If any of you are into the Beatles, you have to get these.

Incredibly well done. I didn't think I'd like them with listening to the 
Beatles for most of my life but there's a whole new dimension come out 
with these that I've never heard before.

It's taken me 25 minutes to type this as I keep stopping to listen.


-- 
Pete M - OMF#9

'62 Rover P4 100
'61 Rover P5 3 litre
'72 Rover P6 3500 Auto
'78 Escort 1300 Sport
'99 Audi A6 V6 Quattro Avant


"It's an Alfa, it will go wrong, it will piss you off, why should your 
Alfa experience be different from everyone else's.
Now get back out there and swear at it before something else breaks."

In article <h8eurt$i2b$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
   Pete M  wrote:
> If any of you are into the Beatles, you have to get these.

> Incredibly well done. I didn't think I'd like them with listening to the 
> Beatles for most of my life but there's a whole new dimension come out 
> with these that I've never heard before.

> It's taken me 25 minutes to type this as I keep stopping to listen.

I was thinking of getting them - but wonder if they've followed the
fashion of being 'remastered' to remove any dynamic range - as has
happened to successive Beatles re-releases? Non of which sound as good as
the when they first appeared on CD.

-- 
*No husband has ever been shot while doing the dishes *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)"  writes:

> In article <h8eurt$i2b$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>    Pete M  wrote:
>> If any of you are into the Beatles, you have to get these.
>
>> Incredibly well done. I didn't think I'd like them with listening to the 
>> Beatles for most of my life but there's a whole new dimension come out 
>> with these that I've never heard before.
>
>> It's taken me 25 minutes to type this as I keep stopping to listen.
>
> I was thinking of getting them - but wonder if they've followed the
> fashion of being 'remastered' to remove any dynamic range - as has
> happened to successive Beatles re-releases? Non of which sound as good as
> the when they first appeared on CD.

Not only Beatles - I'm trying to avoid buying pretty much anything
remastered these days and rather see if I can find an older CD release.

-- 
'88 Porsche 911 Targa		'00 Golf TDI estate
'96 Elise S1

In article ,
   Timo Geusch  wrote:
> "Dave Plowman (News)"  writes:

> > In article <h8eurt$i2b$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >    Pete M  wrote:
> >> If any of you are into the Beatles, you have to get these.
> >
> >> Incredibly well done. I didn't think I'd like them with listening to
> >> the Beatles for most of my life but there's a whole new dimension
> >> come out with these that I've never heard before.
> >
> >> It's taken me 25 minutes to type this as I keep stopping to listen.
> >
> > I was thinking of getting them - but wonder if they've followed the
> > fashion of being 'remastered' to remove any dynamic range - as has
> > happened to successive Beatles re-releases? Non of which sound as good
> > as the when they first appeared on CD.

> Not only Beatles - I'm trying to avoid buying pretty much anything
> remastered these days and rather see if I can find an older CD release.

Indeed. It's something I just don't understand. At the end of the
recording session and mixdown, the artist, producer and engineer are
presumably all happy with the sound they've produced. If they weren't,
they'd carry on until they were.

 It then goes off to some fashionable mastering house where it is messed
about with - unsupervised by any of the original production team.

 Now mastering was an essential process when vinyl was the only option, as
because of the inherent limitations of that medium it might not be
possible to cut a record straight off the master tape.

 No such limitations apply to CD.

-- 
*Acupuncture is a jab well done*

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article ,
>    Timo Geusch  wrote:
>> "Dave Plowman (News)"  writes:
> 
>>> In article <h8eurt$i2b$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>    Pete M  wrote:
>>>> If any of you are into the Beatles, you have to get these.
>>>> Incredibly well done. I didn't think I'd like them with listening to
>>>> the Beatles for most of my life but there's a whole new dimension
>>>> come out with these that I've never heard before.
>>>> It's taken me 25 minutes to type this as I keep stopping to listen.
>>> I was thinking of getting them - but wonder if they've followed the
>>> fashion of being 'remastered' to remove any dynamic range - as has
>>> happened to successive Beatles re-releases? Non of which sound as good
>>> as the when they first appeared on CD.

I was thinking that might be the case. We used the Beatles' Red and Blue 
albums on CD when we were setting a studio up last week. I've had 
another listen today with the new ones and the new ones are a lot, lot 
better. Crisper, clearer, and a lot more defined. Basically better.
> 
>> Not only Beatles - I'm trying to avoid buying pretty much anything
>> remastered these days and rather see if I can find an older CD release.

I've compared the new Beatles stuff with the older CD release and there 
is no comparison, the new remastered version kicks arse.
> 
> Indeed. It's something I just don't understand. At the end of the
> recording session and mixdown, the artist, producer and engineer are
> presumably all happy with the sound they've produced. If they weren't,
> they'd carry on until they were.

True, but in 1967 I'm sure the Beatles would have liked to be able to do 
what they've done now.
> 
>  It then goes off to some fashionable mastering house where it is messed
> about with - unsupervised by any of the original production team.

This was supervised by George Martin.
> 
>  Now mastering was an essential process when vinyl was the only option, as
> because of the inherent limitations of that medium it might not be
> possible to cut a record straight off the master tape.

A lot of the work done with these new versions was getting rid of drop 
out from the original recordings and clicks from where the tapes were 
spliced.
> 
>  No such limitations apply to CD.
> 
You don't tend to get drop out or splice clicks from properly mastered 
digital formats, which was pretty much the reason for doing these 
remasterings. Try them. I think you'll be impressed.


-- 
Pete M - OMF#9

'62 Rover P4 100
'61 Rover P5 3 litre
'72 Rover P6 3500 Auto
'78 Escort 1300 Sport
'99 Audi A6 V6 Quattro Avant


"It's an Alfa, it will go wrong, it will piss you off, why should your 
Alfa experience be different from everyone else's.
Now get back out there and swear at it before something else breaks."

In article <h8gluu$757$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
   Pete M  wrote:
> I was thinking that might be the case. We used the Beatles' Red and Blue 
> albums on CD when we were setting a studio up last week. I've had 
> another listen today with the new ones and the new ones are a lot, lot 
> better. Crisper, clearer, and a lot more defined. Basically better.

Crisper sounds like they've eq'd stuff. There was nothing wrong with the
original recordings.
> > 
> >> Not only Beatles - I'm trying to avoid buying pretty much anything
> >> remastered these days and rather see if I can find an older CD
> >> release.

> I've compared the new Beatles stuff with the older CD release and there 
> is no comparison, the new remastered version kicks arse.

That would worry me. Sounds like heavy re-mastering. To make it sound like
'new' stuff. Which is generally overdone. Too bright. 
> > 
> > Indeed. It's something I just don't understand. At the end of the
> > recording session and mixdown, the artist, producer and engineer are
> > presumably all happy with the sound they've produced. If they weren't,
> > they'd carry on until they were.

> True, but in 1967 I'm sure the Beatles would have liked to be able to do 
> what they've done now.

People like Bob Dylan don't seem to be impressed.
> > 
> >  It then goes off to some fashionable mastering house where it is
> > messed about with - unsupervised by any of the original production
> > team.

> This was supervised by George Martin.

Perhaps the same applied to him. Not much point in releasing exactly the
same as before. 
> > 
> >  Now mastering was an essential process when vinyl was the only
> > option, as because of the inherent limitations of that medium it might
> > not be possible to cut a record straight off the master tape.

> A lot of the work done with these new versions was getting rid of drop 
> out from the original recordings and clicks from where the tapes were 
> spliced.

Can't say I've noticed any of these on the original CDs. Or certainly not
enough to annoy.     
> > 
> >  No such limitations apply to CD.
> > 
> You don't tend to get drop out or splice clicks from properly mastered 
> digital formats, which was pretty much the reason for doing these 
> remasterings. Try them. I think you'll be impressed.

Sadly you've actually put me off. If I want to 'brighten' a CD, I can do
it on replay. But none of the Beatles stuff needed it.

If the master tapes were properly stored, dropout shouldn't be a problem.
Besides, they've got the original CDs which were made before the masters
would deteriorate. Nor should you get 'splice clicks' on analogue. Unless
using a magnetised razor blade. I know they edited the multi-tracks and
there's the possibility of cutting in the middle of a note on one or more
of the tracks - but this should be so far down in the mix as not to notice.

-- 
*Never kick a cow pat on a hot day *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <h8gluu$757$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>    Pete M  wrote:
>> I was thinking that might be the case. We used the Beatles' Red and Blue 
>> albums on CD when we were setting a studio up last week. I've had 
>> another listen today with the new ones and the new ones are a lot, lot 
>> better. Crisper, clearer, and a lot more defined. Basically better.
> 
> Crisper sounds like they've eq'd stuff. There was nothing wrong with the
> original recordings.

Doesn't sound eq'd. Just sounds clearer and crisper. The vocals are a 
lot more distinct without being louder. It sounds more natural.

>>>> Not only Beatles - I'm trying to avoid buying pretty much anything
>>>> remastered these days and rather see if I can find an older CD
>>>> release.
> 
>> I've compared the new Beatles stuff with the older CD release and there 
>> is no comparison, the new remastered version kicks arse.
> 
> That would worry me. Sounds like heavy re-mastering. To make it sound like
> 'new' stuff. Which is generally overdone. Too bright. 

Depends what you like. I prefer this as it sounds more like it would in 
the studio as opposed to what you'd hear on vinyl.

>>> Indeed. It's something I just don't understand. At the end of the
>>> recording session and mixdown, the artist, producer and engineer are
>>> presumably all happy with the sound they've produced. If they weren't,
>>> they'd carry on until they were.
> 
>> True, but in 1967 I'm sure the Beatles would have liked to be able to do 
>> what they've done now.
> 
> People like Bob Dylan don't seem to be impressed.

I don't rate Dylan, at all. That's another matter. Writes good songs, 
performs them terribly and that harmonica... don't get me started!

>>>  It then goes off to some fashionable mastering house where it is
>>> messed about with - unsupervised by any of the original production
>>> team.
> 
>> This was supervised by George Martin.
> 
> Perhaps the same applied to him. Not much point in releasing exactly the
> same as before. 

>>>  Now mastering was an essential process when vinyl was the only
>>> option, as because of the inherent limitations of that medium it might
>>> not be possible to cut a record straight off the master tape.
> 
>> A lot of the work done with these new versions was getting rid of drop 
>> out from the original recordings and clicks from where the tapes were 
>> spliced.
> 
> Can't say I've noticed any of these on the original CDs. Or certainly not
> enough to annoy.   

It's there though, and some of it is bloody obvious. Have another 
listen, then try the new stuff.

>>>  No such limitations apply to CD.
>>>
>> You don't tend to get drop out or splice clicks from properly mastered 
>> digital formats, which was pretty much the reason for doing these 
>> remasterings. Try them. I think you'll be impressed.
> 
> Sadly you've actually put me off. If I want to 'brighten' a CD, I can do
> it on replay. But none of the Beatles stuff needed it.

None of the Beatles stuff appeared to need it, I'll agree with you 
there. Then I heard the new masterings and heard a whole lot of stuff 
I've never been able to make out before.
> 
> If the master tapes were properly stored, dropout shouldn't be a problem.
> Besides, they've got the original CDs which were made before the masters
> would deteriorate. Nor should you get 'splice clicks' on analogue. Unless
> using a magnetised razor blade. I know they edited the multi-tracks and
> there's the possibility of cutting in the middle of a note on one or more
> of the tracks - but this should be so far down in the mix as not to notice.

I generally use either 2" 4 track or ADAT and don't do physical splicing 
as computers exist, but I've spliced in the past and lost things I 
really didn't want to lose.


-- 
Pete M - OMF#9

'62 Rover P4 100
'61 Rover P5 3 litre
'72 Rover P6 3500 Auto
'78 Escort 1300 Sport
'99 Audi A6 V6 Quattro Avant


"It's an Alfa, it will go wrong, it will piss you off, why should your 
Alfa experience be different from everyone else's.
Now get back out there and swear at it before something else breaks."

In article <h8grbm$hri$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
   Pete M  wrote:
> > That would worry me. Sounds like heavy re-mastering. To make it sound
> > like 'new' stuff. Which is generally overdone. Too bright. 

> Depends what you like. I prefer this as it sounds more like it would in 
> the studio as opposed to what you'd hear on vinyl.

A properly made CD is effectively a clone of the master tape. Not so vinyl.

-- 
*A chicken crossing the road is poultry in motion.*

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message 
news:5099d4dba2dave@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article <h8grbm$hri$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>   Pete M  wrote:
>> > That would worry me. Sounds like heavy re-mastering. To make it sound
>> > like 'new' stuff. Which is generally overdone. Too bright.
>
>> Depends what you like. I prefer this as it sounds more like it would in
>> the studio as opposed to what you'd hear on vinyl.
>
> A properly made CD is effectively a clone of the master tape. Not so 
> vinyl.

My wife has quite a collection of the Beatles original LP's. Bought new and 
still in excellent condition.
They still sound good to me, played on an old but good direct drive deck and 
amp.and, (at the time) expensive Leak speakers.
Mike.

In article ,
   Miike G  wrote:

> "Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message 
> news:5099d4dba2dave@davenoise.co.uk...
> > In article <h8grbm$hri$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >   Pete M  wrote:
> >> > That would worry me. Sounds like heavy re-mastering. To make it
> >> > sound like 'new' stuff. Which is generally overdone. Too bright.
> >
> >> Depends what you like. I prefer this as it sounds more like it would
> >> in the studio as opposed to what you'd hear on vinyl.
> >
> > A properly made CD is effectively a clone of the master tape. Not so
> > vinyl.

> My wife has quite a collection of the Beatles original LP's. Bought new
> and still in excellent condition. They still sound good to me, played
> on an old but good direct drive deck and amp.and, (at the time)
> expensive Leak speakers. Mike.

Indeed. I've got all the original LPs and all the original CDs. The CDs
sound to me exactly what I'd expect of a good dub from an analogue master.
And quite a good demonstration of the beauty of CD. Listen to 'Michelle'
on Rubber Soul. Shows all the LP artifacts being the last track on the
side, but of course clean on CD.

-- 
*To be intoxicated is to feel sophisticated, but not be able to say it.

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article ,
>   Miike G  wrote:
>
>> "Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message
>> news:5099d4dba2dave@davenoise.co.uk...
>>> In article <h8grbm$hri$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>   Pete M  wrote:
>>>>> That would worry me. Sounds like heavy re-mastering. To make it
>>>>> sound like 'new' stuff. Which is generally overdone. Too bright.
>>>
>>>> Depends what you like. I prefer this as it sounds more like it
>>>> would in the studio as opposed to what you'd hear on vinyl.
>>>
>>> A properly made CD is effectively a clone of the master tape. Not so
>>> vinyl.
>
>> My wife has quite a collection of the Beatles original LP's. Bought
>> new and still in excellent condition. They still sound good to me,
>> played
>> on an old but good direct drive deck and amp.and, (at the time)
>> expensive Leak speakers. Mike.
>
> Indeed. I've got all the original LPs and all the original CDs. The
> CDs sound to me exactly what I'd expect of a good dub from an
> analogue master. And quite a good demonstration of the beauty of CD.
> Listen to 'Michelle' on Rubber Soul. Shows all the LP artifacts being
> the last track on the side, but of course clean on CD.

I have a good collection of beatles stuff, up to now the pinnacle being my 
Dr Ebbetts remasters...from what I've heard of these new ones, I'll be 
getting them in short order. Mono first i think.

-- 
'91 MkII Golf GTi 8v
'05 Polo FSi
www.facebook.com/tomscotland

In article <Odarm.78821$OO7.75024@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
   tomScotland  wrote:
> I have a good collection of beatles stuff, up to now the pinnacle being
> my Dr Ebbetts remasters...from what I've heard of these new ones, I'll
> be getting them in short order. Mono first i think.

As I said the original CDs are pretty well a straight dub from the master
tapes. And for the first four in mono too - just as recorded. Any
're-mastering' can only make things worse.

-- 
*Most people have more than the average number of legs*

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.