Yes I would assume so. I once read that the US versions of the '60s records were mastered with a tonal balance that was best suited to being heard on AM radio. As you can imagine that sort of tonal balance wouldn't sound very good on my $3k LP rig. As for most digital remasters of older music that originally came out on vinyl, they're pretty bad, in my experience.
http://www.triskelion-ltd.com/beatles-foreign.html#CCOUNTRY
this site has some interesting information about international releases.
it doesn't say though if different mastering used for each country.
personally i know that back in the days each local label received
a 1/4" to prepare the vinyl master from.
a lot can go wrong or be better in the way to the final local master.
maybe thats why some local pressings sounds better.
this site has some interesting information about international releases.
it doesn't say though if different mastering used for each country.
personally i know that back in the days each local label received
a 1/4" to prepare the vinyl master from.
a lot can go wrong or be better in the way to the final local master.
maybe thats why some local pressings sounds better.
I've heard 2
Well I've heard 2 of the remasters and compared them to the 1980s versions. Abbey Road and Let It Be. 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 - midbass.
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." I agree with some reviews I've read that say they are like modern recordings done right. Very nice work. Very much in the spirit of what went before.
Well I've heard 2 of the remasters and compared them to the 1980s versions. Abbey Road and Let It Be. 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 - midbass.
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." I agree with some reviews I've read that say they are like modern recordings done right. Very nice work. Very much in the spirit of what went before.
Though my impressions are very similar to panomaniac's, I still prefer the originals. Somehow the remasters seem a bit brighter on the top and artificially boosted on the bottom. Probably because the 'sound' of the Beatles is deeply set into my psyche and I would associate the 'old' sound with the 'original' moniker, and all 'imitations' had to have something wrong. Thankfully they haven't added much compression, and the basslines are much more distinct and stand out well in the mix now.
The mono masters are absolutely stunning though. Highly recommended even over the stereo versions, even if you already have the complete EMI catalog (I do). Most of the songs sound very different on the mono versions, and almost all of them sound better. Much better, specially the vocals.
The mono masters are absolutely stunning though. Highly recommended even over the stereo versions, even if you already have the complete EMI catalog (I do). Most of the songs sound very different on the mono versions, and almost all of them sound better. Much better, specially the vocals.
finally i got my hands on the abbey road remastered version.
i must say it is really detailed clean and...
lifeless.
played it simultaneously on vinyl and cd on the same setup (with a matched volume for each source).
the remastered CD sounds very detailed.
pretty middy to my ears probably because of the digital compression used.
not enough bass in my opinion.
it is very clean and has the PRO TOOLS flavored sound.
it sounds very good but lacks that Beatles charm.
(Beatles charm = dirty bass,distorted brass and vox,drums that sounds like pots etc...)
i was completley surprised when i heard the vinyl.
it was almost as detailed as the CD
.
if the vinyl was new i'm sure it would have sounded even more detailed.
the mids were not disturbing like the remastered version but the distortion on the vocals did.
my copy is not in a good condition but it is easy to hear that a mint condition copy will definitely sound better then the remastered version.
overall it sounds much more pleasant and full of life.
to sum it up the new version sounds very 21st centurish.
i'm sure it will be more appealing to the compression frenzy mp3 audience.
one thing that i still don't understand:
what's the point listening to old music if it sounds new?
i must say it is really detailed clean and...
lifeless.
played it simultaneously on vinyl and cd on the same setup (with a matched volume for each source).
the remastered CD sounds very detailed.
pretty middy to my ears probably because of the digital compression used.
not enough bass in my opinion.
it is very clean and has the PRO TOOLS flavored sound.
it sounds very good but lacks that Beatles charm.
(Beatles charm = dirty bass,distorted brass and vox,drums that sounds like pots etc...)
i was completley surprised when i heard the vinyl.
it was almost as detailed as the CD
.if the vinyl was new i'm sure it would have sounded even more detailed.
the mids were not disturbing like the remastered version but the distortion on the vocals did.
my copy is not in a good condition but it is easy to hear that a mint condition copy will definitely sound better then the remastered version.
overall it sounds much more pleasant and full of life.
to sum it up the new version sounds very 21st centurish.
i'm sure it will be more appealing to the compression frenzy mp3 audience.
one thing that i still don't understand:
what's the point listening to old music if it sounds new
?
did they do different mastering for each pressing in different country?
i was surprised when i purchased an Italian pressing of the beatles 1967-1970 it sounds amazing!
much better than the English one.
I have Itallian pressings of several LP's and they have a unique equalization IMO. Can't put my finger on what though.
Love your other comment, I have several pre-Hendrix Family LLP CD's from the 80's. No fancy tools so they dumped the MT warts and all onto the CD. I especially like the "nudey" Electric Ladyland.
Last edited:
I've bought the box and I'm not impressed.
I'll let you have a look at Taxman from the Revolver album.
Left the new remastered version, right the LP version.
A listening session gives more detail for the remastered track but more musicality and less harshness for the LP version. The difference is not subtitle.
Listening from the remastered version has been done from an EAC rip.
Both tracks loaded in Audition, output via M-Audio firewire, amp, speakers.
Furthermore, I'm at a loss (again) why engineers desperately need to push that compression button.
Sad really.
I'll let you have a look at Taxman from the Revolver album.
Left the new remastered version, right the LP version.
A listening session gives more detail for the remastered track but more musicality and less harshness for the LP version. The difference is not subtitle.
Listening from the remastered version has been done from an EAC rip.
Both tracks loaded in Audition, output via M-Audio firewire, amp, speakers.
Furthermore, I'm at a loss (again) why engineers desperately need to push that compression button.
Sad really.
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.