The Beatles Re-Masters

[Meatus]

Headed into the local ASDA Supermarket today about 2pm and much to my surprise they had the new Beatles Re-masters on there shelves even though they are not released till tomorrow! They had Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band, Rubber Soul, Revolver, Abbey Road and Past Masters! As they were out decided to purchase Rubber Soul, Revolver and Abbey Road!

And while the covers are fantastic! The same as the Vinyl and the CD's come with a booklet with some information and some great photo's. Plus the Rubber Soul and Revolver CD'd are in the black Parlophone Label like the vinyl and Abbey Road is Black with the full Apple on it. The CD's are virtually just the same as the original 1986 CD versions. They have gone against the usual Re-master trait of making the track's very loud! And the vocal has certainly been cleared up and sound really good! The rest are just subtleties such as the bass sounded really clear and crisp and certain guitar figures clearer. But if you are not an obsessive fan and already have the original CD's it's not really worth purchasing them again! Typically ASDS never had The Beatles (The White Album)! Which i really wanted to hear!

If anyone has all the CD's already and has a Turntable, do yourself a favour and spend the money tracking down the original vinyl! Still the best sounding!

Damn! That was a long one!

[Jonone]

Personally i'm a bit sceptical of re-mastering when, as in this case, it's been done before. You can only say 'They now sound as they were meant to sound' once .. what do you say when you're re-mastering for a second and third time ? I appreciate recording technology improves, but I wonder how much of an improvement it is ? If it's kinda like the difference between the guy who wins the 100m and the guy who comes third (pre Usain Bolt) I wonder if it's worth a tenner ?

On a related topic, I was reading a Q&A with John Leckie who produced the Stone Roses first album and he said smthg like it had never been mastered on CD before from original tapes. The vinyl was 'true' and CDs had been done from an inferior source. While there's sensitivity about the legality of downloading and lost revenues this is just another example of punters being shat on by some companies and being given inferior product. For example what is now marketed as the collector's choice (180mg vinyl platters) were industry standard until lighter platters (with inferior sound quality) were used to reduce costs and maximise profits. You have to say that at times the industry hasn't cared about it's customers, but i've never heard them hold their hands up and admit/ accept this.

[Arginald Valleywater]

Will buy Abbey Road and Sgt Pepper. Rest can sit on the shelves. Beatles were not the only great 60s band but some blinkered music fans and journos seem to miss this fact..

[Meatus]

In the case of some recordings re-mastering has helped, especially in say a band like The Who or certainly The Fall's back catalogue! But since the Beatles had already been done i was expecting these to be better than they are, but in the case of a few minor instancies they are virtually identical.

Whereas if you listen to The Rolling Stones original 1986 ABKCO CD's and then listen to the 2002 SACD re-masters the sound is much better and they are a vast improvement on the originals! Sadly not on these Beatles ones!

[Floydoid]

I think one of the features of this re-release is to issue the first 4 albums in stereo on CD for the first time.

[Meatus]

but i don't think they are in true Stereo! Its fake stereo is it not, since they were recorded in Mono?

[Floydoid]

All the albums up to Revolver (I think) were originally issued in both mono and stereo versions.

[nikonman]

I agree.
Yet another money making marketing ploy.

I don't know if anyone one has noticed but there seems to have been a lot of programmes about the Beatles on BBC radio and tv of late
Must be to tie in with these remasters.