The Beatle Remasters

[Hepcat]

Craig:

How much comparative listening did you have to do to discern and detail these differences?

 

[LG]

If you have noticed the "Intervals" between his posts in his epic thread I am sure he has given great attention to detail and enough listening time to draw a conclusion. Not to mention he has a rig good enough to discern even the most subtle differences.

I only have 4 of the original ones to compare, and the White Album on vinyl so I am taking Craig at his word on the whole Remastered Series.

 

[Craig in Indy]

Craig:

How much comparative listening did you have to do to discern and detail these differences?

It depends on the songs in question. I always start out with a complete listen through the song on the original CD first, then repeat the first few bars so I have it's sonic character imprinted in my memory pretty well. During that first run through I'll make some notes, either on paper or just mentally so I have specific things to listen for in the remaster. Then I listen to the new recording, and if there are immediately apparent differences they'll pop out pretty easily and I'll make some notes about them.

If there isn't much difference between the recordings, I'll sometimes listen completely through each version 2 or 3 times before I finally give up. Even then, if it seems like nothing much has changed I'll make sure my last comparison is from new-to-old. I do that because there have been times when the differences are subtle enough that they're best heard when examined from an "omission" standpoint. I don't know if that description makes sense. It's like there have been some songs where the improvements are so slight, you don't really notice them when you go from old-to-new. They only make themselves apparent when you go the other direction, and you notice them by omission - something isn't there, compared to the newer version.

As far as LG's comments about the equipment, I have to say that most of these changes (aside from the immediately obvious mono-to-stereo changes) are subtle enough that listening on my main system, in my listening room, isn't the best way to hear the improvements. I mean, the remasters sound nice, and I wouldn't trade them for the originals, but that sort of listening doesn't give quite the level of detail needed to hear some of this stuff. Headphones are better for it, but what I've found better still is a decent quality (doesn't even need to be high-end) near-field setup. So in addition to the other ways I've been listening, most of the really critical judgments have been made while listening at the computer. And that's all been through iTunes on my Mac, with (get ready for it...) a Bose sub/satellite system connected to it. I know I'm a big Bose-basher, and rightfully so when it comes to general sound systems, but their computer speaker systems are among the best I've ever heard, short of spending really big bucks. The one I have was about $350 I think, if memory serves, and it does a remarkably good job.

I hope that last bit of info doesn't put any of you off.

 

[LG]

I am a little surprised Craig, I could do a proper comparison on my big set-up, but the main thing is you have meticulously done your A/B research and even though I am not a Bose fan at all most PC's are noisy anyway, so Hi-Fidelity is not a big deal for me.

I use a Marantz receiver to drive a pair of KLH shielded speakers, works fine and sounds good when I play my racing Simulators or the other handful of games I do play.

 

[Craig in Indy]

I would be less than honest if I didn't also admit that another reason I like to compare at the computer is the convenience factor. I don't have any sort of music server set up to feed the main stereo - that may happen in a couple of years, or it may not - and being able to switch rapidly back and forth between old and new has been extremely helpful.

Having said that, I have listened to all of these recordings so far on the main system, and some with headphones (Sennheiser HD-600s). But when I want to listen "into" a recording, while still maintaining a decent illusion of a soundstage (which I think most headphones destroy), I tend to favor near-field speakers.

 

[mystic fred]

That is a rather sweeping statement Hep and not entirely accurate. If you say the majority of old classic rock albums from the 60's and 70's sound "Warmer" on vinyl then I would agree with you.

However, the newest CD's can hold their own with old analog records easily.

Craig, nice to see you back in action.

I bought the DVD of Yellow Submarine, and the sound on the 5.1 system is great, I don't even bother playing the CD anymore, either the original or the remaster...(I like George Martin's orchestral bits and pieces too.)

Shame the Beatles remasters were recorded in 24bit but released on 16bit CD - as an enthusiastic user of Vinyl and 24bit SACD/DVD-A i was disappointed with this purely marketing decision from EMI as the 24bit format would have revealed so much more, anyway maybe they will in the future - for now the remasters are an improvement on the old CD but still have some way to go to get closer to vinyl sound quality and retrieval, i wouldn't say the newest CD's can hold their own with old analog records easily yet - there is a lot more to it than a "warm sound", but one day, well you never know, but as the future is looking towards FLAC and studio master quality downloads CD's are already looking obsolete.



.

 

[Mr. Shadow]

I would be less than honest if I didn't also admit that another reason I like to compare at the computer is the convenience factor. I don't have any sort of music server set up to feed the main stereo - that may happen in a couple of years, or it may not - and being able to switch rapidly back and forth between old and new has been extremely helpful.

Having said that, I have listened to all of these recordings so far on the main system, and some with headphones (Sennheiser HD-600s). But when I want to listen "into" a recording, while still maintaining a decent illusion of a soundstage (which I think most headphones destroy), I tend to favor near-field speakers.

Elderly direct drive turntable with other 80's era gear and a clean vinyl version of Abbey Road sounds plenty good to me. Most of the time I'm listening through headphones of various quality. I'm interested in the music. Sometimes the "improvements" just get in the way of the way I remember and love.

 

[Mr. Shadow]

Shame the Beatles remasters were recorded in 24bit but released on 16bit CD - as an enthusiastic user of Vinyl and 24bit SACD/DVD-A i was disappointed with this purely marketing decision from EMI as the 24bit format would have revealed so much more, anyway maybe they will in the future - for now the remasters are an improvement on the old CD but still have some way to go to get closer to vinyl sound quality and retrieval, i wouldn't say the newest CD's can hold their own with old analog records easily yet - there is a lot more to it than a "warm sound", but one day, well you never know, but as the future is looking towards FLAC and studio master quality downloads CD's are already looking obsolete.



.

The ultimate would be half-speed reel to reel copies of the master tapes.

"The Tape Project" Master Tapes for reel to reel

 

[Craig in Indy]

Elderly direct drive turntable with other 80's era gear and a clean vinyl version of Abbey Road sounds plenty good to me.

That's the reason I still hang onto some of my old LPs, including the original British release of Abbey Road, as well as its Mo-Fi re-release. Similarly I have multiple copies of Dark Side of the Moon - the original British and US releases, and the Mo-Fi version.

BTW, you'll all have to forgive me for my tardiness in wrapping up this discussion. I honestly don't know how best to approach either Let It Be (because it exists in two distinctly different forms) and Past Masters (because I never bought its initial release, so I've nothing to compare the remaster with).

 

[Sweaty]

They will always keep reinventing different formats al the time as this is a money spinner and that is what they want, money. I like the CD for it's space saving quality, however it will never replace vinyl and the sound it gave. I gave up buying vinyl years ago as I couldn't get some albums on vinyl and when I did they were easy to scratch and there were a lot of crackles and of course the space was not there anymore.

I have the Beatles remasters excpt the red and blue albums which I will purchase sometime and I think they are good. I have to have all the Beatles albums anyway it is a given in my opinion.