Beatles re-mastered
Len of MusicWeb
Beatles formats up to the latest remastering
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2009/Sept09/Beatles_remastered.htm
--
---------------------------------------------------
Len Mullenger
Founder of MusicWeb International
http://www.musicweb-international.com
mobile 07913 999009
---------------------------------------------------
--
All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.
If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please
change your headers appropriately. -- the moderators
Tony Quinn
<zen2...@zen.co.uk> writes
>Audiophile Jack Lawson provides a comparative discussion of the various
>Beatles formats up to the latest remastering
>
>http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2009/Sept09/Beatles_remas
>tered.htm
Sadly the word "Audiophile" has connotations of losers with copper free
silver cables and pieces of cardboard under just one leg of the table
containing the record deck.
--
"All religions bear traces of the fact that they arose during the intellectual
immaturity of the human race, before it had learned the obligations to speak
the truth. Not one of them makes it the duty of its God to be truthful and
understandable in his communications" - Friedrich Nietzsche
John (NJ)
> Audiophile Jack Lawson provides a comparative discussion of the various
> Beatles formats up to the latest remastering
>
>
Wow, was that hard to read. Very poorly written. He jumps all over
the place nad hardly ever makes a point.
--
All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.
If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please
change your headers appropriately. -- the moderators
--
Alex
> Audiophile Jack Lawson provides a comparative discussion of the various
> Beatles formats up to the latest remastering
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Len Mullenger
> Founder of MusicWeb Internationalhttp://www.musicweb-international.com
> mobile 07913 999009
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> --
>
> All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.
> If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please
> change your headers appropriately. -- the moderators
Nice review, but one thing spoils it for me -- his gushing about the
quality of the "1" CD, which I personally found to sound crappy,
especially compared to the 2009 remasters.
Even "Love" sounds bland compared to the 2009 remasters (I haven't
heard the DVD-A version yet).
--
All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.
If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please
change your headers appropriately. -- the moderators
--
Adam
> Audiophile Jack Lawson provides a comparative discussion of the various
> Beatles formats up to the latest remastering
>
> http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2009/Sept09/Beatles_remastered.htm
The new remasters have a SPARS code of ADD? Doesn't that middle D mean
"mixed on digital equipment"?
Adam
--
All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.
If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please
change your headers appropriately. -- the moderators
--
Jan Philips
wrote:
>Wow, was that hard to read. Very poorly written. He jumps all over
>the place nad hardly ever makes a point.
He must get paid by the word.
--
Replace you know what by j to email
Ian Bell
I agree. 99.9% of what he said was pure bollocks.
Cheers
Ian
Papa Tom
Truthfully. After hearing these songs for forty years plus, they
always sound the same to me, no matter how they claim to remix or
remaster them. The Beatles songs are in my head now. and they sound
great all the time. Save your money.
troglodog
>
> - Show quoted text -
The remasters may have promised the "it's like you're there in the
studio with them" experience, but for me the DVD-A of 'Love' actually
delivers it (on even half-decent equipment). Mashups notwithstanding,
of course.
dustykeg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Frankly, I would be interested in reading what the r.m.b.m members
here have to say about these reissues - both mono & stereo - rather
than reading about it elsewhere. If you're subscribing to this
newsgroup you must have an avid interest or opinion about these
remastered cd's and its packaging. I'd throw out my two-cents, however
my box has been backordered for awhile. So, I can't contribute any
feedback on something I haven't (re-)heard yet.
---
Regards,
Howard "Dusty Keg" Kagebine
Stephen X. Carter
>Frankly, I would be interested in reading what the r.m.b.m members
>here have to say about these reissues - both mono & stereo - rather
>than reading about it elsewhere. If you're subscribing to this
>newsgroup you must have an avid interest or opinion about these
>remastered cd's and its packaging. I'd throw out my two-cents, however
>my box has been backordered for awhile. So, I can't contribute any
>feedback on something I haven't (re-)heard yet.
FWIW.... my feedback on the remasters.
a) Listening to them all in a short period is an overwhelming
experience. I ration myself to one or two albums a day.
2) The first two albums (Please Please Me, With The Beatles) sound silly
in stereo, but wonderful in Mono.
iii) Overall everything sounds clearer, cleaner, and you can pick out
clearly things that perhaps you've not noticed before.
D) The stereo set (other than the first 2) will be perfectly fine for
most people.
*) The mono discs are a great delight to discover - the attention to the
detail of the packaging is fun. As artefacts they are good.
f) If you are a total completeist, then you have to have the Mono. Not
just for the mono remasters, but for the original 1965 stereo mixes of
Help! and Rubber Soul - I'd previously not appreciated that in 1987
George Martin had replaced those mixes with new ones - and that those
1987 ones are now seen as the 'authorised versions' not the 1965
originals.
Executive Summary: Money well spent.
--
steve.hat.stephencarter.not.com.but.net
Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
Mr Kite posters and more at http://www.zazzle.com/mr_kite*
Mr Kite posters and more at http://www.zazzle.co.uk/mr_kite*
Stephen X. Carter
wrote:
>The remasters may have promised the "it's like you're there in the
>studio with them" experience, but for me the DVD-A of 'Love' actually
>delivers it (on even half-decent equipment). Mashups notwithstanding,
>of course.
As a HUGE fan of the DVD-A of 'Love' I'm not certain I'd totally agree
(other than the point about the mashups).
They're different. It's like asking me if I prefer apples or oranges.
I like them both. Sometimes I prefer an apple, other times an orange.
But both are wonderful. (That's apples and oranges, and remasters and
DVD-A 'Love')
--
steve.hat.stephencarter.not.com.but.net
Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
Mr Kite posters and more at http://www.zazzle.com/mr_kite*
Mr Kite posters and more at http://www.zazzle.co.uk/mr_kite*
--
mds...@gmail.com
DVD mix. (I did know it was there however, and wanted to own it
anyway for some future time when I actually have access to that
equipment.) Anyway, I'm not a fan of the mash-ups ... but the few
songs that remained mostly intact on that collection (e.g. Help, I am
the Walrus, Revolution, etc.) are absolutely startling in their
clarity and re-imagining with the new stereo REMIXES done by Giles
Martin. Vocal and instrumental details in those new remixes come out
that were never heard in the original mixes. I still dream of a day
(which may never come) when the entire catalog receives that modern
remix treatment -- just the straight album songs in newly remixed
stereo (and 5.1) taken from the original multitracks. In my opinion,
that is really the only proper way to advance the Beatles audio legacy
into the 21st century.
--
All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.
If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please
change your headers appropriately. -- the moderators
--
Ian Bell
I am not so sure. I definitely heard things in early material on the
Love album that I had not heard before and with a clarity that was not
present before either.
Lizz Holmans
(Stephen X. Carter) wrote:
>
>FWIW.... my feedback on the remasters.
>
>a) Listening to them all in a short period is an overwhelming
>experience. I ration myself to one or two albums a day.
Oh, yeah.
>
>2) The first two albums (Please Please Me, With The Beatles) sound silly
>in stereo, but wonderful in Mono.
Totally agree.
>
>iii) Overall everything sounds clearer, cleaner, and you can pick out
>clearly things that perhaps you've not noticed before.
>
>D) The stereo set (other than the first 2) will be perfectly fine for
>most people.
>
>*) The mono discs are a great delight to discover - the attention to the
>detail of the packaging is fun. As artefacts they are good.
>
>f) If you are a total completeist, then you have to have the Mono. Not
>just for the mono remasters, but for the original 1965 stereo mixes of
>Help! and Rubber Soul - I'd previously not appreciated that in 1987
>George Martin had replaced those mixes with new ones - and that those
>1987 ones are now seen as the 'authorised versions' not the 1965
>originals.
>
>Executive Summary: Money well spent.
It made me fall in love all over again.
Lizz 'I don't know acoustics, but I know what I like' Holmans
--
Whatever happened to linoleum floors, petroleum jelly and two world wars?
http://www.fannation.com/blogs/show/826793-cricket-she-wrote
Lizz Holmans
(Stephen X. Carter) wrote:
>As a HUGE fan of the DVD-A of 'Love' I'm not certain I'd totally agree
>(other than the point about the mashups).
>
>They're different. It's like asking me if I prefer apples or oranges.
>I like them both. Sometimes I prefer an apple, other times an orange.
>
>But both are wonderful. (That's apples and oranges, and remasters and
>DVD-A 'Love')
'Love' was an amazing revelation. TMIL hated it, so I knew it was
great.
Lizz 'he's only practically perfect' Holmans
--
Whatever happened to linoleum floors, petroleum jelly and two world wars?
http://www.fannation.com/blogs/show/826793-cricket-she-wrote
--
LookingGlass
>
> FWIW.... my feedback on the remasters.
>
> a) Listening to them all in a short period is an overwhelming
> experience. I ration myself to one or two albums a day.
>
> 2) The first two albums (Please Please Me, With The Beatles) sound silly
> in stereo, but wonderful in Mono.
>
> iii) Overall everything sounds clearer, cleaner, and you can pick out
> clearly things that perhaps you've not noticed before.
>
> D) The stereo set (other than the first 2) will be perfectly fine for
> most people.
>
> *) The mono discs are a great delight to discover - the attention to the
> detail of the packaging is fun. As artefacts they are good.
>
> f) If you are a total completeist, then you have to have the Mono. Not
> just for the mono remasters, but for the original 1965 stereo mixes of
> Help! and Rubber Soul - I'd previously not appreciated that in 1987
> George Martin had replaced those mixes with new ones - and that those
> 1987 ones are now seen as the 'authorised versions' not the 1965
> originals.
>
> Executive Summary: Money well spent.
>
> Mr Kite posters and more athttp://www.zazzle.co.uk/mr_kite*
I love them all...Mono and Stereo...even the two first albums (and the
stereo HELP! and RUBBER SOUL 1965 stereo mixes). If I play the stereo
versions of PPM and WTB, I don't use headphones to listen, UNLESS I
want to hear particular details of the recordings. ALL the recordings
are clearer and cleaner.
Heck, even the *experts* can't agree about the particulars, but
overall, I think they generally agree that there is an appreciable
improvement to the audio quality. I know *I* hear a big difference
(some songs more than others)...and I appreciate the effort put into
the remasters. Remember...they did these remasters "song by
song"...not album by album. Each song was treated differently than
another song...as it should be. The songs were each recorded
differently. So while we may perceive an entire album sounds better
than the previous incarnation of that particular album, there are
improvements on all albums.
Just knowing that these remasters are digitally transferred from the
*original* master tapes on tape machines carefully calibrated (true
twin-track mono machine for the MONO recordings), and recorded
digitally with state of the art technology is enough to get me
excited. Only a brand new re-mix would be better. The extra *tweaking*
(no-noise and EQing) is just sweetening, and no (limited) limiting is
a big plus. *IF* they boosted the bass (still debated)...and you think
it's too much, turn your bass knob down from 11 to 9 or 8. Simple.
Some experts (?) state this boost in EQ is what the original master
tapes reveal. It was there all the time.
The *clarity*...in the studio sound...was worth the effort. Now I can
see right through that "fog upon LA".
Anyone else hear Paul *pop* his mouth with his open hand while
performing LOVELY RITA...???
A+
--
All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.
If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please
change your headers appropriately. -- the moderators
--
dustykeg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for the box set critiques. The more I hear about the mono
remasters the more I wished I had ordered that box rather than the
stereo set. I suppose after the stereo box arrives and settles into my
brain's sonic palette, I'll have to give the mono box some serious
consideration.
---
"All You Need Is Ca$h"!!,
Howard "Dusty Keg" Kagebine
AllaBest
> Anyone else hear Paul *pop* his mouth with his open hand while
> performing LOVELY RITA...???
Yes, and I heard it in 1967.
troglodog
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 20:24:00 -0500, troglodog <troglo...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The remasters may have promised the "it's like you're there in the
> >studio with them" experience, but for me the DVD-A of 'Love' actually
> >delivers it (on even half-decent equipment). Mashups notwithstanding,
> >of course.
>
> As a HUGE fan of the DVD-A of 'Love' I'm not certain I'd totally agree
> (other than the point about the mashups).
>
> They're different. It's like asking me if I prefer apples or oranges.
> I like them both. Sometimes I prefer an apple, other times an orange.
>
> But both are wonderful. (That's apples and oranges, and remasters and
> DVD-A 'Love')
>
> --
> steve.hat.stephencarter.not.com.but.net
> Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
> Mr Kite posters and more athttp://www.zazzle.co.uk/mr_kite*
>
> --
>
> All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.
> If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please
> change your headers appropriately. -- the moderators
On a semi-related topic, and if you haven't done so already when
listening to the 'Love' DVD-A, try getting up close to the centre
channel speaker during the last few bars of the Sgt Pepper's reprise
and listen for John and George after the "cluuuuuub...baaand". While
Paul is doing his "woooh!", you hear John say "thank God...it kills
me!" and George humming along to the guitar solo with a cheery "ba-ba-
baba-bum-bum". It makes me smile every time.
--
All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.
If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please
change your headers appropriately. -- the moderators
--
dustykeg
> Mr Kite posters and more athttp://www.zazzle.co.uk/mr_kite*
>
> --
>
> All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.
> If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please
> change your headers appropriately. -- the moderators
Stephen, you are spot on about the first two albums.
Because all the instruments are on one track and vocals on the other,
there's simply not enough going on between vocals to allow the vocal
side to consistently balance the soundscape. I also could do without
abrupt changes in soundscape like the one which takes place during the
harmonica solo on "Little Child". It makes it sound like a bad edit
took place. It's just a bad pan and un-natural sounding. Just another
of many reasons the first two albums should be enjoyed in pristine re-
mastered mono I suppose.
I would have understood and have not minded a stereo box released
officially with the mono versions of "Please Please Me" and "With The
Beatles" included. IMO stereo on these 2 titles just don't add up. I
listened to these two titles initially on a multi-amp'd car system and
later with headphones. I was still impressed by the overall presence
of the instrument side. There's a certain ambience heard when you hear
a guitar being strummed in front of you. Sonically, I hear this depth.
I just don't want to hear all of it on one side of the mix.
---
Regards, Howard "Dusty Keg" Kagebine
Stunt Vocals, 12-String, and 3rd Bass
--
All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.
If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please
change your headers appropriately. -- the moderators
--
Jales
> I would have understood and have not minded a stereo box released
> officially with the mono versions of "Please Please Me" and "With The
> Beatles" included. IMO stereo on these 2 titles just don't add up. I
> listened to these two titles initially on a multi-amp'd car system and
> later with headphones. I was still impressed by the overall presence
> of the instrument side. There's a certain ambience heard when you hear
> a guitar being strummed in front of you. Sonically, I hear this depth.
> I just don't want to hear all of it on one side of the mix.
I couldn't agree more. IMO, it's not a matter of having a stereo and
mono mix of everything, but of having the better sounding mix, whether
it's stereo or mono. If Apple ever releases the whole catalog remixed,
I hope they have this in mind. I think at least the first two albums
should be mixed in mono, or else with the instruments mixed center,
and the vocals slightly to one side.