Beatles remastered. Good news or bad?

[Pano]

That's very interesting.

It can't just be the pressing, right? They had to have been mastered differently, didn't they?

[vinylguy]

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.

[Thebrain]

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.

[Pano]

That is a very good question. A little research might tell us. It would certainly be interesting to know.

[Thebrain]

http://www.triskelion-ltd.com/beatle....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.

[Pano]

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.

[Glowbug]

I like the Ebbetts Blue Box set

[sangram]

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.

[Pano]

Great. I'd love to hear the mono mixes. Revolver with the vocals all to one side sounds rather strange. I don't like it.

[Zoran]

I heard few songs on my friend system...
And somehow I was pleased and satisfied with "new" sound...
I think that people who remastered material, done good job?