Don't buy the Beatles remasters, unless...
We compared the sound of the new Beatles remastered CDs with original LPs.
(Credit: Steve Guttenberg)They're good, but do the remastered Beatles CDs offer a big enough sonic improvement over the 1987 CDs to make them essential? Listening over my high-end, two-channel system they absolutely do! But are the differences large enough to show up over an iPod, car system, or computer speakers?
The 2009 remasters are louder than the 1987 versions, so a quick comparison might lead you to believe the remaster is "better" simply because it's a little louder. And there's more bass. So if you compare old and new adjust the volume of both CDs to make them the same. Then tell me what you hear.
I compared two of the better sounding CDs, "The Beatles (The White Album)" and "Abbey Road" over my iPod, using my Monster Turbine in-ear headphones, and over my computer, with Audioengine2 speakers. Mind you, the Turbine and Audioengine2 are a good deal better than average-sounding ways to hear music, and after I compensated for the volume differences between the 1987 and 2009 versions, the sound was nearly the same.
And I was listening in a dead quiet room, add some background office or street noise and the differences would be even harder to hear. Rather than buy the new Beatles CDs, buy better headphones or speakers. They would make the Beatles music you already own sound better.
Thing is, with the 2009 remasters we're talking about fairly subtle improvements in clarity, especially in high-frequency detail, overall spaciousness, and naturalness. And the music seems more dynamically alive. Too bad those qualities evaporate over iPods, computer speakers, and car systems.
The colors of the new CDs' covers and booklets pale next to the original British LP covers.
(Credit: Steve Guttenberg)Listen over a decent quality hi-fi or home theater system and those improvements are definitely worthwhile. If you're a Beatles fan with a home hi-fi, get the remasters.
Sound aside, the new digipaks look way better than the 1987 jewel boxes, and the new booklets are loaded with rare photos, many of which even I, a fairly devoted Beatles fan, have never seen. The short minidocumentaries are generally pretty good. But the digipak and booklet color printing seem a bit off compared with my original 1960s British LPs. Flesh tones sometimes take on a greenish cast (see my comparison shot of the "Beatles For Sale" LP and 2009 CD covers).
The good news is just how close the LP and CD sound! Switching back and forth between my VPI Classic turntable and Ayre C-5 Evolution SACD/DVD-A player, the sound was remarkably similar! Yes, the LP might be a tad warmer and more full bodied, but I had to really focus to hear significant differences. I also compared my Mobile Fidelity "Magical Mystery Tour" LP with the 2009 CD, and this time I preferred the CD. There was something about the LP's harsher, brighter balance and pumped-up bass I didn't like.
Most 2009 Beatles CDs were mastered from the original, stereo analog master tapes, but "Help" for example, was remastered from producer George Martin's 1986 digital master. "Help" is not one of the better ones, that's for sure.
I also compared the 2009 remasters with some of "The Beatles: The Capitol Albums Vol 1 & 2" CDs that came out in 2006. Those eight remastered CDs aren't bad, but the 2009 CDs cream them.
Have you bought the new CDs? Can you hear the difference?
Tell us what you think.
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. 
As your punishment, re-rip your entire collection in FLAC on level 8 compression!
(Then you can do blind ABX comparisons too.)
The original albums were sloppily recorded back in the late 80's and lacked the nuance, precision and depth of the brilliance of George Martin's genius. Listening through each of the albums reveals the original integrity that Guttenberg points to in his article (similarity to the LP's). Though I agree with him that condensing the songs into mp3's immediately condenses the quality--doesn't this happen in every audio compression? What isn't compressed is the soulful, funky bass line in "Drive My Car" that now completely changes the tenor of the piece. What about the suddenly much more prominent addition of Billy Preston's gospel influenced organ playing in "She's So Heavy"? Superficially, the volume levels may be fractionally higher, but the essence of the pieces are now restored to the artist's original intentions (particularly in the MONO version which is my preference) and this is obvious even while driving down the highway at 70mph.
That cannot possibly be quantified; is certainly a must have for anyone that is remotely interested in the Beatles.
What in blazes are you talkin' about??? 'Tenor'? 'Restoration of the artist's original intentions'?
This was POP music; other than perhaps Martin no one cared about nuance and acoustic subtlety. Rocket science this back then it was not. Besides, to top it off you were supposed to be STONED when you listened to a lot of this, particularly Rubber Soul and following...preferrably matching as much illicits that were being used and abused in the studio during these recording sessions. THEN maybe it would truly come to you.
I love how people after the fact repaint history with their own view of how the world should be, as if THEY were the ones who actually won the war.
Actually, I have problems with both. His (or her) comments are to me highly revisionist. These are remasters, done by people who were NOT in the recording studio with John, Paul, George and Ringo...and the OTHER George. How are THEY supposed to know what the "artist's original intentions" were, let alone act upon them to create this latest hopeful cash cow for EMI?
The recording and mastering equipment today is far more advanced that what was available in the '60s; any remastering done with modern tech and gear is going to alter the source in ways a producer and his recording engineer "back in the day" could only dream about...and not actually experience in any resemblance of reality. The modern-day engineer(s) can only take their best shot at this, perhaps with input from those who were there and are still pushing air in and out to talk about it (that counts out Lennon and Harrison). Assuming of course that such survivors still have decent enough HEARING to be able to critically discern the results of the audio output that these youngins' are pumping out to the CD burning machines.
As to this so-called "world view": I'm guessing metaphoric prose wasn't part of your curriculum back in school? It's how bluengreen7 sees (or more precisely, hears) The Beatles' music and how it fits in his definition of history pertaining to said music's creation process. So yeah, it's his/her view of the particular piece of this world of his/her own making. But in the Big Scheme of Things, what's so holistically 'worldly' about that?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=140344594774&_trkparms=tab%3DWatching#ht_528wt_1167
Converter technology has come a pretty long way since 1987 and just the fact that you are capturing the material at 24bit/192khz. makes a marked sonic improvement in the final product.
Sooner or Later ... as long as it will provide a profit ... it will be available in market.
Surely it's possible that the colour from your original LP has deteriorated over the years and they struck the CD cover from original elements?
Frankly, I prefer the colour on the CD over the LP in your blog and feel it's closer to what I remember seeing in stores as a kid, especially the green in the bottom left corner.
As to the sound, I bought the stereo remasters because I only have MP3's of the collected works, except for Sergeant Pepper and Abbey Road and I'm pleased with the sound on my home system. Why bother seeing if it's worthwhile for an iPod or car system as those are always compromised listening environments. College kids who have grown up not paying for music won't be buying these remasters anyway.
Price notwithstanding, the package is a fantastic pleasure. Enough carping, enjoy the music!
I don't agree with you. I have not paid for any FLAC Beatles files, yet I purchased the Mono Set and I'm 18. I don't pay for what I cannot find anywhere else. If The Beatles sold Lossless audio on iTunes I'd buy it. And this is the first time since I am alive that The Beatles come out with a boxset (I'm not going to pay $600+ for a used blue box set)... And on my iPod my music files are under Apple lossless... so stop criticizing the youth when you can probably not even hear the differences between LP's and CD's because you can no longer hear the same frequencies of sound as when you were in college.
Believe it or not, some people under 30 actually listen to more than whats on the Billboard charts or being pushed by iTunes on any particular week. Heck, I don't even use iTunes.
if you said things in more general terms (like spend more money on your headphones and you'll probably hear a difference) i'd place more value in what's being said on here.
you lot sound like hi fi salesmen.
there are differences in equipment and set ups but wanking on about it just so you can feel qualifiably superior to others in worse than annoying.
ok, flame me down. i don't care. you'll only end up making yourselves look worse in the eyes of regular readers.
http://mid-riffs.com/?p=442
Only the White Album seems like it's missing something in mono. The rest - and especially Pepprs, MMT and Hard Day's Night - are quite wonderful.
I don't think I'd hear all that on an iPod or on my car stereo, but at home, the difference seems large.
Scott Atkinson
Watertown NY
Good review, confirms a bunch of my reservations about the new remasters. I acquired several LPs a couple, many of which look to be in great condition, but I can't test them out because I haven't found an old record player around... and most of the new players are expensive and want to rip music straight to an iPod. Pity. My friend has a great sound system in his studio, so I'd have to try them out. But if what I've been told by another friend (who got them on day one) is true, they do sound great.
A couple months ago, I noticed just how grainy sounding the first two albums sound. I received a replacement for my VMODA Vibe Duos awhile ago and the sound quality is admirable for most songs, so my equipment is up to it. Even my inexpensive, but very loud, speakers for my computer generate good sound. But those two remastered discs from '87 sound grainy through both. AHDN and Beatles For Sale are better, but you can't hear the richness of some of the tones until you hit up Rubber Soul and beyond. I hope the remasters fixed that problem. My goal is to get the set, a Zune HD, and hope I'll get even better quality that my iPhone puts out, which in all honesty, is actually pretty good (all you need is love... er, a good set of 'buds).
-BMF
I compared the remasters to NM first pressing stereo copies of Sgt Peppers and Abbey Road and was very impressed. The vinyl still had the edge in warmth, depth and dynamics. Overall, nice job. I am still waiting for my mono box set.......I think the true test will be mono a mono White Albums!
B&W 805s
Dynaco ST70
Music Hall CD25
Quicksilver Line Stage
VPI HW19 MK III
Sumiko Blue Point
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1Q2YO59RJOFMP/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R1Q2YO59RJOFMP
There are still audiophiles out there, who also have adopted the digital lifestyle. A couple of years ago, I re-ripped my Beatles CDs in a lossless format, and have high quality headphones. I am fortunate to have a car with a very good Mark Levinson sound system. And I'm not unusual. Well, not about that anyway.
- by unifex_ September 16, 2009 1:31 PM PDT
- First of all, thanks for the review and also thanks to hernan above for pointing out the nice review on Amazon.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by mikeinhouston September 18, 2009 6:24 PM PDT
- I have much of the same equipment that the Audiophiliac has (VPI Classic Turntable/Sumiko Blackbird Cartridge, Magnepan 3.6R speakers, Rel B1 sub, Cary SLP98P F-1 preamp, Cary Audio CAD 500MB amps, Bryston BDA-1 DAC, Oppo BD83 Disc Player, APC S15 power conditioner) and I can tell you vinyl make NO NOISE. If you set up the table correctly (easy to do) and clean your records every once in a while they make no noise at all. Well, except have a much fuller soundstage, deeper more powerful bass, clearer more extended highs.....
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (47 Comments)Now, there are several things that I would like to mention.
Digital age or not, I don't care how good or expensive your earphones or headphones can be, I simply do not believe that something stuck into my ear can sound similar to listening to real speakers in a real room, even if they are not audiophile-grade. I've never seen any which would not make my ears hot and itchy. So even if you give me a file compressed with a lossless codec,I will at best listen to it on speakers that are attached to the computer, but more probably I would just burn it on a CD (making a CD all over again) which of course defeats the purpose - other than electronic transfer of the file to me.
I will not get into a discussion of comparing vinyl to CDs - but please tell me how do you keep you vinyls from aging, how is that possible that your turntable's needle does not scratch you vinyl, so that the sound acquires that typical scratchy turntable noise? I don't know, maybe I just never had a "proper" equipment, but I've never seen one, not in any specialty store. I do recall from the old days that some people were only listening to their vinyls once and there might have been a good reason.
So my choice would be definitely a well-made SACD, but given the lack of those it was interesting to read about mono vs stereo CDs. Looks like I will have to try them myself and then decide which ones to buy, I am not that much of a fan to keep both versions.
I had not had a turntable in almost 30 yrs and after a friend made me listen to his $150 Technics turntable on my system, I sold my reference disc player ( A Reference Audio Mods Modified Denon 5910ci) and started trying out differenet turntables. Never will I go back to "sampling" the music as all digital does.
I ripped all of my discs to iTunes (Apple Lossless) and use the Bryston DAC when I can't find the vinyl. Otherwise I get up every 20 minutes, and turn the record over.