First Review of the Beatles Remastered Box Sets

[Barry Egan]

Come Together isn't a good song no matter who does it 

:-|

[cool breeze]

[youtube=560,345]uWo8bdhs8Gk[/youtube]


wow

That's wild. I'm comparing it to the version I've had and been listening to for years now, this remasted version sounds so clean.

[Flannel Boy]

Paul's voice is very clear; before it used to blend in with John's. And the bass is much more prominent.

[Flannel Boy]

OMG @ "Strawberry Fields."

[Eel O'Brian]

shit dude those youtubes you posted sold me but i can't afford these

[Flannel Boy]

shit dude those youtubes you posted sold me but i can't afford these

torrent or download; it's not like Paul or Yoko are hurting for money. Though I do appreciate what the engineers did. It's as if I just heard "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite" for the very first time just now. OMG at the tape loops and John's haunting voice.

[Flannel Boy]

amazon.ca lowered the price of the stereo set.

Bought.

[TakingBackSunday]

I'm listening to the stereo mix of Fool on the Hill and it's like holy shit....it's like a brand new song

[Bloodwake]

COMEON FUCKING BITTORRENT DOWNLOAD THESE FASTER.

Positive response from EB. God, now I really want to listen to these.

[The Fake Shemp]

Wow, you're right, stereo is such a huge difference over mono.

[recursivelyenumerable]

So wait, is it generally accepted that the first CD master of Sgt. Pepper kinda sucked?  I've only ever heard it on CD, and it never really did it for me but I can entertain the possibility that the recording was partly to blame.

[Eel O'Brian]

In My Life remastered is just wow

[cool breeze]

If Amazon wasn't sold out, I would have bought the Stereo one.  But the internet does provide, and early too.

[CurseoftheGods]

Can someone please PM me where I could find the torrent? Mininova's version has the tags all fucked up.

[Bloodwake]

Oh my god. I can't believe how much better this sounds.

It's like I'm listening to the band for the first time... AGAIN.

[cool breeze]

that's awfully dramatic

[Barry Egan]

that's awfully dramatic

[Phoenix Dark]

that's awfully dramatic

 

swaggaz is on fire today

[Diunx]

Is this worth a torrent download? I already have a shitton of Beatles song.

[Eel O'Brian]

they're certainly a leap in quality, yes

[Bloodwake]

The remasters are almost like taking everything that is bad tasting about a pile of shit with a fine tooth comb and coming up with a gourmet meal.

THAT'S HOW GOOD THEY ARE.

[Diunx]

So can I have a torrend link please?

[Trent Dole]

Can someone please PM me where I could find the torrent? Mininova's version has the tags all fucked up.

... for fuck's sake :'(

*cancels*

Wow they have the underscorey crap in the tags and not just the folder names. Fucking distinguished mentally-challenged.

[Trent Dole]

I just don't feel like fixing all 230 files.

Can't say I blame you there.

[chronovore]

Holy crap. Decent heaphones (Sennheiser HD555) and 320KB/s encoding is making this seriously sound entirely new. It's so good, it's distracting.

Where's the :vinylcry emoticon?

[TakingBackSunday]

Holy crap. Decent heaphones (Sennheiser HD555) and 320KB/s encoding is making this seriously sound entirely new. It's so good, it's distracting.

Where's the :vinylcry emoticon?

Yeah, I'm wondering if they'll do reprints of the vinyls now...not that I would buy them, these remasters were obviously done with CD in mind.

[Trent Dole]

Hm, only one song off The White Album is tagged weird on the sire version unless you count the release year eing 2009 on all of these as wrong.

[TakingBackSunday]

I've listened to most of the Mono releases now and while it's cool and all, I can't really see myself listening to them over the stereo mixes...Getting Better in stereo sounds so much fuller than the Mono version.  Some prickdick on GAF lambasted me for asking a simple question as to why he preferred the certain mono versions so much.

[OptimoPeach]

Some prickdick on GAF lambasted me for asking a simple question as to why he preferred the certain mono versions so much.

I saw that. "Appalling to the senses"

I'm inclined to say that the mono mixes generally sound better but it's really not fair for me to comment because I don't have a good pair of cans. Sounds pretty sweet on my shitty computer speakers though lol

[TakingBackSunday]

I listened to the track he was referring to - She's Leaving Home.  He's right about the stereo mix being about a half-step lower in pitch...but other than that, it sounds fine.  A lot of the other tracks on Sgt. Peppers benefit entirely from the stereo mix - Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds sounds fucking brilliant, and you can actually hear George's backing guitar riff with the little pre-chorus, something I never even heard before.  Can't hear it on the mono mix.

I'm gonna guess it's going to come down to what you like more - authenticity to the original recording, or hearing the actual improvements better.  I tend to fall into the latter.

[pilonv1]

fuuuuuuuck

so buying the full box set of this

[CajoleJuice]

Listening to Abbey Road. Wow.

[cool breeze]

I listened to the track he was referring to - She's Leaving Home.  He's right about the stereo mix being about a half-step lower in pitch...but other than that, it sounds fine.  A lot of the other tracks on Sgt. Peppers benefit entirely from the stereo mix - Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds sounds fucking brilliant, and you can actually hear George's backing guitar riff with the little pre-chorus, something I never even heard before.  Can't hear it on the mono mix.

I'm gonna guess it's going to come down to what you like more - authenticity to the original recording, or hearing the actual improvements better.  I tend to fall into the latter.

The ones I have on my ipod, PC, as mp3, listening to now, etc. are all from the stereo box.  But if I was going to spend $200-300 on the boxset, I would definitely go for mono.  I'm hoping it's not as rare as people are claiming.

and this is the first time in a while I've used my hd959s for music.  I need to do this more often.

[TakingBackSunday]

I listened to the track he was referring to - She's Leaving Home.  He's right about the stereo mix being about a half-step lower in pitch...but other than that, it sounds fine.  A lot of the other tracks on Sgt. Peppers benefit entirely from the stereo mix - Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds sounds fucking brilliant, and you can actually hear George's backing guitar riff with the little pre-chorus, something I never even heard before.  Can't hear it on the mono mix.

I'm gonna guess it's going to come down to what you like more - authenticity to the original recording, or hearing the actual improvements better.  I tend to fall into the latter.

The ones I have on my ipod, PC, as mp3, listening to now, etc. are all from the stereo box.  But if I was going to spend $200-300 on the boxset, I would definitely go for mono.  I'm hoping it's not as rare as people are claiming.

and this is the first time in a while I've used my hd959s for music.  I need to do this more often.

Yeah, I mean, what some people want to do is just get the mono set and then buy White, Let It Be, Abbey Road , Yellow Submarine on stereo...I don't really have a problem with that I guess.  The stero mixes of the first couple of albums are pretty odd sounding compared to the mono versions...but when you hit Help! and onwards, I tend to prefer the stereo over mono anyway.

I'll put everything up to Help as the mono versions on my iPod, and the rest keep the stereo mixes.  And yeah, listening to these albums with a nice pair of sennheisers is like omg

[Flannel Boy]

Re Mono v. Stereo

http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/review-the-beatles-remasters-1963-66-219124

Two discs [Please Please Me and With the Beatles] in then, and mono wins for sheer visceral thrills and impact and overall sound. It's interesting to hear the extra separation and detail in the stereo versions, but in a direct A/B test, out of 28 songs, we only prefer one – Money – in its stereo incarnation.

Aside from Rock And Roll Music, which is so much more muscular and raucous in mono, like A Hard Day's Night, Beatles For Sale's more ambitious and varied textures are well-served by the extra spread of stereo.

Switching to the mono disc [on Help], what is lost in separation is gained in sheer balls and power, allowing you to hear exactly why Lennon would later refer to Ticket To Ride as "the first heavy metal record."

That said, it seems unlikely that anything other than the new stereo version of Help! will be most listeners' first port of call from now on. It's a truly spectacular record that sounds better than ever here, and the first in a series of stone cold classic albums that sees The Beatles rivalled in the rock canon only by The Rolling Stones' Beggars Banquet/Let It Bleed/Sticky Fingers/Exile On Main Street sequence.

Whereas the mono Please Please Me is the hard-punching essential purchase and the stereo version a mere curio, Rubber Soul in mono is grainy and swamped. The new stereo disc gives the arrangements the space they need to bloom, exceeding the '60s mono and stereo mixes and the 1987 compact disc.

How does Revolver sound on the new mono and stereo? Unlike Rubber Soul, it's something of a mixed bag. Taxman has much more punch in mono, and the stark hard-panned separation of rhythm section left and vocals right on the stereo disc makes us wish that the stereo image had been given the same treatment that revitalised Drive My Car.

Eleanor Rigby is another case in point. 1999's Yellow Submarine Songtrack album featured a beautifully-remixed and remastered stereo version of the song that saw Paul's lead vocal moved into the centre of the stereo picture, positioning it perfectly within the string octet and backing harmonies.

Here, they've reverted to the 1966 stereo mix. This means that you can hear the ADT drop out clumsily in the middle of the first 'Eleanor' as the lead vocal moves into the right channel alone, then re-centre during the word 'all' in "all the lonely people". It's far from seamless, and frankly infuriating on headphones.

. . .

Yellow Submarine (the song) also suffers on the new stereo Revolver disc: a better stereo remix was released a decade ago.

That said, it's far from being all bad. This is still Revolver we're talking about here after all. Predictably, on the new stereo disc, Tomorrow Never Knows is majestic.

So . . . get the mono versions of Please Please Me and With the Beatles and maybe Help and Revolver.  Get the stereo versions of everything else.

[Snuflupagulus]

I'm gonna guess it's going to come down to what you like more - authenticity to the original recording, or hearing the actual improvements better.  I tend to fall into the latter.

Not to post some aphorism, but get what you like.  For all this originalism talk, it's laughable to be lectured on how you should listen to the Beatles by people who weren't around for the first go-round.  I wasn't, and don't care what some self-appointed Beatles curator says is the respectful, intended mix of the Beatles.  I prefer the old Mono, but so what?  Macca, Martin, et al can say what they like.  If Stereo is better, I'm going for that.

Reading around the net, some people seem to have taken Lennon's Jesus comment and inverted it into some proclamation that you must treat the Beatles with holy reverence.  Too bad Lennon isn't here to take a big steamy shit on all of'em (and us).  It would at least temper the mobs enthusiasm for casting stones at the Stereo infidels.

[Trent Dole]

Only problem with the mono's is that they're available in a box only, at least officially.

[Don Flamenco]

well, damned if i'm paying for them all over again. Set utorrent to 'download', Mr Sulu.

I'd wait for a while on that, unless you're on a private tracker. 

seems like the kind of thing that would be watched for a few months, with cease and desists all around

[Eel O'Brian]

newsgroups

i like their early pre-65 stuff in mono better, the stereo mixes are heavier on the "vocals in one ear, instruments in the other" separation, and to me it's just a bit awkward-sounding

[Arbys Roast Beef Sandwich]

Yeah newsgroups are great for these high-profile releases but it kinda sucks that they're releasing them per track and not like, a huge RAR or something.

[OptimoPeach]

Some nut in the GAF thread said he's going to buy both box sets

[Trent Dole]

Some nut in the GAF thread said he's going to buy both box sets

He's not getting the mono one anytime soon if he didn't preorder.

[Flannel Boy]

Pitchfork has a review up: http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/13425-stereo-box-in-mono/

In any case, the sound of these remasters, mono or stereo, is exceptional.

Listening to the new masters, the differences in sound quality generally manifest in three ways: songs have more "punch," with Paul McCartney's bass (an absolute wonder throughout) and Ringo's drums hitting with more force; the separation is better, so that instruments and (especially) layered vocals have more definition-- when the Beatles are harmonizing, you can more easily pick out the different vocalists, and the voices have more presence; and finally, the sound in general seems just a touch brighter, with various sound effects, cymbals taps, and so on, ringing with more clarity.

Individual albums review scores:
Please Please Me 9.5
With the Beatles 8.8 (As good at Twilight Princess)
A Hard Day's Night 9.7
Beatles For Sale 9.3
Help! 9.2

That's all they have up. But if they're going to give Beatles for Sale a 9.3, they should give the rest 10s (Yellow Sub excluded).

[TakingBackSunday]

heh at the Twilight Princess jab

I like Help better than A Hard Day's Night, but eh, no biggie.  Good reviews I guess.  Wonder what they'll give the later stuff...AVClub had a rundown of shit the other day and they gave Abbey Road and Sgt. Pepper significantly less praise than the earlier albums, which baffled me.

[Mr. Gundam]

I'm only going to pick up Let it Be and Abbey Road (my copies were stolen a couple years ago). I'm content with my old CD copes of everything else.

[chronovore]

well, damned if i'm paying for them all over again. Set utorrent to 'download', Mr Sulu.

I'd wait for a while on that, unless you're on a private tracker. 

seems like the kind of thing that would be watched for a few months, with cease and desists all around

Yeah, good call on that. And actively editing scrobbles on Last.fm is probably a good idea, because pre-release leaks stick out like a sore thumb, and there was some hullabaloo about Last.fm turning over information to the RIAA.

[Flannel Boy]

OMG I was right

That's all they have up. But if they're going to give Beatles for Sale a 9.3, they should give the rest 10s (Yellow Sub excluded).

Rubber Soul 10.0
Revolver 10.0
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band 10.0
Magical Mystery Tour 10.0



Pitchfork loses its indie cred.

[Cormacaroni]

If any of those albums except MMT came out for the first time in 2009, they'd be the best albums released that year. 10.0 is utterly reasonable. And the high spots of MMT are still incredible.

[Flannel Boy]

If any of those albums except MMT came out for the first time in 2009, they'd be the best albums released that year.

I don't know; Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's, and Magical Mystery Tour are all firmly dated in the psychedelic era. They sound great, but they sound dated. If such albums were released today, they would be maligned. Of course, they'd be maligned as derivative, a criticism which can't be levied at these albums because they were original at the time they were released.

10.0 is utterly reasonable. And the high spots of MMT are still incredible.

I think most of the Beatles albums are nearly flawless. I rarely skip songs (except for songs on the White Album and Beatles for Sale), but tens are a bit much.

[OptimoPeach]

If any of those albums except MMT came out for the first time in 2009, they'd be the best albums released that year.

That's not saying much. I guess I can see how you could make the argument that the 10s are warranted, but I'm mostly just surprised that it's Pitchfork of all publications that is the one doling them out like this.

And did they get new writers or something? All these reviews are oddly absent of the purple prose that they're known for.

edit: Nevermind, didn't see that it's 1 guy doing 4 at a time.

[Cormacaroni]

If any of those albums except MMT came out for the first time in 2009, they'd be the best albums released that year.

I don't know; Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's, and Magical Mystery Tour are all firmly dated in the psychedelic era. They sound great, but they sound dated. If such albums were released today, they would be maligned. Of course, they'd be maligned as derivative, a criticism which can't be levied at these albums because they were original at the time they were released.

10.0 is utterly reasonable. And the high spots of MMT are still incredible.

I think most of the Beatles albums are nearly flawless. I rarely skip songs (except for songs on the White Album and Beatles for Sale), but tens are a bit much.

You fall into my carefully-prepared logic trap!

You see, if they hadn't been released in the 60s, the entire course of popular music would have changed. We'd all be listening to orchestral doo-wop or some shit at this stage. And so the Beatles' albums would still sound innovative and fresh, warranting 10s across the board.

*twirls moustache*

[Snuflupagulus]

So, anyone still looking to get the Mono Box set should go to Amazon.  They have it for $229 USD.  Pre-order, but appears to be shipping soon.

[Flannel Boy]

You fall into my carefully-prepared logic trap!

You see, if they hadn't been released in the 60s, the entire course of popular music would have changed. We'd all be listening to orchestral doo-wop or some shit at this stage. And so the Beatles' albums would still sound innovative and fresh, warranting 10s across the board.

*twirls moustache*

Owned.

But the Beatles weren't the only ones who did psychedelic rock. And they didn't create, though they probably helped kill it off moving away from the genre on the White Album, Let it Be, and Abbey Road.

[Cormacaroni]

True, true. But that's a bit like saying Jimi Hendrix wasn't the first to play with a fuzz box. Technically true but nobody much cares about the other dudes.

Besides, psychedelia periodically comes back into fashion anyway. See Prince, De La Soul, Outkast etc...

Still, I have to admit that there have been classicists (like Jellyfish) who have made stunningly good pop psychedelia records only to met with massive disinterest. Innovation and freshness count for a lot in pop music...

[Flannel Boy]

Lennon was at his creative peak during that era: tomorrow never know, A Day in the Life, Strawberry Fields, and I am the Walrus.

[Tieno]

Yesterday they did a test on TV, played the old version and the remastered. Couldn't tell any difference.

[Cormacaroni]

In any blind listening test, most people just pick the version that is loudest as the best. Sad but true.

[Tieno]

It wasn't blind, they said "first the old version" *plays bit of a song* "and now the remastered version" *plays same bit of song*

[OptimoPeach]

Yesterday they did a test on TV, played the old version and the remastered. Couldn't tell any difference.

Shitty TV speakers != a decent pair of high-fidelity head/earphones. I found my old pair of Shure 210s and even on those the difference is clear as day.

[Cormacaroni]

My point was just that most people can't tell shit about audio, and are highly suggestible. It's like the bottom line of an eye test for most people. They really can't say for sure what they're listening to, even moreso these days when most kids don't even have a stereo and just listen to music on crappy PC speakers or on iPod earbuds.