She's Leaving Home and Don't Pass Me By (not my favorite song) are a lot faster in mono and play back in the correct key, and the latter includes a bunch of extra fiddle work. If you listen to Helter Skelter in mono, the drums, distorted bassline, and Paul's vocals are all so loud and heavy that you understand that at the time, The Beatles were attempting to record the heaviest song ever to compete with The Who.
These aren't small differences where one is splitting hairs about a little extra low end or letting more of a transient through, some of those mono mixes sound and feel considerably different. Plus, in mono there's no more of the annoying panning of the stereo mixes that made listening in headphones or in the car akward at best.
Neil Young did it right - went for a high res. remaster and called it quits. Its as good as it gets, until or unless the resolution is bumped up by a very significant extent.
Quit playing with us record companies! - we are not as stupid as we look! Unless you are looking at the young folks out there who have a bunch more years of buying left!
"And whether it?s the now-noticeable presence of the piano or the wonderfully rattling chords on 'Money,' or discernible rhythmic rumble on 'Hold Me Tight,' the record has received a startling facelift that even Hollywood?s most expensive plastic surgeon wouldn?t be able to configure."
and
"'Revolution 1' has what seems to be a horn?who knew?"
Did he say, "now noticeable" piano on "Money?" For an "expert" to have missed the obvious piano on both vinyl and the crummy 1987 CD is more than a little weird.
As for "who knew" about the horn part -- well, I knew. It's plain as day on the LP, and has been since I was a little kid. If a layperson made these mistakes, that would be one thing, but are we supposed to rely on this guy's "audiophile" review?
I had first edition UK and German stampers of the Stereo and Mono LP's at my disposal as well as the 87 CD's, MoFi versions and the BC 01 box.
You can argue minutiae about this till the cows come home, but these discs sound excellent overall. I prefer the mono mixes by a long shot and stand behind Bob's work.
Everyone is going to prefer one over the other. But these are excellent discs. Good enough that I'm getting rid of most of my vinyl.
On Money: "the now-noticeable presence of the piano"
?She?s Leaving?; "For the Benefit of Mr. Kite?
"?Revolution 1? has what seems to be a horn?who knew?"
The mind boggles.
It's quite a careless review, seemingly written by someone who didn't know the albums all that well to begin with, demonstrated not least by the incorrect song titles. And reading it reminds me why I don't miss being a music critic - so few of them have anything interesting to say, and it's always better to let the music do the talking.
Besides I never took you to task about your views regarding vinyl vs. CDs. I think that was soundman...and he made a pretty damn good point.
I welcome the opportunity to ask the publisher about this. The CDs may very well be just as the reviewer states. The problem is, his credibility as an expert listener is flimsy when he cites "revelations" in the recordings that are perfectly apparent in previous releases.
For the record (ha), I'm not a Beatles fanatic, but I am a musician with good ears. Like a gazillion other people, I listened to these records over and over as a kid. It's all very well the you and your reviewer have the best equipment to play LPs and CDs, but when the reviewer says he never heard the piano on "Money" until this release, I have to conclude he's not a very astute listener. I'm not talking about the minutiae of chair squeaks, breathing, hum, hiss, etc, I'm talking about things that were plain as day on my blue plastic Realistic 4-Speed Solid State Radio Shack Stereo Phonograph in 1977.
You are perfectly right that there are Beatles fans who, like Star Trek fans, will find fault with your opinions no matter what you write. This isn't one of those cases -- I'm genuinely stumped as to how the reviewer missed these things, particularly having you at his disposal to compare the CDs to prior releases. That was one of the major points of his review, after all.
Looking forward to your response.
Let me get this straight, Americans start playing rhythm & blues, jazz and then Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Buddy Holly etc. come along and voila we have rock and roll. The English buy a lot of hard to find American import records in the late 50's and early 60's and then we get the British Invasion. So the English regurgitate American music. There is a little music history lesson.
And last time I checked Coldplay were British. Same w/Oasis. I'm sure we could go on and on about what country has worse bands. I'd rather concentrate on the good bands personally!
I trip out on how many arguments can be made out of the smallest issues - oh well - I learn from both sides usually. Carry on :)
I went out and bought the white album today. The truth is that there is more bottom end and the CD is louder. The ugly truth is that the new EQing resulted in a weak midrange and sibilance problems that will make even 53 year old ears bleed. The sibilance on "Piggies" stands out as really horrible - on the line "in their starched white SHIRTS" my tweeters threatened to go on strike on the plural of "shirt"..
My bona fides? While never claiming to be an "audiophile", I worked for 12 years as a recording engineer. The engineers who committed this massacre have an excuse ... they were asked to perform a miracle. EMI SHOULD have done a proper remix of the original multitrack masters as they did with "yellow submarine", "naked", and "love". There is something to be said in favor of those mixes. But to attempt to improve Beatles music using the 2 track master tapes as the starting point was probably doomed from the beginning.
I will probably buy the first album in a few days to see how it sounds since it was recorded directly to 2 track. But I'm not holding my breath.
I think this collection is best left to the kids and :audiophiles" out there. If you want to experience the new remasters just put you old '87 CDs in your player, increase the bass about 3 db and kick your cat whenever one of the Beatles sings a sibilant. You'll get the same effect.
If you want to hear the Beatles as they should sound, you still have to get vinyl. Too bad. They should have done a complete remix. That would have been interesting.
These new ReMasterings are pretty good. Not perfect, not as good as I've heard, but pretty good. EMI still seems to have monkeyed around with the tapes, perhaps adding some EQ, perhaps limiting the tracks. I've heard early vinyl pressings that exceed the sound quality of these remasters. One album in particular, a German pressing of Beatles For Sale called something like "Die Beatles," is especially revelatory. It was sent to Germany quickly and a mistake was made in not sending the final limited version. Instead, they got the raw mix without any studio "enhancements." You can hear on the vinyl how much more present the sound is on that record. I wish EMI had used these unlimited tapes for the CDs.
HOWEVER... However, these CDs are damn good by almost any measure, and so much better than the original 1987 CDs as to be laughable. Buy them. I suspect these will be our gold standard for a long time. Unless we get Blue-ray versions... Or perhaps vinyl pressing from unlimited mixes...
- by Tycketoryde October 23, 2009 8:43 PM PDT
- >>>'Revolution 1' has what seems to be a horn? who knew?<<<
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(26 Comments)Very funny. I guess every Review should have some Comedy.
>>>the only way I will buy it "again" is if its at least 24bit/96khz.<<<
I'd be very surprised if you'd note much of any difference with pre-70's material.
>>>The ugly truth is that the new EQing resulted in a weak midrange and sibilance problems that will make even 53 year old ears bleed.<<<
Dead bang on !!!
>>>EMI SHOULD have done a proper remix of the original multitrack masters ...<<<
I so agree. And I hope they do one Day ...
>>>If you want to hear the Beatles as they should sound, you still have to get vinyl.<<<
About a Decade ago a Number of Home Audiophiles digitally transfered the Beatle MOFIs and HDCD Remastered the first 6 Albums and flooded USENET and other File Trading Sites, as there was no Way to purchase them. They sounded awsome, and I am truly disappointed with the remastering of the earlier Albums of this 2009 Release. I'm sure its not the remastering work itself is quite good, but I am surprised it doesn't come any better than the MOFIs, considering they have the original Recordings, professional Engineers and newer Technology.
I don't much care for this Review, because it doesn't quite compare the right Apples and Oranges.