The Beatle Remasters

[monkeesfan1967]

I seem to like mono more than stereo on some songs than others, such as "I Need You" or "Ticket to Ride" sound great in mono to me. But I already have most of the original albums in mono so I guess I won't exactly have to buy the new remasters in mono. I already have a majority of the stereo remasters and they sound better than anyone could possibly expect.

 

[Hepcat]

I'll stick with my vinyl - in stereo.

 

[LG]

^^Purist...

I understand when some of these albums were released originally we didn't even Own an FM stereo radio, so on our old AM mono radio the songs sound fine.

However as I have been collecting equipment and new media over the years I simply cannot go back to Mono sources for any reason except novelty or a comparison like Craig is doing in this thread.

Are there some decent sounding Mono versions of songs that Sound better than crappy botched Stereo remixes...?...I have no doubt that is the case. But I will Always...Always search for the HQ version I can get of any work, be it vinyl, cassette, CD, DVD, that has been my mantra for over 30 years now and will not change.

 

[Craig in Indy]

I don't think there's any question that mono was the way the first several albums were intended to be heard, up until, what, Sgt. Pepper? But I think that was driven by the available reproduction technology of the time. Can anyone seriously think that if the Beatles were recording today, they'd be turning out their material in mono?

And I may be unusual or otherwise odd in this regard, but just because something was originally mixed and issued in a way to sound good coming out of a single 6" speaker behind a perforated piece of metal (i.e., a typical '60s era car dashboard), doesn't mean that I want to hear it that way now. If the original master tapes have a frequency response of 20-20KHz, why on earth would anyone want to be limited to listening to a 250-10KHz version of them? That's what it all comes down to for me - I want the very best, meaning highest-fidelity, version I can get my hands on. If it sounds more "real" to me, then I personally don't care if it is or isn't historically accurate.

And Hep, I can understand your wanting to stick with your LPs. Disregarding all aspects of the LP-vs-CD debate, I do think that you're doing yourself a disservice by not at least giving a listen to the remastered versions. Maybe your local library will get them, or you could find a friend who'd lend one to you just for comparison. I think you might find it an ear-opening experience. And of course, no one is suggesting that you have to get rid of whatever LPs/tapes/CDs you already have, even if you find you like the new versions.

 

[LG]

^^I agree with you completely Craig.

I would send Hep the CD's, but he has "Issues" with that kind of thing. If he liked them then he could buy the ones he wanted, one of the nice things about the new technology, and after all does anyone here really think that Apple/EMI needs to make even more money off the Beatles?

Even my first Magical Mystery Tour CD sounded better than my MFSL master disc, and the new remastered version is even better.

 

[Hepcat]

And Hep, I can understand your wanting to stick with your LPs. Disregarding all aspects of the LP-vs-CD debate, I do think that you're doing yourself a disservice by not at least giving a listen to the remastered versions. Maybe your local library will get them, or you could find a friend who'd lend one to you just for comparison. I think you might find it an ear-opening experience. And of course, no one is suggesting that you have to get rid of whatever LPs/tapes/CDs you already have, even if you find you like the new versions.

I've been wanting to do a comparison of those reissued 180 Gram Audiophile Virgin Vinyl Beatles or Rolling Stones LPs against the latest remastered CDs and then against SACDs.

***:

 

[LG]

I owned Sticky Fingers on a Masterdisc, and was disappointed. The remastered CD was much better in every category.

SACD's are in Craig's realm of expertise, but the copy of Let It Bleed he sent me blows the vinyl and regular CD to smithereens.

 

[Hepcat]

... after all does anyone here really think that Apple/EMI needs to make even more money off the Beatles?

That's putting your finger precisely on my problem. I can't shake the feeling that all these remasters are naught but cash grabs on the part of the record companies.

 

[LG]

That's putting your finger precisely on my problem. I can't shake the feeling that all these remasters are naught but cash grabs on the part of the record companies.

I will agree with that to a point, but I have had some experience with numerous "Remasters" now, and when done properly like the Newest Beatles CD's they are a step up in quality. Years ago they tried to just boost the midrange/midbass and tell us it was a big leap forward in quality, but numerous audiophiles figured out what they were doing, now every new "Remaster" is scrutinized and scanned to see what exactly the labels did do to the original.

My offer still stands Hep, all it would cost you is a little time and effort before you spent your hard earned cash.

I will say that Sgt. Pepper's my MFSL vinyl recording and the remastered CD are very close, the biggest difference is the lack of background noise on the CD, whereas the vinyl album has a little more warmth. Both are excellent though.

Sorry to jump ahead Craig.

 

[TheFeldster]

That's putting your finger precisely on my problem. I can't shake the feeling that all these remasters are naught but cash grabs on the part of the record companies.

Of course they are. Everything release by the Beatles since their break-up - albums such as "Let It Be", "Rock and Roll Music", "Hey Jude", "Past Masters", that movie compilation that I forget the name of, "1", "Love" plus the remasters, Beatles: Rock Band, movies such as "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band", "Across the Universe" and "Nowhere Boy" and everything else has only been approved by the record companies and whoever bloody owns the copyright these days (I lost track during the Michael Jackson kerfuffle) is because it keeps the Beatles commercially viable. There's nothing can be done about that.

That said, it should never stop you enjoying the products. The creators of them (in the remasters' case: Paul, Ringo, Dhani Harrison, Yoko Ono and Giles Martin) had good intentions, despite the record companies.

We all know the record companies are owned and managed by greedy a-holes, shouldn't stop us enjoying their products.