The Beatles Remastered

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."

...........

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. :D

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

George & Giles Martin(s) remastering (& remixing work ) of Beatles songs for the http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...200px-LOVE.jpg album, opened my ears to the locked up resolution within those old master tapes .

If the new remasters are anything like this brilliant concept album ( made for Quebecs' equally brilliant "Cirque du Soleil" ) , I'll be buying a box set ( once Costco gets them in ;) ) .

>< cheers :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_(The_Beatles_album)

Being a Beatles fan...and being that my turntable's been put away while more important things got in the way I refused to buy replacements for the vinyl I amassed. Tonight a friend popped in with Abbey Road remastered. First I gotta say many years ago my Dad had a friend with McIntosh amps....altec 604E's...probably a Thorens turntable...well you get the picture. He had the Revolver album in pristine vinyl glory. I remember being astounded at the warmth and quality of the playback. Needless to say the "old" Revolver CD sounds so astonishingly terrible in comparison...well this was when I lost my love for buying Beatles CDs. OTOH...some early tracks like "And I love Her" sound pretty wonderful even on the original CD.

Well I listened to the entire Abbey Road remastered CD tonight and it is a vast improvement over my original CD(I did buy a few). Time will tell if this vast catalog contains....defects?...or bad things...I just cannot say without listening to them all.

What I can say is there is a clarity that's easily heard and I hear no strange artistic liberties on first listen...it sounds....correct! Listen for yourself!

What this means is that I will have NO problem springing for the stereo box set.
I think anyone who is a fan and is an audiophile of sorts will benefit from this release. I just wish they would have done it right the first time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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

---

I read somewhere on the net they used Prism A2D converters to spool the tracks off of the original tapes. I might have missed it, but I do not know if they used Pro Tools to do the remastering...it would be interesting to know which plug ins or outboard processing was utilized during the process...maybe they'll sell that book one day.

It's amazing how the version first heard sets up an expectation for repeat listenings to be the same. The remastered versions are a bit like a burger chain changing the bun on your favorite burger. The substance is there but the expectation has been challenged. Some will stop buying the burger, others will be happy to try it again and come to like it.
I took the time to borrow and listen to the Love CD and the Past Masters Remastered CDs. The Love content was somewhat unnerving and kept aggravating my expectations of what I 'should' be hearing. This listening was not very enjoyable. The Past Masters CD was very nice but throughout I felt the sound balance was out of whack.
Of course having grown up with the music of the beatles from the very beginning I am not surprised by my impressions. With further listening I will probably be more comfortable with the remastering. I can't reliably say the same about the Love CD.
One comment I read said the Remastered catalogue is aimed at 'newbies' who have a more modern expectation of recorded music and 'diehard' Beatles fans who will welcome such material.

Cheers, Marshall. :eek:

I think most of the negative hoopla is coming from those who don't understand the difference between a remaster and a remix. Since the Beatles participated in much of the original mixing, leaving the mix alone doesn't alter the artistic content or intent a bit. Only technical "improvements" come with a remaster, so it should be a win-win.

Here?s what EMI has said about the remastering process:

"The re-mastering process commenced with an extensive period conducting tests before finally copying the analogue master tapes into the digital medium. When this was completed, the transfer was achieved using a Pro Tools workstation operating at 24 bit 192 kHz resolution via a Prism A-D converter. Transferring was a lengthy procedure done a track at a time. Although EMI tape does not suffer the oxide loss associated with some later analogue tapes, there was nevertheless a slight build up of dust, which was removed from the tape machine heads between each title.
From the onset, considerable thought was given to what audio restorative processes were going to be allowed.It was agreed that electrical clicks, microphone vocal pops, excessive sibilance and bad edits should be improved where possible, so long as it didn?t impact on the original integrity of the songs.

In addition, de-noising technology, which is often associated with re-mastering, was to be used, but subtly and sparingly. Eventually, less than five of the 525 minutes of Beatles music was subjected to this process. Finally, as is common with today?s music, overall limiting ? to increase the volume level of the CD ? has been used, but on the stereo versions only. However, it was unanimously agreed that because of the importance of The Beatles? music, limiting would be used moderately, so as to retain the original dynamics of the recordings.

When all of the albums had been transferred, each song was then listened to several times to locate any of the agreed imperfections. These were then addressed by Guy Massey, working with Audio Restoration engineer Simon Gibson.

Mastering could now take place, once the earliest vinyl pressings, along with the existing CDs, were loaded into Pro Tools, thus allowing comparisons to be made with the original master tapes during the equalization process. When an album had been completed, it was auditioned the next day in studio three ? a room familiar to the engineers, as all of the recent Beatles mixing projects had taken place in there ? and any further alteration of EQ could be addressed back in the mastering room. Following the initial satisfaction of Guy and Steve, Allan Rouse and Mike Heatley then checked each new re-master in yet another location and offered any further suggestions. This continued until all 13 albums were completed to the team?s satisfaction."

Those of us who'll hear it in real HIFI will be the lucky ones. It's a bit sad that many copies will be wasted on Ipods and Bose-like systems, but in the big picture exposing the new generation to real music can only be a good thing.

Me? I'm looking forward to it... as soon as I can save up the necessary spendtogs. :)

What,s what? What's not? Some food for thought.

Beatles, The: Mono and Stereo - what's the difference?, beatles butcher, magical mystery tour

Marshall. :confused:

The long and winding road.......................

The Beatles Album Collections

Sure would like to hear the Mobile Fidelity set against the new remasters. :D

The hell with all the above huppala, what kind of monitors did the use for the remasters ? Altecs or the new GPA's ?

Abbey Road remastering:

Special Feature - Introduction to Mastering - Abbey Road Studios

I spotted Yamaha and B&W. Your eyes may be keener. After all this time and the demise of Altec it would require a lot of luck for the old monitors to be still active.
But then, was the remastering all done at Abbey Road?

You feel you are getting old when your youthful interests can be found in a museum.

http://www.beatles-unlimited.com/2008/04/11/that-beatles-sound/

Studios continually 'upgrade' equipment to meet user's needs. Nothing stays the same. The remastering of the Beatles catalogue was done by an Abbey Road team. It would be interesting to know which equipment was used for playback.

Actually, you fellows in favor of the remix are doing all the hoopla.

I personally won't buy it, if a friend has it I will listen.

I do NOT believe in altering historical documents. Making them more pleasing to modern tastes is not improvement in my opinion.

But I don't dispute your right to your opinion. I do kinda feel my right to my opinion is being disputed. Buy it if you want. I am not a joiner, I'm not gonna run out and buy it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old Guy

Actually, you fellows in favor of the remix are doing all the hoopla.

I personally won't buy it, if a friend has it I will listen.

I do NOT believe in altering historical documents. Making them more pleasing to modern tastes is not improvement in my opinion.

But I don't dispute your right to your opinion. I do kinda feel my right to my opinion is being disputed. Buy it if you want. I am not a joiner, I'm not gonna run out and buy it.

---

So you never bought the 87' CDs? You were a strict Beatles vinyl guy?
I say this because anyone who's heard the CDs understands there is no question that the '87 releases were NOT historical documents.

I also thought the hoopla was over the remastering of the "CD"...NOT remixing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old Guy

Actually, you fellows in favor of the remix are doing all the hoopla.

I personally won't buy it, if a friend has it I will listen.

I do NOT believe in altering historical documents. Making them more pleasing to modern tastes is not improvement in my opinion.

But I don't dispute your right to your opinion. I do kinda feel my right to my opinion is being disputed. Buy it if you want. I am not a joiner, I'm not gonna run out and buy it.

---

I thought the whole idea of recording music was to make it as close to LIVE as possible. If remastering a CD will make it sound closer to the LIVE performance isn't that progress?

I'm NOT saying that the remastering is an improvement, just that if it is...isn't that BETTER.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Mac

So you never bought the 87' CDs? You were a strict Beatles vinyl guy?
I say this because anyone who's heard the CDs understands there is no question that the '87 releases were NOT historical documents.

---

No I did not buy them. All my Beatles stuff is on vinyl....they hardly ever get played though...I mean I've heard them hundreds of times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikeInNH

I thought the whole idea of recording music was to make it as close to LIVE as possible. If remastering a CD will make it sound closer to the LIVE performance isn't that progress?

I'm NOT saying that the remastering is an improvement, just that if it is...isn't that BETTER.

---

The records don't sound anything like the Beatles did live. You could barely hear them live, due to the crowd noise.

I'm not arguing aesthetic improvements.

Many argue color in old films is an improvement...there are many viewpoints. I don't argue with those who buy colorized films, and if the remasters are to your taste buy them.


I just wanna get a high quality digital converter to convert all my vinyl with. Any attempts at EQ would be made to make it sound as faithful as possible to the original.


But why is it such an issue that the heretic has to be converted here? That bothers me a little....:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notloudenough

...what kind of monitors did the use for the remasters ?...

---

Here's Studio Three's site:

Studio Three - Abbey Road Studios

Lots of pics and text, but I couldn't find a ref to the monitors. Sure looks like a cool place to work though. ;)

Looks like they are set up for surround as well.

From the pics on the link you provided , looks like they are using B&W 802's? or a b&w Speakers,.

But on the upper left & right there seems to be some big monitors ( looks like they might be JBL westlakes? maybe or some TAD,s , or they could even be some Urie's , who knows , I am speculating here, but they look to be some large, soffit mounted monitors) behind the dark grill cloth material, or it is just some absorbent material for reflections,,,

This is all but a guess...


I might email them and asking what their equipment set-up list is.....



-chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old Guy

No I did not buy them. All my Beatles stuff is on vinyl....they hardly ever get played though...I mean I've heard them hundreds of times.

---

I gotcha... Well, all I can say is if the rest of the catalog is anything like the Abbey Road remaster, it appears they did a great job for the CD audience. I couldn't even listen to "I Want You" on CD and now it's wonderful...the clarity...the strength of the lower end....I can hardly wait to buy the 24 bit 192kHz versions after I buy this set! :)

The monitors: Equipment and Tech Facilities - Abbey Road Studios

Quested monitors and B&W 800d for 5.1 monitoring. I would like to think that the remasters aren't going to sound as good as they could've. But, it's the 21st century and everything is changing.

Could it be? Was it done on the cheap? Bulk discount? Can you picture Sir Paul busily uploading master tapes to this service? ;)

Abbey Road online marks 'death of traditional studio' | News | TechRadar UK

Cheers, Marshall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Mac

I gotcha... Well, all I can say is if the rest of the catalog is anything like the Abbey Road remaster, it appears they did a great job for the CD audience. I couldn't even listen to "I Want You" on CD and now it's wonderful...the clarity...the strength of the lower end....I can hardly wait to buy the 24 bit 192kHz versions after I buy this set! :)

---

From that viewpoint it makes a lot more sense...someone can't run out and buy new 1960's vinyl, so if you don't have old Euro copies you HAVE to buy new...and an improvement over existing CD's would be much more desirable....

Thanks mah,,,

I was almost right....

Never heard of the Quested brand before...


-chris

I am probably gonna get tarred,feathered,stone and ran out of here for saying this......

But I guess this is why I could never stand listening to the Beatles.... I guess the recordings I heard were shoddy....


I grew with listening to the CD's though,, except for my aunt who had a record collection and a decent mid-grade system back when I was a little kid.... but I mainly remember her letting me play the stones, queen,, etc....


I have been thinking about this box set, but I have read elsewhere that people are saying it comes out cheaper if you buy the discs separately.....


My wife bought a compilation disc about 5-6 years ago, and I remembering then when she put in it in the car radio, it sounded horrible ( quality wise).....



So to the ones that bought and have listened to the new re-masters, are they that good?


Looking at this for the wife as a X-mas present...( and I will rip them to my HD for archiving so I can enjoy them too)


Thanks,



-chris

I'll probably put my toe in the water and buy Revolver. If impressed, then Rubber Soul. Then Yesterday........and Today. How far do you go if you have the original vinyl?

If the early The Rolling Stones catalogue is remastered there will be no procrastination re purchase from me at all.

Cheers, Marshall.

P.S. I would like to hear a remastered version of The Twain Shall Meet by Eric Burdon and the Animals. Then there's ..........................


Marshall :Trauma:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old Guy

...someone can't run out and buy new 1960's vinyl, so if you don't have old Euro copies you HAVE to buy new...

---

There you have hit the nail on the head. That's the idea. I no longer have my original vinyl and never cared much for the 80's CD versions. The new remasters are as close as I will ever get to those rare first pressings. The 80s versions were pretty sad.

Since they have the old Altec 605 I would not be surprised if they used them .One would have to ask them directly.

Here is what Mix Magazine reported.


The speakers used to evaluate the masters ranged from large Quested and B&W monitors to listening on iPod.


The transfers were done on a 1972 Studer A-80. From there, they went into a high-resolution Prism Sound ADA-8XR into Pro Tools at 24 bits/192 kHz. ?When we put on the masters and compared them with the original CDs, we all felt, in general, that what we were hearing on the masters was immediately more transparent than the original CDs,? states Massey, who worked on the stereo re-masters with mastering engineer Steve Rooke and Paul Hicks


?We didn?t want to obviously have these as loud as a modern rock record,? says Massey. ?Basically, the stereo re-masters, at the maximum, are only 4 dBs louder than the original CDs. We used limiting very sparingly, and hopefully very transparently. We wanted to retain the dynamics of the songs and basically not limit them.?



The approach wasn?t to make the sound merely more appealing to ?modern? ears, but rather, to try and approximate what the team felt George Martin and the band would have wanted had they not been limited by the vinyl medium. ?We have got some of the [disc] cutting notes from the ?60s that Harry Moss did and there was very little that he did to them, but the inevitable things were sometimes reduction of bass, because he couldn?t get it on?the vinyl couldn?t handle the bass back then,? says Massey. ?You?ll notice elevated bass and louder drums now. We really tried to push some of those elements. We weren?t trying to just make a cleaner version of the original stereos.?


Rouse is quick to point out that all the tapes, which were EMI 811, were in excellent condition. ?EMI used to be quite a good company for manufacturing things, including tape,? remarks Rouse. ?We?ve never baked an EMI tape. Ever! We checked the heads after each title and a little bit of dust was about all we encountered. ?


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

I got worn out records and lousy 87 cds...now I just got the stereo box set tonight...will report on relative quality as time avails for critical listening.

Re mono: ".........we treated them with a slightly more audiophile version. ............" ( last para, page 2 - see link below}.

The Beatles Re-Mastered, 2009 | A Look at the New Stereo and Mono Box Sets

I wonder how the new version compares with the Mobile Fidelity boxed set LPs? I still have the MF set - which I bought when it first came out in the early '80s. But the reality is that I rarely listen to the MF version, and would listen to the CD version much more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wws944

I wonder how the new version compares with the Mobile Fidelity boxed set LPs? I still have the MF set - which I bought when it first came out in the early '80s. But the reality is that I rarely listen to the MF version, and would listen to the CD version much more.

---

A friend and I compared the remastered stereo Revolver with the MF Revolver, and were surprised at how close they were in overall sound balance. The remastered Revolver did seem to have just a bit more peak limiting that was evident on some songs, and not so much on others. It also seemed to have a bit higher average level than the MF.

Although I had my doubts prior to this comparison, I could live with the new CD's as an alternative/companion to my UK vinyl.

jdiamantis

I did no LP comparisons...but I did listen to every song in the set.
I do not think a purist would consider this re-mastering to be anything but a careful
effort to clean up and preserve a critical body of music. Thumbs up!

A brief hijack:- I must have been asleep-on-watch to miss the Stones remasters.

The Rolling Stones Remastered ABKCO by IORR

Dust This Off: The Rolling Stones, remastered again | The Volume | Time Out New York

I listened to the 12x5 remastered CD. Wow, Charlie, Bill and Ian are more present. I like this issue. This could become expensive.

Marshall :D