I have had it up to here waiting for the Beatles catalogue to be remastered

The biggest revelation for me was how good Paul's bass playing was on the early 60's. Just listen to Please, Please Me or I Saw Her Standing There and hear how he drives the songs along. Another thing the re-masters have done is make me re-appreciate John's guitar playing. He really could make it "howl and move."

They definitely did not have that 'chugging away' rhythm section, Paul was noticeably great from the very beginning.

I don't know anything about playing drums, but Ringo's drum sound is so damn bright and funky around '67. "strawberry fields" and "hello goodbye" in particular.. damn

The drums on this,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNLcXj5yR68

Yeah, the drumming on Blue Jay Way is real cool. You kinda of get the sense of Ringo and George really having each other's backs on these songs that John and Paul seem to have 50-75% checked out on. Vid, unfortunately, reminds me why I've never really felt a burning, pressing need to see Magical Mystery Tour...

I don't know anything about playing drums, but Ringo's drum sound is so damn bright and funky around '67. "strawberry fields" and "hello goodbye" in particular.. damn

There's a few reasons for that, I think. He had really soured on touring -- likely more than he ever let on -- and was restricted to hacking away as simply as possible just to keep the songs together. No one could hear themselves, or each other, so it was left to Ringo to make sure things didn't fall apart. Fills were kept to a minimum, and there was no room for him to develop or explore new ideas on the spur of the moment. Once they were back in the studio, like the others, he probably felt like he was let off the leash. So something like "Rain" happens, where he's finally able to blast out these incredible ideas that had been stifled by touring for however many months prior.

Also, with the arrival of engineer Geoff Emerick, his close-miking and compression techniques on Ringo's drums coincided with Ringo dampening them with tea towels, giving that broad, flat sound.

I think my favourite Ringo drums are on Don't Let Me Down. Favourite Paul bass is pretty hard... Maybe Something?

Did ringo ever use oil filled heads? Basically 2 layer tom heads with a thin layer of oil between, I know ian paice from deep purple used them to get a deader sound

I don't think Ringo used those heads in the Beatles; afaik, they hadn't been invented yet, but I'm not positive.

Remasters on vinyl in 2012, mono set coming in 2013: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/shades-of-yesterday-new-vinyl-versions-of-beatles-albums-on-the-way/

all i need is cash!

DROOL on the mono set. Man. Hopefully by 2013 I can win on Jeopardy or something and indulge in a crazy purchase like that.

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/beatles-vinyl-box-set/

The other link takes ages (or) doesn't work for UK

http://theseconddisc.com/2012/09/27/completely-fab-beatles-remasters-coming-to-vinyl/

very specific and tech-y presss release there. dudes know their audience!

Still, some audiophiles are complaining that they're mastered from digital sources.

The Mono box is a given, I spent £170 on the CD box set and don't regret it for a minute.

I am relatively deaf to the subtleties of remastering, though I like vinyl and The Beatles, and I like the conjunction of them in mono. It would be nice to be able to buy a new quality mono pressing of any of their albums.

However, I don't understand some things. Is there the idea that a new mono pressing would sound better than an original 1960s pressing? If so why? Is it just to do with the degradation of old vinyl? Would a new pressing sound better now than a 60s pressing sounded in the 60s, or is it just that they're using technology to make it sound as good now as it once would have? I could understand that, I guess. But if a new pressing is supposed to sound better than ever, how come? Surely whatever master tapes they're sourcing the music from would have degraded sufficiently to cancel out improvements in reproducing such tapes? Or is it - another idea - that improvements in EQing and *mystery audio sauce* mean that pressings now may sound fuller/more exciting than was possible in the 1960s even if they would be less representative of what was originally intended (though arguably more representative of what the intentions of 1960s people would be had they known these things would one day be possible)?

i dunno about the beatles master tapes, but there are instances of the reading technology to have improved to the point where we can hear old recordings with better fidelity than the people who first heard them.

Surely whatever master tapes they're sourcing the music from would have degraded sufficiently to cancel out improvements in reproducing such tapes?

Not necessarily. I don't know exactly what brand or type of tape the Beatles/Martin/EMI used, but Shel Talmy, working around the same time, used the most durable tape available. In fact, it was so durable that it would wear out tape heads after heavy use (which is why studios weren't too happy with Talmy). In the long run, however, that meant the tapes for My Generation were in far better shape after 30+ years than the tapes for Who's Next (some of which disintegrated when being prepared for remix/remaster).

These are interesting things. Would like to hear more about this stuff.

For one thing original mono presses of beatle albums in good condition aren't that easy to come by

Sure, I get that. But I was wondering whether these then amounted to quality reissues or, somehow, improvements. Honestly fascinated by this. I have some original mono Beatles vinyl of variable quality. As I said, I'd love to be able to buy a new one for, say, £20, as opposed to taking a chance on a second-hand copy priced the same or more.

i remember reading some article about the crazy alchemy involved in separating vocals from instruments for the beatles rock band game, something about making it sound even better than the official releases, but i could be conflating that with the rock band metallica tracks sounding better...

there are great 60's, 70's, and 80's beatles pressings. tons of them.

i guess i'm always surprised that i don't see really decent or nice beatles records in my local store that often, and often times if they are there they cost more than these new reissues, so i guess i'm game to buy at least one and see how it sounds

that improvements in EQing and *mystery audio sauce* mean that pressings now may sound fuller/more exciting than was possible in the 1960s

I'm guessing that this is correct.

even if they would be less representative of what was originally intended (though arguably more representative of what the intentions of 1960s people would be had they known these things would one day be possible)?

On the other hand, I'd think that it would be easy to overstate the potential problem regarding original intention. Vinyl masterings are, I think, always different sounding, involving different gear and different engineers. It's never going to sound exactly like the tape and a mastering done now could well sound more like the tape than one done fifty years ago. I'm sure it just varies a lot depending on the particular instance.

I mentioned on ILV that I got an '80s U.K. mono pressing of A Hard Day's Night less than a week ago. It is sourced from digital but I think the sound on it is really impressive.

people still buying the old mfsl boxes for 800+. and there is a reason for that. they're great. you can still find individual mfsl pressings for 4o-50. not cheap, but kinda worth it. even a mono parlophone revolver or whatever can be found online for 40+. also worth it. japanese pressings in the 70's and 80's were great. i get nice capitol/apple beatles records all the time at the store. some of them are unbelievable.the earlier the pressing the better. i try to find the perfect white album. i have one now that is preeeeeeetty near perfect. sounds insane. a jaw-dropper.

i wasn't a fan of the cd remixes so i doubt i'd buy one of these.

there are also nice mono parlophone reissues of various vintages. they sound great too.

they have been repressed sooooo many times. the only ones i wouldn't recommend would be 80's-era american copies.

there are great 60's, 70's, and 80's beatles pressings. tons of them.

I think I have some of those! Do you think the new ones are useful? Honestly I don't get it. Apart from maybe just being able to pick up a new mono copy of Revolver for £20 instead of a worn-out, roughed-up copy that the shop put up on the wall for the same price. You think there's something new to hear in this? Genuine question. I'd trust your ears over my own.

You sort of answered the questions already.

i wasn't a fan of the cd remixes

For the record, there have been no remixes...

they'll probably sound nice and shiny. and be really loud.

i call them remixes cuz i don't like them. or how they were made.

They're just another mastering job.

i remember reading some article about the crazy alchemy involved in separating vocals from instruments for the beatles rock band game, something about making it sound even better than the official releases, but i could be conflating that with the rock band metallica tracks sounding better...

― Philip Nunez, Thursday, September 27, 2012 7:08 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

From about 1966 on, the Beatles would fill up four tracks, bounce these down to one track of another four track, fill up the remaining three tracks, and so on. Naturally, they couldn't bounce down too many times, as the sound quality would degrade. But what I think they did for Rock Band (and for the 1999 Yellow Submarine Songtrack, and for Love) was go back to the original pre-bounced multitracks, sync them all up, and were therefore able to separate the individual elements.

For the record, there have been no remixes...

George Martin did stereo remixes of Help! and Rubber Soul in 1986/87 for the first wave of CDs.

That's true. And there's the Yellow Submarine Songtrack CD also.

Which is quite a listen, in my opinion!

what i love about a first pressing of say sgt. pepper or whatever - mono or stereo though mono will always sound fucked up to me cuz of decades of listening to the stereo - is how home-made they sound! they don't sound anything like what you hear on the radio or on a cd. you can hear the parts fitting together in some crazy magical way and they AREN'T perfect. they aren't shiny. they're weird. in a great way. i could play a beatles-hater a copy of sgt. pepper that would make their head spin! the bass on early pressings is so heavy. everything sounds so...fucking...cool. in an indescribable way. and i turn them up loud on my stereo myself. don't need anyone to do that for me.

McCartney supposedly insisted that his bass have its own track for most of the '66-'69 Beatles stuff. So one track might have four vocals, another would have an orchestra, the third might have guitars and drums, and the fourth would just have bass.

I haven't read through all of this, but one advantage these new vinyls will have is better bass. EMI mastering engineers frequently lowered the bass levels from the master tapes when preparing production masters to cut to vinyl. The newer remasterings are translations of what was on the original tapes.

CNN: So a remaster is as if the Beatles existed today and are downstairs.
Rouse: Yeah.
CNN: And recorded with today’s technology.
Rouse: Yes. That’s what you are trying to achieve, yes.

CNN: Would you agree the [early] CD era actually took away the richness of the music,
and now we have moved beyond that and are going back to the original, or is that just a
lot of …
Rouse: No, I still think that probably the CDs aren’t up to the sound vinyl gives us, but
it is the CD that we have got. So we have to make do with that as it stands at the
moment. And I would like to think that what the guys have attempted to do is to make
it sound more acceptable in that format.

CNN: The press release says you took out bad edits. I didn’t know there would have
been bad edits in the original Beatles. What does that mean, and what is it you could
take out?
Rouse: There wasn’t many, to be honest. I mean, it was just an issue that we could
deal with now. There were a few songs where they had created it over two takes and
they wanted to use a part of one take and a part of another, and sometimes the edit
wasn’t as good as it could be. In some cases, we couldn’t do anything about it. But if we
could, we would try and smooth it over so it wasn’t so obvious.
We have treated the stereos and monos just slightly differently in the sense that we
think the stereos are going to the product that is going to sell the most, because most
people are into stereo -- but obviously the collectors and people who grew up in the
’60s are going to be more familiar with the monos.
So from that point of view, one of the things that is a contentious audio problem today
is limiting, “brick-wall limiting,” which is making the music as loud as you possibly can.
And you make it louder than somebody else’s so yours sticks out a little bit more. For
something like the Beatles, a band from the ’60s, it would have been inappropriate to
have given it that treatment, but we have made them slightly louder. So that they are
at least slightly contemporary for today but certainly not as loud as the more
contemporary bands. But the monos we haven’t, for example. The monos remain
unlimited.

I have the mono cd box and I love it

I know the vinyl is better etc but I'm happy to have something good sounding so I'm happy :)

i think the mono box would be the way to go.

I'm eternally grateful for them too, because it's given me such a level of detail and...warmth?...that I never had before. Like now it sort of sounds like 4 guys in a room playing together, like sometimes you can hear fingers on strings and it just makes the music so much more alive for me, personally

lol that sounded corny

I agree. The 2009 remasters I've heard are really warm sounding and super clear.

VG OTM. I have the mono (CD) box and love it. Warm and punchy.