The Beatles Remastered

[LICORNE]

From USA today.

This is a remastering not a remixing.

By Edna Gundersen, USA TODAY
You say you want a revelation?
Listen to the intensified punch of Come Together, the majestic breadth of The Long and Winding Road, the modern sheen on Love Me Do and the renewed thrust in I Am the Walrus.


WEIGH IN: Choose your favorite Beatles design
PHOTOS: A gallery of Fab Four album covers

The Beatles catalog, digitally remastered for the first time, is arriving in stores Sept. 9 amid a joyful noise from fans.

Audiophiles have long lamented the thin, shrill results of the music's 1987 transfer to CD, flaws magnified by advances in digital technology that enriched the recordings of peers with repeated remastering rounds.

"Even people listening on lower-quality ear buds and MP3s will hear a drastic jump in quality," says Beatles historian Matt Hurwitz, who heard a sampling of the new tracks. "We're hearing something a lot closer to the stereo and mono mixes produced in the '60s. This is the way The Beatles heard it."

Though frustrating for fans, the wait has heightened drama and value, says Beatles scholar Martin Lewis.

"Fans chomping at the bit felt that Apple was painfully slow responding to demand," he says. "But at least The Beatles haven't been overly repackaged like Elvis and The Who."

The collection includes 14 stereo albums, sold individually or in a box set, each with original U.K. vinyl track listings, artwork and liner notes, plus archival photos and added historical and recording notes. New QuickTime mini-documentaries are included in each CD except Past Masters, which combines the two 1988 single volumes into one set.

The Beatles in Mono, a box catering to completists, gathers 10 mono albums and two discs of mono masters. (Yellow Submarine, Abbey Road and Let It Be are missing because they were recorded in stereo.) Monos won't be sold separately, and EMI has no plans to press more mono boxes when the first run sells out.

"That's smart, because people who want the mono mixes want all of them," Hurwitz says. "It's for hard-core fans like me who want to understand what it all sounded like back then. In 1963, kids didn't have stereos. That's why (producer) George Martin felt so strongly about releasing those (early) albums in mono. We're finally getting to hear the true excitement of those recordings."

Among the mono treats: Paul McCartney's vamping coda on Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise), audible only on vinyl until now. And because bass was often suppressed on vinyl to prevent phonograph needles from jumping, expect more oomph from McCartney's Hofner.

The upgraded catalog "leaves the library pure," Hurwitz says. "It's now the definitive catalog, as close to the masters as technically possible."

The long and winding road to 09/09/09 began four years ago when Abbey Road engineers in London got the green light to transfer The Beatles tunes from analog tape to digital.

Though the original high-quality tapes showed no deterioration, the splicing-tape glue had dried up, causing segments to separate.

"It was slightly disconcerting on the first rewind of Please Please Me when the edits started coming apart," says Guy Massey, the project's senior recording engineer, during a playback session of remaster excerpts at Capitol Records.

Once tracks were ported one by one to digital files, engineers debated the extent of their scouring. Vocal pops, drop-outs, electrical clicks and bad edits were erased where possible.

"Some people argue that things like that should stay," says project coordinator Allan Rouse. "I don't agree. It's painful to listen to, and you would have dealt with it if you'd had the technology in the '60s. We've repaired those things to sound more pleasing."

Certain organic sounds, however, like Ringo Starr's creaky bass drum pedal on 1963's All I've Got to Do, stayed.

"In the piano chord at the end of A Day in the Life, you hear a squeaky chair," Massey says. "The Beatles probably would have removed it if they'd had the wherewithal. Unless they detracted from the performance, we've left things like that intact because they've become part of history."

Defying a trend toward excess, the team made modest use of "limiting," which shrinks dynamic range to make music sound louder. Only five of the 525 minutes of Beatles music was subjected to de-noising technology, used to reduce tape hiss.

Though the enhancements are subtle, fans will notice brighter, warmer sound and plenty of unearthed details. Engineers took greater liberties with the stereos than the monos.

"For the stereos, we haven't presented the original master tapes as they were, because we felt we could improve them," Massey says. "The monos are more representative of the master tapes. We've presented them in the best possible light."

Remastering significantly boosted sound quality, particularly on Revolver and The Beatles (aka the White Album). Remixing, the manipulation of separate tracks to alter the placement of vocals and instrumentation, could have yielded more dramatic results, but Apple has yet to green-light a catalog remix.

"That's the only thing that would make a massive difference," says Rouse, acknowledging that while some fans yearn for a full remix, purists regard it as retouching the Mona Lisa. "So far, some 120 Beatles songs have been remixed in 5.1 stereo for DVD, and they're great alternatives, but not replacements."

Fans who cry "revisionism" should seek out their old records or the mono set, McCartney says. "It's not like the originals have gone away. If you want what we consider an improvement, this is it, the stereo CDs. Our guys worked hard to get it faithful to the original."

John Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono, anticipates few objections to the retooled tunes, particularly since many consumers will be newbies.

"These songs aren't just old songs," she says. "They're new, too, because many people haven't listened to The Beatles yet."

...........

[Panomaniac]

I've heard them and compared them to the 1987 versions. Well, Abbey Road and Let It Be, anyway. The new ones are better.

Not over compressed, but a little more than the 80's versions. Tracks seem about 2~3db hotter on the 2009 remasters. That may simply be because there is more bass.
Overall they sound smoother, fuller and with better detail. The old masters can be shrill at times. Not the new ones.

Very pleased with the new versions - even if they do sound more "modern." Sometimes that's a good thing.

[MikeInNH]

Just what I need.

Everytime there's anything on the news about the Beatles...our street sign gets stolen. I live in Abbey Road. Our town bought them in bulk...because when one sign gets stolen...it's up within 2 days. Been living there for 10 years....sign has been stolen at least 30 times.

[Old Guy]

I have some not good feelings about this....

The old originals, warts and all, were what it sounded like.

Regardless of improving the product,you are rewriting history. And making it sound more "modern" doesn't appeal to me, though it will make money.

I kinda view it in the same vein as colorizing the classics.

[Panomaniac]

It's not that bad, really.
The 1980s CDs were known to sound worse than the early, good vinyl pressings.
The 2009 remasters are supposed to be faithful to the original good pressings. Or so they say.
And they are not all the different from the 80s version. Really, there have been far worse remasters.

AND - you can get them in mono. That's how all the early albums were mixed.

The new version actually sounds a bit more laid back than the old. Like vinyl vs CD.
By why not hear for yourself? Buy or borrow one and listen.

[LICORNE]

In 1987 the analogue to digital converter was still at 16 bit 44 khz .To day you have Pro tools at 24 bit 192 KHZ converters. The new remastered tapes on CD sound like the originals with all the details you could hear on original vinyls and more. Like squeaky drum pedal, John and Paul whispering between takes. As a matter of fact you gain much more in terms of base and dynamic range.

The re mastering not modification is like the restoration of the sixteenth chapel.

..........................................

[voice of the theater]

I'm STILL waiting for my stereo box set on backorder at Amazon. Can't wait to hear them on my new Model 19's (picked them up in mint condition less than a month ago). Some great opinions and info on the Beatles remasters here on this forum--I'll chime in as soon as my box set arrives.....

[theophile]

I'm STILL waiting for my stereo box set on backorder at Amazon. Can't wait to hear them on my new Model 19's (picked them up in mint condition less than a month ago). Some great opinions and info on the Beatles remasters here on this forum--I'll chime in as soon as my box set arrives.....

Your thoughts please,Sir?

[voice of the theater]

Your thoughts please,Sir?

I forgot about this old thread. Yes, I did buy the remastered Beatles Stereo Box Set. I commented briefly on the box set (and on the "Love" CD) on Nippers recent "Any Beatles Fans Here" thread.

....I think they did a phenomenal job with the remastered CD's--overall sound quality (and bass response) is significantly improved. This is often times not the case with CDs in general and not even with remastered CDs, IMHO. I like what George and Giles Martin did with the "Love" soundtrack also--it's something that no other band has done quite that way to my knowledge (gone through the original master tapes of their entire catalog to create not only new mixes, but to create "collages" with tracks from different songs being played simultaneously to create something "new"). Nice to see the Beatles are still a source of groundbreaking work.....

To go more in depth, I grew up with the Beatles lp's. I heard those albums many many times. When they released their catalog on CD in the 80's, I bought the CD's and was disappointed that they didn't sound as good as the vinyl. I wasn't surprised however, because at the time most CD's didn't sound as good as vinyl. I wanted them anyways, because I'm somewhat of a completist when it comes to the Beatles (and some other artists as well). Anyways, in 2004 and 2006, as many of you know, Capitol released two remastered box sets--the Beatles "The Capitol Albums Volume 1" and "The Capitol Albums Volume 2". I bought both of them as soon as they were released. Basically, they contained the remastered CD version of all the early U.S Beatles albums--with the U.S. song order (and reverb/etc. added like the early U.S. Beatles albums had). The U.S. albums are what I grew up with, so it was an easy comparison for me to make. I thought that these box sets rivaled the sound quality of the U.S. vinyl releases--much better than the 80's Cds that I had bought, so I was happy with them.

OK, so now they release the "new" box set. And yes, I bought it. Their entire catalog, again! There's a sucker born every minute! But this time, I didn't feel like a sucker. This box set sounds incredible! And yes, I know there are those who say the stereo box set is no good, that only the mono box set is worthwhile. And there are those who say that neither set is as good as those original 60's vinyl releases (or 70's vinyl). I grew up with the stereo albums, I can't listen to the mono mixes. Having every instrument and vocal coming from the same exact point in the room (dead center between your two speakers) is BORING. Yes, I'm prejudiced--I can't listen to anything in mono for any length of time (especially something that I'm familiar with in stereo). I know the argument that the very early Beatles stuff had "bad" panning --- instruments/vocals panned all the way left or all the way right etc. I know that George Martin spent more time on the mono mixes than the stereo mixes on the first few Beatles albums (before stereo was at the height of it's popularity) and that when they remastered the Mono box set they used slightly less compression than on the stereo box set. Yes, all good arguments for why the mono box set might be the better purchase. Except that I've heard the stereo box set and they did a phenomenal job on it. For the first time, these albums, IMHO, sound better than the original vinyl. Cleaner, crisper sound. Enhanced bass EQ (in the "old days" they purposely reduced the bass response on vinyl due to the consumer playback limitations of vinyl/turntables/cartridges etc. of the times). Finally, you can hear nice deep bass on those old recordings. Purists may argue that the EQ should never be altered. I respectfully disagree. The bass response wasn't reduced back in the 60's due to artistic/aesthetic considerations--it was reduced due to technological limitations. All they've done with the box set remasters is to restore the fidelity that was present in the recording studio that was lost by the time the music was "on vinyl" in your home due to technological limitations. Fortunately, they DID NOT remix the albums for this release. They used the original mixes. I generally HATE IT when a band remixes their entire catalog like the Who and some other bands have done. I want to hear the original mix that I heard on vinyl when I buy an album on CD. I have no problem with a good remastering job (of an original mix). By good remastering, I mean restoring fidelity and hopefully using original master tapes to also restore clarity and reduce noise. Don't get me wrong, as AB pointed out, there are some BAD remasters out there ( I think he mentioned Rhino as an example). I've heard BAD remasters that use excessive EQ (which makes the recording sound unnatural), excessive compression (which sucks the life out of the original dynamics), and excessive noise reduction (which causes that "breathing" phenomenon which renders a recording unlistenable IMHO). In this case, they got it right. They used just enough EQ to give some "beef" to the kick drum and Paul's bass etc., a bit more sizzle to the cymbals etc. -- basically walking that fine line of restoring fidelity without making the "tone" sound unnaturally different than the vinyl. They used compression very sparingly as well and if they used noise reduction it was also very subtle. All I know is that the final result was superb--those albums never sounded better IMHO.

I have bought several new releases by various artists over the last few years and I'll go out on a limb here and say that I think digital technology has finally caught up to vinyl. SOME new CD releases sound astonishingly good--as good as vinyl IMHO without the potential surface noise. I know you have to take into consideration the limitations of CD's such as sampling rate etc., but they also have the benefits of potentially cleaner, quieter sound (less noise and distortion) with more extended bandwidth compared to vinyl. Up until recently, these potential benefits haven't amounted to a "hill of beans" because many (most?) CDs just didn't sound as good as pristine, well mastered and recorded vinyl IMHO. However, recently I've been blown away with the sound quality of certain new releases on CD whereas for years I swore that even the best CDs didn't sound as good as pristine vinyl. I really think that TODAY, the best producers working in conjunction with the best CD mastering facilities can produce a magical combination that wasn't possible a few years ago. This Beatles box set is sourced from old recordings, so it obviously doesn't sound as good as some of the brand new releases that are out there, but it uses a lot of the same technology and at least, finally, for the first time ever, sounds better than the original vinyl without changing the mix or general character/feel of the original albums IMHO.

In the interest of being objective, I do have a problem with the fact that they do not provide the original mix of Rubber Soul or Help with this box set. They remixed Rubber Soul and Help several years ago, and used the remixed version for the stereo box set. For some strange reason ($$$?), they do include the remastered version of the original stereo mix of Rubber Soul and Help on the Beatles Mono Box set. So, you have to buy both box sets (mono and stereo) if you want to have the remastered ORIGINAL stereo mix of every Beatles album. A shame, I would have given the stereo set a 10 had it not been for that. Fortunately, I have the Beatles Capitol Albums two box sets from 2004 and 2006 which contain the remastered, original mix of Help and Rubber Soul. Not quite as good as the current remastering job, but I'll take the remaster of the original mix over a better remaster of the remix of those two albums any day. In general, I really think you're defacing a work of art when you tamper with the original mix of a classic album. Restoring fidelity is one thing, but changing the balance/mix/pan/etc. REALLY changes the feel of an album, whereas a GOOD mastering job of an original mix is subtle and preserves the feel/character of the album (if done right), and improves the fidelity of it..... In this case, I admit the remix of Help and Rubber Soul both sound good---and I almost never like remixes of classic albums. Fortunately, the original producer George Martin did the remix--he "fixed" some of the extreme panning etc. of the originals but as good as it sounds, I like the remastered original mix--warts and all--better--but that's my preference. I have friends who love the remixed Who catalog with comments like "Roger's voice is finally way out front--you can finally really here the grit in his voice". I answer--yeah, but the guitar is lower in the mix and that robs the songs of some of their original primal power (and power chords!)........ To each his own--I never profess to be "right" -- if one of my friends likes a remix--his opinion is of course equally valid to mine but I might get in a sarcastic comment like "would you like it if they painted a mustache on the mona lisa"?:doh:

Well, theophile, you asked for it and there it is. All I can say is--next time--be careful what you ask for. You might get it......:snickerpup:

[theophile]

I haven't heard either the original CDs,nor the remasters.I'd like to get the new set on vinyl.

I love Love and recommend it to others.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.