I'm a Beatles nutter and I would happily part with the dough for this new release if I hadn't been disappointed with other 'remastered/remixed' travesties. I have so far only heard the new cleaned up versions through FM radio - hardly a proper test - but I thought they sounded a bit 'clinical'.
I still have all their old albums on vinyl but I haven't played them for over 25 years as I'm scared of wearing them out. If they put out the Beatles on vinyl then I buy them all without hesitation.
Meatus, I'm with you 100% about vinyl sounding better. Although I come from an industrial instrumentation background and I was taught to only believe what can be measured, my ears tell me that an analogue sound source has something that raspy CDs dont (someone will probably add "Yes pops and compression")!
The Beatles Re-Masters
Re: The Beatles Re-Masters
Phwooorr...look at her....CRASH
-
The Last Word
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: The Beatles Re-Masters
Remastering cleared up, From The Sunday Times:
'What makes the new versions so much better? Crucially, the technology that transfers analogue sound into the digital domain is significantly better than it was 20 years ago, so before the remastering engineers started tweaking anything, they had already got the sound back closer to the original masters than before. Then they used denoising technology and overall limiting. Importantly, the engineers avoided today?s trend to limit the music heavily (limiting squashes the dynamics of music, making the quieter bits seem louder, creating a more even sound, which has more impact on the radio) in favour of a subtle treatment that adds oomph but retains the original dynamics.'
Having been listening to the newer Abbey Road this afternoon, I can safely say it puts the old 'tinny' CD transfer well in the shade, so job well done (that marvelous end medley has never sounded so good).
It's just a shame that in this iPod/MP3 age so many perhaps don't give a damn how something simply sounds.
'What makes the new versions so much better? Crucially, the technology that transfers analogue sound into the digital domain is significantly better than it was 20 years ago, so before the remastering engineers started tweaking anything, they had already got the sound back closer to the original masters than before. Then they used denoising technology and overall limiting. Importantly, the engineers avoided today?s trend to limit the music heavily (limiting squashes the dynamics of music, making the quieter bits seem louder, creating a more even sound, which has more impact on the radio) in favour of a subtle treatment that adds oomph but retains the original dynamics.'
Having been listening to the newer Abbey Road this afternoon, I can safely say it puts the old 'tinny' CD transfer well in the shade, so job well done (that marvelous end medley has never sounded so good).
It's just a shame that in this iPod/MP3 age so many perhaps don't give a damn how something simply sounds.
"Let's do it..."
Re: The Beatles Re-Masters
A slew of programmes, I noticed today the NME has maybe 10 diferent Beatles covers this week. For the completist who wants them all that's about ?15.
Re: The Beatles Re-Masters
The Sunday Times isn't neutral unbiased information though. The issue came with a Beatles supplement so basically they're involved in selling the CDs - it's a marketing message. What they want you to do as a result of reading the article(s) is to buy something.
-
The Last Word
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: The Beatles Re-Masters
Reggie Perrin wrote:
> Remixing 40 years later is just a destructive exercise,
> pointless when you consider most people will listen to your mix
> as an mp3, a sort of cassette quality format for the 21st
> century. Once you put it on the radio you won't hear any
> difference.
That's not the point. Converting them to MP3 is down to you. They're being pushed as CDs to be listened to via a CD player with the emphasis on improved sound quality. If anything, it's a promotion for the ever-dwindling CD industry to get people back to buying CDs for a very valid reason.
> I think George
> Martin was really in it for the money this time round, the
> Anthology was very interesting, this is a cash-in.
I doubt that. They're a superior product to their previous versions and something many have been wanting for years, and as the producer of the band probably wants listeners both new and old to hear them as best they can. If I was the producer of the Beatles, I would too.
> Remixing 40 years later is just a destructive exercise,
> pointless when you consider most people will listen to your mix
> as an mp3, a sort of cassette quality format for the 21st
> century. Once you put it on the radio you won't hear any
> difference.
That's not the point. Converting them to MP3 is down to you. They're being pushed as CDs to be listened to via a CD player with the emphasis on improved sound quality. If anything, it's a promotion for the ever-dwindling CD industry to get people back to buying CDs for a very valid reason.
> I think George
> Martin was really in it for the money this time round, the
> Anthology was very interesting, this is a cash-in.
I doubt that. They're a superior product to their previous versions and something many have been wanting for years, and as the producer of the band probably wants listeners both new and old to hear them as best they can. If I was the producer of the Beatles, I would too.
"Let's do it..."
Re: The Beatles Re-Masters
Its amazing however that some stff ever gets released. I heard a CD version of The Moody Blues 'Go Now' about 12 years ago and the thing was simply horribly clipped and distorted. The player/amp and everything was fine, it was just a CD version that should never have got past quality control.
Phwooorr...look at her....CRASH
Re: The Beatles Re-Masters
Like i've said elsewhere Deano, the same people that stiffed you for the Moody Blues CD want you to feel sorry for them about lost revenues from illegal downloads. What about your lost revenue from the Moody Blues CD ?