Beatles remastered. Good news or bad?

[Pano]

So there has been a complete remastering of the Beatles stuff, due out Sept of this year.

Let's assume you like the Beatles and want to own some good recordings of their stuff (I do). Is this going to be good or bad?

I always cringe when I read the words "Digitally Remastered". Who knows what mischief was done? It should be great, but so often isn't.

Anyone know anything about this big remaster job?

A few details at The Rolling Stone.

 

[wakibaki]

Raving about an album I can understand. Raving about a remastering?

I have existing Beatles CDs. Given the immensity of the creative achievement in other respects the mastering is trivial. It's not going to reveal something amazing about the original material now, but if it's respectful of the original treatment then it may become the copy to buy. It remains to be seen.

w

 

[vpharris]

CNN says...

"The technology that was available back then was very limited, and with the newer technology they are able to do far more with what they have than they have ever been able to do before," he said. "For people who are plugged into iPods and the whole digital music scene, it's going to be a lot better for them."
....

The remastering project was four years in the making. Engineers used de-noising technology and cleaned up glitches like electrical clicks and microphone vocal pops, so long as it didn't affect the original integrity of the songs.

They also slightly boosted the volume levels....

That makes me think that it will be compressed.

 

[Mr Evil]

Re: CNN says...

That makes me think that it will be compressed.

It's amazing what new technology can do - what used to take a whole 16 bits to encode can now be squeezed into only 4 bits! It's a much more efficient use of space...

 

[Pano]

I think Vince means "dynamically compressed." As in louder. And I'm sure it will be. To suit modern tastes. It would be almost impossible not to.

AKAIK, there will not be any downloads or compressed formats for awhile.

My wish for the new masters is for a better, fuller bottom end. The remasters from the 80s sound very thin - almost AM radio. Did the LPs sound that way? Don't remember - sold mine long ago (shame).

I just came across an interview in an old Audio magazine from ~1987. Sir George Martin talking about the first round of CDs and remastering. Will post a bit of it if I can.

 

[Mr Evil]

I think Vince means "dynamically compressed." As in louder. And I'm sure it will be. To suit modern tastes. It would be almost impossible not to...

That's what I meant too. There is usually only a few dB of dynamic range on new CDs, meaning that most of their 16 bits of resolution is wasted.

It's a shame that something like ReplayGain wasn't part of the original CD spec.

 

[Pano]

OK, got it! Yes, some metadata on the CD would have been great. And I always thought log instead of linear encoding. As well as replay gain, maybe even a compression tag?

There is a lot wrong with the format, - just look at the packaging - amazing that it has endured so long.

 

[jlsem]

I doubt they will ever get anything of really good sound quality from the original master tapes. When George Martin did "Love" with his son they went back to the original tracks and the resulting quality of the album (LP) was far better than anything before. The best thing that could happen to Beatles fans who are audiophiles is if someone like AcousTech could get ahold of those tracks and recreate new masters. Of course purists would be appalled at them not being exactly as they were originally released, but think of the quality of the sound! I would personally pay $100 or more per album for such a release.

John

 

[gl]

I remember reading an interview of George Martin or some other person similarly connected to the original Beatles releases. The interviewee spoke about the low end being severely rolled off to accommodate the then existing consumer playback equipment and radios etc.

I play the bass. Paul McCartneys bass lines are truly works of art. If the re-masters include the full low end of the original masters then the project is totally worthwhile. I will line up and pay my money and be very happy.

Cheers,
Graeme

 

[Mitch Alsup]

I can tell you that the remastering of the "Love" album (vinyl) is very nice. If this is what is meant by remastering, you have little to worry about. On the other hand, there remains a lot to worry about--I guess we'll just have to wait.

I wish they would do this on vinyl (180 or 200) rather than CD/DVD.

 

[Pano]

f the re-masters include the full low end of the original masters then the project is totally worthwhile.

Amen, brother!

Don't know if I'd go as far as John with his $100 an album offer, but ~$30 yeah.

That's one of the reasons I was looking for info on this. What was really done in the remastering? Just cleaning up the "master tapes"- whatever they are? Or really creating new masters from the session tapes? The session tapes are going to be 2, 4 or not more than 8 tracks.

So doing a remaster from that shouldn't be too hard. I don't want a full remix, just better sound aimed at better equipment. A "Premium Version", so to speak.

But what were they working from?

 

[jlsem]

What was really done in the remastering? Just cleaning up the "master tapes"- whatever they are? Or really creating new masters from the session tapes? The session tapes are going to be 2, 4 or not more than 8 tracks.

I doubt they would go to the trouble to create a new master tape from the session tapes. It's more work than the bean counters would ever allow. The Love album was a whole new mix for a special project and there are no shortages of frequency extension at either end. For this new release, they will probably just "clean up" the late generation master that's most conveniently available and trick it out a little bit so it will sound a different rubbish. And don't hold your breath for a vinyl release, either.

John

 

[SY]

Paul McCartneys bass lines are truly works of art.

"Hey, Bulldog" was definitive. Some of the best rock bass ever.

 

[Pano]

Well I just got back from listening to the White Album on vintage vinyl. Sounds better than the 80s CD -yes, but not by much. Similar tonal balance. Hmm....

 

[Thebrain]

the most ridiculous thing to say is:

The technology that was available back then was very limited, and with the newer technology they are able to do far more with what they have than they have ever been able to do before," he said. "For people who are plugged into iPods and the whole digital music scene, it's going to be a lot better for them

as a sound engineer i must say this is a load of crap.
you'll ask every serious sound engineer he'll tell ya
he will record,mix, and master on the Beatles old equipment rather then
the latest modern equipment on any given day.
better...you mean harsher with no life and no dynamic range whatsoever....

 

[Pano]

Hmmm.... that surprises me. I know that I would rather, but most engineers I've met would not. But I was mostly in live sound, not studio.

I used to mix on an old 24 channel Hill desk. Sweet sounding mixer, loved it - and so did my boss. But no one else would touch it. Not enough knobs, buttons, filters, routing. It didn't need them - it just plain worked and sounded right.

Getting back to the Fab Four - even with good equipment, the tonal balance seems strange to me. Thin. One of the old engineers (Bill Porter, maybe?) was talking about that. No low end on the Beatles vocals.

But it seemed to work extremely well on the radio. They sold a few records, IIRC.

 

[Thebrain]

live sound and studio sound are 2 different creatures
also the creatures working in the two worlds
in live situations i rather have the latest technology.

mixes that were done back then were meant for the radio.
therefor no low end on the vocals and hips of mids. the reason for this is that you will be able to hear their voice and understand the lyrics on the crappiest radio available.

i never liked the Beatles sound anyway with abbey road as an exception.

 

[Gabdx1]

The abbey road recordings of beetles are excellent and I am sorry for next generations if it is re-mastered...

 

[budwiser]

Good news in my opinion. The capital versions did not sound the same as the emi versions on vinyl. So what. I loved what was done to create the love cd, it added a whole new dimension to the sound. If they open up the sound like that great. If not I will still be in line. Why because I am a huge Beatles fan. They are also coming out with a 10 cd mono set as well.

 

[vinylguy]

As you all can tell by my user name, I'm seriously into my vinyl. I'm fortunate to have bought many Beatles UK pressings before the digital age and they have a fuller low end as well as less surface noise and are generally better sounding than their US counterparts. One I did not have was magical Mystery our so a while back I shelled out $25 or so for a new Parlaphone UK pressing not thinking that It would be fom a digital master and it sounded in a word AWFUL. No low end, compressed and harsh.
I then got a vintage US Capitol rainbow pressing and although better, was still very thin on the bottom. Being a sometime bassist, I can only hope the new masters are better in this regard (or maybe I'll just have to search for vintage UK pressings).